NationStates Jolt Archive

Another thread asked whether or not physics was a religion. This requires both a definition for physics and one for religion, and so, to satisfy the curiosity of me and others, what is science? A philosophy, methodology, cultural practice? Discuss.

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/1666/kellylebrock04gf5.jpg

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/1666/kellylebrock04gf5.jpg

weird.

oh, and according to my daughter's science book, science comes from a root word meaning "knowledge" and can best be defined as knowledge gained via experimentation, practice or observation.

it goes on to explain other types of knowledge that are not science, religion and spirituality being discussed as an alternative form of knowledge that is not verifiable by experimentation.

oh, and according to my daughter's science book, science comes from a root word meaning "knowledge" and can best be defined as knowledge gained via experimentation, practice or observation.

it goes on to explain other types of knowledge that are not science, religion and spirituality being discussed as an alternative form of knowledge that is not verifiable by experimentation.

And sadly, I am of a school that considers the unverifiable to not be knowledge, but speculation. "Science, by virtue of its method, excludes metaphysics."

A Communist Liberal Conspiracy to take our guns, god and liberties.

And sadly, I am of a school that considers the unverifiable to not be knowledge, but speculation. "Science, by virtue of its method, excludes metaphysics."

interesting.

knowledge- psychological result of perception and learning and reasoning

tacit knowledge- Mainly intangible knowledge that is typically intuitive and difficult to record.

I'm pretty sure her science book put spirituality and religion under tacit knowledge. Science and math were under explicit knowledge I think... I can't remember, and I already sold that book and bought next year's.

interesting.

knowledge- psychological result of perception and learning and reasoning

tacit knowledge- Mainly intangible knowledge that is typically intuitive and difficult to record.

I'm pretty sure her science book put spirituality and religion under tacit knowledge. Science and math were under explicit knowledge I think... I can't remember, and I already sold that book and bought next year's.

Sounds a priori to me . . . "tacit knowledge," kinda like "tacit consent." And we both know how to spell "assume," neh?

(Sorry to be kinda hijacking, but defining "science" may perforce require defining "knowledge")

Anyway, I'm willing to grant a semantic distinction, ie qualifying the kind of knowledge discussed, as long as "scientific" is understood to mean "empirical."

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/1666/kellylebrock04gf5.jpg

That was an awesome show/movie.

Another thread asked whether or not physics was a religion.

Hehehe. That was actually just a miss-spelling (fuck...how do you spell that?) of psychics. Quite a different meaning, no?

But your question is interesting enough anyway.

I would say modern science is primarily a methodology used to gain a working knowledge of the universe.

The scientific method asks the researcher to define a question, make observations, form a hypothesis, test this hypothesis, analyze the data and results, and then form a conclusion, which is usually subjected to further tests and analysis. This would be the backbone of science.

I would not say that this qualifies as a religion. Though it does attempt to explain the cause and nature of the universe, it does not attempt to explain its purpose, which I would think is the defining drive of most religions.

Hehehe. That was actually just a miss-spelling (fuck...how do you spell that?) of psychics. Quite a different meaning, no?



Actually, after that, there was another one, intentionally spelled that way. :D

http://www.vh1.com/shows/series/the_greatest/one_hit_wonders/quiz/img/1.jpg
SCIENCE!



Sorry, couldn't resist.

Science itself is the process of gathering knowledge about the physical universe though empirical data and running tests on it.

It, in and of itself, is not a religion, but it does have its own fundamentalists who are just as screwy as the religious kind.

Webster's (handy dandy) pocket book Dictionary defines Science as "n. the study of the natural phenomena"

I hope this helps.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/science.jpg
:D

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/science.jpg
:D

1 vote towards turning that into a motivational poster.

science simply means rigorously honestly asking questions. it makes no claim to infallability, but is the demonsterably most reliable source of useful understanding of the physical universe arround us.

'facts' are a straw dog created by those who don't quite really understand this.
there are no ultimate last and final certainties of understanding in this context of rigerous honesty, only a continual proccess of honing our understanding to increasingly higher levels of accuracy.

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

Since others have already explained it better than I can...

http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/6605/scienceoy1.jpg

Science itself is the process of gathering knowledge about the physical universe though empirical data and running tests on it.


Just gathering empirical data is not science. Science is making hypotheses (assumptions, if you like) and then gathering empirical data to test these assumptions. The outcome of this verification could either be an acceptance or a rejection of the hypothesis/assumption/theory. Science involves this whole process.

In religion, on the other hand, a hypothesis is postulated and then accepted as truth without the verification by empirical data.

Another thread asked whether or not physics was a religion. This requires both a definition for physics and one for religion, and so, to satisfy the curiosity of me and others, what is science? A philosophy, methodology, cultural practice? Discuss.

Science is the description (not the explanation: how, not why) of the Universe (this includes anything from supernovae to society to midget behaviour) through mathematical models (see Galileo).

The philosophy of science (aka epistemology) is the primary metalevel of scientifical knowledge. It determines what constitutes scientifical knowledge, and what methods allow to pursue scientifical knowledge.

The quest for knowledge, be it scientifical or not, is a cultural practice common to various fields of human curiosity.

The answers in this thread are too vague for me, what we need to discuss is the scientific method. Popper and Flew explain how the scientific method basically makes the most valid assumption from the evidence and then applies the falsification principle to determine whether such statement is meaningful or not, if it is meaningful you then wait for new evidence to be presented so you can adapt the theory to fit the new evidence or to replace the theory with a better one which fits in with the evidence better. They put the emphasis on falsification in a response to the logical positivists using the verification principle which to them was unscientific. I think that they best defined the scientific method.

Another thread asked whether or not physics was a religion. This requires both a definition for physics and one for religion, and so, to satisfy the curiosity of me and others, what is science? A philosophy, methodology, cultural practice? Discuss.

Science blinds me. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=2IlHgbOWj4o)

*Stands up* I'm Science!

*Stands up* I'm Science!

No! I'm Science![/Spartacus]



To answer the OP, Science is both a methodology, based on repeatable empirical observation and experiment, and a general term to refer to the theories resulting from that methodology. It's been widely discredited by repeated sighting of Ceiling Cat (http://catmas.com/images/2006/12/where-is-your-god-now.jpg).

The answers in this thread are too vague for me, what we need to discuss is the scientific method. Popper and Flew explain how the scientific method basically makes the most valid assumption from the evidence and then applies the falsification principle to determine whether such statement is meaningful or not, if it is meaningful you then wait for new evidence to be presented so you can adapt the theory to fit the new evidence or to replace the theory with a better one which fits in with the evidence better. They put the emphasis on falsification in a response to the logical positivists using the verification principle which to them was unscientific. I think that they best defined the scientific method.

That's the definition I often read in philosophy of science books and such. Another one is the idea of...Kuhnman, I think? It basically says that science is whatever scientists say it is, and that their perception of it changes every so often ("paradigm shifts") when the old framework becomes too cluttered with anomalies. Any thoughts about that?

A Communist Liberal Conspiracy to take our guns, god and liberties.
Don't forget that it's also a conspiracy to make us all crack addicts and forgive teh ebil terrorists!:eek: :D

I think the more appropriate question would be...

"What ISN'T Science?" lol