What is Science?

[Prometheus]

I have been listening to the recordings of the Kansas evolution hearings. In general, I find myself disagreeing with the intellegent designer's, but I think they have one good point. They want to change the educational definition of science.

The current definition is:

"Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us."

The proposed change is:

"Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena."


Like I said - I support the second definition. However, I'll save my argument as to why until after we have some poll results.

[belverron]

I'm the only one to vote for the first one so far.... Why am I always in the minority?

[Jack]

Here's what I don't get; if I read this right, the ID folks are proposing the second definition? It would appear to me that the 2nd one works against them, not for them. So unless I'm incredibly dense this morning (and that's always possible) I don't understand why they'd do that. There must be more to this than I'm seeing. Must have something to do with the "natural explanations" term. (?)

[oranged]

I think science is just another Idealogy, that when used correctly I think works better than religion. It can be used poorly though, just like any idealogy. The idealogy of science is simply that that if something worked once it should work again. It works in thoeries, which is why I like it, nothing is certain. Some people, though, don't seem to understand this and still call themselves scientists.

[Samildanach]

This part I have problems with

to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena

as opposed to

seeking natural explanations

The second definition basically allows supernatural explanations to be part of science. As the supernatural cannot be tested the second definition is inadequate.

[Jack]

Ah, yes. I see. I think you may have it.

[Prometheus]

Here's my take on it:

The whole idea behind science is that we look at objective evidance and propose the most likely explination, no? So when we define science, we should define it as a process, and not by limiting the types of solutions science can return.

Unlike most ID'ers I do not think that there is much evidance pointing to god. However, for the sake of intellectual honesty, we have to admit, that god *could* be an explination. In the same vien, we also have to admit that the explination could be flying unicorns or faries - but the idea is the same - we cannot assume the types of explinations. That is not a scientific mindset. We can't that we will only look for a certain class of solutions - we will look for the solution that most of the evidance supports.

The first definition is based on the philosophy of methodological natrualism - which is a dogmatic belief that there are no supernatural explinations. This in itself is a type of religion because it is faith based - since you can't prove a negative.

The second definition does not try to limit the types of explinations science can produce - it defines the process. Follow the evidance where it leads.

I understand where atheists might be leery of using the new definition, becuase it could be seen as a trojan horse for religion to insert itself into science. But this should not be a worry - because if there is no god, then how could a process of "observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building" produce a "god" explination?

[Jack]

to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena."

Except that, as Samildanach mentioned, that last sentence does not indicate who gets to define "more adequate". And more adequate in what respect? It does seem to introduce more variables, and leave more logic-holes to be exploited than the simple definition offered in #1.
The bottom lines is that science has been doing just fine for some time now. It doesn't require redefinition, and especially not by a group with an obvious agenda of trying to get their philosophy accepted as a science. ID is nothing more than creationism hiding behind a different interface. I have no issue with it being considered right along with other philosophies, but it is not, no matter how you twist the definition, a science.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Isherwood Except that, as Samildanach mentioned, that last sentence does not indicate who gets to define "more adequate". And more adequate in what respect? It does seem to introduce more variables, and leave more logic-holes to be exploited than the simple definition offered in #1. The bottom lines is that science has been doing just fine for some time now. It doesn't require redefinition, and especially not by a group with an obvious agenda of trying to get their philosophy accepted as a science. ID is nothing more than creationism hiding behind a different interface. I have no issue with it being considered right along with other philosophies, but it is not, no matter how you twist the definition, a science.

First - We are not redefining science on a large scale. 46 states have always been using the proposed definition. Kansas is the only state that has a naturalistic definition of science.

I agree about ID - and most of the suggestions they had were crap. I do think they are right about this one though. Even most of the evolutionist witnesses agreed with the redefinition. Remember that this redefinition just brings Kansas in line with the rest of the nation.


As far as the "more adequate" thing. We have always been looking for more adequate explinations. You can't deny that. Round world fit the evidance more than flat world. That made it more adequate. More adequate is simply conforming with evidance more closely.

[Jack]

More adequate is simply conforming with evidance more closely.

As I understand that, I'd have no objection. I've been chronicaling the Kansas debate, though not in any depth, in my blog...but I missed this issue. Do you have a link I could use?

[belverron]

I think it boils down to the fact that I don't want the process defined for me.

[Matrixxx]

Theory building seems to be a major factor in why/how the bible was written yet most here on this site refute it's legitmacy. I vote for #1.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Isherwood As I understand that, I'd have no objection. I've been chronicaling the Kansas debate, though not in any depth, in my blog...but I missed this issue. Do you have a link I could use?

I don't have a lot of time to read - but I do have an Ipod. I downloaded a recording of the hearings. It gave me a lot of insights. The ID'ers aren'tquite as dumb as I thought (but still wrong). And the evolutionists aren't as right as they think - they have a tendancy to overstate thier case. Anyway - I highly reccomend listening to the recordings. I don't know where you could get a transcript, so I'll link you to the recording.

The site is called Audible. They sell audiobooks. This recording is free though. If you set up an account really quick, you can add it to your cart and download it for free. This link is to day 1 (of 4). You can find the other days using the search engine. It would be awesome if some of you would listen to even the first couple of witnesses. It is fascinatiang, and would be great to debate about.
http://www.audible.com/adbl/store/pr...FR_ADBL_050505

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Matrixxx Theory building seems to be a major factor in why/how the bible was written yet most here on this site refute it's legitmacy. I vote for #1.

that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building,

There's a lot more to it than theory building. Anyone can make a theory about anything. However, it has a high probability of being bullshit.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: belverron I think it boils down to the fact that I don't want the process defined for me.

Yah, but the form of education we use in our culture relies on definitions, no?

[Matrixxx]

Quote by: Prometheus There's a lot more to it than theory building. Anyone can make a theory about anything. However, it has a high probability of being bullshit.

And so in essence everyone with that same attitude is perfectly happy with the notion that the world is flat.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Matrixxx And so in essence everyone with that same attitude is perfectly happy with the notion that the world is flat.

I'm not sure where you are going with that. What I was geting at is that mearly putting forth a theory is no garentee of good sciene. The rest of the definition is required, which adds "observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument" to theory building.

It's the basic scientific method.

[Starboy]

I don't care for either of those definitions. Here is what Feynman had to say about science and pseudo science.

Cargo Cult Science - Richard Feynman

For those who do not know who Feynman was, he shared the Nobel Prize for his contribution to Quantum Electro Dynamics. He was also on the Challenger commission to determine what went wrong with the shuttle on its first major disaster. He was in my opinion one of the best teachers of physics in my time.

Feynman makes the point that one of the big differences between science and pseudo science is the honestly of the investigators. Honesty is a very important part of science. You could say that it is a core value of science.

Starboy

[Isaiah]

Quote by: Starboy Honesty is a very important part of science. You could say that it is a core value of science. Starboy

I heartily agree. Without honesty the whole thing breaks down. This especially true in today's world where scientific knowledge is increasing so fast and it becomes almost impossible to confirm studies. If we can't trust those providing these data and conclusions then science comes to a screeching halt.

Those involved in pseudo-science aren’t burdened by such rigor.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Prometheus I have been listening to the recordings of the Kansas evolution hearings. In general, I find myself disagreeing with the intellegent designer's, but I think they have one good point. They want to change the educational definition of science. The current definition is: "Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us."

This doesn't give any indication as to how science decides on which explanation to go on. It also completely ignores that a good part of science is just plain old exploration.

The proposed change is: "Science is a systematic method of continuing investigation, that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building, to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena."

This also doesn't give any indication as to how science decides on which explanation to go on. The term "adequate" is just a tease but not edifying. Also there is no reason to list how science explores reality other to simply say that it explores reality. People can miss the basic point of exploration with all the techno babble. It is not as if all sorts of people who do not normally call themselves scientists do not also engage in hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation and logical argument to find explanations of natural phenomena. Everything is natural phenomena.

Like I said - I support the second definition. However, I'll save my argument as to why until after we have some poll results.

Why wait? Will the poll results somehow change your mind?

Starboy