Jump to content

Your personal definition of science?


cassidymae

Recommended Posts

-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

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

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

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

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

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 by ajb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Xittenn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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 by juanrga
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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 objectchemistry 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 by juanrga
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.