Your personal definition of science?

[hypervalent_iodine]

I have given an example: synthetic chemistry. The main role of syntetic chemistry is not to create theories or laws but to create new substances. This is a particular characteristics of chemistry, different from physics. As stated by Marcelin Berthelot, La chimie crée son object –chemistry creates its object.

 

I disagree. Stating that synthetic chemistry is simply the science of creating new substances completely ignores the vast majority of what synthetic chemistry actually sets out to achieve and understand.

 

It is true that is provides a means to construct industrially/medically relevant substances or novel substances, but that is more of a means to an end (and to grant money) than the ultimate objective (usually). A purely synthetic chemist seeks more to provide a mechanistic description for a reaction and develop novel reactions or other processes that provide access to various types of compounds. These sorts of studies are quite often culminated in natural product synthesis, which will often provide extremely challenging motifs that lead to new discoveries. From the perspective of a synthetic organic chemist, the actual substances that you make and the application of those substances is second and a distance third respectively to the development of the reactions and techniques that get you there.

 

As to the OP, there isn't much I can say that hasn't been said in this thread. I think ajb puts it quite eloquently.

[juanrga]

I disagree. Stating that synthetic chemistry is simply the science of creating new substances completely ignores the vast majority of what synthetic chemistry actually sets out to achieve and understand.

 

I did not say that was simply that, although it is true that I expressed myself badly. Maybe I would have said that "a main role" or "one of the roles" of synthetic chemistry is the creation of new substances.

 

It is true that is provides a means to construct industrially/medically relevant substances or novel substances, but that is more of a means to an end (and to grant money) than the ultimate objective (usually). A purely synthetic chemist seeks more to provide a mechanistic description for a reaction and develop novel reactions or other processes that provide access to various types of compounds. These sorts of studies are quite often culminated in natural product synthesis, which will often provide extremely challenging motifs that lead to new discoveries. From the perspective of a synthetic organic chemist, the actual substances that you make and the application of those substances is second and a distance third respectively to the development of the reactions and techniques that get you there.

 

We must be in agreement. The axiomatic definition of synthetic science is: science related with the combination of two or more components to form a whole system. Synthetic chemistry is a subset of this and includes the theoretical studies about mechanisms and paths. See, for instance, the definition of synthetic organic chemistry by Francesco Nicotra.

 

In any case, the main point here was that the above quote by Marcelin Berthelot emphasizes one of the reasons which chemistry is distinct than physics and why physicists' definitions of science are not acceptable. A complete and sound definition of science is given in #20.

[pmb]

That is just the American Physicist Society definition of science, which misses whole scientific disciplines as synthetic chemistry. The definition of science given before was developed to improve that.

That is simply incorrect. Just because the name of the organization which published the article has the word physics in it can in no way be used as a valid excuse of it being the definition of science. The example you gave merely shows that synthetic chemistry, as you've used it, means that synthetic chemistry is not a valid branch of science.

[juanrga]

The example you gave merely shows that synthetic chemistry, as you've used it, means that synthetic chemistry is not a valid branch of science.

 

It is your definition of science which needs revision:

 

http://publications.nigms.nih.gov/chemhealth/atoz.htm

 

http://es.scribd.com/doc/21610005/5/GREEN-CHEMISTRY-AND-SYNTHETIC-CHEMISTRY

Edited May 2, 2012 by juanrga

[anotherfilthyape]

Science is any field of study where the studying process involves rigorous observation of the enviroment and study of things previously done in these fields by others to hold as a foundation for the way this observation will be managed and the consequent employment of these studies to propose a hypothesis of how the future should behave in regards to the observed criteria and the consequent design of experiments to prove this hypothesis which thus gives knowledge that engineers can apply to improve human life... Note that by design previous theories which are hypothesis that have been assumed true under empirical evidence, can be abandoned for a superior hypothesis or theory.

 

Under this definition "abstract science" is a contradiction, however "abstract sciences" can be considered an oxymoronic in-between of science and philosophy (mathematics and logic would be one such field).

 

Philosophy is any field of study where the studying process involves rigorous study and analysis of things previous done in these fields by others to hold as a foundation for the way the field will be expanded or perpetuated and the consequent application of these fields to human behaviour (ethics), human organizations or human societies (politics) or academic fields (philosophy of language, philosophy of science, etc)... Note that by design previous theories which are hypothesis that have been assumed true under reasoning that has not yet been shown to be flawed, can be abandoned for a superior hypothesis or theory as soon as flaws are found in its system and an alternate system is proposed as a solution that both explains what the previous theory or hypothesis explained and what the previous theory or hypothesis failed to explain.

 

In this way philosophy is an abstract counterpart to science and both can complement each other, suplement each other, or be in conflict, depending on the field and position one holds regarding them.

 

Not that this is a definition for science in the sense it is employed in the modern world, originally science was any field which operated to reveal reality as it is for once and for ever, so the boundaries between science and philosophy where not as strong, but those days are over and now science is necessarily empirical or, better said, criticist.

[Salef]

In my opinion Science is the search of knowledge through:

 

1- mathematics (or logic) as universal language

(that implies: analysis, quantification, economy and consilience)

2- evidence as the only justification for a theory (through a Bayesian hypotesis-prevision-experiment process)

3- skepticism and continuous review of the results within the scientific community

 

Sorry for my English is not perfect (I'm Italian)

[billwald]

Science deals with repeatable events and experiments . . . data which can be falsified.

 

People think that any subject which utilizes expensive technical toys is "science." For example, the authentication of paintings uses high tech equipment but art is not science.

Neither is history is not science. If history is not science then neither is pre-history. For example, the classification of long dead bones is an art, not a science. The confusion probably arises because in these days, for most people, science pays better than the arts.

 

"Under this definition "abstract science" is a contradiction, however "abstract sciences" can be considered an oxymoronic in-between of science and philosophy (mathematics and logic would be one such field)."

 

Before Newton, theology was called "the queen of the sciences." When the division of universities into colleges of arts and colleges of science began, mathematics was taught as as an art, not a science. Chemistry was an art but chemical engineering was a science. The division is better described as theoretical information and applied information?

[imatfaal]

Bill - just one note. data can never be falsified - only the interpretations and models that rely on data can be falsified

[Dekan]

Perhaps the problem is, we're making up an abstract word - "Science". Then trying to figure out what the word means.

 

The word comes from the Latin verb "Scio" which means - "I know". So "science" means "knowingness". However, that doesn't make sense in English. ( Except to Scientologists, especially OT3 and above).

 

However in other languages, like German, things are simpler. The forthright Teutons have their own word for Science: "Wissenschaft ".

 

Which means "Knowledge-craft". And isn't that a good definition - not just vague philosophical ideas, but a practical application of knowledge. And that's where it differs from Philosophy. What has Philosophy produced in the 2,000 years since the Greeks started it? Nothing but a lot of word-churning!

 

Whereas Science has changed the world. The world isn't any longer like the Greeks ran it. With their disgusting society propped up by suffering slaves. Today, the slaves have been set free - and not by vacuous Philosophy. By the steam-engine, and its descendants - products of modern Science, or "knowledge-craft"!

 

Therefore, my definition of Science would be: "The practical application of knowledge".

[anotherfilthyape]

 

 

Science deals with repeatable events and experiments . . . data which can be falsified.

 

People think that any subject which utilizes expensive technical toys is "science." For example, the authentication of paintings uses high tech equipment but art is not science.

Neither is history is not science. If history is not science then neither is pre-history. For example, the classification of long dead bones is an art, not a science. The confusion probably arises because in these days, for most people, science pays better than the arts.

 

"Under this definition "abstract science" is a contradiction, however "abstract sciences" can be considered an oxymoronic in-between of science and philosophy (mathematics and logic would be one such field)."

 

Before Newton, theology was called "the queen of the sciences." When the division of universities into colleges of arts and colleges of science began, mathematics was taught as as an art, not a science. Chemistry was an art but chemical engineering was a science. The division is better described as theoretical information and applied information?

 

So paleontology is not science? LMAO you are too funny to tell you antyhing else...

 

Perhaps the problem is, we're making up an abstract word - "Science". Then trying to figure out what the word means.

 

The word comes from the Latin verb "Scio" which means - "I know". So "science" means "knowingness". However, that doesn't make sense in English. ( Except to Scientologists, especially OT3 and above).

 

However in other languages, like German, things are simpler. The forthright Teutons have their own word for Science: "Wissenschaft ".

 

Which means "Knowledge-craft". And isn't that a good definition - not just vague philosophical ideas, but a practical application of knowledge. And that's where it differs from Philosophy. What has Philosophy produced in the 2000 years since the Greeks started it? Nothing but a lot of word-churning!

 

Whereas Science has changed the world. The world isn't any longer like the Greeks ran it. With their disgusting society propped up by suffering slaves. Today, the slaves have been set free - and not by vacuous Philosophy. By the steam-engine, and its descendants - products of modern Science, or "knowledge-craft"!

 

Therefore, my definition of Science would be: "The practical application of knowledge".

 

Wow, how much ignorance in so few words! And before you call me on insulting you, you have insulted yourself by making those claims and you have insulted a lot of people to which you owe science... Science is the result of philosophy... Democracy is the result of philosophy... Freedom is the result of philosophy... Ethics, politics, ontology, philosophy of language, philosophy of science, gnoseology and epistemology, all are a consequence of philosophy!!!!

 

 

 

[ccdan]

So paleontology is not science? LMAO you are too funny to tell you antyhing else...

I wouldn't really call paleontology (as it is right now) a science because the fundamental aspect of science, the testing of various hypotheses using the scientific method, is pretty much non-existent.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

anotherfilthyape,

Your attitude is not appropriate. Keep the insulting tone and words out of your posts in future, or you will find yourself suspended.

[anotherfilthyape]

!

Moderator Note

anotherfilthyape,

 

Your attitude is not appropriate. Keep the insulting tone and words out of your posts in future, or you will find yourself suspended.

 

Why am I the one that is being warned when is the other poster the one that said that philosophy is word-churning? Why am I considering to be the one with an insulting tone when it is the other poster the one that insulted a whole academic field and everyone that practices it?

[hypervalent_iodine]

Firstly, there is a difference between insulting a person and insulting their ideas and secondly, because I can't for the life of me see where the two posts you've quoted are insulting. If you wish to discuss this further, you are welcome to do so via PM or via the report feature (you were welcome to last time I warned you as well, for the record).

[anotherfilthyape]

Firstly, there is a difference between insulting a person and insulting their ideas and secondly, because I can't for the life of me see where the two posts you've quoted are insulting. If you wish to discuss this further, you are welcome to do so via PM or via the report feature (you were welcome to last time I warned you as well, for the record).

 

Ok... Then I will send you a pm on my thoughts but how does the report feature works? And where does it work?

[hypervalent_iodine]

The bottom left corner of each post, there is a small yellow triangle with, 'Report', written next to it. If you feel a post is against our rules, etc., you can click that, write your report and it will be sent to the reports centre, which is viewable by all mod and admin staff.

[anotherfilthyape]

Ok... Then I will send you a pm on my thoughts on both issues but how does the report feature works? And where does it work?

 

I guess it is too late to report now but I will report in the future and check the laws your forums have to be sure I understand their exact wording so I can argue correctly rather than from common sense and subsequent deduction/induction

Edited May 14, 2012 by anotherfilthyape

[Ophiolite]

Science deals with repeatable events and experiments . . . data which can be falsified.

 

People think that any subject which utilizes expensive technical toys is "science." For example, the authentication of paintings uses high tech equipment but art is not science.

Neither is history is not science. If history is not science then neither is pre-history. For example, the classification of long dead bones is an art, not a science.

This turns out to be an incorrect understanding of anthropology, palaeontology, and most of the sub-sets related to geology.

 

In this field the experiments have already been conducted through the evolution of the planet and its life forms. Hypotheses and theories (not the data) concerning these can be falsified by making observations that wholly contradict the theories. Statistical, obervational and analytical techniques furnish the data on which theories will fall, or be validated. It is rather foolish to suggest otherwise.

[Salef]

I think Karl Popper caused a great misconception.

1. falsifiability is an interesting philosophical argument, but is far away from how science works.

Scientists don't try to falsify their theories, they try to support them with evidence. And we don't accept theories "not falsified yet", we just accept theories "already corroborated by evidence". Do you agree?

2. there are two kinds of evidence; experiments and "observational data".

If all the evidence was experimental, then it would be the same thing (verify/falsify). But evidence is not only an experiment; paleontologists gathered lot of evidence for the existence of dinosaurs but they didn't perform experiments and their hypotesis are not falsifiable (how can you falsify the existence of the T-Rex?).

 

These misunderstandings come from two elements:

First, philosophers like Popper or Feyerabend insist that "science is only a set of theories waiting to falsified, never really verified, socially influenced and dependent from scientists whims" (partially true, but is an attempt to minimize its value).

Second, that falsifiabilty works well with phyisics (and philosophers tend to identfy science with physics) because all the evidence is experimental and falsifiable at any time; in that case, Popper's theory works well.

 

Again, sorry if my English is not perfect.

[imatfaal]

Hi Salef and welcome to the Forum.

 

A few points - falsifiability is a required part; if a theory is constructed that cannot be falsified then it is not really science. Archaeologists work can be falsified - as an instance; many sets of fossil remains were reconstructed very incorrectly - when greater knowledge of the dynamics and engineering of skeletal joints it was found that these reconstructions required bone strength orders of magnitude higher than large land mammals today and thus these reconstructions were abandoned and new ideas worked with.

 

I agree that philosophers' views on science are not necessarily the final word - but it is also very useful to view science as a single enterprise and ascertain any benefical or negative thought processes that should be nurtured or avoided.