6
   

Please give a definition for science with your intuition

 
 
Reply Tue 3 Jun, 2014 06:51 am
Write down immediately what is in your mind about the word science. Keep in mind: DO NOT check up your dictionary, thesaurus or wiki etc before you type out your difinition!

Let me go first:

Science is a whole body of verifiable knowledge accumulated throughout human history.

I'm not satisfied by this. In fact, I feel embarrassed when looking into wiki.

Well, it is your turn to give yours.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 6 • Views: 855 • Replies: 12
No top replies

 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Jun, 2014 11:03 am
@oristarA,
Science explains things
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Jun, 2014 05:32 pm
@oristarA,
Science is the study of our environment to better understand it.
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Jun, 2014 08:53 pm
@dalehileman,
dalehileman wrote:

Science explains things


Religion explains things in its own way.
So religion is science? Drunk
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2014 10:58 am
@oristarA,
Quote:
So religion is science?
Depends Ori on what's meant by "explains"
0 Replies
 
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2014 11:42 am
Quote:
Write down immediately what is in your mind about the word science

I immediately thought of the word "falsifiable", which (if it does nothing else) means my time spent reading Karl Popper was not entirely wasted.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2014 11:54 am
@contrex,
Of coarse it's 'falsifiable.' That's the reason science is dependable; it continues to correct misinformation of the past.

You can try to correct any scientific theory; please present your evidence of any present scientific finding that you can falsify?



contrex
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2014 02:02 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
Of coarse it's 'falsifiable.'

That was exactly my point. The philosopher of science Karl Popper stressed the problem of demarcation (distinguishing the scientific from the unscientific) and makes falsifiability (or verifiability) the demarcation criterion, such that what is unfalsifiable is classified as unscientific, and the practice of declaring an unfalsifiable theory to be scientifically true is pseudoscience.

Quote:
That's the reason science is dependable; it continues to correct misinformation of the past.

This is not what I was saying. You are missing the point. Popper was saying that a theory which can conceivably be disproved can be classified "scientific". It doesn't have to be "right". 'Intelligent Design' would be classed as scientific, because it has a falsifiable hypothesis, however weak.

Quote:
You can try to correct any scientific theory; please present your evidence of any present scientific finding that you can falsify?

It seems to me (see above) that you possibly did not understand what I wrote.


cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2014 02:19 pm
@contrex,
In your context (and Popper's), you really didn't share anything new. Your lone statement that it's 'falsifiable' didn't reveal anything new, but gave the impression all science was falsifiable. It isn't.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2014 02:59 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

In your context (and Popper's), you really didn't share anything new. Your lone statement that it's 'falsifiable' didn't reveal anything new, but gave the impression all science was falsifiable. It isn't.

Like what, for example?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2014 03:47 pm
@InfraBlue,
That science is falsifiable is inherent in science. Any scientific theory that can be 'falsified' is revised as needed. We can only rely on the most current investigations that have revised past scientific theories that were found to be false.

Here are some examples.
http://www.famousscientists.org/10-most-famous-scientific-theories-that-were-later-debunked/
0 Replies
 
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2014 03:52 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
In your context (and Popper's), you really didn't share anything new.

No indeed; Popper began grappling with the brawl between “when is theory scientific” and “what is the criteria for the scientific character of theory” in the fall of 1919.
Quote:
Your lone statement that it's 'falsifiable' didn't reveal anything new, but gave the impression all science was falsifiable. It isn't.

Once again you reveal how comprehensively you are missing the point. You seem to be barking up the wrong tree, or rather, up a lamp post under the impression it is a tree.

For an overview you could read:

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Thomas M Kuhn 1962)
The Logic of Scientific Discovery (Karl Popper 1934)
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 4 Jun, 2014 04:05 pm
@contrex,
When you post on a public forum, and don't make it clear what you mean, the readers are going to assume the message from the one sentence message that you post. Ten year olds know better!

Never heard of Popper, and don't care to read up on Kuhn. Why don't you go **** yourself!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Please give a definition for science with your intuition
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 02/01/2023 at 07:21:26