What Actually Is Science?

[Monster92]

And how is it categorized. I used to think that science comes under either physics, biology or chemistry. However, you get these 'sub sciences' such as geology that combines physics and chemistry together?

 

Then it goes further than that . Would you consider electrical engineering as physics or a separate science? I like things to be tidy it seems science is messy.

[ajb]

I think science is more a philosophy or way of thinking. If one applies the scientific method or maybe something close, but more suited to the exact subject in question, then it is a science. For example mathematics can be considered a science by a wide interpretation of the scientific method.

 

So, just about anything can be approached scientifically.

Edited April 14, 2011 by ajb

[Zarnaxus]

My brother is majoring in video game programming and design. This is listed as a science major. So... yeah science is a flexible term.

[Ophiolite]

However, you get these 'sub sciences' such as geology that combines physics and chemistry together?

It would be unwise to suggest to a geologist that theirs is a sub-science. Clearly, since they use other sciences as mere tools, theirs must properly be considered the parental and superior science. Astronomers may mistakenly see geology as some subset of astronomy, but this comes from too much stargazing and associated neck ailments.

[mississippichem]

Then it goes further than that . Would you consider electrical engineering as physics or a separate science? I like things to be tidy it seems science is messy.

 

I think engineering uses a scientific thought process with a slightly different goal. In my opinion, perhaps only my opinion: the goal of science is to understand and model, while the goal of engineering is to produce and create. Good engineering facilitates good science while good science facilitates good engineering. They are two studies with different goals and similar methods.

[DrRocket]

I think science is more a philosophy or way of thinking. If one applies the scientific method or maybe something close, but more suited to the exact subject in question, then it is a science. For example mathematics can be considered a science by a wide interpretation of the scientific method.

 

So, just about anything can be approached scientifically.

 

I don't consider mathematics to be science. The major discriminator is that mathematics relies on logical proof, as opposed to evidence from experiment, in establishing "truth'. Mathematics is related to science, but is a discipline unto itself.

 

I think engineering uses a scientific thought process with a slightly different goal. In my opinion, perhaps only my opinion: the goal of science is to understand and model, while the goal of engineering is to produce and create. Good engineering facilitates good science while good science facilitates good engineering. They are two studies with different goals and similar methods.

 

Engineering is characterized by an end objective of the production of a useful product, commonly with budget and schedule constraints. The goal of science is the development of understanding. Engineering builds on that understanding to produce products, sometimes in the face of imperfect understanding of the details of the science involved, and often involving very complex systems for which first-principles modeling is impractical or impossible. While the academic subject matter in formal classes is sometimes similar, the ultimate objectives of science and engineering are quite different.

[ajb]

I don't consider mathematics to be science. The major discriminator is that mathematics relies on logical proof, as opposed to evidence from experiment, in establishing "truth'. Mathematics is related to science, but is a discipline unto itself.

 

Sure, it depends on exactly what one means by evidence, experiment and truth. Via a strict interpretation of the scientific method mathematics is not a science, however there are many parallels between how a mathematician and a scientist work. So much so I am willing to call mathematics a science, with the suitable widening of the scientific method.

 

Some practising mathematicians see themselves as scientists others don't. It depends on who you ask, and I suspect the answer can change depending when you ask!

 

Of course, I am not sure how useful defining mathematics as a science or not really is. Mathematics is what mathematicians do and for sure the usefulness of applying mathematics in the natural sciences cannot be denied.

 

Again, in relation to the opening post, almost anything can be approached "scientifically".

[mississippichem]

Engineering is characterized by an end objective of the production of a useful product, commonly with budget and schedule constraints. The goal of science is the development of understanding. Engineering builds on that understanding to produce products, sometimes in the face of imperfect understanding of the details of the science involved, and often involving very complex systems for which first-principles modeling is impractical or impossible. While the academic subject matter in formal classes is sometimes similar, the ultimate objectives of science and engineering are quite different.

 

I agree completely. But I was trying to highlight how the two disciplines are different while at the same time co-dependent on each other. We wouldn't know much about hyperfine splitting if some engineer hadn't designed an EPR spectrometer. Then again, engineers would have trouble building an EPR machine without the hard science of Maxwell, Gauss and Pauli. It can all be traced to Newton anyway though so scientists win! Or maybe mathematicians win...Newton might have struggled without Pythagoras or Descartes.

[Phi for All]

It would be unwise to suggest to a geologist that theirs is a sub-science. Clearly, since they use other sciences as mere tools, theirs must properly be considered the parental and superior science. Astronomers may mistakenly see geology as some subset of astronomy, but this comes from too much stargazing and associated neck ailments.

Astronomers mistakenly see many things, but they are not alone in associated neck ailments. Not falling asleep while listening to some rockhead lecture me about dirt is a pain in the neck and elsewhere.

 

 

 

 

I agree with others here who have said that science is the methodology used to approach knowledge of the physical world.

[DrRocket]

It can all be traced to Newton anyway though so scientists win! Or maybe mathematicians win...Newton might have struggled without Pythagoras or Descartes.

 

Yes, mathematicians win.

 

"To summarize , I would use the words of Jeans, who said that ‘the Great Architect seems to be a mathematician’." . – Richard P. Feynman in The Character of Physical Law

 

Before the physicists jump in to claim Newton, let me note that 1) I am a mathematician and 2) my academic geneology is directly traceable to Newton. Newton was a mathematician.

 

 

[StringJunky]

Yes, mathematicians win.

 

"To summarize , I would use the words of Jeans, who said that ‘the Great Architect seems to be a mathematician’." . – Richard P. Feynman in The Character of Physical Law

 

Before the physicists jump in to claim Newton, let me note that 1) I am a mathematician and 2) my academic geneology is directly traceable to Newton. Newton was a mathematician.

 

Wouldn't he be better described as a polymath because he excelled in both, amongst other things?

[DrRocket]

Wouldn't he be better described as a polymath because he excelled in both, amongst other things?

 

Nope. We mathematicians claim him. He was, after all, the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics. Mathematicians tend to be pretty versatile.

[rktpro]

Science is a way of understanding the environment. Don't confuse it with only Environmental Sciences. Even someone who is illiterate knows mathematics and can do simple questions.

Science is a way of approaching everything going around us. The reason might be just curiosity, getting advanced medical information, getting advanced 'Number Games' or just compete with others to disapprove them.

Mathematics helps us practically solve our situations. Whatever helps us can be termed as science, until and unless it is a study.

[StringJunky]

Nope. We mathematicians claim him. He was, after all, the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics. Mathematicians tend to be pretty versatile.

 

He was also the President of the Royal Society so the scientists can claim him...clever bugger all round really.

[keelanz]

He was also the President of the Royal Society so the scientists can claim him...clever bugger all round really.

 

wasnt clever enough to pro-create though huh? i dont think any humanist will lay claim to him or any social scientist.

[StringJunky]

wasnt clever enough to pro-create though huh? i dont think any humanist will lay claim to him or any social scientist.

 

He didn't need to... he's more immortalized and influential in history than 99.99>% of his and future generations will ever be. In his case, lack of gene transference was trivial: what more could the Newton line do than produce one of the brightest minds in human history? I'd swap my sperm for his intellect any day.

[keelanz]

He didn't need to... he's more immortalized and influential in history than 99.99>% of his and future generations will ever be. In his case, lack of gene transference was trivial: what more could the Newton line do than produce one of the brightest minds in human history? I'd swap my sperm for his intellect any day.

 

i was just referring to the general necessity of a species for survival, if the >99.99% of us did what newton did then well...you wouldnt be here to get the picture

[StringJunky]

i was just referring to the general necessity of a species for survival, if the >99.99% of us did what newton did then well...you wouldnt be here to get the picture

 

I thought you were referring to the continuation of his family line.

Edited April 21, 2011 by StringJunky

[Bioquímico]

I think is better to talk about disciplines rather than science or not-science.

 

Physics joint all disciplines, all of them relapse on physics sooner or later, then chemistry and, as a high specialized chemistry, biology are the three major disciplines. These three are the big science fields, because they use the scientific method. Engineering, geology even medical sciences and others are applications of the three big sciences, so they still are, but not by them self.

 

Mathematics does not seem like a science for me, it is the most amazing creation of human mind, mathematical modeling is the alphabet of science, but is in other dimension.

 

PS. sorry for my English expression skils

[DrRocket]

wasnt clever enough to pro-create though huh? i dont think any humanist will lay claim to him or any social scientist.

 

 

He did procreate in the academic sense -- producing new PhD mathematicians. I am one of his descendents.

 

http://genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/

Edited April 24, 2011 by DrRocket

[NTettamanti]

I'd agree that science follows the scientific model. As such, my definition of science would encompass those "hard sciences" (Biology, Chemistry, Physics, etc.) as well as the social sciences (economics, sociology, etc) because of the method and goal of both of those science fields. They both rely on the scientific method and they both want to broaden understanding of a subject.

 

As for everyone who would argue that social sciences aren't actual sciences, there is no non-arbitrary way to determine that one thing is a science over another. I would argue that the bright line is the method and goal; that makes it a science. The subject matter, however, does not matter. Its the mechanism, rather than the content.

[ajb]

He did procreate in the academic sense -- producing new PhD mathematicians. I am one of his descendents.

 

http://genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/

 

 

Newton can also be considered as a descendent of Galileo Galilei.

 

Myself, my mathematical genealogy can be traced back to Carl Friedrich Gauß

 

As for everyone who would argue that social sciences aren't actual sciences, there is no non-arbitrary way to determine that one thing is a science over another. I would argue that the bright line is the method and goal; that makes it a science. The subject matter, however, does not matter. Its the mechanism, rather than the content.

 

If the scientific method and some mathematics (including statistics) are involved, then one can, I am sure, argue that the social sciences are a science. It would be nice to get the point of view of someone involved in the social sciences.

[StringJunky]

Newton can also be considered as a descendent of Galileo Galilei.

 

Myself, my mathematical genealogy can be traced back to Carl Friedrich Gauß

 

 

 

If the scientific method and some mathematics (including statistics) are involved, then one can, I am sure, argue that the social sciences are a science. It would be nice to get the point of view of someone involved in the social sciences.

 

A quick Google reveals that social science can be given the same rigour as any other science. This is from Dartmouth College:

 

Courses

 

7. First-Year Seminar in Mathematics and Social Sciences

 

Consult special listings

 

15. Introduction to Data Analysis

 

10F, 11S, 11F, 12S: 9L

 

Methods for transforming raw facts into useful information. Directed toward students with an aptitude for mathematics. Emphasis is placed on the understanding, use, and both oral and written interpretation of exploratory data analysis within the rules of scientific method. With permission from the responsible department, MSS 15 may be used to satisfy some pre-medical, natural science, and social science departmental requirements in mathematics, statistics, and methodology. Limited enrollment.

 

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~mss/courses/