Does Science consist of facts?

[Anicerobin]

Hey guys and girls, I have to write a 1500 word essay on the following questions,

 

Does Science consist of 'facts'? If so, what are these facts, and how can we be sure that they are 'true' or 'correct'? If not, what does science consist of?

 

Can anyone offer any advice or any comments on this?

[YT2095]

yes Science consists of Facts as well as many other things, the application of the Scientific method is employed to determine what is and what is not likely to be the correct hypothesis.

 

Science isn`t JUST facts though, it`s more than anything about Data.

and the methodology used to refine this data into something usable and predictable.

 

that`s My way of wording it, there are probably better ways I have no doubt.

[Klaynos]

I would say no, it consists of (among other things) our best (and ever improving) approximations of facts

[geoguy]

Hey guys and girls, I have to write a 1500 word essay on the following questions,

 

Does Science consist of 'facts'? If so, what are these facts, and how can we be sure that they are 'true' or 'correct'? If not, what does science consist of?

 

Can anyone offer any advice or any comments on this?

 

Science weighs evidence. It's not concerned with what is 'true' or 'correct' as much as what can withstand scientific scrutiny. Science is a process rather than an end product. Think of it as a trial in which evidence is introduced and a jury in that scientific discipline ( biology, geology, etc.) decides what is legitimate or not. Science isn't about being right or wrong or having an answer that is carved in stone. As new evidence (your facts) is introduced it is accepted or dismissed according to strict standards in the discipline involved.

 

This process is through published papers in recognized scientific journals. If some claim or piece of evidence isn't published then it might be interesting conversation but isn't considered part of the discipline involved.

[kanzure]

I would say no, it consists of (among other things) our best (and ever improving) approximations of facts

 

Well said. Also, if we really wanted to we could include 'facts' as the set of true statements concerning formalized theories. Especially in the case of mathematical physics. Slightly relevant is this page re: the myth of the scientific method.

 

- Bryan

[314159]

Science consists of falsifyable statments. A 'fact' in science is different to a 'fact' in colloquial usage. In common usage 'fact' means absolutely certain, like a mathematical or logical truth, whereas in science someone would be more likely to make the statement 'we can take it to be a fact that...' implying that that particular falsifyable statement has been repeatedly upheld, and is very likely to be true. I think it's also worth noting that differing branches of science tend to have different standards before they would call something fact. I would say something may be considered a fact in biology even if supported far less strongly than a fact in physics.

[Daecon]

I would have said it consists more of explanations than of facts, but that could be just a semantics issue.

[SkepticLance]

Science is the search for the best model of the universe using the scientific method.

 

Facts are not recognised by science, since nothing is certain. The best we can say is that certain 'facts' constitute a better model of reality than certain other 'facts'. What we call scientific 'facts' are a byproduct of science but not science itself. Science is the search.

 

If you want a definition of science, see above. Much more difficult is a definition of the scientific method, and this could fill an encyclopedia.

 

The scientific method involves scepticism towards ideas (hypotheses), requiring them to be tested objectively, in which the idea is used to generate a testable prediction, which is subjected to novel experiment or observation, with the intent of falsifying incorrect ideas.

 

You can see that this does not generate facts. Just eliminates wrong ideas. And that is the gist of science.

[Daecon]

Fact: The sky is blue.

 

Science: The sky is blue because...

[Anicerobin]

Hey just to keep you all in the loop, I have begun to write my essay and will be using your thoughts. I will be referencing everything back to this website. If anyone has any problems or anything else to offer please write back soon. I hope to have the essay completed by the monday. Thanks

[YT2095]

Good Luck with it, and let us know how you got on

[ecoli]

Fact: The sky is blue.

 

Science: The sky is blue because...

 

Well, the fact is, is that we perceive the sky as being blue. It is our brain that interprets the electromagnetic signals that hit our eyes. So, is the sky really blue? It's in the eye of the beholder.

[YT2095]

our instruments concur that it IS at a certain frequency (range) in the Blue region, and this data runs consistent to observations made and tested with the gases involved under Lab conditions.

 

the fact that our eyes perceive it in the way we do is irrelevant, the fact is it can be reproduced accurately, therein resides the Truth

[ecoli]

our instruments concur that it IS at a certain frequency (range) in the Blue region, and this data runs consistent to observations made and tested with the gases involved under Lab conditions.

 

the fact that our eyes perceive it in the way we do is irrelevant, the fact is it can be reproduced accurately, therein resides the Truth

 

My point is, that a genetic mutation in one individual could change the way in which he perceives the color blue. That would change the fact that the sky is blue. The frequency of the EM light would be the same, yet our perception of a fact is not necessarily consistent with each other. Our approximation of a certain wavelength of light is blue, but is this the same thing as a fact?

[Daecon]

But they would have grown up always referring to that shade of colour as "blue" though.

 

For all we know, each brain interprets light in a slightly different shade, yet we all know to recognise them by the same descriptions.

 

A rose by any other name, and all that...

[YT2095]

ecoli: something similar to that already happens in some men (not sure if it`s a mutation or not) but Color blindness is similar to what you`re describing, and we can identify that easy enough with simple tests.

anything outside of this will be exactly the same as Transdecimal described.

[ecoli]

ecoli: something similar to that already happens in some men (not sure if it`s a mutation or not) but Color blindness is similar to what you`re describing, and we can identify that easy enough with simple tests.

anything outside of this will be exactly the same as Transdecimal described.

 

Right. So, can we say that "the sky is blue" is a fact? It depends upon individual perception, so that it might be true for an individual, but may not be a universal truth?

[YT2095]

we can say that the sky color is at `n` frequency and have that remain true yes, and we can also state that the vast majority of people will concur also.

[Daecon]

The sky, the sea, the colour of a Kingfisher's feathers, the 5th colour in the Rainbow, my eyes... we would all perceive them to have the same sort of colour, more or less.

 

How we refer to that colour is irrelevant, whether it be blue, azure, cerulean, bleu, sapphire, etc. we all recognise what shade of colour the speaker is talking about, because it's the same sort of colour that we see in the things mentioned at the start of this posting. ;-)

[lucaspa]

Hey guys and girls, I have to write a 1500 word essay on the following questions,

 

Does Science consist of 'facts'? If so, what are these facts, and how can we be sure that they are 'true' or 'correct'? If not, what does science consist of?

 

Can anyone offer any advice or any comments on this?

 

http://bob.nap.edu/html/evolution98/evol1.html

 

"Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed.

 

Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.

 

Hypothesis: A testable statement about the natural world that can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.

 

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses."

 

So, yes, science partly consists of "facts". And yes, "facts" can be wrong. For about 10 years it was considered that humans had 48 chromosomes: all the observations gave this number. Then an error was found and it was realized that humans have 46 chromosomes.

 

Facts are used to test hypotheses, theories, and laws (which are really the same thing). Hypotheses/theories/laws are all statements about the physical universe. These statements, if true, have consequences that should be observed. Science then tests for these consequences by making the observations to see if the observations (facts) correspond or contradict the consequences. If they contradict, the hypothesis/theory/law is said to be refuted or falsified. If the observations are consistent with the hypothesis/theory/law, then it is supported.

 

The situation gets more complicated for three reasons:

1. Well supported hypotheses/theories are then considered as (provisionally) true and treated as fact. Niles Eldredge did this very well in his book The Monkey Business: A Scientist Looks at Creationism. It the statement "the earth is round" a hypothesis, theory, or fact? At some point in history it has been considered all 3! Right now it's a fair guess that you consider the statement to be a "fact". However, it is really a well-supported theory.

 

2. William Whewell noted in the late 1800s that there is no such thing as a "pure" fact divorced entirely from theory. Take the "fact" "the year is 365 days long". That's an observation, right? BUT, the statement involves ideas of time, number, and recurrence! Therefore, according to Whewell, all “fact” is theory-laden."

 

3. This is similar to #1. Whewell defined "fact" as any piece of knowledge which is raw material for the formulation of laws and theories, Thus, Kepler's Laws of Planetary Orbits are "facts" in Newton's theories of gravity!

 

Bottom line, science consists of observations and hypotheses/theories. Of the two, hypotheses/theories are far more important.

[SkepticLance]

To say that science consists of facts is like saying that cabinet-making consists of tables, chairs, cupboards and shelves.

 

The former is the activity. The latter is the result.

[lucaspa]

To say that science consists of facts is like saying that cabinet-making consists of tables, chairs, cupboards and shelves.

 

The former is the activity. The latter is the result.

 

You are saying facts are the result of science? If so, please explain how you reached that conclusion.

[SkepticLance]

To lucaspa.

 

Lots of things produce information - sometime of dubious merit. Philosophy, astrology, studies of art, history etc. 'Facts' produced by science are sometimes quite incorrect. 'Facts' produced by non science is sometimes quite correct. 'Facts' are not unique to science, though the 'facts' that science produces are mostly of greater credibility.

 

Science is not 'facts', or else we would have to include all other studies that produce 'facts' as part of science.

 

What science consists of is a process. It is not the results that make science, but the method. Science is the study of everything, but what distinguishes science is the method.

 

Astrologists claim to study everything, but their method is dubious, to say the least. Scientists also study everything, but use a much more reliable method. It is the method that makes the study into science.

 

Thus, science is the study of everything using the scientific method. It is not 'facts', since 'facts' can come from non science.

 

 

I have to say something about 'facts'. In science, we do not claim anything to be 100% certain, and so the word 'fact' is perhaps not really appropriate. The aim of science is to establish the best possible model of the universe. The things we call 'facts' are merely parts of that model. Some are better than others.

 

The key to science is the scientific method. I said earlier that we cannot simply define the scientific method, since it is too complex. After all, it consists of the very best methods that have been discovered to actually work, over the past 400 odd years, and that adds up to a hell of a lot of methods!

 

Let me give a brief outline, however, of the scientific method. This outline is incomplete, but may serve as a beginning.

 

The scientific method begins with a phenomenon to be explained. The scientist gathers such data as seems relevent to that possible explanation. In time, the scientist creates an intellectual synthesis, using that data, to come up with a trial explanation, or hypothesis.

 

The next thing, which is the key to science, is the testing of the hypothesis. Even astrologers come up with hypotheses, by a similar intellectual process to that scientists use. However, a scientist carries out the proper testing process, something seriously lacking in astrology and other 'woo' subjects..

 

The hypothesis is used to form a testable prediction. The prediction is tested by novel experiment or observation, with an aim to falsifying any incorrect idea. Other scientists also may carry out this process, and try their best to falsify the hypothesis.

 

It is only after repeated failures to falsify the hypothesis, that this trial explanation becomes accepted as a good model of reality - the nearest thing in science to a 'fact.'

 

It is this process that is what makes science into what it is. 'Facts' are merely a product - not the core of science.

 

Let me give you an example of science in action, using a silly topic to illustrate.

 

Imagine you are an intelligent peasant in medieval times. You see a rainbow. Being intelligent, you try to work out what causes it. You gather data. You note that it forms a half circle of bright colours.

 

You form a hypothesis. Perhaps the half circle comes from the circular sweep of a giant's hand, swinging a giant paintbrush through the air, leaving six bright colours in the half circle.

 

If you, as an intelligent peasant, continue the scientific process, you will now go on to form a testable prediction. You might say :

"If the rainbow is a half circle of paint, I can walk up to it and scrape off some paint."

 

When you try this, you are completing the scientific process, and falsifying that hypothesis.

 

At a later stage, Isaac Newton, with extra data from his experiments with light, forms another hypothesis. He says, perhaps a rainbow is from light being split into colours by rain drops.

 

Newton then forms a testable prediction. "If this is so, then a rainbow can only form within rain drops."

He tests the prediction by looking at lots of rainbows, and finds that, yes, it is only within raindrops.

 

Thus his hypothesis is not falsified. Today we accept that idea as the best model.

[bascule]

I'd say "scientific fact" is a shorter way of expressing a well-substantiated, uncontroversial theory. Ultimately, science is all theory, but then again, all personal knowledge is ultimately belief.

[lucaspa]

'Facts' produced by science are sometimes quite incorrect. 'Facts' produced by non science is sometimes quite correct. 'Facts' are not unique to science, though the 'facts' that science produces are mostly of greater credibility.

 

I would say "greater reliability". But now to ask you: why?

 

Science is not 'facts', or else we would have to include all other studies that produce 'facts' as part of science.

 

What science consists of is a process. It is not the results that make science, but the method. Science is the study of everything, but what distinguishes science is the method.

 

Oh, do NOT go here! Now you are into the Demarcation Problem -- how to distinguish science from non-science.

 

And no, science is NOT "a process" or "the method". You've got 2 problems:

1. There is no "THE method" of science. Different disciplines within science use different methods.

2. What is usually considered "the method" of science -- the hypothetico-deductive method -- is used by lots of disciplines that you would never admit to science. Read further for testing and support of this.

 

Astrologists claim to study everything, but their method is dubious, to say the least. Scientists also study everything, but use a much more reliable method. It is the method that makes the study into science.

 

You have made the mistake of switching from the discipline to the people. Now you are talking about "scientists". So, since I have been a working research scientist for 30 years, please tell me what method I have been using?

 

Thus, science is the study of everything using the scientific method. It is not 'facts', since 'facts' can come from non science. The key to science is the scientific method. I said earlier that we cannot simply define the scientific method, since it is too complex. After all, it consists of the very best methods that have been discovered to actually work, over the past 400 odd years, and that adds up to a hell of a lot of methods!

 

Let me give a brief outline, however, of the scientific method. This outline is incomplete, but may serve as a beginning.

 

The scientific method begins with a phenomenon to be explained. The scientist gathers such data as seems relevent to that possible explanation. In time, the scientist creates an intellectual synthesis, using that data, to come up with a trial explanation, or hypothesis.

 

Sorry, but this is wrong. This is not the method that scientists usually use. The rest of your description is the standard Popperian hypothetico-deductive method. But this is what Popper concluded after studying the history of science:

"I thought that scientific theories were not the digest of observations, but that they were inventions -- conjectures boldly put forward for trial, to be eliminated if they clashed with observations, with observations which were rarely accidental but as a rule undertaken with the definite intention of testing a theory by obtaining, if possible, a decisive refutation." Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations, 1963 p 38.

 

The next thing, which is the key to science, is the testing of the hypothesis. Even astrologers come up with hypotheses, by a similar intellectual process to that scientists use. However, a scientist carries out the proper testing process, something seriously lacking in astrology and other 'woo' subjects..

 

However, consider other disciplines than astrology. Let's look at the hypothesis: "onside kicks are usually fumbled" Can you seriously contend that football coaches have not properly tested that hypothesis? And actually obtained a refutation?

 

Or take another hypothesis: Moses was the author of the Pentateuch (Torah). I suggest you do some reading on the Documentary Hypothesis and realize that Biblical scholars (religion) has thoroughly tested that hypothesis and obtained a refutation.

 

It is only after repeated failures to falsify the hypothesis, that this trial explanation becomes accepted as a good model of reality - the nearest thing in science to a 'fact.'

 

It is this process that is what makes science into what it is. 'Facts' are merely a product - not the core of science.

 

Well, 2/3 of the way into the post, you finally explained what you meant by "facts are a product of science". There are some problems with this:

1. You contradicted this when you talked about testing the hypothesis: "The prediction is tested by novel experiment or observation," What are those "observations"? Aren't they facts?

2. The National Academy of Science has defined "fact" as "repeated observation". What you are saying here is that "facts" are supported hypotheses/theories. However, aren't all the falsified hypotheses also products of science?

 

So, let's change this: hypotheses/theories are the product of science. These hypotheses/theories can either be falsified or supported.

 

2. What you are stating is actually something stated by William Whewell in the late 1800s. Whewell noted that "fact" is anything which is used as the basis of a theory. His (classic) example was Kepler's theories of planetary motion were used as "facts" in Newton's theory of gravity. But that doesn't change that what you call "fact" is actually a supported hypothesis/theory.

 

I will also note here that Whewell demonstrated that all observations involved theories. If you say "the year is 365 days long", that involves theories of time and consecutive numbers.

 

I agree that science generally works by Popperian hypothetico-deductive method. However, that method is not limited to science. Nor do scientists form hypotheses by digesting observations. As you noted in your example, the peasant is using imagination to generate a hypothesis.

 

BTW, the peasant's hypothesis can avoid falsification by simply adding an ad hoc hypothesis that the rainbow is too far away to reach.

 

However, the scientific method can be used in ANY situation where people agree on what is "data". Science agrees that 1) the physical universe is data and 2) the data has to be the same for everyone under approximately the same circumstances.

 

It is that last one that really means science cannot study "everything". Thus your definition of science -- "Thus, science is the study of everything using the scientific method." -- is wrong. Science cannot study anything where the data is not intersubjective. And that is most of human existence. Science is a very limited form of knowing and, altho it looks like it can cover everything, actually covers only a very small part of our lives.

 

I'd say "scientific fact" is a shorter way of expressing a well-substantiated, uncontroversial theory. Ultimately, science is all theory, but then again, all personal knowledge is ultimately belief.

 

But aren't falsified theories also "scientific fact"? Which statement are we more sure of in science:

 

1. The earth is round.

2. The earth is not flat.