Iwonderaboutthings Posted July 15, 2014 Posted July 15, 2014 (edited) science is about predicting physical behavior? Say, how would a planet's atmosphere be affected if it had no more heat source, like a sun for example.. Or say, if all the water on planet "a" rose to a level of 0.0006 nano meters, how would that effect orbital periods of its moons.. Or, if water reached 1/2 of its boiling point and you placed " some substance" in it how would that substance's atomic structure behave and or respond, if the water's boiling maximum was instantaneous?? These are just examples... Edited July 15, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings
barfbag Posted July 15, 2014 Posted July 15, 2014 Science is the study of nature in general and your analogies all fit within the realm of science, however your statement is not complete. Exploring the moon/mars/jungle is scientific because of observation. We are learning about nature. There is no requirements to make predictions about these places and soil elements to make it science.
Iwonderaboutthings Posted July 15, 2014 Author Posted July 15, 2014 (edited) Science is the study of nature in general and your analogies all fit within the realm of science, however your statement is not complete. Exploring the moon/mars/jungle is scientific because of observation. We are learning about nature. There is no requirements to make predictions about these places and soil elements to make it science. I see... Ok, here is something off The Internet: Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. Link: http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/science-definition.html They make it sound like you just look at something and " just explain it to people" Where does all the fun stuff come in?? Predictions? Inventions? New Technology?? Edited July 15, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings
Mordred Posted July 15, 2014 Posted July 15, 2014 I see... Ok, here is something off The Internet: Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. Link: http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/science-definition.html They make it sound like you just look at something and " just explain it to people" Where does all the fun stuff come in?? Predictions? Inventions? New Technology?? read the section on scientific method http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/scientific_method.html that's where the fun comes in.
ajb Posted July 15, 2014 Posted July 15, 2014 I would say that physics is about the construction of models of nature, the comparison of those models with nature and the collection of experimental data so that the models can be compared. Making predictions of as of yet unforeseen phenomena can be part of testing a model.
Strange Posted July 15, 2014 Posted July 15, 2014 They make it sound like you just look at something and " just explain it to people" The hard work (and fun) comes from finding ways to test your proposed explanation (a hypothesis) so that it can, perhaps, become accepted as a theory. The other exciting thing is stumbling across something unexpected. A large amount of interesting science is about testing things that every takes for granted, things that everyone "knows" is true ... and then finding that it isn't true, and that the real world is more complex and surprising than we initially think. "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not Eureka! (I found it!) but rather, 'hmm... that's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov (well, it is attributed to Asimov, I'm not sure if he really said it) 2
barfbag Posted July 15, 2014 Posted July 15, 2014 @ ajb, I would say that physics is about Eloquent answer, but you are answering the wrong question. The thread is about a Science definition, not just Physics. I was confused at first because Physical is a part of the name and we all speed read somewhat..
Delta1212 Posted July 15, 2014 Posted July 15, 2014 @ ajb, Eloquent answer, but you are answering the wrong question. The thread is about a Science definition, not just Physics. I was confused at first because Physical is a part of the name and we all speed read somewhat.. Not to get ally xkcd-y but pretty much everything studied by science is just some level of abstraction of physics. It's all about studying the way that the world behaves, so you could fairly swap out the words physics in his post for science and it would be just as true.
Strange Posted July 15, 2014 Posted July 15, 2014 Eloquent answer, but you are answering the wrong question. The thread is about a Science definition, not just Physics. The example was about physics, but it would seem relevant to all science. Exploring the moon/mars/jungle is scientific because of observation. We are learning about nature. There is no requirements to make predictions about these places and soil elements to make it science. But these are not "random" explorations. They are based on scientific hypotheses ("if there was water/life/atmosphere in the past then we would see x/y/z"); in other words, predictions of what would be found if the hyopthesis were true. Then instruments are built to test these predictions. 1
barfbag Posted July 15, 2014 Posted July 15, 2014 (edited) @ Strange, But these are not "random" explorations. They are based on scientific hypotheses ("if there was water/life/atmosphere in the past then we would see x/y/z"); in other words, predictions of what would be found if the hyopthesis were true. Then instruments are built to test these predictions. So you are proposing simply observing something is not scientific? That seems like a Unique view. Points for originality. Science a word that derived from the word knowledge, and I believe observation alone has a place in it, but there might be various definitions. Find one that agrees with you, and I'll find one that agrees with me. @ last two posts, I had considered the notion Physics could be considered all science. The OP was discussing the world and not Math, Biology, Geology, Zoology, or whatever. I suppose we could ignore them. I don't see why people here are taking offense I pointed out a simple error (and it was). Physics does not encompass everything in science. I suppose you could argue Chemistry is physics, and Biology is part Chemistry so it can be related. I think there is more to the body than Chemistry though. Various organs and such require study. Oh well. No matter what I say here I am expecting someone is "smarter", and will explain how everything in the Universe is Physics. Is Math Science? Is Math Physics? I do not mind being enlightened. Edited July 15, 2014 by barfbag
Acme Posted July 15, 2014 Posted July 15, 2014 ... Oh well. No matter what I say here I am expecting someone is "smarter", and will explain how everything in the Universe is Physics. Is Math Science? Is Math Physics? I do not mind being enlightened. Seems to me that no matter what anyone says you will argue. Math is a science; physics is a science that uses math. I wouldn't be surprised if there's some old thread here that is dozens if not hundreds of posts long arguing the semantic issue, but that doesn't change anything about how math is used, how physics is done, or about how science is done. science is about predicting physical behavior? Say, how would a planet's atmosphere be affected if it had no more heat source, like a sun for example.....These are just examples... It all depends on the specifics. You could only generalize that science is a tool that can predict physical behavior given a suitable set of data and circumstances. (Circumstances such as computing power for example.)
barfbag Posted July 15, 2014 Posted July 15, 2014 (edited) @ Acme, Seems to me that no matter what anyone says you will argue. All I did was politely correct someone in post # 7, and I even said I made the same error (to be kind). If you wish to insult my intelligence, then why not do it in a thread where I am in the wrong. Physics uses math, but is math Physics? is all science Physics? Is the study of Biology Physics (entirely, some of it is)? Etc. I was being polite and they argue? I will stand up for my opinion, especially if it is factual as in this case. All science is not Physics. Is Evolution science? Is Evolution Physics? Is Archaeology Physics? All science is not Physics despite what seems to be the consensus among you. Edited July 15, 2014 by barfbag
Delta1212 Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 Everything is just degrees of abstraction from physics. At one level of abstraction, you get chemistry. Biology is specific type of chemistry that gets abstracted a bit further. And evolutionary biology is a specific branch of biology.
Mordred Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 Ahem ... http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/purity.png roflmao good one
barfbag Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 @ pzkpfw, Nice Cartoon. It shows my point quite well. I am not trying to be rude (some don't know this), but if you right click on the image and "copy location" you can add the comic right into your post using image... (like so)
Acme Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 @ pzkpfw, ... I am not trying to be rude (some don't know this), but if you right click on the image and "copy location" you can add the comic right into your post using image... (like so) pzkpfw did the right thing. It protects and respects the copyright owner.
barfbag Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 (edited) @ acme, Yes. Just mentioning for whatever it was worth. Many others here link photos, but you are correct. It still showed my point though so thanks pzkpfw. Edited July 16, 2014 by barfbag
Iwonderaboutthings Posted July 16, 2014 Author Posted July 16, 2014 (edited) The hard work (and fun) comes from finding ways to test your proposed explanation (a hypothesis) so that it can, perhaps, become accepted as a theory. The other exciting thing is stumbling across something unexpected. A large amount of interesting science is about testing things that every takes for granted, things that everyone "knows" is true ... and then finding that it isn't true, and that the real world is more complex and surprising than we initially think. "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not Eureka! (I found it!) but rather, 'hmm... that's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov (well, it is attributed to Asimov, I'm not sure if he really said it) So then I guess, its up to the scientist " team" etc, whom are " a little" better at noticing things than others? Whom have "courageous attitudes" archaeologist for example, I hear at times live a somewhat risky life due to traveling in foreign countries on an exploration... Another example: QM at times can make you question " reality." Are these some forms of mental barrier that would otherwise stop these " new discoveries" and new theories from surfacing to the world of science? From what I gather, the physical world around us has all that we need to do just that.. Seems to me that no matter what anyone says you will argue. Math is a science; physics is a science that uses math. I wouldn't be surprised if there's some old thread here that is dozens if not hundreds of posts long arguing the semantic issue, but that doesn't change anything about how math is used, how physics is done, or about how science is done. It all depends on the specifics. You could only generalize that science is a tool that can predict physical behavior given a suitable set of data and circumstances. (Circumstances such as computing power for example.) Circumstances such as computing power for example...I can understand this.... So then based " on our limited tools" I'm guessing, science discoveries gets held back... How then could we figure out " How far to take the observation?" I hear new discoveries should not conflict with the current ones, why? I thought a new discovery was just that, something new,, I would say that physics is about the construction of models of nature, the comparison of those models with nature and the collection of experimental data so that the models can be compared. Making predictions of as of yet unforeseen phenomena can be part of testing a model. construction of models sounds like a "blue print" then you build this blue print with " the available materials" we currently have... Then you test this. If it holds up to the " predicted theory" then it is accepted??? I really hope thats it... I think now I am understanding why math would be essential. Is this why computers and CGI is so useful?????? Not to get ally xkcd-y but pretty much everything studied by science is just some level of abstraction of physics. It's all about studying the way that the world behaves, so you could fairly swap out the words physics in his post for science and it would be just as true. How does the Albert Einstein equations " predict" the existence of a black hole? How does the math make you visualize this? The example was about physics, but it would seem relevant to all science. But these are not "random" explorations. They are based on scientific hypotheses ("if there was water/life/atmosphere in the past then we would see x/y/z"); in other words, predictions of what would be found if the hyopthesis were true. Then instruments are built to test these predictions. When you say: x/y/z Are you referring to how we "perceive reality" in space or how we observe it in time.. There is a catch there.. When I say time, I mean as per space time, minowski etc, when I say perceive reality, I mean with what we either accept or don't accept about it... x/y/z really confused me for a bit... Edited July 16, 2014 by Iwonderaboutthings
ajb Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 Eloquent answer, but you are answering the wrong question. The thread is about a Science definition, not just Physics. Sure, but this is in the physics section and it seemed to me that the OP was really asking about physics.
barfbag Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 @ ajb, True enough. good point. I made a mistake (seems I'm only one that admits that around here). I was looking mostly at the thread title. Note: I'm not apologizing to everyone who claimed Physic is all science though. -2
ajb Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 Is Math Science? Is Math Physics? I do not mind being enlightened. For sure mathematics and physics are deeply intertwined and mathematics is indispensable in all sciences, maybe at different levels but at its basic from simple statistics is needed for any experimental analysis. Personally, I consider mathematics to be a science, though others have differing opinions. Thus I think we discover rather than invent some piece of mathematics. Research in mathematics does use a modified version of the scientific method and includes experiments (we call them examples and counter examples), refining your ideas due to these experiments and the final testing is in the form of a proof of some statements. The philosophy is the same as in science, just the standards are different. construction of models sounds like a "blue print" then you build this blue print with " the available materials" we currently have... Then you test this. If it holds up to the " predicted theory" then it is accepted??? So you have some model, this will usually be built on existing accepted models and some experimental data to help guide you (though in high energy physics this is experimental data beyond the standard model is missing). You then see if your model fits all the existing experimental data you expect it to. If so then it will become "accepted" as a good model. Hopefully your model will fit more data and with better agreement than previous models. Even better would be some prediction of some phenomena that cannot fit within the previous models which is then experimentally observed.
barfbag Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 @ Ajb, Yes. The cartoon sort of put that one on top but Science can also be Biology/Zoology where determining the purpose of the lungs is not physics. I have cited other examples Not wanting to be rude, but this is my last comment on this thread. I just did not want to ignore your post and be rude.
ajb Posted July 16, 2014 Posted July 16, 2014 @ Ajb, Yes. The cartoon sort of put that one on top but Science can also be Biology/Zoology where determining the purpose of the lungs is not physics. I have cited other examples Determining how the lungs work would involve physics, but that maybe a separate question.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now