What exactly is science?

User avatar
jonperry
Posts: 137
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 10:00 pm
Location: Corvallis Oregon
Contact:

What exactly is science?

Post by jonperry » Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:32 pm

A few years back when I debated with Steve I spent some time explaining what science is and what it is not. Since that time, I've honed in my thinking a bit more on the philosophy of science and I'm getting ready to do a series of animations on the topic. Before I do though, I'd love your feedback on my definition for science. In this short video I go over some popular definitions for science, explain what I do and don't like about them, and then give you my own definition.

Your feedback is important. These animations, once created, will be widely used in schools.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWlLngP4r4M

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: What exactly is science?

Post by mattrose » Thu Sep 22, 2016 3:37 pm

Hey Jon :)

I am wondering why you don't shorten your definition to just "The collection and documentation of observable facts"

By adding "and the ongoing discussion of how those facts can be best linked together" I think you leave too much room for philosophically driven 'discussion'

For example, a scientist could collect and document some facts, but then discuss those facts within his/her presupposed worldview (whether it be theistic or naturalistic). In your definition, it seems he/she would still be doing 'science' whereas, in reality, it might be that he's really begun doing philosophy. I don't see any way, in your definition, to prevent philosophy from creeping into the realm of science.

Maybe a slight improvement would be to add the word 'organization' to your first sentence. Science is "The collection, documentation, and organization of observable facts." The word 'organization' seems to leave room for the linking together of facts that you aim for, but perhaps better disqualifies philosophical worldviews from masquerading as science.

My 2 cents,
matthew

User avatar
jonperry
Posts: 137
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 10:00 pm
Location: Corvallis Oregon
Contact:

Re: What exactly is science?

Post by jonperry » Thu Sep 22, 2016 5:29 pm

Linking facts together into an explanation (theory building) is a huge part of science.

Think of a puzzle for analogy. Each piece is a fact. If you don't know what the big picture is ahead of time, you can only figure it out by attempting to fit the puzzle pieces together. Once a picture starts to form (a theory) you can use it to predict what other pieces might be out there and then search for them. Facts and theories working together quickly build momentum.

When you hit on a good theory, it acts as a catalyst to discover more facts and vice versa. It's a positive feedback loop.

Theological theories usually aren't based on observable facts, instead they're based on the words or writings of people claiming to be prophets. Any theory that is not based on observation is outside what we would consider to be good science.

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: What exactly is science?

Post by mattrose » Thu Sep 22, 2016 6:37 pm

jonperry wrote:Linking facts together into an explanation (theory building) is a huge part of science.

Think of a puzzle for analogy. Each piece is a fact. If you don't know what the big picture is ahead of time, you can only figure it out by attempting to fit the puzzle pieces together. Once a picture starts to form (a theory) you can use it to predict what other pieces might be out there and then search for them. Facts and theories working together quickly build momentum.

When you hit on a good theory, it acts as a catalyst to discover more facts and vice versa. It's a positive feedback loop.

Theological theories usually aren't based on observable facts, instead they're based on the words or writings of people claiming to be prophets. Any theory that is not based on observation is outside what we would consider to be good science.
I recognize the value of theorizing in science (the same is true in theology).

My point was, your definition doesn't really provide any safeguards from some of that 'theorizing' including personal philosophy and worldview. My position is that when scientists do utilize their personal worldview when creating a theory, they should be honest enough to be up front about that (as theologians should).

Theological theories, in my opinion, aren't as contrasting from scientific theories as you seem to imagine. Theologians just take evidence (from evidence like the resurrection of Jesus, miracles, the created world, archaeology, etc.) and put them together to form a coherent theory using their worldview/philosophy. Some of them are honest about their presuppositions and some of them aren't. Some of their presuppositions are wrong and some of them aren't. Just like with scientists.

In short, I think it is very easy for presuppositions and worldviews to sneak in to research. An example of that is shown in your video actually. Your dismissal of the first definition (which I think was the best of the 3 offered) was rejected simply because it said science observes the natural world. And your objection was the the phrase 'the natural world' assumes there may be a non-natural (spiritual) world. Not only is that an argument from silence, but it also makes you come across as if you have an agenda in favor of a naturalistic worldview.

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: What exactly is science?

Post by Jason » Fri Sep 23, 2016 7:36 am

Jon,

Adding to what Matt said, I don't think philosophy is ever absent when doing science (or theology or politics or anything else). It's idealist, and almost naive, to think of a discipline as pure and above the interference of human will. Especially in disciplines which are seeking to pronounce upon ultimate matters like purpose and meaning. Wasn't it Pascal who said we don't gravitate toward truth, but toward the philosophy we're most attracted to? I wish more of us would simply admit this.

Consider this quote from one of the more honest atheists writing today:

I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time.
Thomas Nagel
(Professor of Philosophy and Law Emeritus at New York University)

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: What exactly is science?

Post by mattrose » Fri Sep 23, 2016 9:14 am

Just following up.... I don't want to come across like I'm saying it's WRONG for Scientists to utilize their worldview/philosophy. As you said, it is helpful and necessary to make advancements to try to put the puzzle pieces together. And that 'big picture' doesn't always come from the facts, but involves some reasonable faith.

My point was simply that scientists (like theologians and all people) should be honest that they're doing that. It seems to me that scientists often try to make it sound like they're completely unbiased when they think big picture even when it's obvious to most everyone else that they're not (see Richard Dawkins 'the God delusion' for a clear example). On its own, science has its limitations. Some worldview/philosophy is sometimes necessary even to make scientific advancements. The only people that are troubled by the limitations of science are people that have moved from loving science to being adherents of scientism... people who have moved from loving nature (and the study of nature) to naturalism (the belief that nature is all their is).

User avatar
morbo3000
Posts: 537
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 9:05 pm
Location: Washington State
Contact:

Re: What exactly is science?

Post by morbo3000 » Sat Sep 24, 2016 12:07 am

@jon I think your definition is sound.

I wish conservative religious people weren't spooked by naturalism. I continue to value Stephen Jay Gould's Non-overlapping Magisteria. The only way to do science is to assume naturalistic causes. Gould calls this "methodological naturalism." Otherwise, at any point, you can pull the miracle card to explain something. This is different from metaphysical naturalism. The belief that there are only naturalistic causes for the universe.

It's the hostility between fundamentalists who claim science threatens their faith, and the new atheists who use science to threaten faith that gives naturalism a bad name. But science doesn't threaten faith. And naturalism doesn't either.

I'm listening to Cosmos right now, by Carl Sagan, and his protagonist takes great pains to maintain her agnosticism. She looks for scientific explanations for everything, but won't rule out a deity. Just doesn't see evidence for his active participation. This agnosticism in the scientific process doesn't threaten faith.

Keep up the good work Jon.
When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.
JeffreyLong.net
Jesusna.me
@30thirteen

User avatar
mattrose
Posts: 1920
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: What exactly is science?

Post by mattrose » Sat Sep 24, 2016 8:39 am

Just to be clear... I was addressing metaphysical naturalism, not methodological naturalism. I have no problem with scientists using naturalistic presuppositions as their methodology so long as they don't insist it has the capacity to answer all questions. Their job is to acquire data from nature and explain things within the context of nature.

Jon's comment about the 1st definition came across, to me, like he was bordering on (at least) metaphysical naturalism. In fact, if it wouldn't have been for his explanation as to why he dismissed the first definition... I probably wouldn't have had any objection to his fresh definition.

User avatar
morbo3000
Posts: 537
Joined: Tue May 29, 2012 9:05 pm
Location: Washington State
Contact:

Re: What exactly is science?

Post by morbo3000 » Sat Sep 24, 2016 11:09 am

@matt

Thanks for clarifying


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it.
JeffreyLong.net
Jesusna.me
@30thirteen

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: What exactly is science?

Post by Paidion » Sat Sep 24, 2016 1:25 pm

I associate the word "science" with the scientific method. According to dictionary.com, scientific method is "a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested."

For example, an older hypothesis to explain the phenomenon of a substance burning by means of fire, was that any substance containing phlogiston is inflammable, and when ignited, will burn until the phlogiston is exhausted. After a material has completely burned up, any remaining substances such ashes are depleted of phlogiston, and so will not burn.

In 1774, Joseph Priestly proposed that air was made up of several gases, one of which he called oxygen. He hypothesized that when a substance burns, it (or part of it) unites with oxygen. When this unity is complete, the fire goes out.

However, phlogiston believers were hard to convince. They said that obviously flammable material loses phlogiston because it weighs less after burning. If you asked them why blowing air on a fire made it burn faster, they replied that the moving air helps the phlogiston to escape faster. If you asked them why a fire in a wood heater, slows down or goes out when you shut off the damper so that less air could get in, they replied that this prevents the phlogiston from escaping, thus smothering the fire.

A few years later when magnesium was isolated, it was determined that after burning magnesium, the ash remaining weighs MORE than the original quantity of magnesium. This was explained, of course, by stating that oxygen from the air has weight and combines with the magnesium to form magnesium oxide that then weighs more than the original magnesium. The die-hard phlogiston believers then said that phlogiston sometimes has negative weight. When a hypothesis requires an extraordinary number of factors in order to hold onto it, when, a simpler explanation can explain it, it seems rational to accept the simpler explanation.

Historical events, however, cannot be explained using the scientific method. For historical events cannot be empirically tested. One can propose that the Grand Canyon was formed over a great period of time, but it may have formed suddenly, such as the altered landscape near Mt. St. Helen formed suddenly after the eruption.

Astronomers can put forth models to explain the formation of the universe with big-bang theory, etc., but these ideas cannot be empirically tested. Many creationists put forth quite different models, and, of course, they cannot be empirically tested either.

Some evolutionists have proposed that certain hominids were the ancestors of homo sapiens, but that's all it is—proposals. The idea cannot be empirically tested. Those hominids may be been totally unrelated to homo sapiens, except in appearance. Some say homo sapiens and anthropoid apes have a common ancestor. Again, the idea cannot be empirically tested.

So I say that practice of "science" is tantamount to the employment of the scientific method, and should be limited to that. Let's not call conjectures "science."
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

Post Reply

Return to “Creation/Evolution”