What is science?

[robvalue]

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

So, like, science isn't all those test tubes and Bunsen burners and electric dealies that go *zzzzzz* and stuff?

Boru

[Thumpalumpacus]

Science is not skepticism. Skepticism is a premise of science. It is built into the method. The reason why replicable results are preferred over unsubstantiated claims is because it soothes the skepticism of hard-nosed thinkers.

But science is much more than skepticism, and indeed, too much skepticism hamstrings scientific understanding. Wegener's theory of continental drift is a good example: skeptics asked "How could entire continents move?" Faced with no answer, the hypothesis was sidelined. Their question was fair; they weren't being too skeptical; but sometimes, the same skepticism that drives the scientific process also hampers it.

It's not that I disagree with the thrust of your post, Rob. I just thought that was fertile ground for discussion, too.

[robvalue]

Ok fair enough, thanks

---

I made a small correction to accommodate this, do you think that's fair now? Maybe I'll just take it out.

I took it out, probably over complicating it. I thought they were pretty much the same, I'll check that out, cheers.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's just one opinion, bud ... as the other Americans wake up you'll have a shitstorm delivered to your doorstep, hopefully.

[robvalue]

Lol I'm sure, thanks Do you think I gave a good representation of science? I tried to write it myself rather than just crib off some website.

I tried not to get too carried away for fear people won't read it. But the logical conclusion of the method is that you have to make sure a claim is testable. Otherwise, you cannot find out anything about it, and the claim is useless.

---

I added a qualifier that this is my simplistic interpretation. This is obviously aimed at people who misunderstand the very basics of science, and not at people who know more about it than me (everyone else on this board probably hehe).

---

I added some more qualifiers to make it clear I'm only explaining the basics. I often see people talk about science as if it is some evil being, corrupting minds and spreading supposedly proven falsehoods. That's what I'm addressing

[Fidel_Castronaut]

This is real science. For all those theists out there that are so skeptical, watch and learn

[Alex K]

Nice intro -
One more thing I'd like to emphasize because you only mention it somewhat implicitely here

There is an infinity of possible claims, and we only have a limited amount of time, so it makes sense only to focus on claims that have evidence.

is the important idea that something like Occam's Razor should be in place - possibly justified through the use of Bayesian Statistics which informally tells us that the probability for a hypothesis should be lowered by additional assumptions. This is necessary in order to prevent that needlessly complicated explanations and unfalsifiable baggage pile on on the theoretical side, which would lead to a plethora of empirically indistinguishable baroque theories. This completely stifles understanding and usefulness. Of course, this is precisely where science collides with religion in a particularly subtle way, so we should discuss it further.

But science is much more than skepticism, and indeed, too much skepticism hamstrings scientific understanding. Wegener's theory of continental drift is a good example: skeptics asked "How could entire continents move?" Faced with no answer, the hypothesis was sidelined. Their question was fair; they weren't being too skeptical; but sometimes, the same skepticism that drives the scientific process also hampers it.

It is true that skepticism towards specific claims can be exaggerated out of prejudice. In the end though, I wonder - if they had had low enough standards back then to immediately accept Wegeners idea (of course, not knowing like we do in hindsight that Wegener was right), how many other false ideas would have crept in and muddied the science completely? Maybe Wegener was an unfortunate victim of a necessary precaution. Of course, maybe it was simply sociology and politics which hindered the deserved acceptance - lard knows I've seen how the scientific communities are prone to all kinds of human weaknesses such as following trends or being jealous of new ideas or overly conservative at times.

[polar bear]

I agree with you. Faith is ever changing to fit what science has proven beyond a reasonable doubt. People where jailed when they said the earth revolved around the sun or was not flat. Now religion accepts that fact. Now we see them "evolving" again with intelligent design. Not so long ago, evolution was no way acceptable, now they say that it is but god plays a role in it...ok?

On the other hand science only changes when a belief (hypothesis) is proven to be false. Science doesn't stop and say well I believe it (faith) so it has to be right, rather it says, lets try to find out the truth based on facts.

It is much harder to apply science because you have to admit you are wrong when the facts present themselves different from what you believe at the time. Faith on the other hand requires no change of mind until years of proof show how foolish it is to hold on the their belief.

[Alex K]

It is much harder to apply science because you have to admit you are wrong when the facts present themselves different from what you believe at the time. Faith on the other hand requires no change of mind until years of proof show how foolish it is to hold on the their belief.

I had a discussion with a physics crackpot the other day who tried to convince me of his fringe ideas about gravity or some such nonsense, and I once again realized how lazy their state of mind is. Doing real science correctly is a damn nightmare, because almost all of your brilliant ideas are wrong or even inconsistent after further analysis, and you not only have to live with that but even by yourself do the hard work of proving yourself wrong, weeding out tons of ideas before even writing down your first hypothesis for others to see. Imagine being in a framework such as conspiracy theory or theology, where there is no such mechanism of quality control - you immediately get lazy and pile on unchecked nonsense.