New proposal for the definition of Science (short and sweet)

Gottservant · Nov 6, 2012

Do you think you could define Science as the Determination to "leave no data unconfirmed"?

My reasons are that
a) science is more than testable
b) data is the fundamental building block of scientific theory

You could further consider that without the reliable assemblage of data, observation has nothing on which to rest

I leave it to you to compare this with the ideas that Science is simply best guess, current paradigm, most confirmed (negative inference) or strongest deduction...

46AND2 · Nov 6, 2012

Gottservant said:
Do you think you could define Science as the Determination to "leave no data unconfirmed"?

My reasons are that
a) science is more than testable
b) data is the fundamental building block of scientific theory

You could further consider that without the reliable assemblage of data, observation has nothing on which to rest

I leave it to you to compare this with the ideas that Science is simply best guess, current paradigm, most confirmed (negative inference) or strongest deduction...

What is wrong with the actual definition? Which you failed to paraphrase in your final paragraph, btw. That description would be closer to the definition of theory, than science.

Gottservant · Nov 6, 2012

But science is theory.

Blayz · Nov 6, 2012

Gottservant said:
Do you think you could define Science as the Determination to "leave no data unconfirmed"?

No.

You don't get to redefine a topic of which the little you know is entirely incorrect, in the same way I don't get to define Christianity in terms of a bathtub filled with brightly colored machine parts, and a fish.

Your proposal is rejected in it's entirety.

46AND2 · Nov 6, 2012

Gottservant said:
But science is theory.

Uh...no.

juvenissun · Nov 6, 2012

Gottservant said:
Do you think you could define Science as the Determination to "leave no data unconfirmed"?

My reasons are that
a) science is more than testable
b) data is the fundamental building block of scientific theory

You could further consider that without the reliable assemblage of data, observation has nothing on which to rest

I leave it to you to compare this with the ideas that Science is simply best guess, current paradigm, most confirmed (negative inference) or strongest deduction...

In a "scientific" experiment, there will always be more unconfirmed data than confirmed data. A "scientist" has to live with that reality.

Gottservant · Nov 6, 2012

juvenissun said:
In a "scientific" experiment, there will always be more unconfirmed data than confirmed data. A "scientist" has to live with that reality.

Interesting, sensible reply.

I see you are able to be constructive quite practically, in the context of this definition.

Gottservant · Nov 6, 2012

Blayz said:
No.

You don't get to redefine a topic of which the little you know is entirely incorrect, in the same way I don't get to define Christianity in terms of a bathtub filled with brightly colored machine parts, and a fish.

Your proposal is rejected in it's entirety.

I studied philosophy of science at university with high distinction in the subject, I think I know enough to say that the subject is largely undecided and open to further proposal.

If you were able to tell me what the subject was in its entirety, I might begin to consider that you would at least know who did have the authority to approve or condemn it, but something tells me you think Jesus is listening.

Blayz · Nov 6, 2012

Gottservant said:
I studied philosophy of science at university with high distinction in the subject

I don't believe you.

I think I know enough to say that the subject is largely undecided and open to further proposal.

I disagree. With respect to science, you know barely anything.

If you were able to tell me what the subject was in its entirety, I might begin to consider that you would at least know who did have the authority to approve or condemn it, but something tells me you think Jesus is listening.

You cannot honestly believe an atheist thinks "Jesus is listening"

Loudmouth · Nov 6, 2012

Gottservant said:
Do you think you could define Science as the Determination to "leave no data unconfirmed"?

No. Science is a method for confirming hypotheses. Finding facts is just stamp collecting.

I leave it to you to compare this with the ideas that Science is simply best guess, current paradigm, most confirmed (negative inference) or strongest deduction...

Science is a METHOD for testing hypotheses. That is the shortest definition I can think of.

Loudmouth · Nov 6, 2012

Gottservant said:
But science is theory.

Science is a method. Science is something you do.

Tomk80 · Nov 6, 2012

So to sum up this thread:
New proposal for the definition of Science (short and sweet)

And wrong

Thread is over.

Loudmouth · Nov 6, 2012

Gottservant said:
I studied philosophy of science at university with high distinction in the subject, I think I know enough to say that the subject is largely undecided and open to further proposal.

Then you should already know about the Hypothetico-deductive model and the historic development of Empiricism which replaced Rationalism as the preferred method of gathering knowledge.

RickG · Nov 6, 2012

juvenissun said:
In a "scientific" experiment, there will always be more unconfirmed data than confirmed data. A "scientist" has to live with that reality.

If one obtains data in a scientific experiment, how is it unconfirmed? Do you know what statistically significant means?

RickG · Nov 6, 2012

Gottservant said:
I studied philosophy of science at university with high distinction in the subject, I think I know enough to say that the subject is largely undecided and open to further proposal.

Well, I guess you told us. :bow:

Radagast · Nov 7, 2012

Blayz said:
You don't get to redefine a topic of which the little you know is entirely incorrect, in the same way I don't get to define Christianity in terms of a bathtub filled with brightly colored machine parts, and a fish.

I can't argue with that.

I suspect there is a confusion in the OP between "confirm" and "replicate." Science actually works something like this (click image for details):

juvenissun · Nov 7, 2012

Gottservant said:
Interesting, sensible reply.

I see you are able to be constructive quite practically, in the context of this definition.

It is experience. My lab book has all kinds of data from observations, measurements. But, eventually, I only take the part which I trust a little bit more and is interpretable. Some data can never see the light of the sun.

AV1611VET · Nov 7, 2012

Science is argumentative, interpretative and myopic.

Cromulent · Nov 7, 2012

AV1611VET said:
Science is argumentative, interpretative and myopic.

And religion is made up. Have a nice day!

Radagast · Nov 7, 2012

AV1611VET said:
Science is argumentative, interpretative and myopic.

This is not a helpful comment.

New proposal for the definition of Science (short and sweet)

God loves your words, may men love them also

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

God loves your words, may men love them also

Well-Known Member

Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

... and God saw that it was good.

God loves your words, may men love them also

God loves your words, may men love them also

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Contributor

Titleless

Contributor

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

comes and goes

... and God saw that it was good.

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

comes and goes

Similar threads