Just what is Science?

[Split Rock]

Some creationists here have been trying to tell us what should and what should not be called science. So, I thought I would explain in very simple terms what science actually is. I could define science as the study of the physical world. Or as a way of studying nature that is dependent on methological naturalism, or the scientific method. However, there is a more simple definition... Science is what scientists have decided it is. In other words, science is what scientists do for a living. Period. Some of you may think you have some inherent right to tell us what science is... but you do not. We say what science is, since we are the ones that do it. There. That should simplify it for you. Hope that helps.

*I have changed the original wording of the O.P. after reading some responses.

 

[Foolish]

Some creationists here have been trying to tell us what should and what should not be called science. So, I thought I would explain in very simple terms what science actually is. I could define science as the study of the physical world. Or as a way of studying nature that is dependent on methological naturalism, or the scientific method. However, there is a more simple definition... Science is whatever scientists decide it is. In other words, science is what scientists do for a living. Period. Some of you may think you have some inherent right to tell us what science is... but you do not. We say what science is, since we are the ones that do it. There. That should simplify it for you. Hope that helps.

Science is a method, not a collection of things.

It's the quest to understand everything by observing, experimenting and theorising.

Above all; nothing is ever sacrosanct - everything is up for debate and challenge.

 

[Split Rock]

Science is a method, not a collection of things.

Agreed. When did I claim it was a collection??

It's the quest to understand everything by observing, experimenting and theorising.

If you mean to understand everthing in the phyical universe, yes I agree.

Above all; nothing is ever sacrosanct - everything is up for debate and challenge.

Within the scientific community, yes. What we don't need, is glib backseat drivers from the Peanut Gallery telling us what is and what is not science.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

However, there is a more simple definition... Science is whatever scientists decide it is. In other words, science is what scientists do for a living. Period. Some of you may think you have some inherent right to tell us what science is... but you do not. We say what science is, since we are the ones that do it.

That's an extremely poor definition. I doubt any genuine scientist would agree with it. We can't possibly persuade Creationists by saying "Science is whatever scientists decided it is" - that would only confirm the idea that science is nothing more than their personal opinions.

Science is about exploring out how the world works, usually by gathering data and preforming experiments. And it needs to be done as objectively as possible.

 

[Foolish]

Agreed. When did I claim it was a collection??


If you mean to understand everthing in the phyical universe, yes I agree.


Within the scientific community, yes. What we don't need, is glib backseat drivers from the Peanut Gallery telling us what is and what is not science.

You didn't.

I was just answering your question.

The issue of people telling scientists what science is doesn't seem relavent to me. The critical thing is that the religious shouldn't be able to influence science's direction due to their beliefs on what is right and wrong E.g. Stem cell research, unless they do so in a rational manner independently of their beliefs.

 

[Split Rock]

That's an extremely poor definition. I doubt any genuine scientist would agree with it.

Wrong. I am a "genuine" scientist. That said, it is not the definition I would use in most other circumstances. I indicated what other definitions I would use in the O.P. However, if you think about it, it is indeed true that science is what we scientists decide it is. Who else has decided? Who decided that science no longer includes alchemy, astrology, or creationism? Scientists did. Yes, we can explain why we have defined science the the way it is defined today, but ulimately we decide what it is. I believe we have very good practical reasons for doing so... but creationists are not interested in what is practical.

We can't possibly persuade Creationists by saying "Science is whatever scientists decided it is" - that would only confirm the idea that science is nothing more than their personal opinions.

Persuading diehard creationists is pretty much a waste of time. It has been a rare event where a creationist has been persuaded here. I mainly post for the lurkers. However, I think I see where the way I worded the O.P. makes it seem that science is arbitray, and that is not what I intended. I have changed it. Thanks.

Science is about exploring out how the world works, usually by gathering data and preforming experiments. And it needs to be done as objectively as possible.

There is nothing wrong with that definition... but again, ask yourself who has decided that is what science is...

 

[RickG]

What is important is that science follows the scientific method and is scrutinized thoroughly through the peer review process. Sadly, both of those processes are completely absent in the creationist literature where science is concerned.

 

[Jazer]

Science is what scientists have decided it is

What about when they don't know and they do not have an answer for the question? Then what is it? A lot of science is problem solving and trying to figure out solutions. Like they say necessity is the mother of invention.

 

[juvenissun]

Is social science science?

 

[AV1611VET]

Science is that part of God's creation that stands down when God performs a miracle, then resumes its normal duties afterward.

It differs from "nature" in that science is the software that runs the hardware (nature).

In my uneducated opinion.

 

[Orogeny]

What about when they don't know and they do not have an answer for the question? Then what is it? A lot of science is problem solving and trying to figure out solutions. Like they say necessity is the mother of invention.

It's still science. Without the statement "I don't know," there would be no "OK, well then let's find out!" These sentiments are the heart and the driving force of scientific inquiry, and should be experienced by every scientist (and IMHO, every person on Earth) at least once a day.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's still science. Without the statement "I don't know," there would be no "OK, well then let's find out!" These sentiments are the heart and the driving force of scientific inquiry, and should be experienced by every scientist (and IMHO, every person on Earth) at least once a day.

As should giving God the preeminence; so if you want us to 'think science' once a day, how about giving the advice to 'think God' once a day as well?

Don't call what you believe you should think "science" and what we believe we should think "religion" and expect us to play along.

 

[Orogeny]

I don't know how you do it, but your two cents always seems to be worth less than everybody else's. Inflation must be pretty bad over there in Imaginationland.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't know how you do it, but your two cents always seems to be worth less than everybody else's.

-- I just put science in its rightful place.

Compared to God, science is in the back seat; and needs to stay there.

 

[Split Rock]

What about when they don't know and they do not have an answer for the question? Then what is it?

Then (as AVET would say) they keep looking.

A lot of science is problem solving and trying to figure out solutions. Like they say necessity is the mother of invention.

If you are suggesting defaulting to Goddidit if an answer is not forthcoming, then I do not agree. I'm not sure if that was your point, however.

 

[Split Rock]

As should giving God the preeminence; so if you want us to 'think science' once a day, how about giving the advice to 'think God' once a day as well?

Isn't that what Gov Rick Perry has tried doing in Texas with his "Prayer Ins?" Doesn't seem to be working, now does it?

Don't call what you believe you should think "science" and what we believe we should think "religion" and expect us to play along.

You keep repeating this as if doing so with somehow mask the fact it makes no sense.

 

[Split Rock]

-- I just put science in its rightful place.

Compared to God, science is in the back seat; and needs to stay there.

That's why we don't say anything about God. And why you should stay out of science.

 

[Geologist]

Science is an bumpy asymptotic approach to determining the truth about the natural world.

 

[AV1611VET]

You keep repeating this as if doing so with somehow mask the fact it makes no sense.

Like this sentence?

 

[AV1611VET]

That's why we don't say anything about God.

-- Give me a break.

I suppose GA was shut down due to inactivity?

And why you should stay out of science.

Don't worry -- that field isn't my calling.