What is science?

[ej]

You think this is a silly question?

So do I... but from reading the threads in this forum recently, I'm beginning to wonder what people really think science is...

 

[lucaspa]

I can see how you reached that impasse.

Science is the study of the physical universe.

"...what we learned in school about the scientific method can be reduced to two basic principles.
"1. All our theory, ideas, preconceptions, instincts, and prejudices about how things logically ought to be, how they in all fairness ought to be, or how we would prefer them to be, must be tested against external reality --what they *really* are. How do we determine what they really are? Through direct experience of the universe itself.
2. The testing, the experience, has to be public, repeatable -- in the public domain. If the results are derived only once, if the experience is that of only one person and isn't available to others who attempt the same test or observation under approximately the same conditions, science must reject the findings as invalid -- not necessarily false, but uselss. One-time, private experience is not acceptable." Kitty Ferguson, The Fire in the Equations, pg. 38.

"But, of course, science is *not* an belief system. Science is the human search for a natural explanation of what the universe is: how it is constructed, how it came to be. The only rule of the scientific method is that we must discard any scientific statement if the evidence of our senses shows it to be wrong. " Niles Eldredge, The Monkey Business, A Scientist Looks at Creationism, 1982, pg. 27-28.

 

[JGMEERT]

You think this is a silly question?

So do I... but from reading the threads in this forum recently, I'm beginning to wonder what people really think science is...

JM: Good question. Unfortunately, there are several answers depending on how sophisticated you want to make the definition. At its very heart, science is an attempt to explain the natural world within a testable framework. In detail, it must take observations and formulate explanations for those observations. Those explanations must be open for anyone to check and also for others to offer a better explanation if yours is found inadequate. I would quibble a bit with the notion that one time events cannot be scientific. However, if those one time events are to be of use in science, then they must provide a framework for explaining many other observations in a testable manner. A good example of a one time event is the Big Bang. It is not repeatable in the sense that we are highly unlikely to witness another Big Bang, but the notion is testable in that it makes certain classes of predictions that can be borne out by observation (e.g. Cosmis background radiation levels). I like to think of science as an asymptotic approach towards derivation of the truth about the supernatural world.

Cheers

Joe Meert

 

[fungle]

So science is never going to give us all the answers, according to you. Seems like another thread.

 

[JGMEERT]

So science is never going to give us all the answers, according to you. Seems like another thread.

JM: I'd be truly shocked if you found any scientist worth her/his salt who would ever claim science would 'give us all the answers'. It's an unreachable goal.

Cheers

Joe Meert

 

[fungle]

Why do you say that? I am not saying it is possible, but it is rather an agnostic thought in that I am an agnostic and say there may a god but where is the evidence.It may be an idea to find some scientists worth their salt and check out the idea.

 

[JGMEERT]

Why do you say that? I am not saying it is possible, but it is rather an agnostic thought in that I am an agnostic and say there may a god but where is the evidence.It may be an idea to find some scientists worth their salt and check out the idea.

JM: Ok, good luck! Here's one scientist who votes that your goal is unattainable. Not only that, it's a good thing for science that it is an unattainable goal. Of course, the bigger question is whether or not I'm worth my salt
Cheers

Joe Meert

 

[fungle]

Of course you are worth your salary professor Meert.Sorry there are times when I just can't stop myself. My defence; einstein had a sense of humour

 

[Jet Black]

I would quibble a bit with the notion that one time events cannot be scientific.

I don't think that is what he means. I think he means that suppose you were to go up to a university, and say you were looking at the CMB and saw it go out for half an hour proving the big bang never happened, but no-one else did, no-one can figure out why it would, and it never happened before or happens again, then that isn't really admissable as evidence.

 

[Jet Black]

So science is never going to give us all the answers, according to you. Seems like another thread.

this is definitely an interesting topic in itself, since when we take Gödel's theorem into account - within any formal set of axioms, there will be statements that are neither provable or disprovable by those axioms (I hope I have that right) - I will quote one of my lecturers here, so I hope he is right!

Physics is based on mathematics, and as a consequence, for every theory that we formulate there should be statements that we can neither prove nor disprove mathematically. Therefore we would have to test them experimentally to see which one is true and extend our theory to cover for it. This appears to be a process which goes ad infinitum, so it seems that we physicists will never be out of a job.

 

[USAF]

Fungle





Well you want an example of how Science may never give us all the answers? (note: this is an example open to interpretation) Lets run off Jet Blacks Big Bang example. I don’t know if Scientists still believe in the big bang or not but lets say they do. This Big Bang created everything, atoms, universe, galaxies, matter EVERYTHING. This is the creation of our universe and all we know. This is the answer (so to say)



Now if the Big Bang created everything, what created it?

 

[fungle]

USAF
I am not saying that I know all the answers,but that the answers may found

 

[Jet Black]

Now if the Big Bang created everything, what created it?

we don't know.

However saying "therefore God" is begging the question.

 

[fungle]

Axioms are the basis of mathematics. So far they have not been found untrue. But what if one is wrong and this is denying our final answer. Farfetched I know but show the world today to a person born 4 hundred years ago

One further query about the universe. If it was anisotropic in two distinct directions, what would this imply?

 

[Jet Black]

Axioms are the basis of mathematics. So far they have not been found untrue. But what if one is wrong and this is denying our final answer. Farfetched I know but show the world today to a person born 4 hundred years ago

Yeap, but then your stronger set of axioms would just suffer from the same problem. here is a better explanation than I can provide off the top of my head:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoedelsIncompletenessTheorem.html

One further query about the universe. If it was anisotropic in two distinct directions, what would this imply?

that the current model is wrong? I am not sure.

 

[fungle]

Interesting site. Give me a few years and I might work my way through it!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Jet Black]

hehe, I like it too. it is like MartinM but available 24 hours per day.

 

[JGMEERT]

I don't think that is what he means. I think he means that suppose you were to go up to a university, and say you were looking at the CMB and saw it go out for half an hour proving the big bang never happened, but no-one else did, no-one can figure out why it would, and it never happened before or happens again, then that isn't really admissable as evidence.

JM: You're right. I re-read the post.


Cheers

Joe Meert

 

[Chi_Cygni]

JM: I'd be truly shocked if you found any scientist worth her/his salt who would ever claim science would 'give us all the answers'. It's an unreachable goal.

Cheers

Joe Meert

I agree, but most of my physicist colleauges would disagree.

Physicists, especially astrophysicists & particle physicists, seem to think knowledge of everything is possible.

One source of this, I have always thought, is the way we (theoretical physicists) are educated. There is an intellectual elitism that permeates. We are continually told by our professors that we are the smartest (we even are taught to look down at other scientists), we are told we have the highest GRE scores and whatnot.

I think I am correct Joe in assuming you are a geologist. If that is the case you shall probably remember the stink Alvarez made by basically accusing paleontologists of being non-scientists when they didn't jump on his impact extinction theory from the get go.

Alvarez was a physics Nobel laureate and has that physicist attitude that they know all and other scientists are not of their level, never mind the physicists disdain for the general public.

I personally don't like this attitude but it is definitely there. I was educated in such a manner. I had some very famous physicist professors as part of my education and they universally had this attitude.

This attitude then leads to the physics community having an attitude of omniscience and that we shall, eventually, know it all.

 

[lucaspa]

So science is never going to give us all the answers, according to you. Seems like another thread.

Of course it's not going to give us all the answers. Science is a limited form of knowing. It's not going to tell you what "beauty" is, whether your significant other loves you, whether broccoli tastes good, whether Matrix Reloaded is a good movie, etc.