The definition of science: What should it be?

Nwr wrote in another thread 'What mainstream science criticizes, are the claims that creationism is science, and the attempts to have creationism taught in the science classroom. But this is not an oppression of creationism. This is simply a defense of science against those who would attempt to undermine its rigorous standards.'

​

I have to admit, he is right. But, the reason 'mainstream' scientists can say that, is because 'mainstream science' (the convention) is defined as 'Methodological Naturalism'. So in a legalistic sense they are telling the truth. I also admit that they are consistent. Generally speaking, they believe truth is simply a convention.

​

Methodological naturalism 'presupposes' that there is no external cause, and that the explanation for the existence of a creature (or organism), the earth, or the cosmos as a whole is found within the creature, the earth, or cosmos itself. To confuse the issue, there are varying definitions of what methodological naturalism means, and the convention is in control of the definition at the present time.

​

Clearly that is not 'objective' science, in the honest terms the average citizen assumes he is getting from 'respectable' scientific lawyers. The standards are not rigorous, other than they protect the convention from any serious challenge in a number of ways; from funding for opposition research: Denied... by smiling beaurocrats, to dismissal and intimidation of even suggesting such a rediculous notion as stupid and religiously motivated.

​

That is exactly the way the Catholic church treated Galileo.

​

Science should presuppose nothing other than that the truth is knowable. If truth were not knowable, then science would be nothing more than an exercize in seeking to prove a bias. That has happened within different churches throughout history and to this day, and in my opinion, that is exactly what is happening with science defined as Methodological Naturalism.

​

So, in light of my opinion, and seeking to understand whether it is correct or not, (and I assume the answer to it's correctness is knowable) my question for this thread would be:

​

When trying to define something as pivotal as 'science', should we presuppose as a convention anything at all, other than the search for the truth?

​

Edited by Rob, : blockquote thing

​

Edited by Rob, : reasonable approach?

​

Edited by Rob, : pleading in the name of integrity... You can handle this...

​

Edited by Rob, : No reason given.

​

Edited by Rob, : That should wrap it up...

​

---

Any biters in the stream?

Thread copied to the The definition of science: What should it be? thread in the Is It Science? forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.