NationStates Jolt Archive

Can anyone help me name some popular misconceptions about science?

Also, if anyone has links to the news articles about the % of the population who believed rediculous things (like the earth being the centre of the solar system et c) then could they please share them?


Feel free to air frustrations with misconceptions about science here as well...

Various little bits are here.

http://www.msu.edu/user/boswort9/attempt1/cep817web/amasci/scimis.htm

The idea that refinement of understanding through successive approximation is

1) Proof of "controversy" in well-established fields

2) Proof of repeated failure of science as a whole

:rolleyes: Now there's a perception that needs fixing.

Something relativity-related:
If you're observing a spacecraft travelling at near-lightspeed (say 0.7c for example) and then something exits the craft at a speed supposedly 0.5c faster relative to the craft, it will NOT appear to be travelling at 1.2c to the observer.

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/RelChStSep_90/4830_90.htm

Most religious stuff but they do have that over 50% of Americans support the teaching of creationism. Not even intelligent design but creationism... :headbang:

Science is a religion.

Science is a religion.

Not correct in the slightest.

Not correct in the slightest.

Perhaps it is... faith in facts O.o

Science by nature is never same from one moment to the next. Most people don't understand that, and many see it to be a detriment to science, or worse: proof of its inherent fallibility. Of course, that's idiotic. See, science actually listens to and changes when new evidence is presented, unlike religions, which are not only static, but are rife with contradictions. There's nothing wrong with changing your mind when solid evidence is prevented. That's GOOD, not bad. Sheesh. Crazy people believing in God or some shit like that...

Of course, I'm odd, because I'm a right-wing athiest. How's THAT for a contradiction?

Science by nature is never same from one moment to the next. Most people don't understand that, and many see it to be a detriment to science, or worse: proof of its inherent fallibility. Of course, that's idiotic. See, science actually listens to and changes when new evidence is presented, unlike religions, which are not only static, but are rife with contradictions. There's nothing wrong with changing your mind when solid evidence is prevented. That's GOOD, not bad. Sheesh. Crazy people believing in God or some shit like that...

Of course, I'm odd, because I'm a right-wing athiest. How's THAT for a contradiction?

Actually come religions are flexible... In fact most are as long as you aren't a fanatic... But there are so many fanatics here in America that it seems that way.

The definition of what the word 'theory' actually means.

The definition of what the word 'theory' actually means.
Ooooh yes, that is so misinterpreted time and again, it makes me almost sick.

Stickies: Perhaps, but I've had too much experience with fundies refusing to listen to any sort of reasoning that I've come to expect it. And even then, a religion is almost invariably full of contradictions and other unscientific stuff. I'm a scientific man by nature. I can't see things any other way, which may be a detriment or it might not be.

The definition of what the word 'theory' actually means.

Well this is one of those things where the word in science means something different than when used in other areas... Then again if they put "Evolution is only a theory, meaning that all the evidence presented right now cannot disprove evolution" stickers on text books, i'd be fine with it.

Stickies: Perhaps, but I've had too much experience with fundies refusing to listen to any sort of reasoning that I've come to expect it. And even then, a religion is almost invariably full of contradictions and other unscientific stuff. I'm a scientific man by nature. I can't see things any other way, which may be a detriment or it might not be.

Well I know some religious people who actually believe both in religion and science :eek: . I'm also scientific by nature, but I'm all for religion if it accepts science as fact, since it often promotes good qualities. (Then again, it can sometimes be exclusive too...)

This is why I'm agnostic.

Well this is one of those things where the word in science means something different than when used in other areas... Then again if they put "Evolution is only a theory, meaning that all the evidence presented right now cannot disprove evolution" stickers on text books, i'd be fine with it.
Well, electricity is only a theory. I always tell ppl who claim that 'evolution is only a theory so that means it mightn't be true' to sit in a bath with an electric heater.

Not correct in the slightest.

you should probably read the title of the thread and realize that I was stating a popular misconception of science that frustrates me.

Evolution is backed up by tons of evidence. Meanwhile, many things in the Bible and other religions can actually be DISPROVEN. For instance, there is no record other than in the Bible of the whole Jews-as-slaves-in-Egypt bit, nor of a person named Moses. Further, around the time of Jesus, there were many peeps claiming to be a Messiah. So, yeah.

The definition of what the word 'theory' actually means.
That is so irritating. I've had to explain what a scientific theory is so many times and every time it gets more and more annoying. Gah!

How about "Science is a religion", and the belief that evolution requires you to believe in it for it to be true.

That one always gets me.

Various little bits are here.

http://www.msu.edu/user/boswort9/attempt1/cep817web/amasci/scimis.htm
"CORRECTED: FOR EVERY ACTION, THERE IS NOT AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION"

Oh, really? If they want to claim momentum violation, they should give some evidence

I like electrons being negative, but it does create that pesky conventional notation. FOLLOW THE ELECTRONS PEOPLE!

Here (http://www.amasci.com/miscon/myths10.html) is a link to some popular misconceptions about science.

"CORRECTED: FOR EVERY ACTION, THERE IS NOT AN EQUAL AND OPPOSITE REACTION"

Oh, really? If they want to claim momentum violation, they should give some evidence
Did you read the explanation? I may be wrong, but I don't see anything about momentum violation there, I see an explanation of how the changed use of the word "action" is causing people to casually misapply Newton's 3rd Law.

Can anyone help me name some popular misconceptions about science?

Also, if anyone has links to the news articles about the % of the population who believed rediculous things (like the earth being the centre of the solar system et c) then could they please share them?


Feel free to air frustrations with misconceptions about science here as well...

Boy was I wrong.

Personally, I think scientists dangerously overestimate their understanding of environment. I also think far too many people defer to these scientists' knowledge(or lack thereof).

Scientists have tried to alter nature before. From trying to repair sand dunes to modifying insects, all of these...ALL Of These have led to detrimental or at least completely unexpected results. Now scientists have taken an interest in global climate. Forgive me if I'm more afraid of the scientists than I am the carbon dioxide emissions. :p

Misconception that really irks me (more historical than science): People used to believe the Earth was flat, and that that Columbus would sail off the edge of the earth. Cripes, humans KNEW the earth was a sphere and calculated how big it was centuries before Christ was supposed to have been born. Ancient people knew the earth was round or at least rounded, for as far back as writting exists. Only an idiot with no curiousity or someone who spends little time outdoors would think the earth was flat. The thing with Columbus is that all the knowledgable people knew that he has miscaluclated the size of the Earth and was going to have to sail for 1000s of kilometers further than he projected unless he came upon some previously unknown land - the fools they were then, Columbus was right and there aren't two giant continents (N & S America let us call them, fictional continents that they are) between Europe and India, which is only about 600KMs off the coast of Spain.


Science Misception: Newtonian Physics proves that a bowling ball and a feather fall at the same rate in a vaccum. Nope, Newtonian physics proves the opposite, since the rate of falling is realted to the mass of both the pbject being fallen towards and the object falling, the bowling ball pulls the Earth to it faster than the feather does. QUANTUM physics proves a bowling ball doesn't have enough mass to move the earth (gotta mass enough to move it a planck distance, else it doesn't move, probably), but a 1 tonne safe masses enough to fall faster than a bowling ball.

Science is just a technique, a tool, and nothing more. And science is good.

Science Misception: Newtonian Physics proves that a bowling ball and a feather fall at the same rate in a vaccum. Nope, Newtonian physics proves the opposite, since the rate of falling is realted to the mass of both the pbject being fallen towards and the object falling, the bowling ball pulls the Earth to it faster than the feather does. QUANTUM physics proves a bowling ball doesn't have enough mass to move the earth (gotta mass enough to move it a planck distance, else it doesn't move, probably), but a 1 tonne safe masses enough to fall faster than a bowling ball.
What?

No, in Newtonian mechanics, the acceleration due to gravity is always a constant, regardless of mass. The force changes, but that doesn't make the body move faster more quickly. And in a vacuum, a bowling ball falls at the same rate as a feather.

Furthermore, the mass of a one tonne safe would still be negligible in comparison to the mass of the earth. I'm a physics student and I don't know wtf you're trying to say here, but it's not right at all.

What?

No, in Newtonian mechanics, the acceleration due to gravity is always a constant, regardless of mass. The force changes, but that doesn't make the body move faster more quickly. And in a vacuum, a bowling ball falls at the same rate as a feather.

Furthermore, the mass of a one tonne safe would still be negligible in comparison to the mass of the earth. I'm a physics student and I don't know wtf you're trying to say here, but it's not right at all.

I'll never understand that. I guess I'll just have to watch it happen some time. On the other hand, I believe in Black Holes, Multiple Universes, Life in outer space and dark matter, of which we have very little evidence of...

I'll never understand that. I guess I'll just have to watch it happen some time.
There are demonstrations, I think for one of the moon landings they did a hammer and a feather actually... I coudl go through the math but I really don't feel like it right now (it's 1 am...)

On the other hand, I believe in Black Holes, Multiple Universes, Life in outer space and dark matter, of which we have very little evidence of...
There's a lot of evidence for black holes and dark matter. Multiple universes are something we can't really test for necessarily (depends on what version of a multiverse you're talking about) and life in space is something we might never know (though the odds are in favour of life occuring somewhere else...)

What?

No, in Newtonian mechanics, the acceleration due to gravity is always a constant, regardless of mass. The force changes, but that doesn't make the body move faster more quickly. And in a vacuum, a bowling ball falls at the same rate as a feather.

Furthermore, the mass of a one tonne safe would still be negligible in comparison to the mass of the earth. I'm a physics student and I don't know wtf you're trying to say here, but it's not right at all.COme now, surely you recall: F=GmM/r2
where
F= force of attraction
G = universal gravitational constant
m = mass of Object one
M = mass of object two
r = distance between the two objects ( actually center of mass of the objects)?

As our bowling ball or feather is pulled "down" towards the Earth, it pulls the Earth "up" towards it in proportion to it's mass, more massive objects pull the Earth more. SInce the heaviest legal bowling ball weighs 16 lbs and the Earth masses somewhere on the order of 6x10E27 grams, the pull of the bowling ball on the Earth is about .000000000000000009% (i may have dropped an order of magnitude or two, too lazy to check, and yes I converted weight to mass on the fly) of the pull of the Earth on the bowling ball, often the gravitational attraction the bowling ball exerts upon the Earth is ignored for simplicities sake, but that is not accurate. If our feather masses a whopping 72.6 grams (ostrich feather?), it exerts 1/100th of the pull upon the Earth that the bowling ball does. Assuming we drop our objects from a place where the earth exerts a force of gravitational attraction upon the bowling ball sufficent to produce an acceleration of 9.8m/secE2, the bowling ball exerts a gravitational force upon the Earth of aproximately 9x10E-22m/secE2 while the feather only accelerates the earth towards it at approximatel 9x10E-24m/secE2, resulting in a net acceleration for our falling bowling ball of 9.8000000000000000000009m/secE2 and our feather of 9.800000000000000000000009m/secE2, clearly the bowling ball falls faster. (note I may have screwed up an order or magnitude or two since I am doing this on the fly, you can check the math if you want but the idea should be clear.) There are other factors which affect the actual rate of falling which I'll get into tonight when I get to the quantum part, but they are irrelevant to proving that more massive objects fall faster under Newtonian physics.

the bowling ball exerts a gravitational force upon the Earth of aproximately 9x10E-22m/secE2
You're getting your units messed up. Force is measured in Newtons, not in meters per second squared. Yes, the bowling ball excerts more force, but the mass is also greater, and since a=f/m, well, there.

Science is just a technique, a tool, and nothing more. And science is good.

Are you claiming that this is a misconception or the actual truth?

One misconception that bothers me - the idea that science actually 100% proves anything. It does not. The entire process of science is based around disproving hypotheses, and the idea that, if an experiment that could have disproven a hypothesis does not, it has been logically supported. There is no method of actually empirically proving something.

That all scientists are geeks with pocket protectors with no social skills whatsoever

we'll we aren't, some of us are nerds and dorks who enjoy the enlightenment and feeling of self satisifaction after spending hours alone in a cold lab working with the microbes and the chemicals ...oh, ummm *coughs* nevermind......

Something relativity-related:
If you're observing a spacecraft travelling at near-lightspeed (say 0.7c for example) and then something exits the craft at a speed supposedly 0.5c faster relative to the craft, it will NOT appear to be travelling at 1.2c to the observer.

But how fast would it actually be going? 1.2c or just c or less? I used to know but I havent done any physics for years.

The following misconceptions are really frustrating...

http://dharma-haven.org/science/dispelling-myth-magical-science.htm

One cluster of largely mistaken views is now commonly believed to be the simple truth about how science develops new knowledge. Our schools and media foster these beliefs -- I call them The Myth of Magical Science. A brief summary of the main points would go something like this:

(1) Scientific Knowledge is a new type of knowledge, superior to common sense and all other types of non-scientific beliefs.

(2) Scientific Knowledge can only be discovered by highly trained professional scientists.

(3) Scientists obtain Scientific Knowledge by following The Scientific Method, a uniquely powerful tool for understanding Reality.

The following misconceptions are really frustrating...

http://dharma-haven.org/science/dispelling-myth-magical-science.htm

Well, #3 is fairly true, especially if you define "reality" as encompassing only the natural.

#1 is an opinion held by many. Scientific knowledge, in most cases, would certainly be superior to common sense, as "common" sense is often based in misconceptions in the first place, but to say it is superior to all knowledge is something that cannot really be backed up.

Did you read the explanation? I may be wrong, but I don't see anything about momentum violation there, I see an explanation of how the changed use of the word "action" is causing people to casually misapply Newton's 3rd Law.Exactly. There was no evidence of momentum violation in the explanation. Since their claim is that momentum is not conserved ("for every action, there is not an equal and opposite reaction"), they should give some evidence of momentum violation. Instead, the explanation talks about how total force is zero. Ironically, their explanation actually implies momentum conservation.

Of course, I'm odd, because I'm a right-wing athiest. How's THAT for a contradiction?

Not really. Nietzsche was atheist and about as far right wing as they come, going so far as to call for the revival of slavery!:eek:

You're getting your units messed up. Force is measured in Newtons, not in meters per second squared. Yes, the bowling ball excerts more force, but the mass is also greater, and since a=f/m, well, there.
You should instead use "gravitational force causing an acceleration of". I was writing on the fly and messed that up.

Can anyone help me name some popular misconceptions about science?

that science produces absolute certainties. accepted theories are always being added to, altered or even completely overturned.

That science is out to kill religion. It's not trying to, seriously. Just becuase it doesn't agree with religion all the time doesn't mean scientists hate religion. NOTE: This is not an attack on religous people. We know some of you agree with science.

Also, just because science has been wrong before doesn't mean everything science comes up with is wrong.

You're getting your units messed up. Force is measured in Newtons, not in meters per second squared. Yes, the bowling ball excerts more force, but the mass is also greater, and since a=f/m, well, there.
The mass of the Earth does not change whether the mass the falling object is heavy or light. But the heavy object applies more force on the Earth and F=ma, well, there.

What?

No, in Newtonian mechanics, the acceleration due to gravity is always a constant, regardless of mass. The force changes, but that doesn't make the body move faster more quickly. And in a vacuum, a bowling ball falls at the same rate as a feather.

Furthermore, the mass of a one tonne safe would still be negligible in comparison to the mass of the earth. I'm a physics student and I don't know wtf you're trying to say here, but it's not right at all.

I'm a beginner, Dakini, and I'm not trying to get in your face, but Squi might make a point.

I tried a model of two very small but equal objects in "space", and calculating how long until they hit eachother (noting that they exert the same force on one another, each accelerates equally toward the other, because the equal force is over equal mass, and they meet in the middle).

Then, I increased the mass of object A by an order of magnitude and calculated the time again. Naturally, they hit sooner, but the large object contributed more of the acceleration (still equal forces on eachother, but that equal force moves the smaller object at higher acceleration). But at A = 10 times B, the smaller B still contributed some acceleration on A.

As one object becomes larger, it becomes responsible for a progressively larger portion of the aggregate acceleration, but the contribution of the smaller object never becomes 0, and that variance would still be different for a bowling ball than for a penny.

I could totally be wrong, but by the Newtonian model in a vacuum and with no other objects in the system, it seems an aircraft carrier might fall faster than a penny, noticably.

In Newtonian mechanics, we have:

Acceleration is proportional to mass and force
Gravitational force is proportional to mass


Let's explain the same differentially: An increase in mass results in an increase of gravitational force AND an equivalent increase in inertia.

Or, in equations:

F_G = GMm/r^2
F_acc = ma

These are equivalent:

F_acc = F_G
ma = GMm/r^2 | cancel out mass
a = GM/r^2

So, the acceleration due to Earth is proportional ONLY to the mass of the Earth.

In real solar systems, the center of gravity of a system of two objects is their common center of gravitational attraction. So, the bowling ball and the Earth both fall towards their common center of gravity (very close to Earth's own): the bowling ball with an acceleration proportional to Earth's mass, the Earth with an acceleration proportional to the mass of the bowling ball (which is, incidentally, very small).

Well, #3 is fairly true, especially if you define "reality" as encompassing only the natural.

#1 is an opinion held by many. Scientific knowledge, in most cases, would certainly be superior to common sense, as "common" sense is often based in misconceptions in the first place, but to say it is superior to all knowledge is something that cannot really be backed up.

The point with #1 is that there is no one 'special' method in science, which means that no 'special' knowledge is produced, and that there is no 'special' people who can be scientists. Of course, depending on how you define 'common' sense, which need not be based on misconceptions, I would say that most of science really is nothing more than 'common' sense. Anyone with a grain of 'common' sense can use a scientific approach.

The link gives an interesting quote. ''The scientist has no other method than doing his damnedest.''
-- P.W. Bridgman

Not sure if I totally go along with it, since the best efforts of someone lacking common sense will not necessarily amount to science.

The point is that science is done by ordinary people using ordinary logic and doing the best they can with what they have. I'm sure you would agree with that, Dem.

you should probably read the title of the thread and realize that I was stating a popular misconception of science that frustrates me.

I owe you an apology.

I was reading the thread and saw that and jumped to a conclussion without thinking about that.

I apologize.

The point with #1 is that there is no one 'special' method in science, which means that no 'special' knowledge is produced, and that there is no 'special' people who can be scientists. Of course, depending on how you define 'common' sense, which need not be based on misconceptions, I would say that most of science really is nothing more than 'common' sense. Anyone with a grain of 'common' sense can use a scientific approach.

The link gives an interesting quote. ''The scientist has no other method than doing his damnedest.''
-- P.W. Bridgman

Not sure if I totally go along with it, since the best efforts of someone lacking common sense will not necessarily amount to science.

The point is that science is done by ordinary people using ordinary logic and doing the best they can with what they have. I'm sure you would agree with that, Dem.

I agree with all of this except for the bolded part. There is a "special" method used in science - referred to as the scientific method. All knowledge need not be arrived at using the scientific method - in fact, unless the universe comprises all that exists, all knowledge cannot be arrived at using the scientific method. But the method itself is set apart by the particular logical processes used - and at least one particular assumption set as an axiom - that the universe is an ordered place such that inductive reasoning can be used.

In Newtonian mechanics, we have:

Acceleration is proportional to mass and force
Gravitational force is proportional to mass


Let's explain the same differentially: An increase in mass results in an increase of gravitational force AND an equivalent increase in inertia.

Or, in equations:

F_G = GMm/r^2
F_acc = ma

These are equivalent:

F_acc = F_G
ma = GMm/r^2 | cancel out mass
a = GM/r^2

So, the acceleration due to Earth is proportional ONLY to the mass of the Earth.

In real solar systems, the center of gravity of a system of two objects is their common center of gravitational attraction. So, the bowling ball and the Earth both fall towards their common center of gravity (very close to Earth's own): the bowling ball with an acceleration proportional to Earth's mass, the Earth with an acceleration proportional to the mass of the bowling ball (which is, incidentally, very small).

So, if we had case "A" a bowling ball 100 meters from earth, and case "B", an aircraft carrier 100 meters from earth, will cases A and B have different (common within each system) centers of gravity?

If so, will they meet at (very very slightly) different times?

This has been impied in many of the posts, but the idea that if a theory or aspect of science turns out to be wrong, the explination will default to 'magic.'

So, if we had case "A" a bowling ball 100 meters from earth, and case "B", an aircraft carrier 100 meters from earth, will cases A and B have different (common within each system) centers of gravity?

If so, will they meet at (very very slightly) different times?
No, it's the distance to the Earth which appears as 'r' in the equation.

No, it's the distance to the Earth which appears as 'r' in the equation.

I would've used 'r' as the distance from the center of the earth to the center of the bowling ball.

But my question is,

IN case A, if the force of the earth on the bowling ball is equal to the force of the bowling ball on the earth (which would be distributed over the enormous mass of the earth to create a very very tiny acceleration), we have the accleration of the ball towards the earth, plus the very small accerlation of the earth towards the ball, the sum of which will cause them to collide at a certain time.

In case B, the force of the earth on the penny will cause an acceleration of the penny (the same acceleration the bowling ball experienced, since the smaller penny is moved by a smaller force, giving the same accerlation of about 9.80 m/s^2). But...that same lesser force is still pulling earth up, and the earth's mass is the same in case A and B, so the earth's acceleration upwards to the penny is even tinier in case B.

I believe the premise of them hitting at the exact same time acknowledges only the force of the earth's gravity on the object, and dismisses the gravity of the falling object on the earth (which would create an acceleration so neglible as to be meaningless in any real system, but its there in the model.)

The difference is far, far too small to notice in actual experimentation, but it appears to be there in a strict interpretation of Newtonian physics.

I believe the same effect may be observed on a larger scale in planetary orbits. Maybe a planet doesn't truly orbit a star. Maybe the planet and the star both orbit some common center of gravity, but that center is so close to the center of the star, the stars revolution is so small (of such a tight circle or elliptical) as to be unnoticed.

The idea that refinement of understanding through successive approximation is

1) Proof of "controversy" in well-established fields

2) Proof of repeated failure of science as a whole

:rolleyes: Now there's a perception that needs fixing.
GOD that bugs me. This is always the refuge of the religious. Because there's controversy about how evolution actually happened means that there's controversy about wether evolution actually happens. I think this problem bugs me almost as much as the reated myths problem. For example when Einstein said, "I don't beleive God plays dice with the Universe." Now Einstein is religious. Or the myth that Darwin said, "the eye scares me." Evolution cannot explain how the eye formed. He never said that and evolution can explain how the eye was formed, but go to a Christian school and yo'll hear both myths repeated as if they are fact.

I believe the same effect may be observed on a larger scale in planetary orbits. Maybe a planet doesn't truly orbit a star. Maybe the planet and the star both orbit some common center of gravity, but that center is so close to the center of the star, the stars revolution is so small (of such a tight circle or elliptical) as to be unnoticed.


This is, in fact, correct, and is essentially the basis astronomers use for finding large (think Jupiter-sized) planets orbiting around other stars. Essentially, astronomers use something called the "red shift" which occurs when a light source accelerates relative to the observer (or vice versa) to look for periodic accelerations in distant stars.

I agree with all of this except for the bolded part. There is a "special" method used in science - referred to as the scientific method. All knowledge need not be arrived at using the scientific method - in fact, unless the universe comprises all that exists, all knowledge cannot be arrived at using the scientific method. But the method itself is set apart by the particular logical processes used - and at least one particular assumption set as an axiom - that the universe is an ordered place such that inductive reasoning can be used.

That science is done using the "scientific method" is one of the great misconceptions. Please see the link on my original post. It is good readin'.

Incidentally, I think the most annoying misconception about science is that there is any such thing as "political science" (except a small fraction of the things labelled as political science, which can be seen as part of psychology).

That ranks up there with the misconception that people who do study economics and statistics are doing math(s). Both are based on mathematics (economics finding some roots in game theory and statistics being essentially a subset of "applied math"), but neither involve actually doing any math yourself (arithmetic is not real math unless you are doing number theory or abstract algebra).

As a side note every real subject falls into the study of one or more of the following categories:

--art (includes all things that are essentially aesthetic, like music)
--science
--mathematics
--historical events
--direct study of a vocation (learning to cook in order to become a chef, learning to tinker with cars in order to become a mechanic, etc.)

That science is done using the "scientific method" is one of the great misconceptions. Please see the link on my original post. It is good readin'.

Anything that does not follow the scientific method is, by definition, not science.

Anything that does not follow the scientific method is, by definition, not science.


So when Einstein came up with relativity, it wasn't science until a couple of years later when light-bending was tested using a solar eclipse?

When Newton developed his theory of gravitational pull, it wasn't science until when he dropped his pen afterward to make sure (as a side note, Newton came up with the idea that gravity followed an inverse square relationship, not that matter attracted other matter).

When Freud developed psychoanalysis, that wasn't science?


Nothing dictates that science must necessarily occur in the order:
--recognize a problem
--develop a hypothesis
--develop an experiment to test the hypothesis
--run the experiment
--accept or reject the hypothesis

Science is the process of working towards developing theories to explain verifiable facts presented by the universe. No more; no less. A scientist doesn't ever have to conduct an experiment in order to be doing science. In some sense, even researching mathematics is doing science; I only separate the two because some people insist that mathematical logic is not inherent in the universe; that it is instead a human construct (although even if you believe it is a human construct, it could still be seen as a part of psychology, which most people agree is science).

So when Einstein came up with relativity, it wasn't science until a couple of years later when light-bending was tested using a solar eclipse?

Testing is part of the process, not the entirety of the process.

Meanwhile, much of the theory of relativity was based in testing that was already done. Quite a bit more testing has been done since - some with methods that Einstein probably had no idea would be available.

When Newton developed his theory of gravitational pull, it wasn't science until when he dropped his pen afterward to make sure (as a side note, Newton came up with the idea that gravity followed an inverse square relationship, not that matter attracted other matter).

Once again, you assume you have to have already gone through the entirety of the process to be involved in science. If no testing of Newton's ideas were ever done, then it wouldn't be science.

When Freud developed psychoanalysis, that wasn't science?

For the most part, no. Freud is pretty much categorically full of shit.

Nothing dictates that science must necessarily occur in the order:
--recognize a problem
--develop a hypothesis
--develop an experiment to test the hypothesis
--run the experiment
--accept or reject the hypothesis

"Recongize a problem" is not a general inclusion - observation is, but other than that, this is exactly the process of science.

Science is the process of working towards developing theories to explain verifiable facts presented by the universe. No more; no less.

And you cannot do this without making observations, hypothesizing about them, and then testing them. Something cannot become a scientific theory until we have tested the hell out of it and it has stood up to time and criticism.

A scientist doesn't ever have to conduct an experiment in order to be doing science.

If no one is doing experiments, then science isn't occurring. Does the same person have to do every step of the method? No. My advisor often makes hypotheses that I or others are expected to test. And then she helps make conclusions about the results. But progress in science requires all of them.

Anything that does not follow the scientific method is, by definition, not science.

That cannot be so, because then sciences which by their nature cannot be examined by experimentation would not be science, such as astronomy, and theories which rely upon historical observation could not be scientifically verified, such as evolution.

http://dharma-haven.org/science/myth-of-scientific-method.htm#Alive
Scientists actually use quite a lot of methods -- there is no single method that all scientists use, and most of the methods they do use are not all that special -- they're used in a lot of other professions, methods like careful observation, and "trial and error," for example.

If we need a short summary, we could say that what successful scientists do is to be as intelligent as possible in examining whatever interests them. In the words of one physicist, a scientist at work "is completely free to adopt any course that his ingenuity is capable of suggesting to him."

What we don't want to do is to call this "The Scientific Method."

That cannot be so, because then sciences which by their nature cannot be examined by experimentation would not be science, such as astronomy, and theories which rely upon historical observation could not be scientifically verified, such as evolution.

You can test things in astronomy - I'm not sure who told you you can't.

And that which relies on historical observation can also be tested. The tests are done in the present, but can still falsify an explanation of what happened in the past.

Testing is part of the process, not the entirety of the process.
-snip-
Once again, you assume you have to have already gone through the entirety of the process to be involved in science. If no testing of Newton's ideas were ever done, then it wouldn't be science.
-snip-
If no one is doing experiments, then science isn't occurring. Does the same person have to do every step of the method? No. My advisor often makes hypotheses that I or others are expected to test. And then she helps make conclusions about the results. But progress in science requires all of them.

I agree with all of this except for the bolded part. There is a "special" method used in science - referred to as the scientific method. All knowledge need not be arrived at using the scientific method - in fact, unless the universe comprises all that exists, all knowledge cannot be arrived at using the scientific method. But the method itself is set apart by the particular logical processes used - and at least one particular assumption set as an axiom - that the universe is an ordered place such that inductive reasoning can be used.

The "scientific method" is the particular order (mentioned before) of going about looking at the world; recognition (or observation), hypothesis, test, affirmation or rejection. But not all science, and not all scientific results are approached in that order, and if you recognize any of them as science, then you believe that something can be science without following the scientific method. If I come up with a theory (say, that my shoes follow the same inverse square gravitational relationship that everything else does, at least within the Newtonian realm), and no one ever does an experiment to test my theory (as I doubt anyone would bother checking my shoes in that way), that doesn't make my theory not a scientific theory. It only isn't a scientific theory if they COULDN'T check my theory even if they wanted to. In the same way, science can be built up using the scientific method, but doesn't have to be. If some random guy named Einstein comes up with a theory to explain the universe, so long as the theory can be disproven, the theory is part of science before a single experiment has been run. Indeed, some theories (such as my shoe theory, which is a more specific case of a general concept that is not a theory--that all objects follow the same inverse square gravitational pull relationship, any specific example of which being a disprovable theory), are never tested but still taken to be true, simply because they appear to logically follow from existing results. This is inherently a part of science, since we can't possibly test every theory for correctness.

The "scientific method" is the particular order (mentioned before) of going about looking at the world; recognition (or observation), hypothesis, test, affirmation or rejection. But not all science, and not all scientific results are approached in that order, and if you recognize any of them as science, then you believe that something can be science without following the scientific method. If I come up with a theory (say, that my shoes follow the same inverse square gravitational relationship that everything else does, at least within the Newtonian realm), and no one ever does an experiment to test my theory (as I doubt anyone would bother checking my shoes in that way), that doesn't make my theory not a scientific theory.

Actually, you've already demonstrated that you don't know what you're talking about. You can't "make up a theory." You can make a hypothesis. It doesn't become a scientific theory until it has stood up to testing and criticism.

It only isn't a scientific theory if they COULDN'T check my theory even if they wanted to.

No, that would mean that it isn't a scientific *hypothesis*, and would indeed be outside the realm of science altogether.

In the same way, science can be built up using the scientific method, but doesn't have to be. If some random guy named Einstein comes up with a theory to explain the universe, so long as the theory can be disproven, the theory is part of science before a single experiment has been run.

Once again, you are misusing terms. If no testing has already backed something up, it cannot yet be a theory. It can only be a hypothesis.

This is inherently a part of science, since we can't possibly test every theory for correctness.

You can't test anything for correctness using science - only for incorrectness. If you do not demonstrate a hypothesis (or a theory, once it reaches that distinction) to be wrong, you are said to have supported it. But you can never prove it to be correct.

the two most popular misconceptions about science are this whole concept of fact; nothing in science is set in concrete. the other, a favorite straw dog of fanatics of many stripes, is the pretence that science claims to state limits as to what CAN exist. real science makes NO claims other then to observe what it observes, and base TENATIVE conclusions ON THOSE OBSERVATIONS. and the further reality is that it goes to great lenths to insure the accuracy and objectivity of those observations.

people doing science, can of course, be compromised. this occurs because much of the tecnology science relies upon is quite expensive and thus dependent on corporate funding, and corporate intrests do have their own, feduciarily driven axes to grind.

but science as a whole, the way proffessional journals are jurried, tends to even this out. the system isn't foolproof, but it's better then just the speculationism of belief.

which also, don't get me wrong, has a roll to play. that of encouraging people to want to avoid causing suffering and harm.

but it takes science, REAL science, to know how to do that.

=^^=
.../\...

Actually, you've already demonstrated that you don't know what you're talking about. You can't "make up a theory." You can make a hypothesis. It doesn't become a scientific theory until it has stood up to testing and criticism.


An abuse of terminology on my part. Still it is possible to make-up a theory; the shoes being an excellent example. No one has ever checked to see if my shoes do indeed obey an inverse square law of gravitation (while considering them in the Newtonian sense), yet most everyone in any field would agree that this is doubtless the case.

Furthermore, suppose through some form of advanced math I determine that as a direct result of, say, Kepler's Laws (noting that his is another abuse of notation), something will occur. I have written a mathematical THEOREM, and constructed a THEORY--because my claim is already directly based on mathematics and established theory.

On the other hand, you are correct that if I simply make up something falsifiable, it is probably (or, if you are familiar with the strict mathematical sense of the word "almost", I can safely say, almost always) a hypothesis.

Regardless, coming up with a long list of hypotheses is still doing science, even without conducting a single experiment.


Once again, you are misusing terms. If no testing has already backed something up, it cannot yet be a theory. It can only be a hypothesis.


This is false. A direct mathematical consequence of a theory is still theory, yet may be entirely untested.



You can't test anything for correctness using science - only for incorrectness. If you do not demonstrate a hypothesis (or a theory, once it reaches that distinction) to be wrong, you are said to have supported it. But you can never prove it to be correct.

I simply used the term "testing for correctness" rather than "testing for incorrectness" because it takes the term in the positive sense. Generally speaking, actual experiments are analyzed with some sort of statistical approach, which only allows you to accept or reject a given hypothesis by providing a probability. (Were the experiment repeated, and the theory were correct, and the uncertainty in the measurements taken was itself accurately measured, and one of these repetitions were chosen randomly, the probability that the randomly chosen data set would match the theory less well than the data actually collected.)

Also, some valid scientifc hypothesis can be found to be true--they just have to be self limiting in scope. For example, I could say, my watch is not going to leap at least a meter into the air for an entire second during a time period beginning when I post this comment, until one minute afterward. This statement is clearly disprovable; the watch could, indeed, leap into the air at some point during that minute and remain aloft for at least a second. On the other hand the statement is also provable, since if I observe the watch's position once each half-second for the entire minute, I will know with certainty that it cannot have been at least 1 meter in the air for one second consecutively. This is possible because some observations are only imperfectly modeled by Gaussian distributions; the tail probabilities that far out aren't almost zero, they are exactly zero.

Note that I am not claiming that the probabilty that the event itself will occur is actually exactly zero; only that the probability of me failing to correctly observe the binary result in zero (note that this is a somewhat poor claim in this case, but this is the simplest reasonable example of a limited observance of an absolute event I can think of off the top of my head).

Also note that this is dependent upon your acceptance of non-constructive logic. A constructivist would say that although both a statement and its opposite may be disprovable, the disproof of the opposite fails to prove the statement.



Edit: Note that the possibility of coming up with theories is still, in fact, an abuse of terminology, although I expect this is a more widely accepted one. This stems for the lack of the concept of a "lemma" in experimental science. Silly experimentalists.

Scientists when they done a lab coat, somehow put their human frailities behind them.

In a radio interview with Barry J. Marshall (who along with Robin Warren), discovered that Helicobacter pylori is the most common cause of peptic ulcers:

"The idea of stress and things like that (causing ulcers) was just so entrenched nobody could really believe that it was bacteria," Marshall said.

He went on to say that the volume and tenor of personal and academic attacks from fellow scientists almost convinced him and his colleague to abandon their efforts in publicizing their research. Eventually Marshall went so far as infect himself with Helicobacter pylori, to prove it caused stomach inflammation.

I like the common misconception that schizophrenia leads to a split personality. That would be multiple personality disorder.

Also, some valid scientifc hypothesis can be found to be true--they just have to be self limiting in scope. For example, I could say, my watch is not going to leap at least a meter into the air for an entire second during a time period beginning when I post this comment, until one minute afterward. This statement is clearly disprovable; the watch could, indeed, leap into the air at some point during that minute and remain aloft for at least a second. On the other hand the statement is also provable, since if I observe the watch's position once each half-second for the entire minute, I will know with certainty that it cannot have been at least 1 meter in the air for one second consecutively. This is possible because some observations are only imperfectly modeled by Gaussian distributions; the tail probabilities that far out aren't almost zero, they are exactly zero.
But then you have not provided a theory to be tested, you have provided a prediction of one event. A theory is supportable in a (theoretically) infinite number of cases, making it a rule. This one observed event can support a theory. One supporting event, though, doesn't make a theory and doesn't prove anything.

Evolution says we evolved from apes
Evolution = Abiogenesis
The scientific defnition of theory
science is a religion
science will one day stamp out religion
science can and will know EVERYTHING one day
The universe is geocentric.
Macroevolution is different than microevolution
The biological definition of organism
The heart is controlled by the brain when it first begins beating

I could probably think of more. But this is a start.

Lord, you want a list of misconceptions about science?! Go up to some random person on the street, ask them to name 5 things they know about science, and boom...you'll have 5 misconceptions to add to your list.

Lord, you want a list of misconceptions about science?! Go up to some random person on the street, ask them to name 5 things they know about science, and boom...you'll have 5 misconceptions to add to your list.

Hell, just look at the top of the page. Incidentally, that reminds me of another medical/scientific misconception, by the same poster-
Women can have 10 abortions in a year.

I list it because biology makes this impossible, since not only is 10 pregnancies implausible, the patient would die from that many procedures.

-the whole scientists reject anything that doesn't agree with them assertion. Like scientists are part of this big conspiracy against whatever thing the person is arguing about.

-everything a scientist says is science. So if you find a scientist with the same opinion as you, your opinion is scientific.

- showing a 'scientific' conclusion without showing how it was reached is somehow useful

An abuse of terminology on my part. Still it is possible to make-up a theory; the shoes being an excellent example.

No, that would be a hypothesis based in a theory.

You can't say, "Oh sorry, I abused terminology," and then follow that up by doing it again.

Furthermore, suppose through some form of advanced math I determine that as a direct result of, say, Kepler's Laws (noting that his is another abuse of notation), something will occur. I have written a mathematical THEOREM, and constructed a THEORY--because my claim is already directly based on mathematics and established theory.

Mathematics and science are not exactly equivalent. From a scientific point of view, you have either constructed a hypothesis, a prediction based upon the theory, or expanded upon a theory. Considering that you said it based in established theory, then what you are actually doing is taking something that is already theory and following it to its logical conclusion, not making up an entirely new theory.

Regardless, coming up with a long list of hypotheses is still doing science, even without conducting a single experiment.

It is a portion, yes. Doing a great deal of experiments to test someone else's hypothesis is also science. The process must be used, but a single person does not necessarily have to complete the entire process alone - and rarely does.

This is false. A direct mathematical consequence of a theory is still theory, yet may be entirely untested.

No, it is a part of a theory. Every aspect of a theory is not a new theory unto itself - it is a part of the larger whole, which has been tested.

Also, some valid scientifc hypothesis can be found to be true--they just have to be self limiting in scope.

These types of things are generally not something science is concerned with. You can't get anything useful out of saying, "In the next 10 minutes, mokeys won't jump out of my ass," and then waiting to see if it happens.

The heart is controlled by the brain when it first begins beating

I would add to this the misconception that the heartbeat itself is *ever* controlled by the brain. The heart *rate* is regulated by the nervous system, but the beat itself is always internally created.

Furthermore, suppose through some form of advanced math I determine that as a direct result of, say, Kepler's Laws (noting that his is another abuse of notation), something will occur. I have written a mathematical THEOREM, and constructed a THEORY--because my claim is already directly based on mathematics and established theory.

Um, in mathematics, theorems are used differently than science. They can also be proved. However, generally when you see a theorem that is accepted by mathematics it is already proven. They don't just say, oh, look, nobody has actually done the work, but let's use it as an assumption in other work anyway.

This is false. A direct mathematical consequence of a theory is still theory, yet may be entirely untested.

This is ridiculous. Nothing mathematics or science is widely-accepted or even marginally-accepted without any testing (or in mathematics, proofs). You're mixing together two entirely different though related curriculums and it is the reason most of what you are saying doesn't make any sense.

I would add to this the misconception that the heartbeat itself is *ever* controlled by the brain. The heart *rate* is regulated by the nervous system, but the beat itself is always internally created.

Actually, what I was referring to is that at that point, the brain isn't even indirectly involved. The heartbeat is more a response to the pregnant woman's autonomic brain than that of the embryo.

-the whole scientists reject anything that doesn't agree with them assertion. Like scientists are part of this big conspiracy against whatever thing the person is arguing about. Not the whole of science, but existing preconceptions are very difficult to change, due in no small part to human nature. (See above.)

Actually, what I was referring to is that at that point, the brain isn't even indirectly involved. The heartbeat is more a response to the pregnant woman's autonomic brain than that of the embryo.

I know, I just wanted to add to it. =)

I know, I just wanted to add to it. =)

I know. By the way, you should really look up some of the other posts of the person you're arguing with. Don't expect to make a lot of headway.

It is a portion, yes. Doing a great deal of experiments to test someone else's hypothesis is also science. The process must be used, but a single person does not necessarily have to complete the entire process alone - and rarely does.


But then if this list of hypotheses is never tested, science has still occurred without the scientific method having been followed.



No, it is a part of a theory. Every aspect of a theory is not a new theory unto itself - it is a part of the larger whole, which has been tested.


My entire point was that whatever this expansion is, hasn't been tested. And many times, untested parts of theories are taken to be correct (i.e., theories) rather than independent hypotheses. This leads to both major inaccuracies, and major lacks of headaches from reasonable assumptions.


These types of things are generally not something science is concerned with. You can't get anything useful out of saying, "In the next 10 minutes, mokeys won't jump out of my ass," and then waiting to see if it happens.

You get a reasonable expectation that they won't in the 10 minutes following those.

Also, my point there wasn't that you could state a USEFUL scientific hypothesis that could be proven correct; merely that you could state A scientific hypothesis that could be proven correct. Many can't be proven correct, but unless you have a problem with the Law of the Excluded Middle, try to show that they are incorrect can still be called "testing for correctness".

It never was my intent, with that phrase, to imply that all scientific hypotheses were provable, nor indeed that any are provable although we've demonstrated two so far that are.



As a side note, due to a wonderful job of thread hijacking:

Hell, just look at the top of the page. Incidentally, that reminds me of another medical/scientific misconception, by the same poster-
Women can have 10 abortions in a year.

I list it because biology makes this impossible, since not only is 10 pregnancies implausible, the patient would die from that many procedures.



There are three reasons why I doubt this would be much of an issue.

First, abortions are not fun physical processes. Even early term abortions often cause the woman to become very sick for several days...

From here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10551409&postcount=236), my first response when someone else suggested that a woman might want to repeatedly get aborted. That I didn't know the precise degree of the issue was indeed a misconception on my part (I've said it once and I'll say it again, I do math, not biology), but not the one it has been misconstrued to be.

And now we return to your regularly scheduled discussion over whether or not a person has to use "the scientific method" to do science.

But then if this list of hypotheses is never tested, science has still occurred without the scientific method having been followed.

The scientific method hasn't been finished. Hypotheses are a part of the scientific method.

My entire point was that whatever this expansion is, hasn't been tested. And many times, untested parts of theories are taken to be correct (i.e., theories) rather than independent hypotheses. This leads to both major inaccuracies, and major lacks of headaches from reasonable assumptions.

Example?

You get a reasonable expectation that they won't in the 10 minutes following those.

Also, my point there wasn't that you could state a USEFUL scientific hypothesis that could be proven correct; merely that you could state A scientific hypothesis that could be proven correct. Many can't be proven correct, but unless you have a problem with the Law of the Excluded Middle, try to show that they are incorrect can still be called "testing for correctness".

It never was my intent, with that phrase, to imply that all scientific hypotheses were provable, nor indeed that any are provable although we've demonstrated two so far that are.



As a side note, due to a wonderful job of thread hijacking:



From here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10551409&postcount=236), my first response when someone else suggested that a woman might want to repeatedly get aborted. That I didn't know the precise degree of the issue was indeed a misconception on my part (I've said it once and I'll say it again, I do math, not biology), but not the one it has been misconstrued to be.

And now we return to your regularly scheduled discussion over whether or not a person has to use "the scientific method" to do science.

Hijacking? You mean like your entire post? And I chose the most blatant misconception, not all of them. Feel free to return to that thread if you'd like, but the example of a fairly common misconception that abortions are like getting a shot.

But then if this list of hypotheses is never tested, science has still occurred without the scientific method having been followed.

The scientific method is in the process of being followed. A hypothesis has been made. The next step is to devise a way to test that hypothesis.

Your argument is the logical equivalent of me walking halfway up a flight of stairs and then saying that I haven't used the process of walking up stairs because I haven't yet gotten to the top.

My entire point was that whatever this expansion is, hasn't been tested. And many times, untested parts of theories are taken to be correct (i.e., theories) rather than independent hypotheses. This leads to both major inaccuracies, and major lacks of headaches from reasonable assumptions.

I never said that all aspects of a theory had to be tested before it became a theory. All aspects do have to be things that can conceivably be tested, but they do not have to already be tested.

The scientific method hasn't been finished. Hypotheses are a part of the scientific method.

But science has still been done; my only claim is that the scientific method need not be followed in order for science to be done.



Example?


Failure to test for limiting conditions on the Galilean transformation until the late 19th century led to a complete acceptance of Newtonian mechanics as being necessarily completely correct (at least until issues with electromagnetic phenonmena were discovered, and the Lorentz transformation was suggested as an alternative). This is an example of when incomplete testing led to the acceptance of a hypothesis as theory (even garnering the term "Law"), leading to significant inaccuracies in calculations involving things like the photoelectric effect.

At the same time, the assumption that my shoes will, like everything else while taken in the Newtonian sense, follow an inverse square gravitational relationship, is unlikely to lead to a major (or even minor) inaccuracy (although we can't say that with complete certainty), but certainly avoids the headache of having to check just to be sure.



Hijacking? You mean like your entire post? And I chose the most blatant misconception, not all of them. Feel free to return to that thread if you'd like, but the example of a fairly common misconception that abortions are like getting a shot.


You'll note that I was specifically referring to early term abortions, which are often administered using RU-486 (a.k.a. Mifepristone).

I agree that it is a common misconception that abortions (particularly early term ones) have little or no side effects at all. However, this was not a misconception I had held, merely that the side effects were of sufficiently short term and sufficiently little severity that it would be conceivable (albeit likely not desirable, as I noted) that someone could repeatedly get early term abortions in a short time period.

The scientific method is in the process of being followed. A hypothesis has been made. The next step is to devise a way to test that hypothesis.

Your argument is the logical equivalent of me walking halfway up a flight of stairs and then saying that I haven't used the process of walking up stairs because I haven't yet gotten to the top.


An assertion I would agree is true. If you wish to call the process walking up and down the same step over again the same thing as the process of walking all the up and down the entire staircase, then indeed, all science would take place using the scientific method.


I never said that all aspects of a theory had to be tested before it became a theory. All aspects do have to be things that can conceivably be tested, but they do not have to already be tested.

Then our only difference of opinion here is where you draw the line between one theory and another--I would call the explanations for different physical events, even if they appeared to be related to each other mathematically, different theories, since they are independently falsifiable (although falsification in one domain would invalidate the other to some extent because of the mathematical link, it would still be a perfectly valid theory for purposes of being used as a predictor in realms where it does hold). You, it appears, would call them the same theory, under which condition a theory can only result from experiment.

Whether or not this means that a theory can only result from the scientific method I am uncertain, but would be willing to believe is probably the case.

My problem with this paradigm is that it seems to preclude mathematics from being a science purely based on the idea that experimentation is the only source of truth. Of course, if that was your intent to begin with, then your system is, at the very least, self-consistent.

But science has still been done; my only claim is that the scientific method need not be followed in order for science to be done.

That is the order. You haven't shown any part of this process was skipped. You simply showed that the process is incomplete. Meanwhile that was not your only claim. You claimed that scientific hypotheses were accepted as theories without testing which is patently false.

Failure to test for limiting conditions on the Galilean transformation until the late 19th century led to a complete acceptance of Newtonian mechanics as being necessarily completely correct (at least until issues with electromagnetic phenonmena were discovered, and the Lorentz transformation was suggested as an alternative). This is an example of when incomplete testing led to the acceptance of a hypothesis as theory (even garnering the term "Law"), leading to significant inaccuracies in calculations involving things like the photoelectric effect.

It wasn't incomplete testing. They didn't ignore tests they were aware of. They were either limited in their ability to test or unaware that a particular test was available and would test the hypothesis. That's far different. You are noting that they didn't prove the theory. Proving a theory is impossible. They did however put the theory to abundant testing.

At the same time, the assumption that my shoes will, like everything else while taken in the Newtonian sense, follow an inverse square gravitational relationship, is unlikely to lead to a major (or even minor) inaccuracy (although we can't say that with complete certainty), but certainly avoids the headache of having to check just to be sure.

You can't avoid the headache and conduct science, my friend. There can be no treatment of a hypothesis as an assumption in other experiments or as a scientific theory (Dem's head just popped) until it is tested.

You'll note that I was specifically referring to early term abortions, which are often administered using RU-486 (a.k.a. Mifepristone).

I agree that it is a common misconception that abortions (particularly early term ones) have little or no side effects at all. However, this was not a misconception I had held, merely that the side effects were of sufficiently short term and sufficiently little severity that it would be conceivable (albeit likely not desirable, as I noted) that someone could repeatedly get early term abortions in a short time period.

RU-486 is not commonly used in the US. I don't know if you're American, but since many of us are not European it is good to be specific since other than Europe there would no reason to assume you are talking about the 'abortion pill". And side-effects of all abortions tend to be more than short-term making it impossible to get any type of abortion with any real frequency.

And you don't only agree that the misconception exists, you held it to be true YESTERDAY.

An assertion I would agree is true. If you wish to call the process walking up and down the same step over again the same thing as the process of walking all the up and down the entire staircase, then indeed, all science would take place using the scientific method.

The process is walking up the stairs. I am using the process even if I only get halfway up. I just haven't yet finished the process.

Then our only difference of opinion here is where you draw the line between one theory and another--I would call the explanations for different physical events, even if they appeared to be related to each other mathematically, different theories, since they are independently falsifiable (although falsification in one domain would invalidate the other to some extent because of the mathematical link, it would still be a perfectly valid theory for purposes of being used as a predictor in realms where it does hold). You, it appears, would call them the same theory, under which condition a theory can only result from experiment.

A theory can only result from experimentation because it takes evidence to move something from the hypothesis level to the theory level in science. It isn't automagically a theory - it has to first be tested. That doesn't mean that all aspects of it must be tested. Indeed, some of them we may not yet be able to test (there are still ways to test the theory of relativity being found). But it must have held up to the testing already done.

Whether or not this means that a theory can only result from the scientific method I am uncertain, but would be willing to believe is probably the case.

A *scientific* theory can only result from the scientific method.

My problem with this paradigm is that it seems to preclude mathematics from being a science purely based on the idea that experimentation is the only source of truth. Of course, if that was your intent to begin with, then your system is, at the very least, self-consistent.

I never said that experimentation is the only source of truth. Of course, science isn't the only source of truth. But it is one method for determining truth - provided that the assumptions it is based in are correct. Math would be precluded as being a science in and of itself (although it is certainly used in science) because it is a different sort of pursuit. That doesn't mean that one cannot gain knowledge using it, it simply means that it isn't science.

Science is based in empiricism and the idea that, if we test something and fail to disprove it, we have supported it.

Mathematics is not science because mathematic theorems do not require one to adhere to the scientific method.

That is the order. You haven't shown any part of this process was skipped. You simply showed that the process is incomplete. Meanwhile that was not your only claim. You claimed that scientific hypotheses were accepted as theories without testing which is patently false.


This was bad word choice on my part...I didn't mean "in order" as in, "not in a different order", I meant "in order" as in, "so that".



It wasn't incomplete testing. They didn't ignore tests they were aware of. They were either limited in their ability to test or unaware that a particular test was available and would test the hypothesis. That's far different. You are noting that they didn't prove the theory. Proving a theory is impossible. They did however put the theory to abundant testing.


Oh, so they were unable to tell that when light hits a surface it gets warm MUCH faster than they thought it would????


You can't avoid the headache and conduct science, my friend. There can be no treatment of a hypothesis as an assumption in other experiments or as a scientific theory (Dem's head just popped) until it is tested.


Yes you can. In math they're called axioms (or, in the case of things we believe to be true but haven't yet proven, such as P != NP, the Kepler Conjecture, etc., we take them as givens and prove a conditional). In fact, pretty much every time you repeat an experiment you are relying on one of these--the hypothesis that when you repeat an experiment with the same equipment at a different time (or similar equipment), the results will reflect a similar probability distribution. This is certainly falsifiable--you could find that running an experiment somehow managed to alter your equipment, or that there was something wrong with the initial equipment--but it is still taken as an assumption until data to the contrary shows up.



RU-486 is not commonly used in the US. I don't know if you're American, but since many of us are not European it is good to be specific since other than Europe there would no reason to assume you are talking about the 'abortion pill". And side-effects of all abortions tend to be more than short-term making it impossible to get any type of abortion with any real frequency.

And you don't only agree that the misconception exists, you held it to be true YESTERDAY.

I agree that the misconception exists that there are no side effects.

I agree that as recently as yesterday I was unaware of the full extent of side effects (although I was with about an order of magnitude, that doesn't say very much).

I agree that, as a male, I am not the best person to ask regarding what methods of abortion happen to be popular in what parts of the world right now.

I agree that I should have been clearer as to which method of abortion to which I was referring.

I'd like to note that further discussion of this topic isn't really appropriate for this thread.

This was bad word choice on my part...I didn't mean "in order" as in, "not in a different order", I meant "in order" as in, "so that".

Your word choice was fine. I laughed when you pointed out what it actually said.

In that case my response is that it is false. The scientific method must be followed or it is not science. This is why math is not science.

Oh, so they were unable to tell that when light hits a surface it gets warm MUCH faster than they thought it would????

If you're claiming they ignored evidence please support your assertion. If you're claiming they didn't notice, dug? Some implications of the laws were not noticed until we had advanced much further.

Yes you can. In math they're called axioms (or, in the case of things we believe to be true but haven't yet proven, such as P != NP, the Kepler Conjecture, etc., we take them as givens and prove a conditional). In fact, pretty much every time you repeat an experiment you are relying on one of these--the hypothesis that when you repeat an experiment with the same equipment at a different time (or similar equipment), the results will reflect a similar probability distribution. This is certainly falsifiable--you could find that running an experiment somehow managed to alter your equipment, or that there was something wrong with the initial equipment--but it is still taken as an assumption until data to the contrary shows up.

Math is not science. You keep trying to make that assertion in order to support your assertions, but math does not follow the scientific method and is a different discipline even if it is used in science. Hell, words are used in science too, why don't you suggest that by showing how a sentence is constructed science isn't followed?

You are not allowed to have base assumptions in scientific testing that have no evidence and are not testing by the experiment itself. In math, you can because testing is not a part of math. I can have any asusmptions I like so long as I list them. In math you can even list what you are trying to prove as an assumption in order to complete the proof. You can also use an assumption that you assume is false in order to test it.

I agree that the misconception exists that there are no side effects.

I agree that as recently as yesterday I was unaware of the full extent of side effects (although I was with about an order of magnitude, that doesn't say very much).

I agree that, as a male, I am not the best person to ask regarding what methods of abortion happen to be popular in what parts of the world right now.

I agree that I should have been clearer as to which method of abortion to which I was referring.

I'd like to note that further discussion of this topic isn't really appropriate for this thread.

Fair enough.

The process is walking up the stairs. I am using the process even if I only get halfway up. I just haven't yet finished the process.


This is just vagueness. If you go halway up the stairs, then stop and go back down, you have used a different process then if you go all the way up and all the way down.


A theory can only result from experimentation because it takes evidence to move something from the hypothesis level to the theory level in science. It isn't automagically a theory - it has to first be tested. That doesn't mean that all aspects of it must be tested. Indeed, some of them we may not yet be able to test (there are still ways to test the theory of relativity being found). But it must have held up to the testing already done.


But a direct mathematical consequence of a theory has to be defined as one of three things:

--another theory (since, as a direct mathematical consequence it would be just as accepted as the original theory (assuming the proof was valid), and acceptance (and lack of existing contradicting evidence) are my only criteria for something to be a theory)
--part of the same theory (in which case, we disagree on the formal use of the term scientific theory, not just my informal use of it in a previous post, and that appears to be the entire extent of this part of our disagreement)
--an hypothesis (in which case, you are requiring different things from something in order for it to be a theory, which I expect is the case, as mentioned above)




A *scientific* theory can only result from the scientific method.


At this point I thought it was assumed that I was taking the scientific sense of the term theory; based on your definition of theory, I do not disbelieve this claim (intentional use of a double negative, as I don't think the Law of Excluded Middle applies here).


I never said that experimentation is the only source of truth. Of course, science isn't the only source of truth. But it is one method for determining truth - provided that the assumptions it is based in are correct. Math would be precluded as being a science in and of itself (although it is certainly used in science) because it is a different sort of pursuit. That doesn't mean that one cannot gain knowledge using it, it simply means that it isn't science.


I meant scientific truth.

Obviously some people believe in religious truth.

And you believe in an independent mathematical truth.


Science is based in empiricism and the idea that, if we test something and fail to disprove it, we have supported it.

This was not in question. The question was merely if science occurs without the scientific method. My claim can thus be broken down as follows, and we can see each individual point we disagree upon:

If,

we define a "scientific theory" as a formal statement which validly explains (given the probability of random error) existing observations (i.e., is not contradicted), and is falsifiable, and is accepted to be true,

then,

it is possible to formulate a scientific theory without that theory having been tested,

so that,

if,

we define "the scientific method" as the COMPLETE PROCESS of making some amount of observations, formulating a statement, testing the statement in some way, and reaching a conclusion

then,

it is possible to formulate a scientific theory without following the scientific method.



We clearly disagree on the definitions, I concede that taking your definitions you have to use the scientific method to come up with any sort of science at all, since you have to use the scientific method in order to come up with a falsifiable statement.



Mathematics is not science because mathematic theorems do not require one to adhere to the scientific method.


Score one for circular logic. You've just defined science as requiring the scientific method, thus you have to use the scientific method to do science.

This is just vagueness. If you go halway up the stairs, then stop and go back down, you have used a different process then if you go all the way up and all the way down.

That is idiotic. No, I haven't. The process of walking up the stairs is the process of walking up the stairs. Even if I only go up to the middle and stay there, I have used the process. I simply haven't used the entire process.

((And who said anything about going back down? I was using your idea of making a hypothesis and then stopping. Thus, the analogy is going partway up the stairs and then just stopping))

But a direct mathematical consequence of a theory has to be defined as one of three things:

--another theory (since, as a direct mathematical consequence it would be just as accepted as the original theory (assuming the proof was valid), and acceptance (and lack of existing contradicting evidence) are my only criteria for something to be a theory)
--part of the same theory (in which case, we disagree on the formal use of the term scientific theory, not just my informal use of it in a previous post, and that appears to be the entire extent of this part of our disagreement)
--an hypothesis (in which case, you are requiring different things from something in order for it to be a theory, which I expect is the case, as mentioned above)

A direct mathematical consequence of a theory is logically and necessarily a part of that theory - as it is a DIRECT consequence. The only way to get around this is to suggest that mathematics is not logical.


At this point I thought it was assumed that I was taking the scientific sense of the term theory; based on your definition of theory, I do not disbelieve this claim (intentional use of a double negative, as I don't think the Law of Excluded Middle applies here).

I meant scientific truth.

Truth is truth is truth. Science is just one way to try and discover it.

This was not in question. The question was merely if science occurs without the scientific method. My claim can thus be broken down as follows, and we can see each individual point we disagree upon:

If,

we define a "scientific theory" as a formal statement which validly explains (given the probability of random error) existing observations (i.e., is not contradicted), and is falsifiable, and is accepted to be true,

then,

it is possible to formulate a scientific theory without that theory having been tested,

And you are misdefining scientific theory. Seriously, one only has to look in a grade school textbook to see the problem here. And later textbooks assume you already know it.

so that,

if,

we define "the scientific method" as the COMPLETE PROCESS of making some amount of observations, formulating a statement, testing the statement in some way, and reaching a conclusion

then,

it is possible to formulate a scientific theory without following the scientific method.

The method is the complete process, but one need not have gone through the complete method yet to be using it.

If I am going through a process with 10 steps, and I only get to step 3, was I not using the process?

Score one for circular logic. You've just defined science as requiring the scientific method, thus you have to use the scientific method to do science.

Use of the scientific method *is* the definition for science. It isn't circular logic - it is adhering to definitions.

Jocabia, the question at hand is, is the scientific method required for science to be done.

If you define science as being the collection of things reached through use of the scientific method, then the answer is obvious. There is no debate.

If you define science as the collection of all falsifiable statements about the universe that are not contradicted (more than one would expect from random error) within their field, then there is some question as to whether the scientific method is necessarily the only way of reaching a member of this collection.

Of course, if you define doing a process as doing any part of the process, then clearly the scientific method is still required since formulating any of these statements is part of the process of the scientific method.

The question about the use of the term theory versus hypothesis is another one altogether. Certainly in my first post regarding the term I wasn't being formal about it. After that, I have only used that term in what I believe to be the formal sense (unless I have made some error, which is not impossible, but I don't yet believe that I have).

This was not in question. The question was merely if science occurs without the scientific method. My claim can thus be broken down as follows, and we can see each individual point we disagree upon:

If,

we define a "scientific theory" as a formal statement which validly explains (given the probability of random error) existing observations (i.e., is not contradicted), and is falsifiable, and is accepted to be true,

then,

it is possible to formulate a scientific theory without that theory having been tested,

so that,

if,

we define "the scientific method" as the COMPLETE PROCESS of making some amount of observations, formulating a statement, testing the statement in some way, and reaching a conclusion

then,

it is possible to formulate a scientific theory without following the scientific method.

The problem is your assertions are unfounded. You fail to acknowledge that in the absense of following the method it cannot be science by definition. You can declare yourself to be an automobile, but you aren't and no matter how many times you claim you don't have to listen to the definition as set forth, guess what, you do.

We clearly disagree on the definitions, I concede that taking your definitions you have to use the scientific method to come up with any sort of science at all, since you have to use the scientific method in order to come up with a falsifiable statement.[/QUOTE]

They aren't her definitions. They are inherent to the discipline. Much like mathematics as a discipline defines addition or various other truisms that can exist in the creation of a discipline. It's simply a platform from which the discipline jumps off to conduct its work.

Score one for circular logic. You've just defined science as requiring the scientific method, thus you have to use the scientific method to do science.[/QUOTE]

Um, no. Science is a discipline and is defined to be anything that adheres to a particular method we refer to unsuprisingly as the scientific method. Math does not meet the definition of science so it is not. It's like saying that because pen doesn't meet the definition of pencil it is not a pencil. It's not circular. It's just logic.

I didn't define science. Science is defined that way. I simply applied the definition.

Here-
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

I. The scientific method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html#SECTION02121000000000000000

When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node7.html#SECTION02122000000000000000
A hypothesis is a working assumption. Typically, a scientist devises a hypothesis and then sees if it ``holds water'' by testing it against available data (obtained from previous experiments and observations). If the hypothesis does hold water, the scientist declares it to be a theory.

Jocabia, the question at hand is, is the scientific method required for science to be done.

If you define science as being the collection of things reached through use of the scientific method, then the answer is obvious. There is no debate.

If you define science as the collection of all falsifiable statements about the universe that are not contradicted (more than one would expect from random error) within their field, then there is some question as to whether the scientific method is necessarily the only way of reaching a member of this collection.

Of course, if you define doing a process as doing any part of the process, then clearly the scientific method is still required since formulating any of these statements is part of the process of the scientific method.

The question about the use of the term theory versus hypothesis is another one altogether. Certainly in my first post regarding the term I wasn't being formal about it. After that, I have only used that term in what I believe to be the formal sense (unless I have made some error, which is not impossible, but I don't yet believe that I have).

You are redefining science and then complaining that people aren't adhering to your definitions. I don't define science. I simply adhere to the definition as set forth by the discipline.

I can define 4 as being every number greater than 1, but mathematics does not agree with me no matter how many times I say it.

That is idiotic. No, I haven't. The process of walking up the stairs is the process of walking up the stairs. Even if I only go up to the middle and stay there, I have used the process. I simply haven't used the entire process.

((And who said anything about going back down? I was using your idea of making a hypothesis and then stopping. Thus, the analogy is going partway up the stairs and then just stopping))


I added it, because if you don't go back down, then it ceases to be repeatable, which was part of my point (i.e., observe, make a hypothesis, observe, make a hypothesis, etc.).

But if you go up and down one step, versus going up and down the whole staircase, you have used different processes to reach the same location.


A direct mathematical consequence of a theory is logically and necessarily a part of that theory - as it is a DIRECT consequence. The only way to get around this is to suggest that mathematics is not logical.


But some theories only work within a limited domain; Quantum Field Theory fails when you introduce gravity, for example.

Yet taking a theory outside of its domain such as this can be seen as a direct mathematical consequence.

Although, to be fair, I can't come up with any non-trivial examples that require more than one base theory. (Obviously the shoes are an example of an application of the axiom of choice to Newton's more general theory, but (decreasingly) many mathematicians refuse to accept the axiom of choice for other reasons.)



At this point I thought it was assumed that I was taking the scientific sense of the term theory; based on your definition of theory, I do not disbelieve this claim (intentional use of a double negative, as I don't think the Law of Excluded Middle applies here).


This is fair (aside from the implication that the definition of theory I supplied is necessarily not scientific; although in the absence of a definition of scientific, I agree that this is fair).


Truth is truth is truth. Science is just one way to try and discover it.


I meant scientific truth in the original quote; i.e., that you have constructed your definitions such that scientific truth can only be reached through experimentation (or something to that effect; I have to go very soon, so I haven't searched out my exact original words).



And you are misdefining scientific theory. Seriously, one only has to look in a grade school textbook to see the problem here. And later textbooks assume you already know it.


The fact that it is in a grade school textbook doesn't make it true. Grade school textbooks are often full of intentional falsehoods or generalizations--for example the non-existence of negative numbers ("You can't subtract a big number from a small number." being a rather annoying common mantra).



The method is the complete process, but one need not have gone through the complete method yet to be using it.

If I am going through a process with 10 steps, and I only get to step 3, was I not using the process?


If your intent was to stop after step 3, you are using a different process than someone who's intent was to go all the way to step 10.




Use of the scientific method *is* the definition for science. It isn't circular logic - it is adhering to definitions.

Item number three where we differ, although if you want to define science that way, then by definition it is true that science necessarily uses the scientific method.

I'll just go tell a bunch of theoretical physicists that they aren't doing science.

just go tell a bunch of theoretical physicists that they aren't doing science.

They are using the method. Your argument is flawed.

Here are how they adhere to the 4 steps.

1. They observed phenomena they sought to explain. Black holes, the relationship of various aspects of quantum theory, the behavior of light, relativity, etc. Some of these are other theories but there are such things like string theory that relate these theories and thus other theories are the phenomena.

2. They form a hypothesis which I hope you are not debating.

3. They make predictions about other phenomena that would result.

4. They model that out mathematically using information from our study of space and time and see if their theories bear out within the models and if the changes in the models still reflect the real world.

They have repeatedly tested these hypotheses, but they simply use a form of testing that is not physical and relies on a form of modeling because of the scale and because of limitations in our technology. It is only different from experimental physics because experimental physics tends to use physical expermiments rather than modeling. It does not mean no experimentation is done on the part of theoretical physicists.

Score one for circular logic. You've just defined science as requiring the scientific method, thus you have to use the scientific method to do science.

that is typically the way that definitions work

You are redefining science and then complaining that people aren't adhering to your definitions. I don't define science. I simply adhere to the definition as set forth by the discipline.


1) I'm not redefining science. It was not, prior to the definition I provided, defined on this thread. I provided a definition, since it became apparent we disagree on its meaning. Indeed, our differing definitions in fact refer to different collections of knowledge, so it makes sense that we got different answers when asked the same question about it.

2) There is no such thing as a diefinition set forth by a discipline, only the definition used by many of the adherents to a discipline. Other definitions aren't invalid; merely sometimes confusing.

3) Only an individual can define words for themselves; by chooising one definition of science and not another, you are defining science.

4) If you wish to use the particular definition you have chosen, there is no point in providing any answer to the initial question beyond; by definition, yes. This is true in the same way that if you include, say, a requirement that in order for something to be alive, it must be able to reproduce while only in the company of like entities, you have necessarily excluded viruses from your definition of living things, so it becomes pointless to ask the question of whether or not viruses are alive, since the answer has become, by definition, no. Questions like this only matter when you try to generalize your definitions.

For another mathematical example, consider possible definitions of the term "set". One (naive) definition might be, a set is a "collection" (not a well defined term) of "sets". This causes us to ask the question, are all such "collections" sets? The answer, if you are familiar with Russel's Paradox, is no. But then we ask the question, are there any sets? The answer is, we don't know yet. So we generalize the definition to say (or add an axiom), the collection of no elements is a set. Then we can ask all sorts of questions about sets we couldn't ask without generalizing our definition (or getting the same answer as when we asked if there were any sets; we don't know).

In the same way, we are asking a question on this forum; "Is the scientific method necessary for science?" If we start with your definition--the one accepted by many teachers (and possibly scientists, I certainly haven't asked enough to answer that either way), is yes.

But we can expand our definition of science to allow for the possibility of arriving at perfectly valid results without requiring that the "scientific method" be employed. This isn't necessary, but we lose nothing (except possibly consistency, which we have to be careful about) by doing so.


I can define 4 as being every number greater than 1, but mathematics does not agree with me no matter how many times I say it.


If you want the symbol 4 to represent the set of all natural numbers greater than one this is only confusing notation, not inherently contradictory. It is only when you want the symbol 4 to both represent this set and the natural number normally referred to as 4 that you have a contradiction (since 4 would then be a symbol referring to two different sets).


And now I really do I have to leave for a while.

1) I'm not redefining science. It was not, prior to the definition I provided, defined on this thread.

Yes, because we assumed no one who didn't understand the definition of science would be arguing in this thread. We were mistaken.

I provided a definition, since it became apparent we disagree on its meaning.

You provided an inaccurate definition. I gave you many links on what the scientific method is, how it relates to science and how it works.

Indeed, our differing definitions in fact refer to different collections of knowledge, so it makes sense that we got different answers when asked the same question about it.

Yes, and only one of the definition is actually the definition of science. And, sorry, kid, it wasn't yours.

2) There is no such thing as a diefinition set forth by a discipline, only the definition used by many of the adherents to a discipline. Other definitions aren't invalid; merely sometimes confusing.

A discipline is created under a set of definitions. Without them, there is no discipline. You are not free to disagree on those definitions. You either adhere to the discipline or don't. That's why ID is not a scientific theory. It does not adhere to the method.

Science by definition requires the scientific method. Without it, it is not science. It's quite simple really.

3) Only an individual can define words for themselves; by chooising one definition of science and not another, you are defining science.

Boob oowac kato lacka thither. Communication requires us to use common language not to individually define words. But since you claim otherwise, the rest of my argument is in the first sentence of this paragraph.

4) If you wish to use the particular definition you have chosen, there is no point in providing any answer to the initial question beyond; by definition, yes. This is true in the same way that if you include, say, a requirement that in order for something to be alive, it must be able to reproduce while only in the company of like entities, you have necessarily excluded viruses from your definition of living things, so it becomes pointless to ask the question of whether or not viruses are alive, since the answer has become, by definition, no. Questions like this only matter when you try to generalize your definitions.

Can you show me any scientific link that suggests the scientific method is not NECESSARY to conduct science? That all science adheres to the scientific method is a truism.

For another mathematical example, consider possible definitions of the term "set". One (naive) definition might be, a set is a "collection" (not a well defined term) of "sets". This causes us to ask the question, are all such "collections" sets? The answer, if you are familiar with Russel's Paradox, is no. But then we ask the question, are there any sets? The answer is, we don't know yet. So we generalize the definition to say (or add an axiom), the collection of no elements is a set. Then we can ask all sorts of questions about sets we couldn't ask without generalizing our definition (or getting the same answer as when we asked if there were any sets; we don't know).

Science is not math. That is why you are confused.

In the same way, we are asking a question on this forum; "Is the scientific method necessary for science?" If we start with your definition--the one accepted by many teachers (and possibly scientists, I certainly haven't asked enough to answer that either way), is yes.

Not accepted, inherent to the actual discipline. There are no scientists who claim the scientific method isn't a necessary part of all scientific endeavors.

But we can expand our definition of science to allow for the possibility of arriving at perfectly valid results without requiring that the "scientific method" be employed. This isn't necessary, but we lose nothing (except possibly consistency, which we have to be careful about) by doing so.

Nope. You can apply that to logic or a dozen other disciplines, but science requires the scientific method.

If you want the symbol 4 to represent the set of all natural numbers greater than one this is only confusing notation, not inherently contradictory. It is only when you want the symbol 4 to both represent this set and the natural number normally referred to as 4 that you have a contradiction (since 4 would then be a symbol referring to two different sets).


And now I really do I have to leave for a while.

You cannot redefine the discipline. If I say 4 is the set of all numbers greater than one, I'm not forming a hypothesis. I'm simply wrong.

I added it, because if you don't go back down, then it ceases to be repeatable, which was part of my point (i.e., observe, make a hypothesis, observe, make a hypothesis, etc.).

You don't follow conversations well, do you?

It's called an analogy. There is a process to going up a flight of stairs. Even if I only go up halfway and then stop, I have still used that process.

Likewise, there is a process to science - the scientific method. Even if I only observe and hypothesize, I have used that process. I simply have not used the entirety of the process.

I meant scientific truth in the original quote; i.e., that you have constructed your definitions such that scientific truth can only be reached through experimentation (or something to that effect; I have to go very soon, so I haven't searched out my exact original words).

There is no such thing as "scientific truth." There is truth. I think that science, in many cases, is a good way of finding the truth.

The fact that it is in a grade school textbook doesn't make it true. Grade school textbooks are often full of intentional falsehoods or generalizations--for example the non-existence of negative numbers ("You can't subtract a big number from a small number." being a rather annoying common mantra).

No, it doesn't. But the fact that *every* textbook, through college, uses these defintions, whether it specifically lays them out or not, and that these definitions are used throughout the scientific community and in scientific journals absolutely does.

Seriously, would you like a list of the science textbooks I own or have read, each of which used the exact same definitions?

If your intent was to stop after step 3, you are using a different process than someone who's intent was to go all the way to step 10.

Who says your intent is to stop? Sometimes it just happens that way. A bunch of scientists can sit around and hypothesize all day. The intent is that all the hypotheses that are not contradicted by observation will eventually be tested. If those particular scientists don't get to them, that sucks, but it wasn't part of the intent.

Item number three where we differ, although if you want to define science that way, then by definition it is true that science necessarily uses the scientific method.

That is *the* way that science, as a profession, is defined.

I'll just go tell a bunch of theoretical physicists that they aren't doing science.

Of course they are. They are making observations and proposing hypotheses and/or adding to established theories. Much of what they are proposing cannot, at this time, be tested - as we simply don't have the technology for it. They don't intend for these things never to be tested - they simply cannot test them at this time. And some of it can be tested as Jocabia proposed, through testing for predictions that fall out of the hypotheses.

Yes, because we assumed no one who didn't understand the definition of science would be arguing in this thread. We were mistaken.


There is no need to refer to yourself in the third person.

One very thinly veiled ad hominem attack deserves another.


You provided an inaccurate definition. I gave you many links on what the scientific method is, how it relates to science and how it works.


You provided two independent links to slightly differing undergraduate level physics references (unless I missed something). This proves only that some people are taught that the so called "scientific method" is the only approach to science.



Yes, and only one of the definition is actually the definition of science. And, sorry, kid, it wasn't yours.


Funny, since www.dictionary.com seems to think that science (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=science) means:


sci·ence Audio pronunciation of "science" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sns)
n.

1.
1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
5. Science Christian Science.




Which, (in addition to being more than one definition) while it includes the scientific method as an option, seems somewhat broader than that...

Of course, that doesn't mean I agree with all of www.dictionary.com's definition either; I certainly don't think Christian "science" is a form of science.


A discipline is created under a set of definitions. Without them, there is no discipline. You are not free to disagree on those definitions. You either adhere to the discipline or don't. That's why ID is not a scientific theory. It does not adhere to the method.


Funny; this statement seems to imply that scientists never disagree on the definitions of anything.......


I'm also uncertain how ID got into this discussion...since it's not falsifiable it's clearly not science under either definition.



Boob oowac kato lacka thither. Communication requires us to use common language not to individually define words. But since you claim otherwise, the rest of my argument is in the first sentence of this paragraph.


Actually, communication requires us to continually redefine words through usage. This is how dialects, and, ultimately, independent languages, form. Although, since I'm not familiar with any of the words in your first sentence, I'm going to have to ask you to provide more complete definitions for me.


Can you show me any scientific link that suggests the scientific method is not NECESSARY to conduct science? That all science adheres to the scientific method is a truism.


How about reading the second post of this thread (http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10533473&postcount=2).

Or I can just repeat their link (http://www.msu.edu/user/boswort9/attempt1/cep817web/amasci/scimis.htm) for you.


Science is not math. That is why you are confused.


While I would hold that mathematics is a form of science, I understand that many don't agree that math(s) is necessarily the underlying language of the universe. Any other distinction I believe to be somewhat absurd.


Not accepted, inherent to the actual discipline. There are no scientists who claim the scientific method isn't a necessary part of all scientific endeavors.


Theoretical physicists do not follow the scientific method, unless you want to include creating "scientific models" as valid forms of natural experiment, in which case almost anything can be construed as valid science--we can call this new branch of science Inconsistentology; where you feed any hypothesis into a computer program, and the program tells you that it is consistent with all existing hypotheses.


You cannot redefine the discipline. If I say 4 is the set of all numbers greater than one, I'm not forming a hypothesis. I'm simply wrong.

This could be a perfectly consistent definition of the symbol 4; simply one entirely independent from the usual set theoretic definition of the symbol 4.



You don't follow conversations well, do you?

It's called an analogy. There is a process to going up a flight of stairs. Even if I only go up halfway and then stop, I have still used that process.

Likewise, there is a process to science - the scientific method. Even if I only observe and hypothesize, I have used that process. I simply have not used the entirety of the process.


And if I sit down at a table, shuffle a regular 52 card deck, and deal the cards into 4 piles of 13 have I just played bridge (or hearts, or spades, or whist, or any of a number of other card games that begin in a similar manner)? Even if my intent was to stop, or to play a different game after that?

There's another analogy for you.



There is no such thing as "scientific truth." There is truth. I think that science, in many cases, is a good way of finding the truth.


There is truth. There are statements we believe most likely to be true, coming from science. It seemed reasonable to call these things "scientific truth".


No, it doesn't. But the fact that *every* textbook, through college, uses these defintions, whether it specifically lays them out or not, and that these definitions are used throughout the scientific community and in scientific journals absolutely does.

Seriously, would you like a list of the science textbooks I own or have read, each of which used the exact same definitions?


You should feel free to post such a list (particularly if they all define things like "science" in them). It's not clear how well it would support your argument, but I'd certainly be interested in knowing what branches of science you read about.


Who says your intent is to stop? Sometimes it just happens that way. A bunch of scientists can sit around and hypothesize all day. The intent is that all the hypotheses that are not contradicted by observation will eventually be tested. If those particular scientists don't get to them, that sucks, but it wasn't part of the intent.


Unless you say that a process is the same as any part of that process (which is silly; note the card game analogy above), then by your own definition any time spent coming up with hypotheses that are never tested (the intent of them being tested being a whole other issue, which I regret having brought up in an attempt to make my example clearer) is not time spent doing science.


Of course they are. They are making observations and proposing hypotheses and/or adding to established theories. Much of what they are proposing cannot, at this time, be tested - as we simply don't have the technology for it. They don't intend for these things never to be tested - they simply cannot test them at this time. And some of it can be tested as Jocabia proposed, through testing for predictions that fall out of the hypotheses.


I agree that they are. Yet under your own definition, whenever they are working on a hypothesis that can't yet be tested, they clearly aren't, since there can be no way that they are following "the scientific method". You can call this process the "hypothesizing method" and include as science both "the scientific method" and the "hypothesizing method", and then I would agree that anything that should be called science uses one of these methods. But you have chosen to limit your definition to just one method, which is clearly not being followed in the case of the development of (as yet) untestable hypoteses.

There is no need to refer to yourself in the third person.

One very thinly veiled ad hominem attack deserves another.

It's not an ad hominem. It's true. Science has a definition. I doubt it occurred to anyone that we would have to explain that definition. You have proven that to be an invalid assumption. Are you denying that you said it was necessary to define science so you knew the definition we were using? Worse you linked to a lay dictionary as an authority on the discipline.

Now, if you're offended then that must mean that you think that it being necessary to define science is as ludicrous as we do. Then why did you suggest we needed to do so?

You provided two independent links to slightly differing undergraduate level physics references (unless I missed something). This proves only that some people are taught that the so called "scientific method" is the only approach to science.

Seriously. Tell me you're joking. How about you show me a link that argues that the scientific method is NOT required for science and not one that is just an individual student at MSU? Nothing above undergraduate level explains it because it's assumed that everyone knows it by time they graduate college in any of the sciences. Did you seriously read that link you used?

The Scientific Method" is a myth spread by school books. It is an extremely widespread myth, but this doesn't make it any more real. "The Scientific Method" is part of school and school books, and is not part of real science. Real scientists use a large variety of methods (perhaps call them "The Methods of Science" rather than "The Scientific Method.")

In four sentences the guy repeats himself three times and uses two logical fallacies. Tell me can you pick out the fallacies in just the quoted part?

Funny, since www.dictionary.com seems to think that science (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=science) means:

We aren't talking about a lay definition. We are talking about how the discipline of science requires that science be practiced. You're not seriously claiming that dictionary.com is the place to best understand the discipline, are you?


Which, (in addition to being more than one definition) while it includes the scientific method as an option, seems somewhat broader than that...

That's because it's a lay definition. It also doesn't provide the list of biological requirements for an organism under the definition of organism. That only proves it is a lay definition.

Of course, that doesn't mean I agree with all of www.dictionary.com's definition either; I certainly don't think Christian "science" is a form of science.

Dictionaries don't define disciiplines. They define word usage. Christian science is a usage of the word. In this thread we are talking about the discipline. It's relatively clear to everyone here that we are talking about the structured discipline of science throughout this thread.

Funny; this statement seems to imply that scientists never disagree on the definitions of anything.......

Um, no, it doesn't. It implies there are some things that are truisms.

I'm also uncertain how ID got into this discussion...since it's not falsifiable it's clearly not science under either definition.

It's not science because science is a defined discipline and people don't get to redefine it at their whim. They wish to do so, just as you wish to do so. They are both wrong. Clearly, some would argue that ID is science and were they permitted to redefine science as you wish to do, they would be valid in that claim.

Actually, communication requires us to continually redefine words through usage. This is how dialects, and, ultimately, independent languages, form. Although, since I'm not familiar with any of the words in your first sentence, I'm going to have to ask you to provide more complete definitions for me.

Actually, communication allows words to evolve as necessary, but we generally do not have define the words we use each time we use them. Otherwise, dictionaries would be completely useless instead of just having to updated on a periodic basis.

How about reading the second post of this thread (http://www.forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10533473&postcount=2).

Or I can just repeat their link (http://www.msu.edu/user/boswort9/attempt1/cep817web/amasci/scimis.htm) for you.

Amusing. Your reliable sources are some random guy at MSU who writes at high school level and has no more authority that anyone posting in this thread and dictionary.com. What's next? You gonna link me to the Kansas legislature. When you appeal to authorities you should, you know, actually find an authority.

While I would hold that mathematics is a form of science, I understand that many don't agree that math(s) is necessarily the underlying language of the universe. Any other distinction I believe to be somewhat absurd.

Fortunately, it's not up to you.

Theoretical physicists do not follow the scientific method, unless you want to include creating "scientific models" as valid forms of natural experiment, in which case almost anything can be construed as valid science--we can call this new branch of science Inconsistentology; where you feed any hypothesis into a computer program, and the program tells you that it is consistent with all existing hypotheses.

Natural experiment is not a requirement. Scientific models are and have been a valid form of testing for essentially all the time science has existed. Natural testing only occurs when we have the ability to do so.

This could be a perfectly consistent definition of the symbol 4; simply one entirely independent from the usual set theoretic definition of the symbol 4.

If I defined four in that way, do you think I'd get published. I would be asked why I am trying to redefine set universal symbols and then laughed out of the room.

And if I sit down at a table, shuffle a regular 52 card deck, and deal the cards into 4 piles of 13 have I just played bridge (or hearts, or spades, or whist, or any of a number of other card games that begin in a similar manner)? Even if my intent was to stop, or to play a different game after that?

There's another analogy for you.

If the analogy was apt, it would be useful. Science doesn't require you to finish the scientific method to conduct science only to adhere to it. You're argument is like saying I set out to run to the store but if I only start running I haven't ran because I haven't yet finished my goal. The scientific method is a path not a destination. It's a means of traveling toward theories and laws. Because you haven't reached the theory or law level means only that. You are still following the path required to conduct science.

The funny thing about analogies is they actually have to have something in common with the actual thing you are trying to explain.

By the way, are you suggesting that if we started playing Spades and didn't finish that we never played Spades? In your analogy, you never started playing.

I just felt like reposting this:

The big organising priciples of science are theories, coherent systems of thought that explain huge numbers of otherwise isolated facts, which have survived strenous testing deliberately designed to break them if they do not accord to reality. They have not been merely accepted as some act of scientiffic faith: instead, people have tried to falsify them - to prove them wrong - but have so far failed. These failures do not prove them true, because there are always new sources of potential discord. Isaac Newton's theory of gravitation, in conjunction with his laws of motion, was - and still is - good enough to explain the movements of planets, asteroids and other bodies of the solar system in intricate detail, with high accuracy. But in some contexts, such as black holes, it has now been replaces by Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity.

...

Most science is incremental, but some is more radical. Newton's theory was one of the great breakthroughs of science - not a shower of rain disturbing the surface of the lake, but an intellectual storm that released a raging torrent. [...] Darwin did for biology what Newton had done for physics, but in a very different way. Newton developed mathematical equations that let physicists calculate numbers and test them to many decimal places; it was a quantitive theory. Darwin's idea is expressed in words, not equations, and it describes a qualitative process, not numbers. Despite that, its influence has been at least as great as Newton's, possibly even greater. Darwin's torrent still rages today.

Evolution, then, is a theory, one of the most influential, far-reaching and important theories ever devised. In this context, it's worth pointing out that the word 'theory' is often used in a quite different sense, to mean an idea that is proposed in order to be tested. Strictly speaking, the word that should be used here is 'hypothesis', but that's such a fussy, pedantic-sounding word that people tend to avoid it. Even scientists, who should know better. 'I have a theory', they say. No, you have a hypothesis. It will take years, possibly centuries, of stringent tests, to turn it into a theory.

The theory of evolution was once a hypothesis. Now it is a theory. Detractors seize on the word and forget it's dual use. 'Only a theory', they say dismissively. But a true theory cannot be so easily dismissed, because it has survived so much rigorous testing. In this respect there is far more reason to take the theory of evolution seriously than any explanation of life that depends on, say religious faith, because falsification is not high on the religious agenda. Theories, in that sense, are the best established, most credible parts of science. They are, by and large, considerably more credible than most other products of the human mind. So what these people are thinking of when they chant their dismissive slogan should actually be 'only a hypothesis'.

That was a defensible position in the early days of the theory of evolution, but today it is merely ignorant. If anything can be a fact, evolution is.

Thanks to Ian Stewart & Jack Cohen ;)

Evolution says we evolved from apes
Modern humans did not evolve from modern apes. The funny thing is, that both modern apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor. So, was this ancestor an ape? In all respects, it was a kind of an ape, both human-, and modern ape -like.

But, what's the problem with being evolved from an ape? Do you point at an elephant and say, "Hey, that's a horse", because they're interrelated? Does it make horses bigger that they're related to elephants? Does it make humans stupider or less "noble" if they're related to apes? What's the ffing problem, in summary?

See this tree of life, for example: http://tolweb.org/Eutheria/15997

Evolution = Abiogenesis
Again, what else are living things but self-supporting chemical feedback loops, "soul" aside?

The scientific defnition of theory
Maybe the scientists should stop calling theories "theories" because it's purely a wiener-measuring exercise to say that "I know that in science, the word "theory" is defined like this..." Perhaps "models"?

science is a religion
science will one day stamp out religion
science can and will know EVERYTHING one day
Agreed... These are the really annoying myths. There are plenty of human pursuits that are not science.

The biological definition of organism
The funny thing is, that biologists haven't agreed upon a single definition of "life". So, any myths relating to this aren't guaranteed noncontroversial answers.

It's not an ad hominem. It's true. Science has a definition. I doubt it occurred to anyone that we would have to explain that definition. You have proven that to be an invalid assumption. Are you denying that you said it was necessary to define science so you knew the definition we were using? Worse you linked to a lay dictionary as an authority on the discipline.

Now, if you're offended then that must mean that you think that it being necessary to define science is as ludicrous as we do. Then why did you suggest we needed to do so?


I think it's ludicrous to suggest that there will be perfect agreement about a topic if you DON'T define all of your terms. My link to a lay dictionary was merely to prove the point that single terms often have many definitions; not to suggest that one or another definition is somehow "correct". A definition may be expedient, it may meet (or seem to meet) all the criteria you intuitively expect it to, but this does not make it correct any more than another definition that meets (or seems to meet) these criteria.


Seriously. Tell me you're joking. How about you show me a link that argues that the scientific method is NOT required for science and not one that is just an individual student at MSU? Nothing above undergraduate level explains it because it's assumed that everyone knows it by time they graduate college in any of the sciences. Did you seriously read that link you used?


At the time I had only read the linked page... further poking around led to this page (http://amasci.com/me.html), which seems to indicate that you, did not, in fact, actually act to determine the author of this source (since this page claims that the author is a professor there). Cursory examination of his references yields an article from "School Science & Mathematics", an article written by a professor of physics at "Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania", an article by a nobel laureate (in physics), an unrelated reference, and an article by a published neurophysiologist.

But that doesn't qualify any of them to speak on the subject in your mind, does it?


We aren't talking about a lay definition. We are talking about how the discipline of science requires that science be practiced. You're not seriously claiming that dictionary.com is the place to best understand the discipline, are you?


No, as mentioned above, I was merely trying to claim that it is fallacious to assume that there is a universally correct definition of a term.


That's because it's a lay definition. It also doesn't provide the list of biological requirements for an organism under the definition of organism. That only proves it is a lay definition.


Which is precisely why there is more than one definition for the term organism. Indeed, I find it quite doubtful that there is even a uniquely accepted technical definition for the term organism.


Dictionaries don't define disciiplines. They define word usage. Christian science is a usage of the word. In this thread we are talking about the discipline. It's relatively clear to everyone here that we are talking about the structured discipline of science throughout this thread.


If a word can have multiple definitions in one sense, why can't it have multiple definition in another?


Um, no, it doesn't. It implies there are some things that are truisms.


There are statements that are truisms. Such as, "an apple is an apple", given the usual definition of the term "is". This is a truism because, with the stipulation that we are using the usual definition of the term "is", no matter how we define "an apple" the statement is true.

Similarly, the statement "science must use the scientific method" is not a truism if we define "must", "use", and "the scientific method" in the usual ways, since we can choose a definition of science for which the statement is false. Furthermore, that statement still isn't a truism, even if we stipulate that scientific statements must be falsifiable, and that subjects which we agree are sciences (and which we agree are not excluded by each others' definitions) must be included as sciences.


It's not science because science is a defined discipline and people don't get to redefine it at their whim. They wish to do so, just as you wish to do so. They are both wrong. Clearly, some would argue that ID is science and were they permitted to redefine science as you wish to do, they would be valid in that claim.


Clearly they can do so; it's just not especially useful since it makes science a useless term. You have yet to provide anything incorrect or inconsistent about my definition other than to say that it is wrong because it is different, and to say that it conflicts with the undergraduate curricula at the University of Rochester and at the University of California (Riverside).


Actually, communication allows words to evolve as necessary, but we generally do not have define the words we use each time we use them. Otherwise, dictionaries would be completely useless instead of just having to updated on a periodic basis.


While it is true that we rarely define words in normal speech, we also rarely get into pedantic discussions such as this one in normal speech. If two strangers get into a random discussion about some highly pedantic subject--say, philosophy--they would likely have to define many terms that they would not define in informal speech, and would likely find many differences in their definitions.


Amusing. Your reliable sources are some random guy at MSU who writes at high school level and has no more authority that anyone posting in this thread and dictionary.com. What's next? You gonna link me to the Kansas legislature. When you appeal to authorities you should, you know, actually find an authority.


I was not attempting to "appeal to an authority" by consulting dictionary.com, merely demonstrate that words always have multiple accepted definitions, with a few possible exceptions related solely to grammar (I would not be especially surprised if a term such as "a" had only a single definition; but I would extend this possibility to only a few dozen terms and their close relatives; even simple terms like "it", "you", "that", and "or" have multiple definitions, no one of which is necessarily more correct than the others, sometimes even within a single usage).


Fortunately, it's not up to you.


Nor is it up to you, ultimately, what anyone else thinks (although you do have final say over your own opinion), yet we seem to be perfectly content to attempt to bludgeon each other with positions we believe to be so obviously correct as to feel frustrated. Go figure.


Natural experiment is not a requirement. Scientific models are and have been a valid form of testing for essentially all the time science has existed. Natural testing only occurs when we have the ability to do so.


And yet this does nothing to refute the argument provided--that you allow anything to become part of science by simply having the "right model".


If I defined four in that way, do you think I'd get published. I would be asked why I am trying to redefine set universal symbols and then laughed out of the room.


If you were writing something sufficiently insightful, they'd probably just ask you to pick a different symbol, in the same way that if you wrote a number theory paper and tried to use the symbol zeta for something other than the Riemann zeta function and there was any likelihood of confusion, they'd probably just ask you to use a different symbol.

As a side note, so called "universal symbols" such as '+' and '*' are often used even when the operations on the reals (or whatever your favorite extension of the rationals might be) are not the ones intended. This is because they tend to share useful properties (such as commutivity, associativity, etc.) with their more "universal" usage. In the same way, if the set of natural number greater than 1 was in some way similar to the natural number 4, for purposes of whatever you were expounding on, there might be no issue with re-use of the symbol. For example, when Dedekind first developed the Dedekind cut method of constructing the real numbers, there were then two distinct sets referred to by the number 1/2, yet both share the same symbol (except when this would directly cause confusion, in which case some notational marker to describe the difference is generally used).


If the analogy was apt, it would be useful. Science doesn't require you to finish the scientific method to conduct science only to adhere to it. You're argument is like saying I set out to run to the store but if I only start running I haven't ran because I haven't yet finished my goal. The scientific method is a path not a destination. It's a means of traveling toward theories and laws. Because you haven't reached the theory or law level means only that. You are still following the path required to conduct science.

The funny thing about analogies is they actually have to have something in common with the actual thing you are trying to explain.


The analogy was an attempt to explain why doing part of a process is not equivalent to doing the entire process. Certainly the analogy had something in common with this question. Indeed, in your analogy, you have started running, but you haven't (and may never) run to the store. You have only started running.

In the same way, if I sit down and come up with a bunch of scientific hypotheses about the universe, I have followed part of the scientific method, but I have not followed the scientific method. If you wish to include doing such a thing as science you either have to define the scientific method more generally (at which point it ceases to be a single process), or you have to define science more generally (as I have done).


By the way, are you suggesting that if we started playing Spades and didn't finish that we never played Spades? In your analogy, you never started playing.

I did the first few steps of playing--I sat down, shuffled the deck, and dealt the cards.

In the same way, if we started playing a single hand of Spades, and stopped before we finished, you might say we played some Spades (something you could even do after the steps above), but you couldn't (truthfully) say, we played a hand of Spades, since we stopped before we finished.

I cut the analogy off where I did because I didn't want to have to introduce additional people (or require that it be a specific game). If you want to say that playing doesn't start until after dealing, consider the following revised scenario:

Four people sit down at a table. One of them shuffles and deals as before. The four players bid their hands as if they are playing Spades. The players then stop, and all leave. Would you truthfully call that "playing a hand of Spades"?

I think it's ludicrous to suggest that there will be perfect agreement about a topic if you DON'T define all of your terms. My link to a lay dictionary was merely to prove the point that single terms often have many definitions; not to suggest that one or another definition is somehow "correct". A definition may be expedient, it may meet (or seem to meet) all the criteria you intuitively expect it to, but this does not make it correct any more than another definition that meets (or seems to meet) these criteria.

Again, you misunderstand the use of a dictionary. Dictionaries are for lay use. They do not apply here.

At the time I had only read the linked page... further poking around led to this page (http://amasci.com/me.html), which seems to indicate that you, did not, in fact, actually act to determine the author of this source (since this page claims that the author is a professor there). Cursory examination of his references yields an article from "School Science & Mathematics", an article written by a professor of physics at "Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania", an article by a nobel laureate (in physics), an unrelated reference, and an article by a published neurophysiologist.

But that doesn't qualify any of them to speak on the subject in your mind, does it?

Um, the link to the nobel laureate is not someone who agrees with him. It's someone whose work is misunderstood by the guy you linked. I met Beaty. He's fairly unimpressive. One need only read the actual part where he shows that he absolutely does not understand what expermentation is. He thinks experiments cannot be measurements and that in astronomy it is impossible. to experiment. That's utterly rediculous. His proof is flawed because "There are many parts of science that cannot easily be forced into the mold of "hypothesis-experiment-conclusion." Astronomy is not an experimental science" That statements is so flawed that I'm pretty sure anyone reading this is laughing at that guy. This guy has a grade school understanding of the term. That you would deceptively link him to the nobel laureate is evidence that you don't care for intellectual honesty.

No, as mentioned above, I was merely trying to claim that it is fallacious to assume that there is a universally correct definition of a term.

If the definition does not include the scientific method then it's not a definition for the discipline.

Which is precisely why there is more than one definition for the term organism. Indeed, I find it quite doubtful that there is even a uniquely accepted technical definition for the term organism.

In lay use, there is. Your argument is flawed. If you're trying to prove you are a lay person who misuses the term science, I agree.

If a word can have multiple definitions in one sense, why can't it have multiple definition in another?

It's not just a word. It's a discipline. It's like saying that baseball can be defnined as a game where you shoot at each other with arrows. Yes, there are lots of ways of playing baseball, but if it doesn't include certain basic elements, it's simply not baseball.

There are statements that are truisms. Such as, "an apple is an apple", given the usual definition of the term "is". This is a truism because, with the stipulation that we are using the usual definition of the term "is", no matter how we define "an apple" the statement is true.

There are other truisms. "Baseball is not played with a softball."

Similarly, the statement "science must use the scientific method" is not a truism if we define "must", "use", and "the scientific method" in the usual ways, since we can choose a definition of science for which the statement is false. Furthermore, that statement still isn't a truism, even if we stipulate that scientific statements must be falsifiable, and that subjects which we agree are sciences (and which we agree are not excluded by each others' definitions) must be included as sciences.

No, you can't. Not if you say, "The discipline of science must use the scienitific method." You are trying to use a definition of science that does not apply. Your argument is that you didn't understand what version of science we are talking about and you weren't sure if we were actually referencing the definition? You do realize there is such a thing as context. In this context, you cannot just use any definition you like and not sound like you're just being silly.

Example: A thread discussing whether or not a baby is killed by abortion.
One of the definitions of baby is - b : something that is one's special responsibility, achievement, or interest

Anyone who tries to claim that we could possibly be referring to that definition when discussing baby needs to learn to better use context in reading comprehension.
Clearly they can do so; it's just not especially useful since it makes science a useless term. You have yet to provide anything incorrect or inconsistent about my definition other than to say that it is wrong because it is different, and to say that it conflicts with the undergraduate curricula at the University of Rochester and at the University of California (Riverside).

No, it makes it useless to them. The rest of us humbly ignore them and anyone else who tries to do so. Or we waste a couple of days trying to make them understand that the dictionary defines words not disciplines.

While it is true that we rarely define words in normal speech, we also rarely get into pedantic discussions such as this one in normal speech. If two strangers get into a random discussion about some highly pedantic subject--say, philosophy--they would likely have to define many terms that they would not define in informal speech, and would likely find many differences in their definitions.

We aren't using normal speech. We are using jargon. That is why casual definitions are inappropriate. You might as well be arguing whether evolutionary theory uses the lay definition of theory. It doesn't. It's scientific jargon that has a very definite way of using the word.

I was not attempting to "appeal to an authority" by consulting dictionary.com, merely demonstrate that words always have multiple accepted definitions, with a few possible exceptions related solely to grammar (I would not be especially surprised if a term such as "a" had only a single definition; but I would extend this possibility to only a few dozen terms and their close relatives; even simple terms like "it", "you", "that", and "or" have multiple definitions, no one of which is necessarily more correct than the others, sometimes even within a single usage).

The only thing you demonstrated is that you agree with the people who claim that evolution is "just a theory" because they don't understand the difference between a use of a word within a discipline and without.

Nor is it up to you, ultimately, what anyone else thinks (although you do have final say over your own opinion), yet we seem to be perfectly content to attempt to bludgeon each other with positions we believe to be so obviously correct as to feel frustrated. Go figure.

Ha. Amusing. Again, some things are truisms. That, for example, science uses a form of jargon when using the term, theory, and is not simply referencing an "2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION" is a truism. Your failure to recognize that the definition of the discipline of science cannot be found in a dictionary is rather sad.


And yet this does nothing to refute the argument provided--that you allow anything to become part of science by simply having the "right model".

A model is just a form of experimentation where a bunch of assumptions are made based on reality. They are extrapolated out to find what is the result of those assumptions and those results are compared with what we know to see if it fits. If it does the means by which we operated the model (based on hypothesis) is supported. If it doesn't, it is disproven. It is of course testing, it simply testing a a part of the natural world that we are as yet unable to test directly. It's simply a form of indirect observation. I hope you're not actually claiming that direct observation is required for experimentation, are you?

Model are not just the "right model". They are reflective of the natural world. Now according to you theoretical physicists might actually be building a "9 : one who is employed to display clothes or other merchandise," since you don't accept that science, theory and model are all forms of jargon within the discipline and that you can't just use any dictionary definition when using the term.

If you were writing something sufficiently insightful, they'd probably just ask you to pick a different symbol, in the same way that if you wrote a number theory paper and tried to use the symbol zeta for something other than the Riemann zeta function and there was any likelihood of confusion, they'd probably just ask you to use a different symbol.

REALLY? They'd ask me not to redefine a symbol or word that is already commonly used in the disciple and defined a certain way? You're kidding. Kind of like they would ask you not to redefine science. Thank you for making my point.

As a side note, so called "universal symbols" such as '+' and '*' are often used even when the operations on the reals (or whatever your favorite extension of the rationals might be) are not the ones intended. This is because they tend to share useful properties (such as commutivity, associativity, etc.) with their more "universal" usage. In the same way, if the set of natural number greater than 1 was in some way similar to the natural number 4, for purposes of whatever you were expounding on, there might be no issue with re-use of the symbol. For example, when Dedekind first developed the Dedekind cut method of constructing the real numbers, there were then two distinct sets referred to by the number 1/2, yet both share the same symbol (except when this would directly cause confusion, in which case some notational marker to describe the difference is generally used).

They are universal symbols. They simply have more than one use. I love how you try to evidence your point by making an assumption false assumption and then proving it is, in fact, false. No one made that assumption about those symbols but you.

The analogy was an attempt to explain why doing part of a process is not equivalent to doing the entire process. Certainly the analogy had something in common with this question. Indeed, in your analogy, you have started running, but you haven't (and may never) run to the store. You have only started running.

But you are still doing the process which is what is important. What your analogy showed is that you haven't engaged in an act until you've started it. Science is a process not the destination. It's running. Not the store. In the case of the scientific method, you have started to conduct science. Sorry. No soup for you.

In the same way, if I sit down and come up with a bunch of scientific hypotheses about the universe, I have followed part of the scientific method, but I have not followed the scientific method. If you wish to include doing such a thing as science you either have to define the scientific method more generally (at which point it ceases to be a single process), or you have to define science more generally (as I have done).

No, you don't. Science requires that you adhere to the scientific method, not that you 'complete' it, since it is never technically done. Until you've violated one of the steps, you are working within the realm of science.

I did the first few steps of playing--I sat down, shuffled the deck, and dealt the cards.

Did you start playing Spades? You didn't start playing a baseball game because you dusted off home plate or pulled out a baseball and bat. Your goofball analogy is that if you haven't started playing Spades then Spades was not played. Duh. However, when you start playing spades and don't finish. You still played Spades. What you analogy shows is that you actually have to start the game.

In the same way, if we started playing a single hand of Spades, and stopped before we finished, you might say we played some Spades (something you could even do after the steps above), but you couldn't (truthfully) say, we played a hand of Spades, since we stopped before we finished.

Notice how you changed your way of saying it. You had to change the sentence to change what you're saying. If I run a mile, I can't honestly say I ran five miles, but I can say I ran.

I cut the analogy off where I did because I didn't want to have to introduce additional people (or require that it be a specific game). If you want to say that playing doesn't start until after dealing, consider the following revised scenario:

Four people sit down at a table. One of them shuffles and deals as before. The four players bid their hands as if they are playing Spades. The players then stop, and all leave. Would you truthfully call that "playing a hand of Spades"?

Again, you a redefining it. A hand is a defined amount. No, they didn't. I didn't run five miles after I've only run a mile. However, we are talking about whether I was running, which requires no amount. I was running or I wasn't. Putting on running shorts and a shirt does not count as running, true. A hypothesis is preparing to use the scientific method. It is using the scientific method. Kind of like, the set-up for a game is called the set-up for a game, not the start of the game. A hypothesis is after the start of the game.

At the time I had only read the linked page... further poking around led to this page (http://amasci.com/me.html), which seems to indicate that you, did not, in fact, actually act to determine the author of this source (since this page claims that the author is a professor there). Cursory examination of his references yields an article from "School Science & Mathematics", an article written by a professor of physics at "Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania", an article by a nobel laureate (in physics), an unrelated reference, and an article by a published neurophysiologist.

But that doesn't qualify any of them to speak on the subject in your mind, does it?
No offense, but even this Beaty refers to himself as an "Amateur Scientist" (http://amasci.com/freenrg/wbelief1.html#a2). And that certainly doesn't disqualify him, or anyone, from offering an opnion on any subject. He does, however, seem from this link to be firmly in the camp of those who would include magic and miracles in science.

No offense, but even this Beaty refers to himself as an "Amateur Scientist" (http://amasci.com/freenrg/wbelief1.html#a2). And that certainly doesn't disqualify him, or anyone, from offering an opnion on any subject. He does, however, seem from this link to be firmly in the camp of those who would include magic and miracles in science.

He also says that astronomists do not conduct experiments. Like I've said, I actually met that guy once, I don't think it's fair to bring his personality to far into this, but I really can't accept him as a source.

I will quote him though.

I've always thought that human creativity has traces of "psychic powers" about it. If PSI is real, then those who strongly deny the existence of everyday PSI are cutting off the source of their own creative thought, to say nothing of giving themselves psychological damage by suppressing the data of their (extra) senses. According to modern science, a "collective unconscious" is impossible. But creative leaps come from a very mysterious source; a strange source whose characteristics fly in the face of a worldview based entirely on materialism. If I insist on "Total Rationality," then I will believe that the irrational parts of creativity are impossible and simply cannot be. And so I will become blind/deaf to them.
By the way, modern science doesn't hold it to be impossible. It simply lacks the evidence to consider it credible.

Which, (in addition to being more than one definition) while it includes the scientific method as an option, seems somewhat broader than that...

But it was clear throughout the thread that science was being referred to as a discipline. Thus, definitions that would allow for, "I've got packing down to a science," would not apply.

I'm also uncertain how ID got into this discussion...since it's not falsifiable it's clearly not science under either definition.

ID would meet several of the definitions you posted.

While I would hold that mathematics is a form of science, I understand that many don't agree that math(s) is necessarily the underlying language of the universe. Any other distinction I believe to be somewhat absurd.

Math can be the underlying language of the universe and still not be, in and of itself, a science.

Theoretical physicists do not follow the scientific method, unless you want to include creating "scientific models" as valid forms of natural experiment,

If those models are then used to predict actual natural phenomena (and they are), then yes, they can be used.

And if I sit down at a table, shuffle a regular 52 card deck, and deal the cards into 4 piles of 13 have I just played bridge (or hearts, or spades, or whist, or any of a number of other card games that begin in a similar manner)? Even if my intent was to stop, or to play a different game after that?

You have begun the process of playing bridge/hearts/spades/what have you. Thus, you have used the process of playing them. You simply haven't yet finished.

You should feel free to post such a list (particularly if they all define things like "science" in them). It's not clear how well it would support your argument, but I'd certainly be interested in knowing what branches of science you read about.

Well, I"m not at home right now, but off the top of my head I can tell you that I own at least two college-level physics books, 3-4 college-level chemistry books (spanning general and organic chemistry), 2-3 anatomy and physiology books, no less than 6 biology textbooks with various focuses, a biochemistry book, several applied books such as biofluids, biotransport, bioelectricity, etc., and a few more. Some of them provide a definition of science - and some assume you already know it from earlier classes, but science as a discipline is described the same way in all of them.

Unless you say that a process is the same as any part of that process (which is silly; note the card game analogy above), then by your own definition any time spent coming up with hypotheses that are never tested (the intent of them being tested being a whole other issue, which I regret having brought up in an attempt to make my example clearer) is not time spent doing science.

Wrong. The process is not the same as any part of that process, but so long as one is doing part of that process - and doing it in the correct order, the process is being used.

I agree that they are. Yet under your own definition, whenever they are working on a hypothesis that can't yet be tested, they clearly aren't, since there can be no way that they are following "the scientific method".

Something that cannot yet be tested is not something that can never be tested. Thus, as long as their hypotheses can, at some point, be tested, they are engaging in science. They simply are as yet unable to finish the process.