What is Science?

quote:

---

Maybe I should of been more clear about my conception of science. It is the system which I spoke of, but it is also the knowledge (theory) which the system produces. More precisely, I would call it "scientific knowledge," but in modern vernacular it would be considered just "science."

---

I look at science as "the knowledge gained through investigating the natural world by way of the scientific method".

quote:

---

What should the Biology Professor of said when Bill O'Reilly stated, "Not all science is incomplete. For instance, there are 24 hours in a day and four seasons in the year." It would sound absurd to say, "those are only scientific theories, which are incomplete." But would it be equally absurd to say, "That is not science."

---

The Bio Prof should have said "24 hours in a day" is an observation, a data point. The theory of gravity explains why there are 24 hours in a day. The theory of gravity is the product of science and will change through time. In fact, Einstein has already changed our theories on why the day is 24 hours just this century.

quote:

---

A theory is an explanatory framework for the facts. A fact is, if I may borrow from Stephen Jay Gould, a statement confirmed to such a high degree that it would be perverse to withhold transient approval.

---

Actually, Gould was referring to theory, not fact. Fact is a confirmed, objective truth about reality. For instance, the length of a day, the height of a mountain, etc. are all facts. Facts are statements that are true no matter who observes it. Theories are explanatory frameworks that explain the facts, as you said above.

quote:

---

I think my main point of confusion is the fact/theory dichotomy. Are they on the same ladder, with fact on top?

---

I love analogies, so I'll use one here. If you go to a crimescene there are facts all around. Someone's finger print is in one place, DNA in another, etc. The guilt or innocence of the suspect is theory based on the facts found at the crime scene. Does this help?

quote:

---

I begin asking myself, "Is there objective truth in science, or should everything be seen in terms of hypothesis/theory? Is fact only used when a hypothesis is supported by a extremely convincing evidence?" I never liked to think of fact and theory as rungs on the "truth ladder," but I keep coming back to that.

---

To be precise, within human experience there is no such thing as "objective". The closest thing we have is "intersubjective". That is, all of our subjective experiences arrive at the same observation. Science does away with "intersubjective" by claiming that reality is real. A way of removing Descartian doubt (ie we do not live in a Matrix like simulation). Therefore, in science intersubjective is simply called objective. Personal revelations that can not be verified by others is then called intrasubjective, and in science it is simply called subjective.What it comes down to is the metaphysics of science. The axiom of science is that reality is real, and when everyone observes the same thing about a phenomena or object it is then considered to be an objective fact. Yes, we could all be fooled by an invisible, undetected, evil demon that makes us think that the sky is blue when it is really purple, but how does that help science in the end? It can't, so science starts with the statement "reality is real", which is unquestioned (hence it is termed an axiom).

quote:

---

For instance, in your example about the crime scene, what if we found a security camera that caught the accused in the act. Does that merely support the hypothesis that he did it, or is that objective fact that he did it?

---

Remember the added phrase behind "guilty" in the legal system? "We find the defenedant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". In science the same holds true. In science a theory is thought of as true beyond a reasonable doubt. All theories are held tenatively. In the case of the security camera it is very possible that someone used Hollywood makeup to make themselves look like the accused. This is possible, but how reasonable is it? The same for the age of the earth. God could have made the earth to look old in every way imaginable, but how reasonable is this? So, a security camera is not absolute proof, but it does remove a lot of doubt in the veracity of the conclusion.