The meaning of science?

[curiousone]

The word philosophy also disturbs me. We all seem to be searching for somthing, the list is long. Can anyone give me a few names meaning science. For example "the love of wisdom" the two words are "love and wisdom" which one word describes science and has many names as does science. curiousone

[ajb]

The best definition of science is any human practice that more-or-less follows the philosophy of the scientific method. Maybe would could say "describe nature". That is not enough to define science but that is the best I can think of

[Strange]

The word philosophy also disturbs me. We all seem to be searching for somthing, the list is long. Can anyone give me a few names meaning science. For example "the love of wisdom" the two words are "love and wisdom" which one word describes science and has many names as does science. curiousone

 

Note that philosophy does not mean "love of wisdom". This is an example of the etymological fallacy.

 

As for a one word summary of science, I guess "objective" or "rigorous" or "evidence-based" might be a start.

[Phi for All]

Isn't dumbing things down to single words and sound bytes what causes most of the problems with lack of rigor we see here? Why is a single word to describe multiple disciplines cooperating to advance human knowledge relevant to anything?

 

The fewer words you use to describe something (a la popsci attention-span brevity), the more open to interpretation it is. Science tries to minimize subjectivity, and coming up with a word or two to encompass science is the exact opposite of reducing personal interpretations.

[EdEarl]

curiousone, why does the word philosophy disturb you?

 

Rather than try to define science, my comment about it is, "The result of science is a library written by an army of curious, competitive, contentious people trying to understand the universe and its phenomena, i.e., nature. They all seek to convince everyone else their view of the nature is best, but only a few get the glory."

[Phi for All]

They all seek to convince everyone else their view of the nature is best,

 

I think you have this a bit backwards. It's not the "view" that's important, it's the accuracy of describing the nature. "Views" are open to interpretation, whereas accuracy can be measured by anyone with the skills. And accuracy almost always improves over time, whereas views might not change at all.

 

I hope I'm right in defining "their view" as "personal perspective".

[swansont]

Isn't dumbing things down to single words and sound bytes what causes most of the problems with lack of rigor we see here? Why is a single word to describe multiple disciplines cooperating to advance human knowledge relevant to anything?

 

The fewer words you use to describe something (a la popsci attention-span brevity), the more open to interpretation it is. Science tries to minimize subjectivity, and coming up with a word or two to encompass science is the exact opposite of reducing personal interpretations.

 

 

I agree. Science doesn't really have a synonym, and short phrases will lack nuance.

[Phi for All]

 

 

I agree. Science doesn't really have a synonym, and short phrases will lack nuance.

 

More media influence, imo. They seem to love taking every concept down to the studs so you can Bring Your Own Nuance. We see it everywhere. They only have to put up a banner saying "WELFARE" or "TERRORISM" and immediately everybody polarizes into their own perspectives. This isn't informative the way it should be.

 

Science should be different, more accurately descriptive of the natural universe.

[Ophiolite]

Precision and concision are closely linked. Failure to recognise this can lead to failure.

[EdEarl]

 

I think you have this a bit backwards. It's not the "view" that's important, it's the accuracy of describing the nature. "Views" are open to interpretation, whereas accuracy can be measured by anyone with the skills. And accuracy almost always improves over time, whereas views might not change at all.

 

I hope I'm right in defining "their view" as "personal perspective".

Sorry, poor choice of words, should be, "their discovery or the fruits of their labor."

[kisai]

One could probably jot down 20 different clauses about science, ranging from a sentence to a paragraph, all true, and still not touch upon a full answer.

 

I think the briefest I could get is that it is a method of knowing things, provided that those things are able to be rationalized and assumed consistent.

 

If you want to believe things are inconsistent, for example, Flying Spaghetti Monsters wrote the universe into existence a moment ago, then science may not be for your tastes.

 

If you want to believe that things cannot be rationalized, that everything will be tinged with a solipsism that denies even a partial knowledge of things, then science may not be for you.

 

Given that mankind has reaped the most rewards from science, that it has consistently upgraded our standard of living from mud huts to landing on the Moon, it is our greatest treasure.