What is Science?
What is science? This is a reasonable question, but it isn't easy to provide a simple, definitive answer. There is no entity with the authority to define science. Coming up with a proper definition of science is not unlike coming up with a proper definition of other human institutions, like religion or family: there is so much going on that long, complex books are written to explain it all - and still people disagree. In a real sense, science is what scientists do. There are disagreements among scientists and philosophers of science on the finer points, but many of the broader issues are usually agreed upon.
Defining Science
The word science comes from the Latin "scientia," meaning knowledge.
How do we define science? According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."
What does that really mean? Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge people have gained using that system. Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it.
What is the purpose of science? Perhaps the most general description is that the purpose of science is to produce useful models of reality.
Most scientific investigations use some form of the scientific method. You can find out more about the scientific method here.
Science as defined above is sometimes called pure science to differentiate it from applied science, which is the application of research to human needs. Fields of science are commonly classified along two major lines:
- Natural sciences, the study of the natural world, and
- Social sciences, the systematic study of human behavior and society.
- Natural sciences, the study of the natural world, and
- Social sciences, the systematic study of human behavior and society.
The definition of science poses some problems for people. Everyone seems to have an idea of what science is, but articulating it is difficult. Ignorance about science isn't a viable option, but unfortunately it's not too hard to find religious apologists spreading misunderstanding. Because science is best defined by scientific methodology, an accurate understanding of science also means understanding why science is superior to faith, intuition, or any other method of acquiring knowledge.
Philosophy of Science
The Philosophy of Science is concerned with, obviously enough, science - specifically, how science operates, what the goals of science should be, what relationship science should have with the rest of society, the differences between science and other activities, etc. Everything that happens in science has some relationship with the Philosophy of Science and is predicated upon some philosophical position, even though that may be rarely evident.
What is the Scientific Method?
Science is defined by the method scientists use to make discoveries and produce knowledge. The scientific method separates science from unsuccessful attempts to produce knowledge which people try to sell: faith, religion, pseudoscience, etc. Understanding science means understanding how the scientific method works, how scientists work, and so why science is superior to the alternatives. We rely too much on science to pretend it's no better than or different from the alternatives.
Scientific Theories
Scientific observations are the fuel which power scientific discoveries and scientific theories are the engine. Theories allow scientists to organize and understand earlier observations, then predict and create future observations. Scientific theories all have common characteristics which differentiate them from unscientific ideas like faith and pseudoscience. Scientific theories must be: consistent, parsimonious, correctable, empirically testable/verifiable, useful, and progressive.
Scientific Laws
It's common to see religious apologists preaching about allegedly scientific "laws" as if they were absolute, definitive truths. This sort of argument is very appealing to religious apologists because the existence of scientific laws implies the existence of a lawgiver. It also seems to make it easier for them to construct arguments that appear to undermine genuine science, but the reason why these arguments don't work is the fact that they don't represent real science.
Hypotheses, Theories and Facts
There's a lot of confusion over use of the terms hypothesis, theory and fact in science. We have popular usage, popular impression of how scientists use the terms, and how the terms actually get used in science. All three share some things in common, but none match. This confusion is no minor matter because popular ignorance about how the terms are really used in science makes it easier for creationists and other religious apologists misrepresent science for their own ideological purposes.
Technology and Religion, Technology as Religion
Common thinking among secularists and nonbelievers of various sorts tends to be that religion and science are fundamentally incompatible. This incompatibility is also imagined to extend to the relationship between religion and technology, since technology is so often a product of science and science cannot proceed without technology, especially today. But it can be argued that promoting technology is often caused by religious impulses.
The Different Fields of Science
This is just a partial listing of some of the many, many different possible fields of study within science. Many of the fields listed here overlap to some degree with one or more other areas.
Natural Sciences
· Anatomy · Astrobiology · Biochemistry · Bioinformatics · Biophysics · Botany · Developmental biology · Ecology · Entomology · Epidemiology · Evolution (Evolutionary biology) · Freshwater Biology · Genetics | · Immunology · Marine biology · Microbiology · Molecular Biology · Morphology · Neuroscience · Physical anthropology · Physiology · Population dynamics · Structural biology · Taxonomy · Toxicology · Virology · Zoology |
· Analytical chemistry · Computational chemistry · Electrochemistry · Inorganic chemistry · Materials science · Organic chemistry | · Polymer chemistry · Physical chemistry · Quantum chemistry · Spectroscopy · Stereochemistry · Thermochemistry |
· Acoustics · Astrodynamics · Astrophysics · Biophysics · Classical mechanics · Computational physics · Condensed matter physics · Cryogenics · Dynamics · Fluid dynamics | · High Energy Physics · Materials physics · Mechanics · Nuclear physics · Optics · Particle physics · Plasma physics · Polymer physics · Quantum mechanics · Solid State physics · Thermodynamics |
· Environmental Science · Geodesy · Geography · Geology · Hydrology | · Meteorology · Oceanography · Paleontology · Seismology | ||
Journal of Theoretics What is Science? It continues to amaze me how many "educated" people do not understand what Science* is or what is meant by the term "scientific method." The statements of Nobel Prize physicist Percy W. Bridgman1 shows that such ignorance shows no regard for academic stature when he states, "No working scientist, when he plans an experiment in the laboratory, asks himself whether he is being properly scientific, nor is he interested in whatever method he may be using as method." What arrogance!2 1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena. 2. Formulation of a 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. But in order to realize whether this is a valid concept or not, we need to understand what Science really is. Here is a typical dictionary definition of Science: "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation [scientific method], and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study."4 Science on the other hand is an interesting definition in that it previously has applied to those fields of study which utilize the scientific method. For physics and chemistry, this is easy, but when we get into archeology, psychology, geology, environmental studies, and so on, the use of scientific methodology becomes less applicable but yet aren't these still Science? What about archeology where even though one can not perform repeatable experiments we can yet validate hypotheses? Let's say that I am an archeologist and that I hypothesize that an ancient culture "X" existed based upon a piece of pottery that I had found and I further hypothesize various characteristics of this culture. Later it is found that I was correct in my hypothesis through continued validation from other findings. I then hypothesize that any culture that can make such pottery will have a high lead content in their remains. Again this is found to be true. These hypotheses have now become theories as they have been verified yet they did not follow the definition of scientific method nor could they. This is Science. Some may say that in archeology, we use carbon-14 dating (or similar process) which does follow the scientific method. Though archeology does utilize some aspects of other sciences that do follow the scientific method, this is archeology's use of physics. It is the physics that is following the scientific method in this case, not archeology. The scientific method is fine for experimentation but it is inadequate in determining what is Science. In the past if a discipline could not be subject to the scientific method, it was not Science. Therefore, I would like to propose that the scientific method should only be applied to experimentation when appropriate and not be used in the determination of what is or is not science, nor should it have any application in defining what is a hypothesis, theory, fact, or law.** In terms of the definition of what is or is not a Science, we need to find a definition that is timeless and few could argue against. One of the best way to understand the current definition of something is to look at its history (ignorance of the past will lead to mistakes of the future5) but I will leave that for a book on the subject because even though it is engrossing reading, it can get lengthy. I would like to propose that we define Science as the "the field of study which attempts to describe and understand the nature of the universe in whole or part."* Though simple, it is an encompassing and elegant definition, as we will see. Therefore those fields of study which attempt to describe and understand the nature of the universe on a "whole" scale such as physics and chemistry would fit our definition but so would those fields which study it in "part" such as biology whose field has been limited to only those life forms on Earth. Archeology attempts to describe and understand the fossil and archeological record (a part of the universe) and this understanding includes what its function, purpose, state of existence, etc. was. The archeological example previously given also shows how a hypothesis, theory, and fact can develop in the field of archeology...all without using the scientific method. Why do I think that it is important that we all be on the same page in our definition of Science?
I only hope that all will become involved in Theoretics so that we can all be on the same page in our definitions, coherent and logical in our arguments and theory development, and rather than being petty, look at what is the best for Science and Mankind. Journal of Theoretic Definitions (Every article, book, paper, etc. should always include definitions as well as a bibliography or reference section.) describe: to understand the nature of something in the universe and define it in a manner that allows it to be studied and communicated. fact: a theory that has been validated close to certainty. hypothesis: a tentative or working assumption which scientific study has yet to validate. For instance, I can make the hypothesis that fire is hot. I put my hand into a fire and find it is hot. Now it is a theory. If it is validated by many to the point of certainty then it is a fact. Technically, there is nothing that is 100% certain. For instance, I could be existing in a dream world where fire is hot while in my real world fire is cold. Though this is highly unlikely, it still could be so. But when something seems to be confirmed by every reasonable method, then we can call it a fact. law: a characteristic of the universes that seems fundamental to the workings of he universe. part: any component of the universe. Science: the field of study which tries to describe and understand the nature of the universe in whole or part. The field of study or discipline that we call Science is spelled with a capital "S" as it is a proper noun in this use while science with a small "s" is the application of this discipline. theory: a hypothesis or group of hypotheses which have been validated but not to the point of near certainty. universe: that which exists and in its entirety. This includes all that exists whether it can be perceived or not. whole: something that permeates the universe at large. e.g. gravity. Note: The definitions used here and in the article above are those of the author's unless otherwise referenced. **In addition to the above definitions of hypothesis, theory, fact, and law, below is an example of their appropriate use. Let's say that I form the hypothesis that fire is hot. I then put my hand into a fire and find it is hot. Now it is a theory as it has been verified. If it is verified by many to the point of certainty then it becomes a fact. Technically, there is nothing that is 100% certain. For instance, I could be existing in a dream world where fire is hot while in my real world fire is cold. Though this is highly unlikely, it still could be so. But when something seems to be confirmed by every reasonable method, then we can call it a fact. A Law on the other hand is not a fact, but rather it is something that seems fundamental to the workings of the universe. As we have seen, Laws are subject to revision (as Einstein did to Newton, and Siepmann has done to Einstein6). | |||
No comments:
Post a Comment