| stuartjohnwatt |
| Posted 08/01/12 at 03:36 PM | Reply with quote #1 |
|
What is the definition of science? The reason I ask is because I have been told countless times that science is all objective knowledge.
Also, if something is objective then does your acceptance of that thing still qualifies as a belief? Is it possible to believe in nothing (or rather not affirm belief in anything) because you will only accept what is objective? |
| Loading... | |
| Geneticist |
| Posted 08/01/12 at 04:44 PM | Reply with quote #2 |
|
Science in a broad and rather meaningless sense can be thought of as simply knowledge and/or study of a subject. It has been used in this sense throughout history, particularly in the past. Its similar in the way that what we typically refer to as Science today was once often called Natural Philosophy.
Such a definition is useless.
The stricter definition of Science and how it is more properly understood today, is a series of methodologies for obtaining knowledge that is based on empirical evidence and the ability to test hypotheses. The Philosophy of Science is littered with different prescriptions of how Science should or should not be done. Deductive or inductive, falsifiability, etc. For working scientists, these debates have had little impact and most would probably boil it down to a rough formation of the classic Scientific method.
1) Make an observation
2) Formulate a hypothesis
3) Test the hypothesis
4) Repeat.
People will raise all kinds of esoteric objections against this. If you really care to wade into the irrelevancy of such debates, be my guest. I found such topics interesting early in my scientific career and thought I would be aided by better understanding them. It was useless to me. I was better served by studying Statistics and basic logic. If you are more concerned with how Science is actually practiced and recognized by Scientists, then don't bother with that stuff. All you have to really understand is that Science is a method of obtaining truth that is premised on empirical evidence and testability. |
| Loading... | |
| Damoksta |
| Posted 08/01/12 at 05:48 PM | Reply with quote #3 |
|
The classic definition of science has always been "knowledge of the natural world that can be empirically observed or repeated". The ways to deal with the collection of such knowledge in a rigorous manner is what philosophy of science is all about.
In a sense, science is objective because it is meant to be reproducible by other people. But on the other hand science is always a work-in-progress and the knowledge will change as scientific equipment becomes more advanced and efficient. So calling it "objective knowledge" is entirely dependent on how you want to view it - it's certainly independent of opinions, but it is not objective truth (though science do lead to it)
When something is objectively true, refusal to accept it is ignorance. Some beliefs are ignorant and some are not. |
| Loading... | |
| stuartjohnwatt |
| Posted 08/01/12 at 05:59 PM | Reply with quote #4 |
|
Thanks for the responses. A few questions.
Is mathematics science?
If say, I accept the theory of General Relativity because of the evidence presented, then do I believe that General Relativity is true?
|
| Loading... | |
| Geneticist |
| Posted 08/01/12 at 06:38 PM | Reply with quote #5 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by stuartjohnwatt
Is mathematics science?
Mathematics is not science. Not in the strict sense of methodology. It requires no resort to empirical evidence or testing. A Mathematical theorem is true based on its proof.
Quote: If say, I accept the theory of General Relativity because of the evidence presented, then do I believe that General Relativity is true?
Yes you believe it. If you accept something as true, then you believe it. The attempt to box in "belief" as some narrowly defined term that applies only to specific circumstances is nothing more than semantical BS. |
| Loading... | |
| Noraaron |
| Posted 08/01/12 at 11:47 PM | Reply with quote #6 |
|
Well i agree with Damostkas take....
Quote: "knowledge of the natural world that can be empirically observed or repeated"
but in a very general sense i would add that science is the ability to use Theory then Practice.
Where as before science, it was Trial and error.
And i think Sometimes science gets confused with the inventive fields like engineering or design, which use science as a tool.
I just wanted to mention that i dont think science is not about invention...just observation and categorisation.
And i think this is very interesting, because take the Microscope, the very instrument that allows us to do observation like Damotskas description of science, doesn't seem to have been made from science, but for science. The Microscope seems to have come from trial and error over centuries....which is quite ironic. |
| Loading... | |
