What's a Science?

[D H]

The difficulty is in seeing Science as a philosophy.

I for one have a difficulty seeing science as philosophy.

But we've made the distinction between "scientific" and "philosophical" thinking for so long that we see them as two separate fields of endeavour.

We have also made distinctions between astronomy and astrology, chemistry and alchemistry, psychology and phrenology, and so on. Astronomy and astrology were originally the same field of endeavor, as were chemistry and alchemistry. We have thrown out astrology, alchemistry, and phrenology as useless pseudoscientific endeavors.

 

Science is not philosophy. Feynman said it best: "Philosophers say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong."

 

===============

 

My two bits on science: Science is some field that has a base set of knowledge comprising "proven" theories and unproven but well-reasoned assumptions, uses deductive and inductive reasoning to form new hypotheses from the base, and builds on the base by means of experimentation and abductive reasoning.

 

Falsification is a bit overrated as an underlying paradigm. Falsifiability is one key characteristic of a scientific hypothesis. However, just because some scientific model has been shown to be false does not necessarily mean that that model is no longer a valid scientific theory. We still teach and use Newton's laws of motion, for example. We do not use general relativity or quantum mechanics as the basis for building a bridge.

[Sisyphus]

I for one have a difficulty seeing science as philosophy.

 

We have also made distinctions between astronomy and astrology, chemistry and alchemistry, psychology and phrenology, and so on. Astronomy and astrology were originally the same field of endeavor, as were chemistry and alchemistry. We have thrown out astrology, alchemistry, and phrenology as useless pseudoscientific endeavors.

 

Science is not philosophy. Feynman said it best: "Philosophers say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong."

 

Science is the best tool we have for refining and expanding our observations of the universe. It's relationship with what is now commonly known as philosophy is one of providing generalized a posteriori content. It is common and completely understandable for those with scientific training to mistake "philosphy" for pseudoscience (which is just science contaminated with fallacy and excessive speculation), as if they were reaching for the same goal, and philosophy were just an undisciplined and speculative version of science. Feynman's quote is accurate but misleading, since predicting what data science will provide is not really the business of philosophy.

[foodchain]

Science is not philosophy. Feynman said it best: "Philosophers say a great deal about what is absolutely necessary for science, and it is always, so far as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong."

 

===============

 

My two bits on science: Science is some field that has a base set of knowledge comprising "proven" theories and unproven but well-reasoned assumptions, uses deductive and inductive reasoning to form new hypotheses from the base, and builds on the base by means of experimentation and abductive reasoning.

 

Falsification is a bit overrated as an underlying paradigm. Falsifiability is one key characteristic of a scientific hypothesis. However, just because some scientific model has been shown to be false does not necessarily mean that that model is no longer a valid scientific theory. We still teach and use Newton's laws of motion, for example. We do not use general relativity or quantum mechanics as the basis for building a bridge.

 

I have to agree and disagree. Science past being called or defined by just being a method is going to have nothing short of variance individual to individual I think. Personally the thing about science that attracted me is simply its concern with what I think humanity at large can call truth. Subjective thinking does not stop lightning from possibly killing someone on a strike, in fact I don’t think many people know until its already done. So yes, a physical world exists I think but how do you honestly define it? In many ways it comes down to a handy math equation, such as for an object rolling down a hill, or interactions with gravity. How do you go about expanding that knowledge, to me the only answer is simply to question things.

 

I like positivism a lot, the combined performance of empirical and logical or mathematical reasoning alone has done nothing but show the reality of the natural world and that it exists. Ultimately science is different in that it does require proof. Stating the age of a fossil is not something done by mere subjective communication alone. Science actually works at proving something, philosophy I just don’t see as holding such a rigor. So that’s my definition regarding difference of the two. In regards to the western world I think philosophy sprouted science, more so in regards to physics and I think math. I don’t know how much revolutions in Europe or ages for that matter impacted this.

[D H]

Ultimately science is different in that it does require proof.

Proof (absolute proof) is the realm of mathematics and logic. A mathematical theorem proven true two thousand years ago remains true today, and for all time. That is not the case for a scientific theory. The "proof" in a scientific theory is more along the lines of proof in a legal trial ("proof beyond a reasonable doubt") than proof in a mathematical theorem. Scientific theories are not "proven". All it takes is one counterexample to disprove a theory.

[foodchain]

Proof (absolute proof) is the realm of mathematics and logic. A mathematical theorem proven true two thousand years ago remains true today, and for all time. That is not the case for a scientific theory. The "proof" in a scientific theory is more along the lines of proof in a legal trial ("proof beyond a reasonable doubt") than proof in a mathematical theorem. Scientific theories are not "proven". All it takes is one counterexample to disprove a theory.

 

I don’t know about that math bit, the math equation itself may remain the same. Such as 1+1 equaling two and so on. This though does not have to express reality really. Empirical understanding may seem more crude, but math by itself is completely blind also, I mean how do you describe something in math if you can only use math. You cant describe geology, you would have to understand geology, not just math. So the combined arms approach I think is very positive like I stated, and of course the theory in science can change, we don’t know everything. I mean using computers is great, but they are hardly error free;)

[Donut.Hole]

To me, science is any controlled procedure that allows you to find out something.

[Tiapan]

Klaynos your instincts are right. Science, if defined by people who are disconnected from the origanal discovery of the observable natural principle in action, is simply postulatation about different viewpoints formed from a foundation of rote knowledge wich is both compartmentilised and incomplete. Origanal observable actions within the natural world are not the basis of the education system because that system has been set up for the benifit of industry and the wealth/power or those with vested interests in it. As you can observe from the responding posts many people think science exists indipendently from the obsever/scientist. Quantum Physics is trying to argue that point at the moment but I think it can be obseved in action in the way so many educated people these days will use quotes and rote to support there position in much the same way most religion people use their book to support whatever position suits them.

EGO is everywhere, Money is the cure when you are powerless!

Think outside of the box, wich is inside a box, wich is inside a box ..........how far can you go

[Vexer]

"Science" is the search for Objective Truth.