RE: definition of science

From: Terry M. Gray <grayt@lamar.colostate.edu>
Date: Sun Apr 24 2005 - 10:37:11 EDT

Moorad,

Ultimate origins is not a scientific question. History of the
universe (cosmology, earth history, evolution, etc.) is. Why not?

Over and over again you seem to imply that it has to be mathematical
in order to be scientific. That seems way too limiting and excludes a
lot of chemistry, biology, biochemistry, etc. from being science
since a vast part of those sciences involves "mere" observation and
description (aka pejoratively as "stamp collecting").

Some would even argue that science is simply systematized knowledge
and systematic increase of that knowledge. Personally, I'm
sympathetic with that leaning. So we can distinguish between natural
science, social science, military science, agricultural science,
economic science, even literary science and theological science, but
they are all "scientific". Any disciplined approach to a discipline
(funny how those words work like that) has scientific aspects to it.

Also, what's the problem with "prediction"? We're not talking about
prophesying here. Isn't prediction in the sense we're talking about
just hypothesis testing? We develop an hypothesis (or explanation)
that suggests something that hasn't yet been observed (that
suggestion is the prediction). Then we do an experiment or go make a
new field observation to see if it's there or not. If it's not, we
adjust our hypothesis to incorporate the new observations. This is
just old-fashioned Baconian science.

TG

>Is the question of origins a scientific question? What role does
>mathematics play in your definition? In addition, can we limit
>science to explanations and forget about predictions?
>
>
>Moorad
>
>________________________________
>
>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Keith Miller
>Sent: Sat 4/23/2005 10:10 PM
>To: asa@calvin.edu
>Subject: Re: definition of science
>
>
>
>Robert Schneider wrote:
>
>> Keith,
>>
>> Having enjoyed Michael's ironic elimination of geology and
>> evolutionary biology from "true science," I should like you to follow
>> up with an elaboration of your definition of science, below. Since
>> you are a geologist yourself, how do you integrate the historical
>> sciences into your definition of "science"?
>>
>> Bob Schneider
>
>My definition is below:
>
>"Science is the human endeavor to understand how the physical universe
>works by constructing testable cause-and-effect natural explanations of
>events and processes based on observations of the physical world."
>
>This describes geological science as well as chemistry. As I have
>argued several times on this forum and elsewhere, hypotheses in the
>historical sciences are fully testable. What I do as a geologist is
>continual hypothesis testing. Every new observation is a test of
>expectations based on previous observations and theoretical
>understanding. Hypothesis are accepted, modified or rejected based on
>new observations (equivalent to new experimental trials).
>
>Keith
>
>
>Keith B. Miller
>Research Assistant Professor
>Dept of Geology, Kansas State University
>Manhattan, KS 66506-3201
>785-532-2250
>http://www-personal.ksu.edu/~kbmill/

-- 
_________________
Terry M. Gray, Ph.D., Computer Support Scientist
Chemistry Department, Colorado State University
Fort Collins, Colorado  80523
grayt@lamar.colostate.edu  http://www.chm.colostate.edu/~grayt/
phone: 970-491-7003 fax: 970-491-1801
Received on Sun Apr 24 10:41:06 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Apr 24 2005 - 10:41:06 EDT