Does science have a clear definition?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-10-2012, 08:48 PM
Does science have a clear definition?
There is more than one scientific method in different fields of study so is one scientific method better than the other?

If more than one scientific method is acceptable as a science than how does one know that one is applying the right or wrong method to the right field?

biology for example has different scientific methods than those of quantum mechanics, is the observation made before the theories or the theories made before the observation. How many theories can be made before observations to make it not a science anymore? Are Freuds theories an example of too many theories made before observations?

What is the standard measure of testing to make a claim true or false?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2012, 08:57 PM
RE: Does science have a clear definition?
(28-10-2012 08:48 PM)I and I Wrote:  There is more than one scientific method in different fields of study so is one scientific method better than the other?

If more than one scientific method is acceptable as a science than how does one know that one is applying the right or wrong method to the right field?

biology for example has different scientific methods than those of quantum mechanics, is the observation made before the theories or the theories made before the observation. How many theories can be made before observations to make it not a science anymore? Are Freuds theories an example of too many theories made before observations?

What is the standard measure of testing to make a claim true or false?

We've already been through this. Your premise is false. The theory of Quantum Mechanics did NOT predate the observations. And even if it did, the steps of the Method are not different. One could have a theory, and propose what one might expect, based on the math, or present theory. Your Fundamentalist childish literalism does not serve you. Science proposes what might be expected all the time, in many fields. It's not a different science. You're playing with words, because you are a troll, with no education. We all know it.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Sent by Jebus to put the stud back in Bible Study. "I believe Mr. Peanut is the Messiah" -- onlinebiker
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2012, 09:01 PM (This post was last modified: 28-10-2012 09:06 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: Does science have a clear definition?
Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

Pretty clear to me.

have a read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method



Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes fstratzero's post
28-10-2012, 09:15 PM
RE: Does science have a clear definition?
(28-10-2012 09:01 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

Pretty clear to me.

this would mean that science is a confirmation about the past to predict the future, which means it's predictions aren't a "truth" considering the statement that is being made is referring to and predicated on the past, like a past experiment. I am not saying that this form of science leads to wrong conclusions all the time, just being honest about what it is.

And one thing to keep in mind, since as stated above about "explanations" and "predictions" what a culture predicts or what its explanations are about things is determined by it's culture around it, and this could mean a correct prediction but false statement at the same time. If a tribe says that the more human sacrifices the better the crops will be, this could be a correct prediction but a false statement at the same time. This means that a testable prediction can lead to a false conclusion.

Science for the most part so far has also been used by or manipulated by the powerful and has a strong political element to it that isn't based solely on testing data or finding out what is true or not true.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2012, 09:20 PM
RE: Does science have a clear definition?
Theoretical physics on the other hand uses mathematical arguments to explain and predict a wide variety of connected phenomena in general terms the theory of relativity.

This type of theory describes events, again relying on the scientific method to confirm, falsify or revise parts.

You have to keep in mind that a theory can be mostly correct, but parts of it are false and need to be fixed. A theory can also be mostly wrong but parts of it can be true, and used in other work.

You need to get rid of the dichotomy that things are either true or false. They are rather on a scale of 1 to 99% true.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2012, 09:23 PM
RE: Does science have a clear definition?
(28-10-2012 09:15 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(28-10-2012 09:01 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

Pretty clear to me.

this would mean that science is a confirmation about the past to predict the future, which means it's predictions aren't a "truth" considering the statement that is being made is referring to and predicated on the past, like a past experiment. I am not saying that this form of science leads to wrong conclusions all the time, just being honest about what it is.

And one thing to keep in mind, since as stated above about "explanations" and "predictions" what a culture predicts or what its explanations are about things is determined by it's culture around it, and this could mean a correct prediction but false statement at the same time. If a tribe says that the more human sacrifices the better the crops will be, this could be a correct prediction but a false statement at the same time. This means that a testable prediction can lead to a false conclusion.

Science for the most part so far has also been used by or manipulated by the powerful and has a strong political element to it that isn't based solely on testing data or finding out what is true or not true.

Ah pulling out the old problem of induction.

Science has realized the problem of induction isn't a problem but a fact of reality. Reality isn't a static unchanging system. Where things yesterday are exactly the same tomorrow. Rather it has revealed that things change from the past into the future according to patterns or rules. We call them the laws of nature.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2012, 09:30 PM
RE: Does science have a clear definition?
(28-10-2012 09:20 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  Theoretical physics on the other hand uses mathematical arguments to explain and predict a wide variety of connected phenomena in general terms the theory of relativity.

This type of theory describes events, again relying on the scientific method to confirm, falsify or revise parts.

You have to keep in mind that a theory can be mostly correct, but parts of it are false and need to be fixed. A theory can also be mostly wrong but parts of it can be true, and used in other work.

You need to get rid of the dichotomy that things are either true or false. They are rather on a scale of 1 to 99% true.

So science has nothing to do with truth, or the seeking of truth?

This is where we get into the philosophical argument of what is a truth or is a fact the same thing as a truth or they two different things.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2012, 09:36 PM (This post was last modified: 28-10-2012 09:41 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: Does science have a clear definition?
(28-10-2012 09:30 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(28-10-2012 09:20 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  Theoretical physics on the other hand uses mathematical arguments to explain and predict a wide variety of connected phenomena in general terms the theory of relativity.

This type of theory describes events, again relying on the scientific method to confirm, falsify or revise parts.

You have to keep in mind that a theory can be mostly correct, but parts of it are false and need to be fixed. A theory can also be mostly wrong but parts of it can be true, and used in other work.

You need to get rid of the dichotomy that things are either true or false. They are rather on a scale of 1 to 99% true.

So science has nothing to do with truth, or the seeking of truth?

This is where we get into the philosophical argument of what is a truth or is a fact the same thing as a truth or they two different things.

What science is, is the correction of our thoughts against reality. From that we can gain knowledge that is generally most useful.

Truth is most often used to mean in accord with reality.

The problem is that we don't have the blue prints to reality. If we did we'd say we had 100% truth, instead the best we can do is try to see what best describes reality leaving room for errors. Should reality do something strange, we have to be prepared to rework our knowledge to then again match back up with it.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2012, 10:00 PM
RE: Does science have a clear definition?
(28-10-2012 09:36 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  
(28-10-2012 09:30 PM)I and I Wrote:  So science has nothing to do with truth, or the seeking of truth?

This is where we get into the philosophical argument of what is a truth or is a fact the same thing as a truth or they two different things.

What science is, is the correction of our thoughts against reality. From that we can gain knowledge that is generally most useful.

Truth is most often used to mean in accord with reality.

The problem is that we don't have the blue prints to reality. If we did we'd say we had 100% truth, instead the best we can do is try to see what best describes reality leaving room for errors. Should reality do something strange, we have to be prepared to rework our knowledge to then again match back up with it.

but what people call knowledge or reality is even changing and not a static truth like a "reality" should or would be.

This gets to the problem I brought up in a different thread, whether it was possible to even know a "reality" beyond our subjective individual consciousness, and if it wasn't possible how do we know we are getting closer to it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-10-2012, 10:18 PM
RE: Does science have a clear definition?
Roses are red
violets are blue,
I think I'm schizophrenic,
and I am too.

I and I is nowhere close to the truth.
How the hell do you form a theory in the first place ?
You've made observations, IN ALL CASES, before a theory is formed.
The correctness, or completeness of our understanding changes.
If what you're saying is true, then when you die, the universe will cease.

Guess what ?

It's the same old bullshit you spouted the day you got here.

Troll.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Sent by Jebus to put the stud back in Bible Study. "I believe Mr. Peanut is the Messiah" -- onlinebiker
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: