What is Science?

[qualitas occulta]

What is science? Does science have a "boundary" beyond in which there contains facts inaccessible to it?

For those that do, how to you justify it, and likewise, how do those that believe that there are facts beyond science justify it?

 

[AV1611VET]

What is science?

Science is the observation & manipulation of God's hardware.

Does science have a "boundary" beyond in which there contains facts inaccessible to it?

Yes -- the Kingdom of God.

For those that do, how to you justify it, and likewise, how do those that believe that there are facts beyond science justify it?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

What is science?

Science is a method of hypothesis testing.
Scientific output consists of models created to describe reality.

Does science have a "boundary" beyond in which there contains facts inaccessible to it?

Yes. If the method cannot be applied, then it is beyond science.

Science also cannot find "truth" because scientific output only consists of models. All scientific models only work if you hold to certain assumptions. Essentially, science works purely on the basis of functionalism. A scientific theory works in one arena but change the initial conditions/assumptions and it becomes false.

Because of this, I don't think science has an end goal.

 

[Naraoia]

What is science?

See the Andrew Knoll quote in my sig

Does science have a "boundary" beyond in which there contains facts inaccessible to it?

Every method has boundaries. Whether you can easily find those boundaries in the context of specific examples, now that's a bit less obvious.

I'll state that I firmly believe the (broadly interpreted) scientific method is the only way we can obtain reliable information about objective reality, if such a thing exists.

Science also cannot find "truth" because scientific output only consists of models. All scientific models only work if you hold to certain assumptions. Essentially, science works purely on the basis of functionalism. A scientific theory works in one arena but change the initial conditions/assumptions and it becomes false.

Because of this, I don't think science has an end goal.

I would agree with the first part of this, but I wouldn't necessarily say that science has no end goal. Well, maybe I'm an idealist, but I like to think we're searching for truth, even if we can never be certain we found it

As one character put it in my favourite movie of all time: "The perfect blossom is a rare thing. You could spend your life looking for one, and it would not be a wasted life."

It's the journey, folks.

 

[ProScribe]

What is science?

The study of the physical & natural world but not pertaining to what is supernatural.

 

[razeontherock]

I'll state that I firmly believe the (broadly interpreted) scientific method is the only way we can obtain reliable information about objective reality, if such a thing exists.

Sounds like the sort of thing not to divulge to an employer

 

[Naraoia]

Sounds like the sort of thing not to divulge to an employer

Taking a class in epistemology does certain things to your thinking

 

[Lillen]

In swedish glossary, science and knowledge is sometimes seperated concepts, were science is what you "Compute" with your brain, and knowledge is what you do with it... for instance with an IQ of 140 i might be smart, but if i spend day in and day out my whole life, answering questions on IQ tests i have accomplished nothing!

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Science is real!

They Might Be Giants - Science is Real - Official video - YouTube

 

[jacks]

If science can't prove it, does it cease to be reality?

 

[Jazer]

for instance with an IQ of 140 i might be smart, but if i spend day in and day out my whole life, answering questions on IQ tests i have accomplished nothing!

If you only have a IQ of 140 then your not crazy. You have to have a IQ of at least 165 to be really nuts.

 

[jacks]

If you only have a IQ of 140 then your not crazy. You have to have a IQ of at least 165 to be really nuts.

Strange isn't it, the smartest people I know are all crazy!

 

[Tinker Grey]

If science can't prove it, was it ever reality?

 

[AV1611VET]

If you only have a IQ of 140 then your not crazy. You have to have a IQ of at least 165 to be really nuts.

 

[qualitas occulta]

If science can't prove it, was it ever reality?

Wouldn't you say that rather, science presupposes that there is a reality to be observed in the first place?

 

[razeontherock]

If science can't prove it, does it cease to be reality?

I think you need an observer for that

 

[Naraoia]

Science can't technically "prove" anything

 

[Resha Caner]

What is science?

John Warwick Montgomery made a comment about religion that I really like. It was something like: There is no "religion", there are only religions.

I think the same can be said of science: There is no "science", there are only sciences. In other words, they all share some general traits - they have a method, they are looking for verification or falsification, etc. But there are so many differences one can't really come up with an all-encompassing definition that has much value to it.

Why do you ask?

 

[AgapeGrace]

Science is the study of all things in life, its all around us, everywhere we go and everything we do. Science is the structure of life as we know it, and as we do not.

 

[Loudmouth]

What is science?

It is a method whereby you try to disprove your ideas. The method is not set up to "prove" that something is absolutely "TRUE" in a philosophical sense. However, science is very useful for determing if our ideas of how reality works are wrong. Successful theories in science are ideas that people have tried to disprove over and over and have failed to do so.

Does science have a "boundary" beyond in which there contains facts inaccessible to it?

This is a non-sensical question in many ways. Science is not a method for acquiring facts. That would be Empiricism. Instead, science determines how facts are related to one another. Theories never become facts. Stephen J Gould stated this quite nicely:

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory".
​

Ignoring his position on evolution for this thread, I think he states it quite clearly. Science produces theories, not facts. We discover facts (usually through empiricism), and then use science to determine how those facts relate to one another. In the words of Daniel Moynihan:

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

This is often the problem in these forums. People confuse opinions/beliefs with facts. Even if you really, really believe that something is true it doesn't magically become a fact. People even take it one step further and decide that this indicates these beliefs are "outside of science". The real situation is that these beliefs are IRRELEVANT to science. You can believe all sorts of crazy things, but it doesn't change the facts, nor does it change the status of a theory. These crazy ideas are irrelevant to the conclusions that science has reached.

For those that do, how to you justify it, and likewise, how do those that believe that there are facts beyond science justify it?[/quote]