My take on it is as follows. "Science" is simply the structured investigation into the workings of nature. That's it. When we say a scientist has discovered something new about nature, that makes sense to me. But in the modern world we use the words science and scientist in a bastardized way. When we say a scientist has created a new type of motor, bomb, imaging device, etc..., what we really mean is that an engineer has created... The classical role of the scientist is to do basic research into the nature of the cosmos. The engineers and technicians then take those fundamental discoveries and manipulate them into usable devices and technologies. Like motors, bombs, imagers, etc. In a related discussion regarding the limits to which science should be allowed to go, I was arguing against any limits whatsoever. I stand by this. The discovery of the fundamentals of nature should be open to all investigation. Those discoveries however must be used by someone. Those someones are the engineers, technicians, and the politicians that drive the society. These are the people who should be held accountable for what comes of fundamental discoveries in science. The bastardized version of "science" we all keep referring to is almost exclusively engineering development. For example, we like to say how "scientists" developed the atomic bomb in their capacity as scientists. Not true. I'm an engineer. If I grow a new strain of carrot in my garden, will you say that "engineers" developed this new strain of carrot? No. An engineer by trade developed a better carrot as a gardener. The people working on the Manhattan project consisted of scientists and engineers by trade. But what the scientists were doing on this project was, in actuality, advanced development engineering. They were not acting in their capacity as scientists in the classical sense. I know we will continue to make this blanket statement regarding scientists and what they do, but it's wrong. Maybe this will clear up some arguments. Maybe not. Discuss.
Science: Noun - Ability to produce solutions in some problem domain. "Science, in the broadest sense, refers to any system of objective knowledge. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science I thought to toss up a few definitions from the net.
Science is not about "problem solving" in the common sense. You don't call a scientist to solve your oil heater problem. But if you want to know the origins of the oil, call a scientist. It seems you can find all sorts of amateur definitions of things on the web. Imagine that.
Of course. As I said, engineers use the results of science and scientists as their bread and butter. But fixing an oil heater is not a problem for scientists. Now, if your oil heater isn't working, and you suspect it's the in the molecular structure of the oil, then you would go to a scientist to confirm this. That's NOT the same as a scientist directly fixing your oil heater. It's an exact example of a smart engineer knowing enough to ask for some fundamental information about nature (the molecular structure of oil) from a scientist. The scientist probably dosen't even know or care what you're using the information for. And rightly so. His job is to uncover the fundamentals of nature. The minute he ventures outside that realm, he's acting as an engineer or technician.
Thanks! I've had lots of discussions with engineers and scientists (who were working as engineers for the DoD...) and they agree.
Your post rather indicates that a person can't be both a scientist AND an engineer/technician. Why do you think that? Leonardo what-the-hells-his-name was sort of a combination, wasn't he? And we practically worship the old fart. So....? Baron Max
Oh, of course they can! You can be a scientist-engineer-cosmetician-dog groomer. Again, just because you hold credentials as a scientist, does that mean that if you groom your dog your doing science? Obviously not. Science is a very specific activity. As is engineering. I've already said that people work in cross-discipline endeavors all the time. I'm an electrical engineer. But at times I help wire up a test system I helped design. I am not a technician. I'm an engineer. But at times I do technician work. That dosen't make the technician work I sometimes do engineering. See?
The thread is "What is Science?". Not "What can engineers and scientists and dog groomers actually do?.
He/she doesn't act in both rolls at the same time. A scientist can also be an engineer, but when he's engineering, he's doing little science; when he's testing hypothesis, he's doing little engineering. The two can be intricately interwoven (i.e., building a test device to validate a theory), but there are discreet steps in the process - while forming the theory, the test, and the idea for the device, he's acting as a scientist. While designing, building, and running the device, he's an engineer. While analyzing the results, he's playing the role of scientist again. Obviously, clear delineation is not possible, but the trend is valid.
science is the product, the methodology, the social structure, the infrastructure, the networking, etc. It is it all. You can see this clearly in the field of history of science. Here they focus on all aspects of science to write the history of it. You can't do that if it wasn't science.
I just thought I'd quote Superluminal's OP since it looks like he may have deleted it by accident. I'm not going to assume it was intentional since such an act would be very childish (particularly if in response to an infraction he received for making a very rude and inconsiderate remark in the Religion forum).
He apparently made an identical mistake over and over with all of his recent posts. It seems to me he took his ball and went home. It's a shame, too. It was a damned good post.
I accept that this is a plausible definition/perception of the nature of science. It is not one that I like. My objections revolve around the perception of science by the media and the general public. We see expressions such as 'science says that', or 'science believes that'. This gets misinterpreted by public and media as 'science declares tha absolute truth is....'. If we focus on the definition of science as a methodology then the non-scientist begins to appreciate that all 'truths' are provisional and subject to revision through application of that methodology. I think this is especially important in the atmosphere of attacks on evolutionary theory by religious fundamentalists.
The misrepresentation of science in the media and public is also partly to blame on a subgroup of scientists who use the media to further their career. They purposely project an untrue image of science, scientific results and the potential/role of science.
That is a good point and one that I routinely overlook. I find it intrinsically difficult to accept (though I know it to be true) that a scientist can act in a unscientific (or even anti-scientific) fashion. This, of course, is another argument for seeing science as the methodology alone, since it makes it simpler to place such individuals clearly outside of science.
True. Unfortunately I see a trend in science away from the methodology and careful work. The whole grant system and obsession with research institutes that 'excel' drives science towards a state of constant competition for few resources. Individual scientists need to get an edge over their competition. That can be done in several ways. For instance: exploitation of postdocs/PhD/master student to build a science factory Networking media exposure I personally believe that a scientist does not need the competitive model to excel. A scientist is already driven by that all powerful motivator: human curiosity. Moreover the grant cycle does not favour careful longterm studies. Instant results are preferred in high profile journals. I see a bleak future for science to be honest. The business model is ruining it.
