/ What is science to you?
I know what I think but am withholding it so as not to bias people too much.
Why UKC? Well lots of people, lots of backgrounds and I'm writing for nothing and for personal interest so I don't have the budget for telemarketing!
Basing your models of the world on observable, repeatable evidence. Using repeatable tests to see if your models work or not.
Doing experiments and getting a feel for experimental errors.
It's just the way the world is. To not understand science is to not understand anything.
Science means trying to understand things from the bottom up.
This is a good way to try to understand them. But not the only way.
Science and Engineering (I'm an engineer but also do science) is seeing the world in full colour HD and even 3D to everyone else's black and white.
It is also a source of frustration as in the UK most people seem to struggle with the most basic maths and science but find this acceptable compared to not knowing who Shakespeare was.
Toby (If you quote me I want a reference ;-) )
Knowledge, from Latin scientia, meaning knowledge.
Science is about accepting uncertainty & being curious
Science is human beings attempt to understand nature. And it's a pretty good one.
Reasoned understanding of the environment and processes around us.
The struggle to understand things, using reason and evidence - accepting that we're never absolutely sure, and must keep re-examining the things we think we already understand.
Science is understanding the universe. That's it. (Both bottom-up and top-down approaches, whatever works.)
Tim - interested in hearing about the alternatives you had in mind. Without wanting to start too much of a debate!
If you want a view about what the single word 'science' is to me then, try this. Science is the reason I'm alive, was the way for me to earn a living for many years, is the reason I can stay in touch with people I care for despite them being many miles distant, has improved my quality of life, made it possible for me to travel, to understand the world we live in, how it works and how life, and subsequently human beings, came to be, helps show us our status in a vast, beautiful, universe and has allowed you to ask, and me to answer this question.
Long, but comprehensive.
Science is basing your world-view on the evidence rather than vice versa.
Sounds like Feynman: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself--and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that."
CalTech commencement address 1974, which is a rather good commentary on science.
Do you think so, really? What about things like small, self-sufficient farmers, or indigenous people, who know about things through the stories and examples given to them by their parents and grandparents? They might not 'test' that a given herb is good for some use or another, but they might have folklaw that tells them that it is (which might be wrong, but it might be right?)
There are lots of ways of knowing about the world beside science, aren't there? Like art might be a none scientific way of expressing your feelings.
Science only makes models of how the world is. It isn't how the world is. It's a small, but significant difference. How you picture an atom in your head is a model of how an atom really actually is, based on the evidence (and also on stories, where you have never actually ever looked at first hand evidence yourself). Often, the current scientific model is later modified as new evidence is uncovered.
What is science to you?
something god made to test our faith
In your example there is no understanding which is what the science quote mentions. Most people successfully use their telly but have next to no understanding of how they actually work and this does not stop them just like the indigenous people etc.
What I had in mind is rather like tlm's later comment on this thread. Reading e.g. War And Peace--and 'getting' it-- adds profoundly to your understanding and knowledge of human nature and life. But it's not *scientific* understanding that it gives you; it's humane understanding. And that's the kind of thing I mean by top-down understanding.
Science is a set of ideas, tools and processes by which we can more objectively explore, understand and collaborate to that end.
It's a tool for testing ideas.
(30something MEng in electronics)
Something to put in place of blind destructive faiths
Science is the process by which we create ever more plausible, interconnected and mutually reinforcing models of reality, which in turn enable us to predict, benefit from and manipulate natural phenomena.
To me science is complicated stuff that clever people deal with!
The only difference between messing around and science is writing it down.
The first time I've wished there was a like button.
Proving theory by experimentation.
That's proto-science. It's still based on evidence when done well.
But they would test it, by trying it. It's just they would do so in a rudimentary fashion that isn't as reliable as today's methods. But that's ok, what's what early scientists did; it's just that the methods have been refined a lot since then.
"Expressing your feelings", yes, but that is a very different activity from finding out about and understanding the world.
It's the best way we have of describing, explaining and predicting the external aspects of our existence.
Science is the study of the observable world.
But much stuff, such as studying the behaviour of ants, that we all think of a science is also "top-down", in the sense that we are not trying to explain it in terms of fundamental particle physics. War and peace is no different. Everything, ant behaviour, life, human nature, humane understanding is, when it comes down to it, just particle physics (or, to go even lower, whatever lies behind particle physics). It is just that, with our present level of understanding, it is not very practical or helpful to try to understand ant behaviour, let alone War and Peace, in terms of particle physics.
Science does top-down views and top-down understanding also. An example from physics, the 2nd law of thermodynamics resulted from a top-down study of how matter behaved in large ensembles. In biology, lots of study of ecology and ecosystems takes top-down views.
Of course these top-down views have to be consistent with and integrated with bottom-up views, and the combination is why science works so well.
But it isn't always done well. And sometimes people carrying on smearing mustard on their chests to cure a cold, because it feels nice and hot and as though it is doing something, and their granny said it worked. There are loads of examples in my world of people doing things because they were told that they work, and they never notice that they don't work.
I didn't say it was about finding out about or understanding the world. There is more to the world that just finding out about it.... ;-)
Though plenty of what science studies isn't "observable" in any direct sense. Neutrinos are an example. Thus it would be better to say that science is the study of everything that exists.
I think this is a big, big area that science has hardly touched. Human behaviour, emotions, sociology, psychology. It's all been approached in very unscientific ways as well as attempts to be scientific. With some of the new ways of measuring things that we now have, I can imagine a time when we will snigger at just how little we understood these basic things...
How come, with science, we don't seem to be able to prevent fairly basic stuff like war?
Science is a great tool that needs to be used wisely and carefully. Not all scientists are equal so cynicism and an enquiring mind are essential.
You're right, but then modern science can be done badly also. All humans tend to make mistakes.
Which is why science has refined its methods over time to be better and better at distinguishing what does work from what you're merely told works.
Absolutely. And the "science" bit is the finding out about and understanding the world.
Because we're not the rational creatures we like to think we are.
Aren't neutrino's observed when they interact with chlorine ions, it's just that proportionally very few of them do interact with even the biggest most sensitive detectors?
But that isn't the whole story. The 'science' bit does the finding out, but lots of us rely on stories to know information, be they reliable stories, like reading someone else's published research paper, or completely unreliable stories, like urban myths. A lot of our knowledge falls somewhere in the middle, and we simply don't have time to test everything. I just take the medicines I am given, because the doctor said it was alright, and she just gets her information from the computer, and in fact, when and where was the actual science done?
It's more ad hoc than you make out...
It isn't just that. We actually don't know how to prevent it, or how to stop global warming, or how to prevent people dying from lack of fresh water or food.
We know how to make a teeny mobile phone, or how to implant a pacemaker, but we really aren't very good at preventing depression, or stopping cycles of drug abuse...
> Do you think so, really? What about things like small, self-sufficient farmers, or indigenous people,
Indigenous peoples know loads of science. There maybe some mumbo jumbo mixed with it but if they've figured out princples that consistently allow them to do things better, as Coel says, that's the beginning of science.
But you don't get far without fire, soot, pigments, tools, candles, paper, glue, lenses, photographic emulsions, standing waves, octaves, amplifiers, plaster, concrete, smelting, holography, lasers...
Admittedly, you don't need any of that for whistling in the dark.
Agreed, but it was shorthand. I meant 'science'. But then that's also true of religion, art and reality generally isn't it? It's all perception, conception and synecdoche, not just science.
No it isn't. Mathematics, logic, economics, biology, even macro-physics are not particle physics. Still less human interactions and the kind of understanding of the world that e.g. War And Peace gives.
But this is Irk's thread. He asked for one contribution from each of us, and this is my third, so I'm shutting up now. Things to do, places to be, books to write...
What happens when I'm not doing paperwork ;-)
How about "structured curiosity"?
Science is about making rational sense of stuff. Rationale should be logical, repeatable and capable of withstanding critical analysis and objective scrutiny.
Yes, so they are observed indirectly, owing to their interactions with stuff that we can can "see". So, in that sense they are part of the "observable universe". However, by that test, anything "unobservable" would have to have no interaction at all with matter in any way, and thus be a "parallel" existence that has no causal contact with our universe.
I'll give you mathematics and logic (maybe), but everything else is, in principle, reducible to fundamental physics (or, at least, we have no reason apart from wishful thinking to believe that they are not).
All of us do this. No-one has ever done every scientific experiment themselves first hand.
I'm not making any comment on the degree of ad-hoc-ness. I'm just saying that "folk knowledge" of how things work was arrived at the same way, by observing what works, and that modern science simply refines those methods to be better and better at finding such things out.
When you really get down to fundamental theoretical physics, it is pretty much indistinguishable from mathematics and logic. Ask any string theorist!
Science is the process of revealing new knowledge and revising old in an ever more nuanced description of reality.
I disagree with that. The more involved in science I've become, the more focussed on the abstraction I've become and the less mindful of nature in all its glory I've become. I cannot see what the necessary pathway is, therefore, between doing science, and seeing reality as all the more glorious. This seems to me to be at best a highly personal statement.
Always questioning, nothing is truth, only theory with better or worse supporting evidence.
Never stop questioning, never accept dogma (especially the dogma of science as truth, that's when you stop questioning and lose a real commitment to science).
To call it folk knowledge though is about trying to claim it as a subordinate of "proper" knowledge; to add a moral hierarchy. Yet, I don't think its as simple as that, because you can integrate experience without having expressible formal knowledge, in the way, for example, Ayrton Senna talked of his intuitions as a racing driver:
“..the last qualifying session. I was already on pole, then by half a second and then one second and I just kept going. Suddenly I was nearly two seconds faster than anybody else, including my team mate with the same car. And suddenly I realised that I was no longer driving the car consciously. I was driving it by a kind of instinct, only I was in a different dimension. It was like I was in a tunnel. Not only the tunnel under the hotel but the whole circuit was a tunnel. I was just going and going, more and more and more and more. I was way over the limit but still able to find even more.
“Then suddenly something just kicked me. I kind of woke up and realised that I was in a different atmosphere than you normally are. My immediate reaction was to back off, slow down. I drove slowly back to the pits and I didn’t want to go out any more that day. It frightened me because I was well beyond my conscious understanding. It happens rarely but I keep these experiences very much alive inside me because it is something that is important for self-preservation.”
I'd argue that we don't know how to do it. It's like knowing how to keep a shared house stocked with bog roll. As soon as you talk about modifying human behaviour it becomes complex beyond our capabilities...
Exactly. We all rely on legend, rather than science, for our day to day lives. We just pretend to ourselves that this is not the case.
Before this descends into classic ukc can I ask some more questions?
What is a scientist to you?
Can you think of an incredibly emotional or particulary memorable moment? Now tell me how science influenced that, if at all.
Do you think scientists are ever wrong?
What is unique about science?
One sentence please! Or two.
Thanks again. Some really good stuff coming in, maybe not enough challenging my world view but you can't help that!
It is all the stuff God knew when he made the world, and neglected to give us the manual. (if you are a believer that is)
So you're with that bishop who complained that understanding light and refraction detracted from the beauty of a rainbow rather than enhanced it? Is a flower less beautiful because we understand the processes by which it emerges from the dull soil? Are stars less beautiful because we now understand just how mind bogglingly far away they are and how long their light takes to reach us and that they are actually massive nuclear furnaces governed by the laws of particle physics rather than just unexplained pin-pricks in the sky?
A load of accepted opinions, most of which are subsequently found to be at best only part of the picture.
No, not really, it's simply a claim that the knowledge can be refined by modern scientific methods. For example, folk herbal remedies can be studied with a double-blind controlled trial, giving more reliable knowledge about their efficacy.
Someone who tries their best to understand the world. See also Feynman's quote above.
Such a moment in science? Well, finding new planets is quite fun!
Lots of the time. At the cutting edge of research lots is uncertain, and scientists are often wrong as they try to figure out new things.
The unique part is trying hard not to be fooled (see Feynman quote). In comparison, "non science" often involves not caring about being fooled (homoeopathy is an example) or actively desiring to be fooled (esteeming "faith" is an example).
I'm not making a statement about principle or logic, I'm making a statement about experience. Which is that science for me has gone hand in hand with an obsession with understanding, describing, theoretical abstractions, etc along with a loss of mindfulness, a close appreciation of the immediacy of nature and the world around me. It might be a uniquely personal experience, but it is my experience nonetheless, and something which I'm actively antidoting!
(without reading the thread)
The essence is:
1. Do it again
2. What does that tell you about the world?
and that leads on to:
3. The body of knowledge accumulated by doing 1) and 2).
- A scientist
Yeh, and yet a double-blind controlled trial takes an inordinate time to carry out, often produces fog, rather than clarity, and will never tell you whether the ill person in front of you is the definite needy recipient of that drug, or another.
I believe Science is the best process we have for gathering information about our world.
(after reading the thread)
I disagree with people who say that science is the study of everything. Love, hate, happiness, sadness, frustration, beauty, art - I think these are real and outside the realm of science.
Chemical changes in the brain are within the realm of science, but they're a very incomplete description of the things I outlined above.
We definitely do know how to stop all on that list. We just don't do it because the (global,) human being is a selfish thing.
Someone who asks questions and then tries to test them, then tries to explain the world in terms of the evidence.
Yeah - loads! :-) It's hard to be specific about science influencing moments, but it permeates through everything, just in things like the way that you interpret that moment.
It tries to only use evidence that can be repeated, and it tries to be objective.
but that is my point. We have no idea of how to actually do those things for real, because we have no idea of how to overcome our animal instinct brains which lead to that selfishness. If we really did know how to do them, we would do them.
What is to stop science studying those?
Looking up a clouds and knowing some of them are ice crystals. Knowing there are more colours than we can see beyond those in the rainbow, what would the world look like if we could see into the radio spectrum? I can detect lightning happening in Australia here in the UK, what would that look like? That, that star is not a star but a planet.
I see how it might make no difference and is perhaps personal to me but I remember seeing some large format pictures of the US national parks. Same beautiful picture but oh my god the details and the depth were breath taking on another level.
I guess it's firing the imagination as well as the eye.
A way of understanding the world.
Lifting us out of the world of pain, hunger, fear, illness, cold that most other animals live in.
I'm not sure, but I think you might be confusing lack of knowledge with lack of motivation.
It's easy to say you want war to stop, but harder to stick to that when you have to pay for it with things you value.
A step-by-step methodology with which to test questions/observations about a given system.
Everything that causes physical change should be observable either directly or indirectly, until we get into cats in boxes anyway.
Beyond the observable your only hope of avoiding mysticism is to call it philosophy ;-)
a logical evidence based approach of interpreting the world around us based as much as possible on non subjective information
Someone who contributes new understanding of nature.
Can't think of one. But, every conscious experience is a pattern of electrochemical activity in the brain...
Yes, obviously. Scientists are people and are subject all the same flaws and weaknesses as everyone else. But get hundreds of them together and let their work develop over a period of time, and nature will guide them to the right answers.
As the basis of a world-view, it is the only option available that is tethered firmly to the external objective reality.
Meaningless without art...
Science means gathering evidence in a non-biased way, finding a conclusion that fits with all the available evidence and understanding that there are limitations of accuracy on that conclusion
Keeps me employed and not having to do a proper job. Lets me play with very expensive awesome toys :-)
There is nothing mystical about philosophy. It is simply a matter of discussing how we interpret things, scientific or otherwise. It applies a rigorous, logical critique to every realm of discourse. That's it. Nothing is tougher, more rigorous, or more critical, in the broadest possible sense. Everything else is pseudo-philosophy. One of the greatest weaknesses of the modern world, which goes a long way towards explaining the lack of (any) progress in world 'civilisation', is a recent philosophical apathy. It's even handicapped some areas of science (with some people still talking as if they're living in Newton's time)
I'm hoping that, within my lifetime, I may just begin to see a swing back towards the old days of philosophical rigour that's so sorely lacking in most fields of life right now.
We don't have people dying of lack of water or food in the UK and we are very keen on recycling and cutting carbon emissions, all things that will reduce global warming. The majority of the rest of the world doesn't have the education that we have in the west. Education is just passing on knowledge, the latin word for knowledge is where the word science came from, replace the word science with knowledge and it shows what science is to all, just knowledge. If the rest of the world had our standard of education then all the issues you identify would stop. (In most, the human being a fickle thing means that lessons will have to be relearnt ad nauseum til the end of time....)
Studying things carefully. Accepting you may be wrong in the conclusions you have drawn.
(That should cover both the human and the natural sciences)
Yes, which is arguably the most effective way of interpreting all that is most mysterious about human life, through metaphor, symbol and story.
> What I had in mind is rather like tlm's later comment on this thread. Reading e.g. War And Peace--and 'getting' it-- adds profoundly to your understanding and knowledge of human nature and life. But it's not *scientific* understanding that it gives you; it's humane understanding. And that's the kind of thing I mean by top-down understanding.
I don't think 'top down' is a very faithful expression of what you're talking about. Science uncovers nature. Art uncovers human experience. One is not 'on top' of the other: human experience is within nature.
Nah, read T Kuhn - The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
And M Polanyi - Knowing and Being, The Tacit Dimension, and Personal Knowledge
Top down doesn't mean 'from on top of' but from the top of, within it. Science has to work in both ways, as Coel has rightly said.
You can't prove anything (except for 'I think therefore I am'). It is therefore a common misconception that science attempts to prove anything in the strict sense.
Instead, science is an attempt to model the Universe, or a fraction thereof, with a model. This model is revised and improved through experiment and observations. The usefulness of our models is measured only in their predictive power; their ability to tell us what we expect will happen in a given situation. We can then test this empirically using the scientific method.
Since we cannot strictly prove anything, it is quite possible that our models are entirely wrong, and that it is actually all undetectable gnomes with skyhooks etc.
To understand 'Science', you must understand the subtleties of 'wrong'. For example, Newton's laws of motion are 'wrong' in that they are superseded by Einstein's theories of relativity. Yet when we sent men to the Moon, we used Newton's laws because they were a perfectly good approximation for our purposes and nobody could be bothered to do the pointless maths to show that the relativistic solution reduces to pretty much exactly the non-relativistic solution.
What matters is not whether a model is correct, but how wrong it is. If it gives you the right answer for some physical situations, then it is still useful.
Quantum mechanics and general relativity are two of the most successful theories of the modern age. They are incompatible, and therefore probably both wrong. But this doesn't matter, as they are usually right... any advancement in terms of quantum gravity will be an incremental improvement. Under most circumstances, the older theories are a suitable approximation.
Finally, a consequence of the idea we are modelling, not proving, the nature of the Universe is that any idea which is not testable is not interesting. The Universe could be just a computer simulation in some larger universe but if it is impossible to test this from within the simulation then it is not a scientific line of enquiry, since this knowledge would not improve the predictive power of that which is observable.
Why? Surely art is a partial, clawing but often beautiful way of grasping at meanings and ideas which science has not yet fully explained.
why you ask?
Because you can be human without science, not without art. Its defined us since earliest palaeolithic Times. The need to express ourselves, to communicate with each Other through art.
> Why? Surely art is a partial, clawing but often beautiful way of grasping at meanings and ideas which science has not yet fully explained.
This is an interesting line of discussion. I think that art has a fundamentally different purpose to science. Where the purpose and substance of science - the understanding of nature - is easy to pinpoint, the purpose and substance of art is much more difficult.
Art can encapsulate experience from the conscious/internal world and transmit that to another person - amongst many other things it can do. Science does not try to do this - while we will some day explain how the conscious world is generated by our neurons, science won't express what that feels like the way art can.
But you can't be human without questioning what you are and where you came from.
Humans evolved to be communicators and pattern seekers since both helped with surviving. Can't art be seen as just a manifestation of this?
You say 'not yet fully explained'. It's absolutely miles off when it comes to explaining the most extraordinary quirks of human behaviour, emotion and consciousness. Meanwhile we're stuck with Lear and Hamlet.
Exactly what art does is ask questions, present paradoxes. Even purely beautiful works of art do that, implicitly.
Either that's complete bollocks, or I'm not human.
As I said, art is a side product or our evolutionary path, but if we stopped doing it, I reckon we could still get on ok even if in a somewhat diminished way. We could probably get on ok without science too if we were happy to return to the simple hunter-gatherer existence which did us fine for most of our evolutionary existence.
I think it helps a bit, but not much. It doesn't really offer insight into why Dan Rhodes makes *me* piss myself laughing, why Akufen makes me want to dance, why The Wrestler chimes with how I see the world...but most people don't react this way to those bits of art.
Yes, I agree entirely!
Maybe youre missing something.
Do you pay your respects at funerals of Loved ones. They are Dead, no science there. our Neandertal Ancestors Used to bury their Dead in a sleeping pose with a stone pillow, and cover them with Flowers.
No scientific reason, just a human Reverence for the Dead. We still do the Flower thing now.
Its about being human. without art, music, emotion, being human would be intolerable. Are you sure you dont Value art above science?
What she said. The 'scientific method'.
As you sort of say later in your post, it is not at all probable that our models are "entirely wrong" in the sense of giving very bad predictions, since many of the predictions have been tested and work very well.
It is indeed "quite probable" that our models are wrong in the sense of containing conceptual flaws while still being pretty close accounts of reality giving pretty good and reliable predictions (as in your example of Newtonian gravity).
> Maybe youre missing something.
> Are you sure you dont Value art above science?
I don't value art above science. Science is the whole foundation of how I understand what it is to exist - life would be impossible without it, I'd have to be religious!! Equally, life without art would be arid. What's the point of your hierarchy?
Since when was paying respects at a funeral art?
You are assuming that emotion = art. More accurately my emotions probably affect my consumption of art, but I don't feel compelled to express them as art.
What I failed to adequately say what that our models may be in no way a reflection of 'reality' (in as far as reality can be defined) - we express our understanding of the world in terms of quarks, leptons, dark matter etc. But none of these may actually exist in the manner we model them - BUT this doesn't actually matter if we genuinely can't tell the difference. The very best model of the Universe it may be possible to construct might still be 'incorrect' from a reality-based point of view but it would still be a 'perfect' model.
There is no need for 'reality' and our models to be the same thing if we still get the right answer; the value of science is in prediction. Discovering the true nature of things or some equally lofty philosophical goal is probably impossible.
Separately our models may be (are?) wrong in that they don't always give good predictions for that which is observable. We can then improve our models.
> world in terms of quarks, leptons, dark matter etc. But none of these may actually exist in the manner we model them - BUT this doesn't
> actually matter if we genuinely can't tell the difference.
I see what you're saying, but disagree with it. To me the *only* meaning of "it reflects reality" is that it works. I don't think it is possible for something to be "a 'perfect' model" and yet be "'incorrect' from a reality-based point of view" -- that to me is a contradiction. It's a bit like arguing that a beautiful painting or piece of music is not really beautiful, it's just that people think it is!
How do you define "reality" except as "the model that gets the right answer"? If it is something other than that then in what sense is it "real"? Surely the only meaning of the "true nature of things" is that which is realised by a "perfect model"?
I hear you Gordon. Hence the smiley face.
If there were no intelligent beings in the universe to create a model, what would the "true nature of things" be?
That's probably fair if your model gets the right answer, every time, at all levels of detail.
In practise, though, you can never know that.
I'm not suggesting that the "true nature" is dependent on intelligent observers, what I'm suggesting is that there is no difference, even in principle, between: "the universe acts in all respects as though nucleons are made of quarks", and "nucleons are made of quarks".
Thus you can't have a "true reality" that is different from the description of it in a hypothetical "perfect model".
Discovering cures for illnesses, how to stop global warming, how to feed or stop a growing population etc. In general how to keep us surviving.
That may not be an answer to 'what is science to you?' that is too philosophical a question, but is what people want from it.
Anyway, what does your OP mean? Science relative to what? you can't just take science from the broader context of the other things in life.
This doesn't rule out the possibility that the only perfect model of the universe is the universe itself, with no simplification - which isn't very useful.
Useful models might always just be 'good-enough' simplifications, ones which work well for the tiny bit of reality we're actually concerned about.
There may not actually be a manageable set of rules that can be used to describe everything perfectly.
Quite right. The only perfect model/representation of the universe is one that contains all the same information content, which is to say that it isn't a simplification.
Sure, but science creates a more restrictive bed for the imagination than does say art. Imagination needn't be limited by the idea, for example, of seeing a bit beyond our visible light spectrum, or of seeing like a bee sees. Also, I saw aerial picture of a beach recently which caught the eye, not because of its beauty, but because of its somewhat cartoon like vulgar appearence, and yet, on closer inspection you suddenly see its an ultra high resolution photo with all the detail you could ever need. Seeing more here, was seeing less. Lastly, while I certainly recognise the way you speak about the world around us, in all its glory, I've never been as captured by it as I was when I was young. Watching lizards coming in and out of rocks for hours and hours on end. Or standing in tidal tributaries for hours on end just for the sake of watching flounders, and feeling them skim past or nestle on my foot. That wonder of nature doesn't need explanation, it just is, and I find it hard to believe that people experience that as much as they do in their childhood.
Agreed, they always will be. What I'm arguing against, however, is that the idea that it can be the case that our models work very well and yet "reality" is utterly unlike our models.
I'm a bit confused. Weren't you saying (at 16:46 with nucleon/quark example) that the reality must be exactly or very like the model?
Also, separate point, wasn't the Ptolemaic model once regarded as a hypothetical "perfect model" of the universe?
The persuance of the truth in answering the simple question: why?
Science is how the world works.
Science to me, is proof that the saying "I before E, except after C" is in fact a load of old cobblers.
exactly.. science is everything.
well, it's everything...until it's is superceded by something else, which it then is....until it is superceded by something else
Innovation. Define the rules then try to bend, or break them.
meh. Footnotes to Popper.
Science: organised common sense.
Science: the imagination to see that common sense can be wrong.
Beers meet fridge:)
Science is the discovery of many of the world's wonders. It's Fancy That.
Did you know that the black and white stripes on zebras make the air close to their skin go into little mini vortexes because of the temperature difference between the different coloured parts of their skin, thus helping them to keep cool?
I'm so taken with the above I couldn't contain it. (:-))
Science is how to understand EVERYTHING.
When you understand everything you can do anything
Popper was a footnote to the age, saying what was already happening except in the human sciences like psychology (which still don't conform). What Kuhn and Polanyi wrote stood in contrast to the age, surprising insights that are hard to integrate.
Reading Kuhn after Popper and after all the hype was a distinctly underwhelming experience. His examples are terrible, old and few. It read like an attempt to fit a story to the past with little insight for the present or for the future. Polanyi raises all sorts of problems that Popper already considered and wrote about at length. YMMV.
To go back to the original latin word from the verb "To Know" which means that it means knowledge at its lowest level.
But that is far from sufficient. We have an inbuilt craving to understand the world and by observation and application of logical principles we can feed that craving. What the word "Knowledge" does not convey is the utter joy and further fascination that comes from beginning to achieve understanding of the world and universe around us.
Sorry, blether ends ...
Something we talked about when our children arrived - every baby born is a research scientist newly arrived on an alien world ..
curiosity that lead to killing the cat to refine the answer.
Science is about understanding what is,and expanding the range of what can be done.
Most productively linked to engineering and creative thinking.
Ray Jardine was clearly an engineering type.
I like the Wikipedia intro to the word:
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. In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied. A practitioner of science is known as a scientist.
Since classical antiquity, science as a type of knowledge has been closely linked to philosophy. In the early modern period the words "science" and "philosophy of nature" were sometimes used interchangeably. By the 17th century, natural philosophy (which is today called "natural science") was considered a separate branch of philosophy.
In modern usage, "science" most often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, not only the knowledge itself. It is also often restricted to those branches of study that seek to explain the phenomena of the material universe. In the 17th and 18th centuries scientists increasingly sought to formulate knowledge in terms of laws of nature such as Newton's laws of motion. And over the course of the 19th century, the word "science" became increasingly associated with the scientific method itself, as a disciplined way to study the natural world, including physics, chemistry, geology and biology. It is in the 19th century also that the term scientist was created by the naturalist-theologian William Whewell to distinguish those who sought knowledge on nature from those who sought other types of knowledge.
However, "science" has also continued to be used in a broad sense to denote reliable and teachable knowledge about a topic, as reflected in modern terms like library science or computer science. This is also reflected in the names of some areas of academic study such as "social science" or "political science".
I think we are almost in agreement. I think the limits of science are indeed what you describe - if we perfectly predict and model the observable Universe, then science is finished.
But from a more philosophical point of view, this doesn't mean that this is the true nature of the Universe. If we were just in a big computer simulation (running in a necessarily larger universe), we would have no way of knowing. As this is not a testable theory, it is not scientific and an uninteresting line of enquiry. I just don't claim that science 'proves' anything or else the philosophers (correct) point out this is impossible. Science points out that it doesn't give a damn :)
(PS it is indeed true that to model the entire Universe would require an entire Universe, but science can restrict itself to just the rules and laws that govern the Universe, assuming these are universal)
investigating why and how things do the things they do
Ok so what you are saying us that if you could perfectly model the universe using a computer then that computer simulation would include truly conscious beings who would have no knowledge of the computer doing it. Begs the question, how might we know about the computer and the modeller if that were true of us?
Assuming the computer simulation was a closed system, we wouldn't and couldn't. Hence it is not a scientific topic, as it is untestable. Science cannot tell us about such a possibility; however, neither can any of the other usual suspects.
The point is science is about modelling the observable and testable.
Agreed. The idea of a parallel "existence" with no information flow between that and us (or strictly, no information flow from that to us) is conceivable but literally unknowable and rather uninteresting.
That's like saying a game of chess is just the rules of chess.
It doesn't seem like that at all to me. In addition to the rules of the chess, the game of chess has players and play. Any model of chess would include those.
Science underpins everything we are and everything we do. By understanding science we can live better lives and be better people.
A worm's eye view of the universe(s)
Tbf my view is pretty close to the dictionary definition.
"The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."
I would also add the creation and honest presentation of new theories into that somewhere.
Elsewhere on the site
The Epicentre Mega Winter Sale starts in store 9am Christmas Eve. We have a great selection of in store only deals from... Read more
F ounded in 1993, Mountain Hardwear are a pretty young mountaineering clothing and equipment manufacturer but are also one of... Read more
This years ROCfest will be slightly different. We've decided to run a Climbing Festival, not just a competition! Over... Read more
On Saturday 13th December Greg Boswell and Guy Robertson kicked off their Scottish winter season early by making the... Read more
With four photos in this week's top ten, and a UKC gallery of stunning images we thought it was time we had a chat with... Read more