What IS Science And What IS NOT Science?

The two sides in this discussion do not agree on the definition of science, therefore each side is declaring what is and isn't science on the basis of different criteria. Naturally they reach different conclusions.So it is hereby ruled that fundamental to this discussion is agreement on the definition of science. Do that first.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Issues concerning moderation and the Forum Guidelines has been raised several times, so I will attempt to address these in one brief post.What is and isn't science can only be decided by measurement against the definition of science. If the evolutionists in this discussion agree, and if they see a correct definition of science as being advantageous to their argument, then it is hard to understand why they're doing such a piss-poor job of defining science.The criticisms against creationism as science advanced in this thread appear to be:

1. There is no evidence that they would consider as falsifying.
2. They don't do peer review.
3. They ignore evidence.

I've seen no answer to the first about falsification.The answer to the second about peer review that has been proffered is that creationists publish quite a bit, but to the public, which is the whole point. Peer review is about putting your research results before peers, not before the public. Peer review is essential to the process of replication, a key quality of science.The above comment should not be interpreted as taking sides in the debate. Moderators should strive for neutrality, but that quality does not include feigning ignorance. Peer review does have a definition, and it does have a clear function. I know what it is and what it's for, and I will moderate any discussion involving peer review with that knowledge firmly in mind.The third question about ignoring evidence has been poorly argued by both sides. There have been general assertions that creationists ignore evidence, and general assertions that creationists gather and interpret evidence.All in all, a pretty poor job by both sides with some occasional high points, e.g., Straggler's last post.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi Holmes,I'm moderating this thread, not participating in discussion. If you have moderation issues then please take them to General discussion of moderation procedures - Part . If you find my moderator feedback useful then please apply it in your replies in this thread, but as I'm not participating in discussion in this thread there's not much point in replying to me.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

You appear to be seeking an excuse to drop out of this discussion. No points were ruled "administratively unacceptable," and you're as free as ever to argue your point of view.I posted to this thread for two reasons. First, I thought the discussion needed guidance. Second, on several occasions you raised issues regarding debating in good faith and discussing constructively. I gave the thread a careful second reading and concluded that it was having a lot of trouble coming to the point. Neither side has demonstrated a clear understanding of how legitimate science is conducted, and some characterizations of science have been woefully off-target.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

This thread is not about evolution versus ID. It is not about taking as many shots at the other side as possible. It is about what is and isn't science. This means talking about the criteria of science and providing examples of how well various ideas meet those criteria. While evolution and ID are valid examples of such ideas, this is not a debate about evolution and ID.I notice that NosyNed has already posted the same thing. Please listen to him.

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

Most scientific journals and conferences put contributions through a formal process called peer review. It ensures that quality will be maintained by weeding out inferior papers and presentations.But the peer review process of journals and conferences is not the end of peer review. The process of printing and/or presenting a paper puts it before the larger peer community. Now that the idea is at play in the world of ideas it goes through another level of peer review, one that is much broader and much less formal. This is where the value of an idea is assessed, informally measured by it's influence among the relevant peer community, and more formally as measured by the number of citations it receives in future papers.For clarity it might be helpful if someone can come up with a different term for the more informal part of peer review. If we find a good term then we can use it to refer to review by the larger peer community, while peer review can just apply to the formal process used by journals and conferences.But whether or not we find unique term, it is important to understand how essential it is for scientists to put their ideas before the larger relevant peer community so that the results can be studied and replicated. Results that are never revealed can never be tested and replicated, and replication is a key quality of science.Some have argued that the definition of science is in some way vague or ambiguous, or at least have left that impression. Those who truly feel this way have to at least explain how it could ever be decided what is valid science if the definition is uncertain. All definitions fight with boundary conditions where uncertainty reigns, it is the nature of the real world, but it is wrong to conclude upon this basis that a definition is therefore vague, for if this were the case then there would be no such thing as a clear definition, and uncertainty would reign in all fields everywhere.As an example, are people researching the anthropic principle doing science? I'm not sure myself, and I think some would say yes and some would say no. But the fact that the definition of science provides no unambiguous answer for this area of research does not mean that the definition is vague or uncertain. It isn't.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director