What IS Science And What IS NOT Science?

It isn't easy to define science. Some people define it as "that which scientists do", itself an admission of the difficulty in defining science.When people attempt to define science, they often emphasize that it uses "the scientific method." However, the term "the scientific method" is itself quite slippery, and thus difficult to define. Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" was a report on how science had actually been done, and it shook philosophy of science for it showed that much of what had been written was problematic. Now that Kuhn is safely dead, philosophers of science seem to be going back to their old ways.Following the work of Kuhn, Feyerabend also criticised the then current philosophy of science. Two of his book titles are suggestive: "Anything goes" and "Against method".Feyerabend, too, is now safely dead. There are still critics the traditional accounts of science, but they don't speak with the same authority as Kuhn and Feyerabend, so are more likely to be ignored.Most scientists go by Popper's account of science. In my opinion, Popper's philosophy was falsified by Kuhn. Those who dismiss Kuhn's criticisms are left in the awkward position of defending falsification as an essential component of science, while denying that falsification can be applicable to an account of how science operates.

In Message 91, I suggested that it is difficult to define science. In this post I present my own feeble attempt.

1. Method, not belief.

Philosophers like to describe knowledge in terms of beliefs. They talk about "belief systems." In describing science, they tend to think of it as a belief system. In my opinion, this is a problem in philosophy of science (and in philosophy of knowledge). Scientists are not strongly wedded to beliefs. They will quickly drop beliefs that the evidence shows to be wrong. Scientists are, however, strongly attached to their methods and procedures. They are reluctant to abandon methods that have worked well, unless they have a replacement method that will work even better.

2. Science is systematic.

A scientific discipline is, first and foremost, a systematic study of some aspect of reality. That science is systematic is important for two reasons:

(a) Because it is systematic, others can learn the systematic methods being used. Thus the study can be a shared endeavor.
(b) The systematic nature lends itself to mathematical analysis. Mathematics is the abstract study of systems (or of patterns or regularities). Such a mathematical analysis of the systematic methods can aid in understanding the results of the scientific study.
(c) The systematic methods could, in principle, be extended to parts of reality to which they have not yet been applied. This provides a way of making predictions.

3. Pragmatism

Scientific methods are evaluated by how well they work. In other words, scientific judgment is, at its core, pragmatic judgment.

4. Explanations

Scientists usually produce explanations. To philosophers, these explanations look like belief systems. Thus the philosophers tend to think of the explanations as being the scientific knowledge. But they are mistaken. The scientific knowledge is the knowledge of procedure and method. This is not to deny the value of an explanation. For having a good explanation makes it far easier to teach the systematic methods and procedures.Sociologists of knowledge at times see scientists collaborating to develop a good explanation. This suggests to them that the explanation is a social construct. They may well be correct about this. But some of them reach mistaken conclusions. Because they follow the philosophers and take the scientific knowledge to be the explanation (as a belief system), they conclude that scientific knowledge is itself socially constructed.

Well, there's no difference between the scientific method and the everyday method of finding something out.For example:Hypothesis: this car gets so many miles to the gallon.Prediction: if I drive until the reading on the mileometer has increased by such-and-such, then this will use such-and-such a quantity of fuel.Observation: drive the car.We call someone a "scientist" if they apply this method to certain areas of inquiry.---What did Kuhn have to say about Popper?

I'm afraid that someone's been lying to you.If all the theory of evolution said was that "things will change", then not even fundies could manage to object to it --- there must be some limit to their capacity for denial.And of course, if the theory of evolution "made no real predictions" then scientists would have noticed this at some time in the last 150 years. Again, this is just basic common sense.In fact, the theory of evolution makes many predictions in, for example, morphology, embryology, genetics, behavioral ecology, epidemiology, biogeography, paeleontology and computer science. I can't think of any other theory which makes such a wide range of predictions in such an assortment of fields; can you?

No I wouldn't. But what tool does one use to decide on the 'patently' bit? I gather you rely on the conclusions drawn by scientists about evidence . I look to the Bible. I have no reason to trust fallen man to arrive at truth under own steam. Its not in his nature.Take this very thread: science started out because God-believers felt an ordered and methodical appoach was the best way to reveal how Goddidit. Belief sat above science. Then the Enlightenment came and even up to today we have people claiming that all beliefs must be subject to the findings of Science. Science sits above belief. A 180 degree turn around.Scientists are people with worldviews first, scientists second. And I look at the failing inherent in people whereever I have come across them in supposing that this thing called "Science" is by no means as objective and self-correcting as its proponants are wont to assert.Give me the Bible anyday

Thanks NWR. You lend credence to my usage of a standard, so as to render the definition applicable and compatible for all, which is the credible unabridged universal Mirriam Webster dictionary which is the highly credible unbiased established standard for the English language at large.When you have debate between two extremely polarized ideologies, the majority claiming a corner on what they want science to be, having the bully pulpit we call reviews and legislation which empowers them in the field of education, you need some unbiased referee like the universal standardized English language dictionary to establish the fair and balanced playing field on which to play the game., i.e. scientific debate.My counterparts have pretty much pshwed that universal unbiased standard because it's quite obvious that if they don't narrow the definition to serve their well entrenched majority argument they will have to admit that ID research and hypothesis can indeed be regarded as science when science is being done as per the universal standard meaning of the word.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

Do you really believe that Einstein came up with E=mc² by going out and making a few simple measurements? Your account of science fails to account for how we got from the chariot to the car. Among other things, Kuhn criticized falsificationism.Do a Google on "Kuhn Popper".

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

Quite the contrary. My post casts great doubt on the usefulness of a simple dictionary definition for defining science.Dictionaries are not really standards. A dictionary is descriptive, not prescriptive. Those who compile dictionaries look at how a word is being used in speech and literature, and they build their definition in an attempt to account for that usage.In terms of usage, most people defer to scientists on the question of what is or is not science.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

I understand you feel this way, but this thread is about what is and isn't science, not about giving voice to your feelings of unfair treatment. I understand that you believe that the conclusions of scientists derive not from any objective considerations but from their defensive stance against creationism and ID, but giving voice to these beliefs comes across as an accusation of disreputable behavior, and it is not the topic of this thread. My suggestion is to keep your focus on the thread's topic.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Here is what Judge Overton stated in the Arkansas trial:

quote:

---

More precisely, the essential characteristics of science are:
(1) It is guided by natural law;
(2) It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law;
(3) It is testable against the empirical world;
(4) Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; and
(5) Its is falsifiable. (Ruse and other science witnesses).

---

Even if there is no precise definition of science these are at least very good points that need to be considered.Considering the hypothesis of "different conditions before the Flood" which somehow affect all dating methods that give results inconvenient to YECs it seems to fail all of the above points.It especially falls afoul of the fifth in that it is produced precisely to evade falsification. Why presume conditions that just happen to give results that are consistently wrong in different dating methods which have no direct connection ?

One of the properties of science is that it should be universal; that is, equally available to everyone willing to make the necessary effort. Even during the Napoleonic wars, scientists travelled back and forth between England and France.
Since the bible has authority only to the followers of certain religions, how can it be used in a discipline that should be universal?
Whatever bible-based research may be doing, how can it be science when its data is data only to some people, not to others?

One could also talk about the difference between ideology and exploration:

• ideology establishes what is acceptable, sets one way to look at things, while
• exploration looks for new ways to look at things and new things to look at, without walls or bars or prohibited areas.

Religion and dogma are obviously on the ideology camp, with fixed monographic views, only changing when forced, ...... but any pre-assumption result included in the {methodology used for exploration} also is in this camp.When you look at exploration, though, there is also the range of fantasy, everything you could possibly consider happening.Ideology: I'm only going down this road if it leads to {X}.
Exploration: Let's go down this road and see where it goes.The question is determining what is {real} and what is {possible} and what is {fantasy} eh? Ah yes, undefineded parameters with no established metric to measure the degree of "complexity" and that rely on a lack of knowledge of existing systems to exist ... ... yeah, THAT's scientific.So how do you validate concepts? This is what all the experimentation of science is about eh?The idea of science is that we have validated concepts that can be used to make predictions of things that will happen if the conditions are right. This is not the place to discuss IC, but you do realize that "Irreducible Complexity" has been invalidated as a concept that shows that evolution could not have occurred, don't you? That makes it 100% falsified.When it comes to science, it doesn't matter how much evidence there is FOR a concept - as long as there is one (1) piece of evidence that invalidates it, then it is falsified. Dead. Caput.This is the essential element of science: when a concept is invalidated - falsified - it is discarded. Prove? Care to test that? Start a new thread so that this one is not derailed eh?The basic elements of science are:
- evidence and observations
- hypothesis on some {cause and effect mechanism} that explains the evidence and observations
- prediction based on the hypothesis that will lead to new evidence and observations
- testing of predictions by new evidence and observationsWhen there are two (or more) hypothesis on some {cause and effect mechanism} that explains the evidence and observations, the question becomes which one is better ... which one does a better job

• explaining the evidence and observations
• predicting new evidence and observations

And if they are relatively equal then the parsimony principal means we take the simplest one.Consider these examples, I will use a simplified evolution and ID model for the sake of the discussion of how this relates to {SCIENCE} (not specifically as about evolution and ID per se - seeing as nemesis_juggernaut raised these as examples):

---

---

What you see here is a competition between two theories, and the process that proponents may take to resolve them.The question is whether the result is more or less scientific than just always staying with the explanation that works best.Is there any difference in results?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Whether you agree or not about standardizing the meaning, I don't see it as a good thing that there is so much disagreement as to what it is.Your statement here http://EvC Forum: What IS Science And What IS NOT Science? -->EvC Forum: What IS Science And What IS NOT Science? again is as follows: I see peer review as one of the things some scientists do and not necessarily part of what science is or is not. Scientists in professions who do science in labs for various purposes may have no reason for peer review. Others who may not be able to get their work in peer reviews nevertheless, may be doing science. Thus as per topic, what they do may well be/is science regardless of whether they are featured in peer reviews. I say that to say that what science is and what it is does not necessarily involve peer review as some are alleging.I see the need to point out that in my title the question is about what is not science as well as what is. What inspired this thread was the claims of some that IDist creo (abe: scientists) are not doing science. Defining science is paramount in determination of this problem, but not all of it. Since nobody seems to have a definitive answer to the word science who's to say that ICR scientists and archeologists were not doing science relative to the on site work they did in the Grand Canyon, for example? The IDist who did the seminar at our church has a permanent tank of hundreds of guppies in his basement lab for the sole purpose of observing their mutation. I say what he is doing is science. Could you agree to that?Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

I refer you, again, Buz to: How do we decide about "things"?. If you want to make a definition of a process for learning things please itemize it and we'll see how well it might work in light of what we do know about humans and the world.Science is a way to determine things about the real world. It requires actually relating anything we think we know back to objective input information.By objective we mean information which (at least possibly) anyone can examine and make an independent check of what is actually observed (with observed being defined very broadly).This requirement to tie things back to the objective data is a fundamental requirement to be able to conclude the we actually know ANYTHING.You guppy minder may, indeed, be doing science. At least the intial starting down the right path. He is making observations that others could actually make independently if need be.Peer review or some reasonable equivalent is not as absolute a requirement as real world observation (at some point) is. However, no one with a reputation would want to publish without having some knowledgable person (a "peer") check their approach and reasoning. Those who think that the entire rest of the world is wrong and only they have it right are defined (rightly about 99.999999% of the time) as 'cranks'.However, unguided observations are usually not very productive. Nor are 'experiments' that don't build on the work of others likely to be very productive. Your guppy minder sounds like he is doing "science" at about the level of a middle school science fair entrant but one whould have to hear a LOT more about what he is actually attempting to accomplish before one could judge that.

As noted in the previous post: peer review is not philosophically mandated to be doing science. That is if we take peer review to be the process used by the major journals today.However, some level of independent check by someone who is knowledgable in the field of study is mandatory if anything you want to publish is going to be taken seriously. This check should be as "adversarial" as possible. That is, the reviewer should understand the topic and be come at your work with an attitude of trying to find what could possibly be wrong with what you've done. If you think it makes sense to put forward an idea without such a check I'd like to hear why you think that.Once you are doing that you are doing the equivalent of "peer review".