Buzzsaw writes:
3. Evo's tyrannical and oppressive hold on the science agenda including their own narrow view of the definition of science,
rejecting the universal English language dictionary definition which would accomodate all views, has given them the bully pulpit so as to silence all other views than their own in education, in journals, in the media and in forums like EvC.
I have been following this thread all the way through and this claim (highlighted section)still makes no sense to me whatsoever.
I figured I would go and look up some web definitions of science myself to see if the argument holds any water.
here is what I found on a quick google of "Science definition".
First result.
Space, Time and Big Bang | Journaloftheoretics.comquote:
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
One of the best descriptions and explanations of the current concept of scientific method is interestingly found in the Appendix E of Frank Wolfs' website .3
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.
The author recognises this as the "accepted" definition of science.
He does, however, go on to propose that this is not entirely valid and needs to be modified.
Second result.
Atheism and AgnosticismDoesn't really explain anything at all. It actually claims that science is impossible to define, then goes on to say a whole bunch of "nothing" on the subject.
Then again the site is focussing on the "philosophy" of science rather then the definition of it.
Third result.
Science - Wikipediaquote:
in the broadest sense refers to any system of knowledge attained by verifiable means.[1] In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism, as well as to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research. This article focuses on the meaning of science in the latter sense.
This really is in complete agreement with what I have always considered science to be.
Every definition that I can find comes down to the same or very similar things. As long as we aren't talking about "science" as simply a pseudonym for "knowledge", there is no escaping the fact that "doing" science refers to following the scientific method and that is a pretty well defined pathway to follow.
I still don't see any problem here.
™ Version 4.2