cassidymae Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Discuss below. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 In a phrase, the application of Bayes rule for epistemic gain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 Building models which successfully predict the behavior of reality. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 Building models which successfully predict the behavior of reality. actually very similar to my definition, actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 actually very similar to my definition, actually. But CR said it in plain English....you were just trying baffle us...with science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mississippichem Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 -Using observation of controlled scenarios to invalidate or support hypothesized models of how the universe works. -Using logic and mathematics to interpret these results in a way that minimizes subjectivity. -Philosophy that observable phenomena can be explained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 The systematic approach of building verified knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 The systematic approach of building verified knowledge. Doesn't that imply that science is about collecting facts, rather than building models? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 Doesn't that imply that science is about collecting facts, rather than building models? well what is knowledge but an explanatory model? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cap'n Refsmmat Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 well what is knowledge but an explanatory model? There's a difference between simply performing experiments to write down the answers and using the answers to build a general model which predicts the results of future experiments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 There's a difference between simply performing experiments to write down the answers and using the answers to build a general model which predicts the results of future experiments. I think we might be talking past each other. I call the former observations, which when put into context of the experiment, can be used to build a predictive model (for future experiments). If knowledge isn't predictive, then what do you really know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 Doesn't that imply that science is about collecting facts, rather than building models? Can't you build models to collect facts? That is the point of building 'verified' knowledge isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 The formation of models of how stuff works and the comparison of those models against reality. Normally when talking to people without a rigorous science background I change this slightly to: The formation of mathematical models of how stuff works and the numerical comparison of those models against reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 Klaynos - would you support the notion that all scientific models can be expressed mathematically? I'm inclined to agree but want to think of counterexamples Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 Klaynos - would you support the notion that all scientific models can be expressed mathematically? I'm inclined to agree but want to think of counterexamples I would tentatively support it. Mostly because I cannot think of a counter example, I too would be intrigued by any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 (edited) To my mind, science is really a philosophy or attitude towards examining and understanding the world. That is our efforts should be driven by the scientific method, this has already been hinted at. Edited May 4, 2012 by ajb 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xittenn Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 (edited) Science: The explicit quantification of external stimuli by living organisms, which thereby enables said organisms to react in a precise manner which most effectively maintains homeostasis--one of the fundamental requirements to their existence. Some might argue that there are plenty of reasons to observe that do not entail survival, but I feel this is in all actuality obligate to our disposition. The reason that science is the disinterested pursuit of knowledge, is that it really shouldn't matter what we conclude as long as it satisfies our biological function towards being internalized entities that must defend against an externalized world. ““”̿ ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿'̿'̵͇̿̿з=(•̪●)=ε/̵͇̿̿/̿ ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿'““ Edited April 27, 2012 by Xittenn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortal Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 Science is all about making models of the observable world which can be testified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iggy Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 Information about the world consistent with the scientific method... that is to say, falsifiable information explaining reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanrga Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 My personal definition (although peer-reviewed): Science is the enterprise dealing with (i) the description, analysis, and synthesis of parts of the observable universe and their transformations, following systematic methods, (ii) the recording and organization of the acquired accumulative knowledge into testable formalisms and methods, and (iii) the dissemination of this knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michel123456 Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 I wonder if one or the other science would escape from the definition: there are a lot of sciences. So I went rambling over the web to find a exhaustive list of recognized sciences. I couldn't. I found a list of "ologies" and a list of academic disciplines. but physics, mathematics & others are not in the "ologies" list while some academic disciplines are clearly not science. So, do we write a definition from scratch and look if one or the other dicipline fits, or do we want a definition that encompasses already recognized disciplines? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmb Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 The following is the definition of science from the America Associatio of Physics Teachers. This is not copywritten material. http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/ref/what_is_science.pdf I prefer this definition to any other I hae been able to find. I hope that I don't get in trouble for pasting this here. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanrga Posted April 30, 2012 Share Posted April 30, 2012 (edited) The following is the definition of science from the America Associatio of Physics Teachers. This is not copywritten material. http://home.comcast...._is_science.pdf I prefer this definition to any other I hae been able to find. I hope that I don't get in trouble for pasting this here. Pete 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. Edited April 30, 2012 by juanrga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmb Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 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. Please illustrate your assertion with an example. Thanks. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juanrga Posted May 1, 2012 Share Posted May 1, 2012 (edited) Please illustrate your assertion with an example. Thanks. Pete Synthetic chemistry. The main role of synthetic chemistry is not to create theories or laws but to create new substances. This is a particular characteristics of chemistry, that makes it different from physics. As stated by Marcelin Berthelot, La chimie crée son object –chemistry creates its object. Moreover, the definition that you reproduce defines science as a systematic enterprise, somewhat as the Science Council also does. But as stated by David Edgerton: It defines science as a pursuit, an activity, related to the creation of new knowledge, rather than established knowledge itself. Science is seen as a species of research. Yet a definition of science needs to define the nature of the knowledge not the means of its creation only. A more complete and accurate definition is given in science. Edited May 1, 2012 by juanrga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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