Science definition

[kvraghavaiah]

Science

The sun rises in the sky. We do not doubt our brain and eyes in accepting this, since living becomes very difficult if we doubt them. We accept the observations which are reliable for life, irrespective of the facts. We trust our sense organs and brain. When an observation is reliable, it is not mandatory to know the facts of that observation. An observation is reliable unless there is an alternative observation. ‘Sun travels from east to west of the earth in the sky’ was a reliable observation until it was observed that ‘the earth spins’. It cannot be disproved that your brain is under the control of a data injecting system, where your environment is only an imaginary creation of that system. It is impossible to know the facts of an observation. There are always unsolvable puzzles if we go in deep to find the facts of an observation. All reliable observations are reliable beliefs, because we do not know the facts of the observations. But, all reliable beliefs are not reliable observations. Some reliable beliefs are derived from reliable observations, but themselves are not observations. Many presented models of the universe are reliable beliefs based on reliable observations. The beliefs on the basis of reliable observations, which do not have alternative reliable observations, have to be relied on. Because I have been observing that the sun has been rising in the sky every day, I reliably believe that the sun rises in the sky tomorrow also. There are facts too among what we know. It is a fact that space and time are limitless. It is a fact that in any right-angled triangle, the area of the square whose side is the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the areas of the squares whose sides are the two legs. Only some of the facts and reliable beliefs are useful. The observation that a zebra has more combined area of black strips on its body that the combined area of white strips is useless to us. An office sales information is not applicable always and everywhere. Science is the set of facts and reliable beliefs, which are useful irrespective of time and place (Science Definition).

 

We have to doubt some things. We should not accept and/or believe which does not have enough bases, or which can be disproved using facts or reliable beliefs.

 

Reference:

http://theknowledgeone.com/documents/Human_Psychology.htm

[Ophiolite]

The observation that a zebra has more combined area of black strips on its body that the combined area of white strips is useless to us.

You may need to defend that position. The observation may be useless to you, but to assert it is useless to humanity in general, or science in particular seems unfounded, The observation could give us insight into aspects of visual perception, hitherto unidentified. If the pattern (no pun intended)of gene expression is repeated in related genes that could provide insight into evolutionary pathways. Etc.

[swansont]

Science is the set of facts and reliable beliefs, which are useful irrespective of time and place (Science Definition).

 

Science is processes by which we make and test models of nature's behavior. It is more than facts.

[CarbonCopy]

Science is the set of facts and reliable beliefs, which are useful irrespective of time and place (Science Definition).

 

Well, that definition is completely wrong. Science is the pursuit of knowledge rather than the knowledge itself. To quote from wiki :

 

Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

 

Edit - swansnot ninja'd me

Edited April 1, 2013 by CarbonCopy

[kvraghavaiah]

You may need to defend that position. The observation may be useless to you, but to assert it is useless to humanity in general, or science in particular seems unfounded, The observation could give us insight into aspects of visual perception, hitherto unidentified. If the pattern (no pun intended)of gene expression is repeated in related genes that could provide insight into evolutionary pathways. Etc.

I was just trying to give an example. Usefulness is relativistic too. We can call a less likely useful thing as useless. Ok..can we consider 'the exact length of the sleeve of the shirt of my next next neighbor house dweller' as useless fact?

 

Science is processes by which we make and test models of nature's behavior. It is more than facts.

It depends on how anyone wants to consider science as. Processes, experiments, methods, enterprises, etc were not considered as science until recently. They were considered makers or keepers of science. The very meaning of the word 'science' is 'knowledge'.

 

For example, Person B can call an animal XYZ as 'Cow', while Person A calls PQR as 'cow' .. if there is no common understanding.

[kvraghavaiah]

Further to the explanation given in the original post,

 

If we consider medical research, every finding may not be useful and a medicine may go extinct because of another more useful medicine down the line. But we holistically consider the medical research findings as useful always and everywhere. Even usefulness is relativistic. Some knowledge is very useful, some is very less useful. A reliable belief can have a little un-certainty of reliance and belief.

[Ringer]

I was just trying to give an example. Usefulness is relativistic too. We can call a less likely useful thing as useless. Ok..can we consider 'the exact length of the sleeve of the shirt of my next next neighbor house dweller' as useless fact?

Using that you could tell how well certain fibers hold up over time or if fibers tend to stretch or fray as well as how well different patterns in fabric hold up. This would tell you what fabrics to use or not use in the future while making clothes.

 

This reminds me of grant writing procedures, take what you are studying and convince someone else it's useful enough to pay for.

It depends on how anyone wants to consider science as. Processes, experiments, methods, enterprises, etc were not considered as science until recently. They were considered makers or keepers of science. The very meaning of the word 'science' is 'knowledge'.

 

For example, Person B can call an animal XYZ as 'Cow', while Person A calls PQR as 'cow' .. if there is no common understanding.

So why make up your own definition instead of the one that's commonly used?

[CarbonCopy]

It depends on how anyone wants to consider science as. Processes, experiments, methods, enterprises, etc were not considered as science until recently. They were considered makers or keepers of science. The very meaning of the word 'science' is 'knowledge'.

 

For example, Person B can call an animal XYZ as 'Cow', while Person A calls PQR as 'cow' .. if there is no common understanding.

 

Well that is your definition, but, that does not mean it is the real one. Science is the methods and not the facts. I like to call the facts as the 'products' of science

Edited April 2, 2013 by CarbonCopy

[ydoaPs]

!

Moderator Note

This is a philosophy of science question rather than a science question. As such, the discussion is now moved to General Philosophy.

[kvraghavaiah]

I got excellent helping comments here. Thank you all for your contribution.

Now I understand want happened:

In Indian languages, a word which is equivalent to 'Science' in English is used as synonym to 'Knowledge'. Also, worlds most ancient script 'Vedha' has synonyms 'Knowledge' and 'Science'. So I had strongly in my mind that Science=Knowledge.

But majority of the world currently sees science as the set of processes around knowledge rather than the knowledge itself. So the definition I developed sounds a bit odd. So, I am with drawing this definition. I am making it as the meaning of 'Scientific knowledge' instead of science. But I will purify the description to take in to account the meaningful comments I received from different people.

[swansont]

I think that the point is (beside the one that the root of a word is not synonymous with its meaning in how it ends up being used) knowledge does not begin and end with facts. Science, or scientific knowledge, includes a way of figuring things out so that we have a reliable way of being confident that we know how nature is acting.

[cladking]

Modern science is merely "observation> hypothesis> experiment> results" as well as the definitions, axioms and previous results of experiment. Results don't exist outside such definitions. Most of what people call "science" is really just technology which is largely the magic created by the ability of some people to create experiments outside the lab or to manifest knowledge of a process in the real world.

 

Science can be based on observation and logic alone. Observation> hypothetical prediction> observation> results. It's even possible that if we practiced science this way that experiment might seem somewhat contrived and confounding. Most of the results of this science are theoretical and relatively free of what we consider practical results like technology.

 

It would be more accurate to say science leads to understanding since true knowledge is visceral and the result of experience.

[CarbonCopy]

 

 

In Indian languages, a word which is equivalent to 'Science' in English is used as synonym to 'Knowledge'. Also, worlds most ancient script 'Vedha' has synonyms 'Knowledge' and 'Science'. So I had strongly in my mind that Science=Knowledge.

 

 

Not exactly. You see, there was no exact word science in the modern sense in Sanskrit or in any other Indian language. That is because they did not follow our logic of obtaining knowledge ( science ) and followed a different one. Just that, nowadyas, meanings of words such as Vigyan ( in Hindi ) have been altered to better suite these languages for the modern world. They originally did not mean science or knowledge but something different ( stuff in vedic philosophy )

But, your point still stands. Science comes from the latin verb 'to know' and the word for knowledge. But, the modern meaning of science is different from the root word. That is because, before the Renaissance, science actually meant knowledge. But, after the Renaissance, we developed techniques such as scientific method, etc. People realized these methods of getting knowledge was more important than the knowledge itself. So, the meaning of science was changed the modern one.

A rough history lesson on the word science .

[lightburst]

Richard Feynman: What is Science?

 

Perhaps that's relevant to the discussion?

[cladking]

Richard Feynman: What is Science?

 

Perhaps that's relevant to the discussion?

 

 

Thanks for the link.

 

I have (or at least had) a great deal of respect for Feynman but he sure blew this one. If not for his statement that, "science is the belief that all the experts are wrong" then I'd say he was almost completely wrong. I'd be inclined to say better phraseology is "science is the visceral knowledge that all the experts are wrong". Teaching is largely the ability to remember how you learned and to express this to students.

 

Metaphysical science is exceedingly simple but it is too simple and we've wholly lost track of it. The metaphysics should be drilled into students' heads from 1st grade to the completion of their doctoral thesis. If we did this the world wouldn't be awash in silly psuedo-science and mountains of assumption. The world is getting increasingly dangerous because man can't recognize his own ignorance and weakness.

 

It's ridiculous to try to understand reality only in terms of science when we know only the tiniest fraction of everything there is to know. It's only language that sets us apart. It's only confusion that allows us to fret about boxes and cats.

[Dekan]

The posts by Kvraghavaiah and CarbonCopy are valuable. They show the importance of language, when we try to define a word like "Science".

 

The word "Science" is precisely understood in the English language. That's because English has a rich vocabulary. So many words! With this wealth of words, English speakers can make precise distinctions between "Science", "Knowledge", "Wisdom" "Learning" and so on.

 

Other languages, like Sanskrit, can't express these fine shades of meaning, because they haven't got enough words. The small Sanskrit vocabulary, means that each word has to struggle to convey a wide range of possible meanings.

 

Which of the meanings is intended has to be deduced from the context. And the context is often open to various interpretations. So Sanskrit can't be as lucid and precise as English.

 

Therefore, should we bother with Indian languages, or discuss in English only?

Edited April 6, 2013 by Dekan

[lightburst]

Teaching is largely the ability to remember how you learned and to express this to students.

That's true, just because that's how most teachers I've had had done it. But it's not the most effective way to teach.

Metaphysical science is exceedingly simple but it is too simple and we've wholly lost track of it. The metaphysics should be drilled into students' heads from 1st grade to the completion of their doctoral thesis. If we did this the world wouldn't be awash in silly psuedo-science and mountains of assumption. The world is getting increasingly dangerous because man can't recognize his own ignorance and weakness.

 

It's ridiculous to try to understand reality only in terms of science when we know only the tiniest fraction of everything there is to know. It's only language that sets us apart. It's only confusion that allows us to fret about boxes and cats.

Just because we cannot see beyond the horizon doesn't mean there is necessarily a cliff at the end. Wondering about the idea that there is more to know than we are able to know doesn't get you any farther in knowing anything except that you *could* be right in your 'knowing' that the ocean extends farther beyond the horizon. Even then, getting the correct area of the ocean and distance of the horizon will be tricky; the ocean beyond the horizon can simply be marginally smaller than what we can see. But sure, I guess 'knowing' that the ocean extends farther beyond the horizon 'counts for something'.

 

Assuming that we could be correct in our results and carry on is a lot better than to assume we could be wrong and not do anything.

[kvraghavaiah]

Not exactly. You see, there was no exact word science in the modern sense in Sanskrit or in any other Indian language. That is because they did not follow our logic of obtaining knowledge ( science ) and followed a different one. Just that, nowadyas, meanings of words such as Vigyan ( in Hindi ) have been altered to better suite these languages for the modern world. They originally did not mean science or knowledge but something different ( stuff in vedic philosophy )

But, your point still stands. Science comes from the latin verb 'to know' and the word for knowledge. But, the modern meaning of science is different from the root word. That is because, before the Renaissance, science actually meant knowledge. But, after the Renaissance, we developed techniques such as scientific method, etc. People realized these methods of getting knowledge was more important than the knowledge itself. So, the meaning of science was changed the modern one.

A rough history lesson on the word science .

Actually 'Sastra' is the word used as equivalent to 'Science' in English. In sanskrit, 'Gyan'=knowledge. 'Vigyan'=awareness of the importance of knowledge.

'Vedhas' are called as 'Sastra' as frequently as they are called 'Vedhas' while another synonym of Vedha is knowledge. And in schools we were taught that Science='Sastra'. So Science=knowledge was the understanding.

 

The posts by Kvraghavaiah and CarbonCopy are valuable. They show the importance of language, when we try to define a word like "Science".

 

The word "Science" is precisely understood in the English language. That's because English has a rich vocabulary. So many words! With this wealth of words, English speakers can make precise distinctions between "Science", "Knowledge", "Wisdom" "Learning" and so on.

 

Other languages, like Sanskrit, can't express these fine shades of meaning, because they haven't got enough words. The small Sanskrit vocabulary, means that each word has to struggle to convey a wide range of possible meanings.

 

Which of the meanings is intended has to be deduced from the context. And the context is often open to various interpretations. So Sanskrit can't be as lucid and precise as English.

 

Therefore, should we bother with Indian languages, or discuss in English only?

I am not doing this reply with a soft corner to Sanskrit.

Sanskrit words cover at least as many and likely more meanings and expressions than English.

Traditional vedic philosophy in India has very strict and mature measures in dealing with knowledge. Most of the Sanskrit definitions and words I know happen to be very precise.

 

Recently, when I was switching through different TV channels, I vaguely heard one vedic priest telling that according to Sastra(veda), definition for science is 'useful matter / useful information'. .. I really did not listen to it properly at that time. But later I found it to be very meaningful. I had independently developed the definition for science by then already, but with the word 'useful' missing in my definition. But, then I took the word 'Useful' in to the definition I was developing, to make a complete definition.

 

Let me give an example to demonstrate what is useful knowledge and what is not.

 

The observation that today I walked 5 steps more than the person living 10,000 kilo meters away from me is useless.

(You may argue that who knows if even this information can be useful, there is probability. It is very less likely to be useful. We do not put our focus on such things obviously. So by our commonsense, we know that this knowldge is useless.)

 

That is how we differentiate scientific knowledge and non-sense with in knowledge. Usefulness is actually the most important aspect of science and so any definition of science is incomplete with out using the word 'useful'.

[swansont]

I have (or at least had) a great deal of respect for Feynman but he sure blew this one. If not for his statement that, "science is the belief that all the experts are wrong" then I'd say he was almost completely wrong. I'd be inclined to say better phraseology is "science is the visceral knowledge that all the experts are wrong".

Seriously? He starts with pattern recognition — making models. Then he discusses learning how rote memorization is not science — what you want is to be taking things apart to see how it works. With the bird pecking its feathers we see the example of hypothesis and the need for testing in a way that could falsify the hypothesis. He mentions being able to observe effects even though the cause wasn't observable with the naked eye. He talks about re-checking results to make sure they are correct. He talks about how science is more than just following a recipe.

 

What about that is wrong?

[Ophiolite]

That is how we differentiate scientific knowledge and non-sense with in knowledge. Usefulness is actually the most important aspect of science and so any definition of science is incomplete with out using the word 'useful'.

Perhaps you need to define usefullness. Science has arisen out of a two fold drive: one is to develop technology, which is by definition useful, and the other is to gather informaiton and understanding for the shear joy of having that information and understanding. If you consider possessing that knowledge is useful because one uses it to feel energised through possessing it, then I'll accept that usefulness is an important aspect of science. But if you mean we need to able to use that knowledge productively in - ulitmately an economic sense, then bollocks: you are seriously mistaken.

 

To take your example, the fact that you worked five steps further than someone 10,000 km away becomes interesting if we know more about how far other people have walked; if we can relate distance walked to age, sex, occupation, nationality, social class, etc. And if we gather information about that and analyses it carefully then we are conducting science. Will it produce something useful? Who knows and who (apart from those providing funding) actually cares - it is intrinsically interesting. It doesn't matter if it is useful or not.

[kvraghavaiah]

Perhaps you need to define usefullness. Science has arisen out of a two fold drive: one is to develop technology, which is by definition useful, and the other is to gather informaiton and understanding for the shear joy of having that information and understanding. If you consider possessing that knowledge is useful because one uses it to feel energised through possessing it, then I'll accept that usefulness is an important aspect of science. But if you mean we need to able to use that knowledge productively in - ulitmately an economic sense, then bollocks: you are seriously mistaken.

 

To take your example, the fact that you worked five steps further than someone 10,000 km away becomes interesting if we know more about how far other people have walked; if we can relate distance walked to age, sex, occupation, nationality, social class, etc. And if we gather information about that and analyses it carefully then we are conducting science. Will it produce something useful? Who knows and who (apart from those providing funding) actually cares - it is intrinsically interesting. It doesn't matter if it is useful or not.

Usefulness is not necessarily in economics. It can be in anyway.

 

the knowledge "who walks how much and in what areas of the world" is different from the knowledge "a specific person 10000 km away walked 5 steps more than me". The earlier case is a very minute subset of the later case because the first case does not require study of every person on the earth. So we have to know how much is enough.

[Ophiolite]

You haven't addressed my central point.

[cladking]

That's true, just because that's how most teachers I've had had done it. But it's not the most effective way to teach.Just because we cannot see beyond the horizon doesn't mean there is necessarily a cliff at the end. Wondering about the idea that there is more to know than we are able to know doesn't get you any farther in knowing anything except that you *could* be right in your 'knowing' that the ocean extends farther beyond the horizon. Even then, getting the correct area of the ocean and distance of the horizon will be tricky; the ocean beyond the horizon can simply be marginally smaller than what we can see. But sure, I guess 'knowing' that the ocean extends farther beyond the horizon 'counts for something'.

 

Assuming that we could be correct in our results and carry on is a lot better than to assume we could be wrong and not do anything.

 

Most peoiple learn in typical ways and typical orders. So long as the teacher learned this

way this is the easiest way to teach in my experience. Of course, my experience is neither

deep nor includes a lot of atypical learning so I can't well argue the point. I'm sure you're

right that some students need different tactics.

 

Sailing off into the horizon not knowing if you'll ever reach land isn't very hazardous to the

species. Some of the things we're doing today with little forethought could cause our ex-

tinction. My contention isn't that we should do nothing but that we should chart the path

ahead to the degree we can before setting off.

 

 

Seriously? He starts with pattern recognition — making models. Then he discusses learning how rote memorization is not science — what you want is to be taking things apart to see how it works. With the bird pecking its feathers we see the example of hypothesis and the need for testing in a way that could falsify the hypothesis. He mentions being able to observe effects even though the cause wasn't observable with the naked eye. He talks about re-checking results to make sure they are correct. He talks about how science is more than just following a recipe.

 

What about that is wrong?

 

 

Perhaps I came down a little too hard on him. The essay (lecture) really just highlighted

a difference between who I had thought he was than the actual man. We're ultimately all

just human with human frailties and foibels. I'm surprised he missed so many defining

characteristics of science but we each have our own perspectives as well. I am struck by

some of the similarities in upbringing and thought we share.

 

Six years ago I'd have been in much closer agreement with him and not so much noticed

the shortcomings. He was certainly one of the greats despite my opinion of this specific

work.

[PeterJ]

Metaphysical science is exceedingly simple but it is too simple and we've wholly lost track of it. The metaphysics should be drilled into students' heads from 1st grade to the completion of their doctoral thesis. If we did this the world wouldn't be awash in silly psuedo-science and mountains of assumption. s.

 

Right on brother! This failure to understand metaphysics allows countless ludicrous views to survive. But good luck trying to get physcists to see this. Generally it seems that metaphysics is considered to be not worth thinking about. This leaves us free to believe whatever nonsense we like. I blame this on academic metaphysicians who, as you say, have lost the plot. In reality, as you also say,the plot is quite simple.

[Ophiolite]

Right on brother! This failure to understand metaphysics allows countless ludicrous views to survive.

I dare say I shall regret this, but could you give an example of one of those ludicrous views? And if you could, would you?