Does science have a clear definition?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-10-2012, 12:56 AM (This post was last modified: 29-10-2012 01:14 AM by fstratzero.)
RE: Does science have a clear definition?
(28-10-2012 10:00 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(28-10-2012 09:36 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  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.

In science knowledge is also published, shared, and experiments reproduced. In this way one persons subjective claim must also be subjectively verified by many different minds by reproducing their experiments. We grab their information, reproduce their experiments and work hard at ripping it apart. Looking for biases, fallacies, and other errors.

You could say by offering up all the data, experimentation methods, and reviewing it all. We prevent subjective errors that lead to erroneous conclusions as much as possible.

We store these results in external data stores. These data stores are simply written words, on stone tablets, paper,or in computers.

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
29-10-2012, 01:46 AM
RE: Does science have a clear definition?
(29-10-2012 12:56 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  
(28-10-2012 10:00 PM)I and I Wrote:  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.

In science knowledge is also published, shared, and experiments reproduced. In this way one persons subjective claim must also be subjectively verified by many different minds by reproducing their experiments. We grab their information, reproduce their experiments and work hard at ripping it apart. Looking for biases, fallacies, and other errors.

You could say by offering up all the data, experimentation methods, and reviewing it all. We prevent subjective errors that lead to erroneous conclusions as much as possible.

We store these results in external data stores. These data stores are simply written words, on stone tablets, paper,or in computers.

if observing things and making theories about what we observe and then ripping old theories apart, so a tribe of people thousands of years ago were observing and making the best guesses or what seemed the most logical to them at that time, was that early scientific method? Historically, knowledge about anything has never been static or absolute, a groundbreaking idea in 1300's means very little today.
By subjective I meant humans in general, example: a society in the 1300's with all it's economic and political influences on society and culture would have a different way of thinking than todays society, so what we call truth or what we call science is always changing.

Earlier I commented on your comment about reality and how what reality means or is, is also influenced by or determined by a historical time and place. So far, in history science hasn't been static or unchanging, and like any other form of thought like politics or economics or philosophy, it is always changing and isn't predicated on some external "reality" or "truth"

I am not dissing modern science because that is the best way of looking at the world we have right now, but lets be honest about what it is and what isn't and what it can or can't do. Basically, what is reality, or what is truth are subjective but real at the same time, we humans decide what constitutes reality and truth, there is no external absolute static non changing "reality" or "truth" or "gods" out there to look for or to get closer to or to reveal.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2012, 01:51 AM
RE: Does science have a clear definition?
(29-10-2012 01:46 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(29-10-2012 12:56 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  In science knowledge is also published, shared, and experiments reproduced. In this way one persons subjective claim must also be subjectively verified by many different minds by reproducing their experiments. We grab their information, reproduce their experiments and work hard at ripping it apart. Looking for biases, fallacies, and other errors.

You could say by offering up all the data, experimentation methods, and reviewing it all. We prevent subjective errors that lead to erroneous conclusions as much as possible.

We store these results in external data stores. These data stores are simply written words, on stone tablets, paper,or in computers.

if observing things and making theories about what we observe and then ripping old theories apart, so a tribe of people thousands of years ago were observing and making the best guesses or what seemed the most logical to them at that time, was that early scientific method? Historically, knowledge about anything has never been static or absolute, a groundbreaking idea in 1300's means very little today.
By subjective I meant humans in general, example: a society in the 1300's with all it's economic and political influences on society and culture would have a different way of thinking than todays society, so what we call truth or what we call science is always changing.

Earlier I commented on your comment about reality and how what reality means or is, is also influenced by or determined by a historical time and place. So far, in history science hasn't been static or unchanging, and like any other form of thought like politics or economics or philosophy, it is always changing and isn't predicated on some external "reality" or "truth"

I am not dissing modern science because that is the best way of looking at the world we have right now, but lets be honest about what it is and what isn't and what it can or can't do. Basically, what is reality, or what is truth are subjective but real at the same time, we humans decide what constitutes reality and truth, there is no external absolute static non changing "reality" or "truth" or "gods" out there to look for or to get closer to or to reveal.

Yes there is. You are making the mistake of saying the totality of reality is subjective. As hoc told you a LONG time ago, stick your hand in a flame, and we'll sell how "unchanging" your reality is. There IS external objective reality, no matter how much you choose to deny it, your highness of woo-woo.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
The noblest of the dogs is the hot dog. It feeds the hand that bites it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2012, 07:33 AM
RE: Does science have a clear definition?
Take an unopened box, shake it, you can hear SOMETHING rattling around inside. You make your best guess based on the evidence, but alas you are wrong.

Your argument amounts to saying that just because we may not know what is in the box yet, or that we may have guessed wrong on the first try, that
whatever is in there is subjective. It is not. There is indeed an objectively real object in there regardless of our ability to perceive it at the moment.
Playing philosophical word games will not change it, and trying to play philosophical
word games is an incredibly intellectually shallow argument on the subject.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2012, 07:46 AM
RE: Does science have a clear definition?
(29-10-2012 01:51 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(29-10-2012 01:46 AM)I and I Wrote:  if observing things and making theories about what we observe and then ripping old theories apart, so a tribe of people thousands of years ago were observing and making the best guesses or what seemed the most logical to them at that time, was that early scientific method? Historically, knowledge about anything has never been static or absolute, a groundbreaking idea in 1300's means very little today.
By subjective I meant humans in general, example: a society in the 1300's with all it's economic and political influences on society and culture would have a different way of thinking than todays society, so what we call truth or what we call science is always changing.

Earlier I commented on your comment about reality and how what reality means or is, is also influenced by or determined by a historical time and place. So far, in history science hasn't been static or unchanging, and like any other form of thought like politics or economics or philosophy, it is always changing and isn't predicated on some external "reality" or "truth"

I am not dissing modern science because that is the best way of looking at the world we have right now, but lets be honest about what it is and what isn't and what it can or can't do. Basically, what is reality, or what is truth are subjective but real at the same time, we humans decide what constitutes reality and truth, there is no external absolute static non changing "reality" or "truth" or "gods" out there to look for or to get closer to or to reveal.

Yes there is. You are making the mistake of saying the totality of reality is subjective. As hoc told you a LONG time ago, stick your hand in a flame, and we'll sell how "unchanging" your reality is. There IS external objective reality, no matter how much you choose to deny it, your highness of woo-woo.

The classification of things as a "truth" is a human subjective act, the objects used in the process of doing this are objective reality. At one time, the idea that sacrificing humans would help crops could be an observable testable claim and to many it was their truth and their reality, however since truth and reality are not static unchanging things we have moved beyond that now do not consider the idea that sacrificing humans helps crops a truth or a reality and is not a truth or a reality to us today.

Since when is" reality" or "truth" a static non-changing thing? are you claiming we have discovered all we can possibly know and have advanced as humans as far as we are going to advance?

Do you believe that "truth" exists beyond humans somewhere in truthville and rides on unicorns?

you are confusing truth which is subjective and objects which aren't subjective. "A hammer hammers things" this is a truth, however before hammer were invented and to things like animals or insects, this is not a truth nor a reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2012, 07:49 AM
RE: Does science have a clear definition?
(29-10-2012 07:33 AM)Superluminal Wrote:  Take an unopened box, shake it, you can hear SOMETHING rattling around inside. You make your best guess based on the evidence, but alas you are wrong.

Your argument amounts to saying that just because we may not know what is in the box yet, or that we may have guessed wrong on the first try, that
whatever is in there is subjective. It is not. There is indeed an objectively real object in there regardless of our ability to perceive it at the moment.
Playing philosophical word games will not change it, and trying to play philosophical
word games is an incredibly intellectually shallow argument on the subject.

nobody is claiming that real things don't exist objectively outside human minds, I am claiming that what is or isn't labeled as "truth" or "reality" is subjective.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2012, 07:56 AM
Re: Does science have a clear definition?
Often people understand this issue easily because they don't proclaim science can prove anything to an absolute degree. Or T-truth.

It shows us what we know Toby he utmost degree of what it can and it's used to make the best likely predictions.

It doesn't matter in all cases if their is a real truth or not.. Because you generally don't expect to find it unless you're way over reaching in hopes

"Love is hot, Truth is molten!"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2012, 08:00 AM
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?

There is only one scientific method. It is creative. We create a concept and then test it against reality. This generates knowledge.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2012, 08:16 AM
RE: Does science have a clear definition?
(29-10-2012 07:56 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Often people understand this issue easily because they don't proclaim science can prove anything to an absolute degree. Or T-truth.

It shows us what we know Toby he utmost degree of what it can and it's used to make the best likely predictions.

It doesn't matter in all cases if their is a real truth or not.. Because you generally don't expect to find it unless you're way over reaching in hopes

That is true, but what we want to test or predict is often influenced by other factors like politics or ideology of a specific period in which the prediction or test is being done.

Predicting and testing and observing results from the claim that more human sacrifices makes crops better for example fits the definition of science given earlier in the thread however it certainly wouldn't be called a truth today, nor is human sacrifice a reality today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-10-2012, 08:18 AM
RE: Does science have a clear definition?
(29-10-2012 08:00 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(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?

There is only one scientific method. It is creative. We create a concept and then test it against reality. This generates knowledge.

does gaining knowledge mean one is closer to a truth?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: