A definition of science

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

David_Becks17

Registered Member
I was reading some theories about what really science is but... none of them really define that well such a common word for all of us. I know that it´s a group of knowledge and that this knowledge has to follow some specifics steps to be a science but... is it really necessary to follow the scientific method to turn knwoledge into science? what about cosmology or methaphysics??
I´ll will be glad to hear some of your opinions
david :)
 
According to the dictionary, where I go to find definitions most of the time, it states:

Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; probably akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split -- more at SHED
1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : NATURAL SCIENCE
4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <culinary science>
 
I also went to the dictionary to find an definition but then they all keep on saying a true knowledge guided by the scientific method.. but does the scientific method really needs to exist inside a science so that it can be one? I mean what about dark sciences or infuse science?
 
Definition of science:

It is a community of people interested in Nature and an explanation of nature by rational means, and interested in wasting community money held in check by peer review and peer networks (although the intention wasting community resources is usually covered up by proclaiming the intention to serve the progress of society by means of research).
 
spuriousmonkey........

Yep, coming up with polio, smallpox, and dipthrea vaccines was a waste of money wasn't it? Just to name a few things science has helped humanity with.
 
cosmictraveler said:
spuriousmonkey........

Yep, coming up with polio, smallpox, and dipthrea vaccines was a waste of money wasn't it? Just to name a few things science has helped humanity with.
Click to expand...

Sometimes there are lucky breaks. That doesn't mean it isn't in essence a waste of money. Let's be honest. 99.9999999999% of the research goes straight into the trashcan. And I am not talking about failed experiments. We can pretend it is not about wasting money, but this would prevent us to see the truth about science.
 
The only way to learn is to fail at something and then you learn what not to do. Edison used over 5000 ways , or failures, befor he finally found the right filiment to use in the lightbulb. I'd think that science is more failures than actuall accomplishments for you need to know how not to do it as well as knowing what to do. Millions of things have been made by scientists all over the world that help humankind AND there has been much time and money spent on things that really don't have anything at all to do with humanity that would have been better off left alone. To much money is spent on space but many products are here today because of the research that space scientists have done. Waste occurs everywhere but where is the next new invention going to arise from?
 
I thought we were allowed to give our own definition of science.

I didn't realize we would be executed if we didn't give the textbook version.
 
It's chilly in here... Cold enough to freeze the balls off a spurious monkey!
 
spuriousmonkey said:
I thought we were allowed to give our own definition of science.
Click to expand...

The whole definition of definition is that theres only one definition :D

Actually has anyone ever looked up the defiition of definition!!!
 
John Connellan said:
The whole definition of definition is that theres only one definition :D

Actually has anyone ever looked up the defiition of definition!!!
Click to expand...

I would like to say that this is not true John. You of all people should know that people are different and hence their perception of science and definition of science is different for everybody. There might be a common census, but that one is probably as good a representative of the true definition as the governments is a representative of the true wishes of the people.

Moreover, the definition of science is also constantly changing. It has never been the same definition and will never be the same. Cultural evolution at work.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top