What is science?
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Sunday, August 30, 2026 21:01
VIEWED: 22722
PAGE 3 of 10
All right, my turn.
Science is a systematic method of discovery. The method consists of making quantifiable observations, forming hypothetical explanations, testing these hypotheses in experiments, and accumulating experimental results into an overarching model. Models are used to predict future data with varying levels of accuracy. Models that have 100% predictive accuracy to date are called "laws." The rest of the models are called anywhere from theories to conjectures. All models are subject to change, improvement, correction, and the periodic total revamping.
Observation, hypothesis, experiment, theory. The end goal is this: to think of all possible explanations for any observation and test every single factor to arrive at the most predictive model possible.
What science is not. Science is not knowledge. Science is not technology. Science is the METHOD by which we get knowledge or technology. But it should not be confused with the facts or inventions themselves. Science is not the product; it is the tool used to make the product.
Quality of the scientific method. Not all science is equal. On the high quality end, a good series of experiments will have controlled for every possible alternative explanation (called confounders) for the results that the experimenter can think of. They have thought of and controlled for so many things that the reader can feel quite confident that the hypothesis is either rejected or supported.
On the low quality end, the experimenter has thought of and controlled for no alternative explanations at all. The experiment does not rule out alternative explanations, so the reader has very little confidence that the hypothesis has been supported or rejected.
When a researcher conducts a poorly controlled study that should generate very little confidence, but yet claims a high amount of confidence in its conclusions, it is pseudo-science. The more disparity that exists between the confidence deserved and the confidence claimed, the more pseudo-scientific it is.
No one discussed pseudo-science better than Richard Feynman in "Cargo Cult Science.
http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm
or
http://faperta.ugm.ac.id/mikro/donny_w/metpen/CargoCultofScience.pdf
I don't talk about cause-and-effect, because the real world never has only any one "cause." Cause is something scientists chase after, but never catch. I prefer to use the word "mechanism" for the series of factors and conditions that lead up to a certain outcome.
In science, I don't talk about "facts" because the word implies some piece of knowledge that is unchanging and uncorrectable. I prefer to use the word "observation" which puts "facts" in context of time, space, and conditions.
When someone talks about "scientific facts" or "scientific impossibility" (based in the unnegotiable nature of "scientific facts"), my ass twitches. Science is a BLIND method of discovery; it cares not WHAT we discover. You use the method, and you land where you land whether you believe it or not, whether it is consistent with previous findings or not. Explain the landings if you want, but don't dismiss them categorically.
When someone talks about subjective agendas/biases of researchers, my ass twitches. The beauty of science is in its objectivity, its BLIND objectivity. It is a method that allows anyone to look at and interpret quantifiable data collected by anyone else. It is not a method for making conjectures about the personal motivations of people you don't agree with.
I'll end with an excerpt from Feynman's Cargo Cult Science. This is the kind of science I love.
Quote:
For example, there have been many experiments running rats through all
kinds of mazes, and so on--with little clear result. But in 1937 a man named Young did a very interesting one. He had a long corridor with doors all along one side where the rats came in, and doors along the other side where tNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Robert Heinlein once wrote, " If you can't measure it, it isn't science." a definition by exclusion that can fit in a telegram, and my favorite. I think that that subject has been covered already.
Science is also repeatable, and can be confirmed by testing and repetition by other people in other places. I drop a rock, it falls, I say, " Eureka! That proves gravity!" You drop a rock off your garage roof, you say, " Aha! that confirms gravity!" Galileo drops a rock off the tower of Pisa, says " Aha! A't'sa prove gravity." Somebody drops a rock, measures how fast it accelerates, publishes the speed, 1000's of people everywhere drop rocks and measure the speed, they all come pretty close to each other, everybody starts to agree that the acceleration of gravity is 32 feet per second per second. Other guys drop pieces of wood, lead balls, rubber balls, feathers, get similar or different results, explain and argue about why, try it inside vacuum jars and discover that feathers and lead balls fall at the same speed in vacuum. So if you subtract wind resistance, gravity works consistently, pretty much. Eventually 'most everybody agrees.
Climate change is prediction, somewhere between, " If I drop this rock, it will fall up." and "If I drop this rock, it will fall at 31 feet per second per second. " And not everybody who deserves to have an opinion is in agreement yet.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:These are indeed 2 cardinal characteristics of science, but they are not enough. If I were to define science by a number of characteristics, I would list them thus:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
Robert Heinlein once wrote, " If you can't measure it, it isn't science."...
Science is also repeatable, and can be confirmed by testing and repetition by other people in other places.
1. Quantifiable, concrete definitions
2. Objectively measurable (measurable by anyone)
3. Repeatable
4. Exhaustive
5. Tentative, uncertain
6. Skeptical
7. Correctable
8. Blind
-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
Science is a reliable, reproduce-able vehicle of discovery.
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
Science is a reliable, reproduce-able vehicle of discovery.
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
I'm not so sure. I think that we WANT science to be reliable, but it has shown itself to be reliable only untill someone comes along and debunks it. This has happened over and over again. Those that have the knowledge and use science tell the people what is true, the people accept "scientist's" word as truth, go on with their lives only to be told that everything they were told is wrong(anyone that helps their children with homework will understand).
Rogue waves come to mind..Sailors came back with stories of huge monster waves..only to be laughed at and told waves of that size were not physically possible. That their models said so.
How many times have you seen the impossible or improbable, become plausible or definite overnight?
My point is... science is not that reliable, and we put too much faith in the scientific understanding of the day...
I won't even touch global warming....
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Kaneman, you just made my day! Thank you.
Originally posted by kaneman:
How many times have you seen the impossible or improbable, become plausible or definite overnight?
-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
Science is an utterly reliable vehicle of discovery.
If the driver refuses to pursue the destination, how can you blame the vehicle?
It is mankind who, again and again, chooses to stop the vehicle and fails to pursue discovery. It is mankind who says, "I know all that I need to know. I know all that is."
It is foolhardy to blame the car that fails to move when no one is willing to get behind the wheel.
Science has never, ever laughed at any person or any idea. Men do that. They do it with or without science.
You describe a failing of man.
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
Science is an utterly reliable vehicle of discovery.
If the driver refuses to pursue the destination, how can you blame the vehicle?
It is mankind who, again and again, chooses to stop the vehicle and fails to pursue discovery. It is mankind who says, "I know all that I need to know. I know all that is."
It is foolhardy to blame the car that fails to move when no one is willing to get behind the wheel.
Science has never, ever laughed at any person or any idea. Men do that. They do it with or without science.
You describe a failing of man.
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
It may be reliable over long stretches of time as the truth is slowly unfolded, but in a life span it is rather pathetic....
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
That's like saying an automobile is pathetic five-minutes into its journey, but an hour later, after it has traveled 50 miles, it's more impressive.
Science is a vehicle of discovery. It is not a destination. I have never seen a better vehicle for discovery.
You continue to confuse the failures of men with the failures of science. It is men who periodically stop and say, "This is all that is."
Science never does, any more than a car says, "This is the only road on Earth," or a plane says, "This is the only stretch of sky worth flying."
--Anthony
Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That's a very good point. It is man who says, "That is impossible!" Not science.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
You describe a failing of man.
But I probably wouldn't use "reliable" to describe science. There is so much uncertainty in science and so many unknown variables that it is very difficult and painstaking to actually get reliable observations. There are a lot of observations that are NOT reliable, but are nonetheless true and real.
-------
Everything I say is just my opinion, not fact.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME