How do we define science?

Post Reply
User avatar
jonperry
Posts: 137
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 10:00 pm
Location: Corvallis Oregon
Contact:

How do we define science?

Post by jonperry » Sun Nov 29, 2015 5:18 pm

Two years ago in my debate I presented a definition for science that I've been refining ever since. I think I'm getting close to having a good one. I'm curious what your thoughts are:
Science: the search for and documentation of verifiable facts, and an ongoing conversation about how those facts can be best linked together
Verifiable Fact: a bit of data which can be readily observed and interpreted by any investigator - the boiling temperature of water, a fossil, the smell of ammonia, and so on

Hypothesis: a testable prediction

Theory: a framework tying facts together which allows us to make sense of the facts we have already found, and create testable hypothesis so that we can discover and document more verifiable facts.

New verifiable facts may inspire us to edit, expand, reduce, append, or replace a theory.

dizerner

Re: How do we define science?

Post by dizerner » Sun Nov 29, 2015 7:16 pm

Being someone who thinks about philosophy a lot, I've noticed most scientists hate certain kinds of philosophical thinking. :mrgreen: I think in any definition of science it is of paramount importance to be clear, that science makes no claims to absolute truth or reality, and starts off with unproven assumptions (most thinking scientists readily admit this). I like one definition of science: it gets things done. I like this because you can get things done without fully understanding them. I can move a chair across a room, and not understand a lot of things about what really went on in that interaction; I can have no inkling of molecular bonds, friction, gravity, electro-magnetism, motor control, cognition, spacial awareness, etc., etc. People think that because science has gotten so many things done, science is the thing that can explain all things; but philosophy is like the Achilles heel of science that will always bite at it. Scientific naturalism/secular materialism makes more of science than it can ever really do, if there is one simple fact that is true: things exist which science can never measure. Denial of this is the assumption that many would force down our throat with no real means to verify or authenticate it. So philosophy for me keeps science humble, so that it doesn't go beyond itself and start making claims entirely beyond it's domain. I can't count how many times the more media-friendly scientists, when they give a speech, start encroaching upon philosophical grounds, something science should simply never ever do, nor has any justification for doing. In the light of that here is my attempt (avoiding the words "fact" and "verifiable," words charged with too much bias):

Science: Building a contextual framework from the unproven and assumed foundations of cognitive awareness and logical thinking to best explain, organize and understand all that can be observed or thought of with physical senses in a cooperative community; with the understanding that any currently held idea might be superseded by something unknown; and the constant willingness to re-evaluate and reassess all current arguments and data, to better understand them; while attempting to be as rigorous and disciplined as possible.

User avatar
jonperry
Posts: 137
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 10:00 pm
Location: Corvallis Oregon
Contact:

Re: How do we define science?

Post by jonperry » Sun Nov 29, 2015 8:57 pm

I think in any definition of science it is of paramount importance to be clear, that science makes no claims to absolute truth or reality
I don't think a short definition of science needs to say this but a good discussion of science certainly should. The definition I'm working on will go in a video that will break down and expand the definition for the viewer. It's in that breakdown that I'd talk more about things like "truth" and "reality".

The definition I originally used in my debate with Steve was something like this: "Science can be thought of as humankind's ongoing, collective, systematic attempt to accurately describe observable reality". I'm no longer happy with that for several reason, one is that the word "reality" implies that we can use science to come to absolute knowledge about reality. While this would be nice and might be the ultimate goal of some researchers, it may be impossible and is certainly not the immediate goal of scientific research.
if there is one simple fact that is true: things exist which science can never measure.
I certainly agree that science is limited in the kinds of things it can study but I may be more optimistic than you about it's ability to gradually overcome many of those limitations. As technology increases and our reach of our senses expand, our ability to observe and measure things also increases.

Steve and I have talked a bit on the radio about natural vs supernatural. I'm currently under the persuasion that things we call supernatural are simply things which we have have not yet been able to observe, explain, or measure. If God exists, for example, then all things from his perspective, including himself I assume, would be natural and within the realm of his scientific exploration (not that he would need to explore but I think you know what I'm saying). This may just be a matter of semantics but I don't think it is. I think if God exists, he is Natural, even if he inhabits a part of nature we may never get to experience.

If we prematurely say "That is outside the realm of science" we miss out on potential discoveries. This is why I don't like typical ID or Creationist claims. What I hear them saying is essentially this: "God did, we need not explore further". Ken Ham is notorious for saying this sort of thing. Micheal Behe and the ID crowd do it as well but with more sophisticated language. Even if it's true that God did it, a good scientist would say "okay, maybe, but how?".

In short, when confronted with what seems to be an impossible question, I think it's better to say, "that currently seems to be outside the realm of science" instead of saying "that is outside the realm of science".
In the light of that here is my attempt (avoiding the words "fact" and "verifiable," words charged with too much bias):
I think you may be right about the word "fact" being too charged. "Data" might be better. What do you think?
Building a contextual framework from the unproven and assumed foundations of cognitive awareness and logical thinking
I see what you're saying here. I think my definition, though it does not say this explicitly, assumes it or makes room for it by saying that science is "an ongoing conversation about how those facts can be best linked together". I agree with you that "The unproven and assumed foundations" of logical thought are worthy of discussion.
organize and understand all that can be observed or thought of with physical senses


I don't know what you mean when you say all that can be "thought of". Please explain.
in a cooperative community
I used to have something like this in my definition as well but I scrapped it because I think science can be done personally as well. In other words, it's nice to share what we find, but we don't have to.
with the understanding that any currently held idea might be superseded by something unknown; and the constant willingness to re-evaluate and reassess all current arguments and data, to better understand them;
Again, I think I cover this sufficiently in my definition but it is worth lots of discussion in the rest of the video.
while attempting to be as rigorous and disciplined as possible.
This is another really good discussion point. Not all facts are documented equally, nor are they equally verifiable. Some of this is due to our current technological limitations or unfortunate circumstances. Some is due to poor research standards. Fossils are notoriously difficult to study because they happen to be valuable and highly guarded. Besides just limiting who gets to see and handle a fossil (which limits the number of people who get to critique the conclusions of paleontologists), the money involved can also incentivize fraudulent "discoveries".

User avatar
jonperry
Posts: 137
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 10:00 pm
Location: Corvallis Oregon
Contact:

Re: How do we define science?

Post by jonperry » Sun Nov 29, 2015 9:11 pm

dizerner wrote:I can't count how many times the more media-friendly scientists, when they give a speech, start encroaching upon philosophical grounds, something science should simply never ever do, nor has any justification for doing.
I have no problem with a scientist who also explores philosophy. There is no problem in that. The danger comes when a scientist either claims, or leads people to believe, that his or her unscientific ideas are scientific. What they are doing in these cases is exploiting the public's trust in science to support their agenda.

Dawkins is guilty of this at times, Behe is guilty of this at times, I'm sure I'm guilty of this at times, politicians seem to be guilty of this most of the time. It's a super tempting form of dishonesty and very easy to slip into.

dizerner

Re: How do we define science?

Post by dizerner » Sun Nov 29, 2015 10:25 pm

I think if God exists, he is Natural, even if he inhabits a part of nature we may never get to experience.
This is one way to look at it, that we merely expand our definitions to include "whatever is there." But as a philosopher I'm a little more aware this leads to some serious logical problems, because part of the reason we can build on our observation is the repeatability and reliability of what we observe (and even the reliability of how our thought processes work).

What if, say, there was a real scientific law that some completely random violation of all known laws happened every so often in the universe. Already this idea breaks a lot of our scientific framework, because we've no way to even really measure or describe it in concrete terms (unless somehow we could measure probabilities and possible effects).

But that's just the start of our problems, because assuming there were non-physical things, we'd have to experience them in non-physical ways, and although some people will dismiss metaphysics as a load of bull, the very fact that so many of us think it actually means something at least gives it validity to us if not to others. But for me, many (perhaps outlying?) scientists do things just like that with the multiverse theory which to me certainly isn't anything I could call science. :mrgreen:

Classic Christian theology posits a severe gap between creation and Creator (even the "supernatural" creation of spirits or whatever) so we do see God as wholly other and indescribable in nature. For us "believers" in more, we might say we get a whole new mind to experience a whole new universe. Maybe angels aren't made up of atoms of this universe, but some kind of altogether different particles than could interact with this order of things. In fact our Bible says something like "what waits for us is beyond what we could even imagine now." Sky-cake. ;)
This is why I don't like typical ID or Creationist claims. What I hear them saying is essentially this: "God did, we need not explore further."
Man. It pains me to hear you say this, not because I disagree, but because I agree. I am often chagrined and embarrassed at the lines of argument of those whom I might call "on my side" in the sense of non-materialists. We definitely shouldn't ever even come close to a God of the gaps argument. It's hard to describe that from a believer's perspective, it's not necessarily knowing less that produces the awe of God, but the more we know the more we feel it in some way reflects back to a greater source. A lot of great scientists in the past felt the constant study and exploration of this universe was a sacred calling by God. This means that once we climb the mount Everest of all knowledge we would still sit back and think "Wow, this is all so orderly and intricate" and it doesn't make us think "Yep, now I know this is all that is."
"Data" might be better. What do you think?
Data would be, as Bill and Ted would say, "Most excellent!"
I don't know what you mean when you say all that can be "thought of". Please explain.

I was trying to make room for something like mathematical science, where not all that is worked out in theory has application in the real world. There is even theoretical physics with no real world application I think? To make room for kind of thought exploration in science that has not necessarily at the present moment real world application (but often at some point in some way correlates and becomes helpful). It makes me think in my definition I should have put some emphasis on experimental try and fail aspect of testing, but I'd put that under the scientific method.
...the money involved can also incentivize fraudulent "discoveries".
This makes me think of what can corrupt science, having other agendas. Sometimes religious folk feel a bit suspicous about some things that are merely told them, yet they've not the expertise to parse out for themselves.

User avatar
jonperry
Posts: 137
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 10:00 pm
Location: Corvallis Oregon
Contact:

Re: How do we define science?

Post by jonperry » Mon Nov 30, 2015 12:04 am

I was trying to make room for something like mathematical science
Okay, that makes sense. I see math as a strict type of logical reasoning, nothing more. It can help us decide how observable data can be best fit together but I wouldn't consider mathematical conclusions to be on par with observable data. That said, there are people who would disagree with me on that, some even going so far as to say that reality is made out of math. I must admit I'm too much of a simpleton to even want to explore that idea at this moment.

Theoretical physics is almost pure math with very little observation. Some physicists talk about this being a weakness in their field. I would agree but then again, I don't do much math so I'm biased against the stuff.

The multiverse ideas are beyond me. Sounds like garbage but several prominent mathematicians and physicists claim it has utility. I'm not versed enough in the topic to form a strong opinion.
This makes me think of what can corrupt science, having other agendas.
There are many things that can corrupt scientific progress (financial greed, overconfidence, quests for fame, comfort with current ideas, discomfort with inconvenient findings, and so on) but science does have a pretty good track record for eventual self-correction. I may have said this to you before but I love how in science their are two main ways a person makes a name for themselves:

1. Making a new discovery
2. Solidly debunking someone else's

Watching it all happen can make for great entertainment.

User avatar
TK
Posts: 1477
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:42 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: How do we define science?

Post by TK » Thu Mar 02, 2017 3:29 pm

deleted- wrong thread

Post Reply

Return to “Creation/Evolution”