# Define the term: Science



## Perseus

*Terran Empire v Jovian Planets*



Ungweliante said:


> Here's my attempt:
> 
> Science is an attempt to explain what is perceived to be real, via faith in the consistency of conclusions reached with inductive and deductive reasoning.


*Inductive is the Alien introspective way of seeing things, whilst the amazing Earthlings have common sense. Perseus-speak. 

Far Out*


----------



## Pac-Man

Rourk said:


> i never said any of those things. Where is the evidence?
> 
> A few things I've considered since your replying to posts I got rid of due to not wanting you to post a reply to them.
> 
> First off, you are not a scientist.
> 
> Second off, you are not a scientist.
> 
> Third off, you are not a scientist.
> 
> In conclusion, I have found you to not be a scientist. Here is a definition of science that encompasses my point about defintions being different in different dictionaries. According to your nonsensical standards or standards if you believe in the undeserved glory that you seek which comforts you perhaps through your lonely nights as a non-scientist, I believe my former definitions(deleted) and my current definitions(the crap I wrote) can be viewed under the definition of science as well. I await your pointless reply to this neverending debacle of a ludicrous debate. Happy bullshitting.
> 
> *–noun *1.a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: _the mathematical sciences. _2.systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.3.any of the branches of natural or physical science.4.systematized knowledge in general.5.knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.6.a particular branch of knowledge.7.skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.
> 
> *Origin: *
> 1300–50; ME < MF < L _scientia_ knowledge, equiv. to _scient-_ (s. of _sciēns_), prp. of _scīre_ to know + _-ia_ -ia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Synonyms:*
> _*7. *_art, technique, method, discipline.
> 
> 
> Dictionary.com Unabridged
> Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.
> Cite This Source |
> Link To *science*
> ._vtad { border-top: 1px solid #B6D0DD; padding: 15px 0 0 0; margin: 1em 0 0 0; background-image: url(http://syndication.visualthesaurus.com/ddc/gradient.png);background-repeat: repeat-x; background-position: 0 0; } ._vtad A { text-decoration: none; } ._vtad A:hover { text-decoration: underline; } ._vtad_flt { float: right; margin: 0 0 10px 7px; } ._vtad_flt IMG { vertical-align: top; margin-bottom: 5px; border: 1px solid #CCCCCC;} A._vtad_explore { letter-spacing: -.4px; font-family: verdana;display:block; line-height: 10px; font-size: 11px;color: #0050BB; } ._vtad_related { font-family: verdana; font-size: 12px; margin: 6px 0 6px; } ._vtad_related A { color: black; } ._vtad_header { font-family: georgia; line-height: 10px; font-size: 14px; color: #575757; } ._vtad_header IMG { vertical-align: top; margin-right: 7px; } ._vtad_header A { font-family: Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 14px; font-weight: bold; color: black; } A._vtad_other { font-family: verdana; font-size: 1em; color: #0050BB; }Explore the Visual Thesaurus »
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Related Words for : science
> scientific discipline, skill
> View more related words »
> 
> 
> 
> .spl_unshd{position:relative;}.sponsored_Img{background:transparent url('http://4.afs.googleadservices.com/images/partners/CJ24n4emnp4CFQ9M5QodY2mQ0w/aj-lexico-dict.png') no-repeat;float:right;margin-top:4px;width:91px;height:12px;cursor:default;}*Science* Microscopes
> An Ideal Gift for A Gifted Child Educational Microscopes Since 1972
> 
> www.SMSoptical.com
> Online Degrees *Science*
> Search and Compare Online Degrees in *Science*. Get Free Info!
> 
> www.eLearners.com/Science
> 
> *sci·ence* (sī'əns)
> 
> 
> 
> n.
> 
> 
> The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
> Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
> Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
> 
> Methodological activity, discipline, or study: _I've got packing a suitcase down to a science._
> An activity that appears to require study and method: _the science of purchasing._
> Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
> *Science* Christian Science.
> [Middle English, _knowledge, learning_, from Old French, from Latin scientia, from sciēns, scient-, present participle of scīre, _to know_; see skei- in Indo-European roots.]
> 
> 
> The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
> Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
> Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
> Cite This Source
> 
> Word Origin & History
> 
> *science*
> c.1300, "knowledge (of something) acquired by study," also "a particular branch of knowledge," from O.Fr. science, from L. scientia "knowledge," from sciens (gen. scientis), prp. of scire "to know," probably originally "to separate one thing from another, to distinguish," related to scindere "to cut, divide," from PIE base *skei- (cf. Gk. skhizein "to split, rend, cleave," Goth. skaidan, O.E. sceadan "to divide, separate;" see shed (v.)). Modern sense of "non-arts studies" is attested from 1678. The distinction is commonly understood as between theoretical truth (Gk. episteme) and methods for effecting practical results (tekhne), but science sometimes is used for practical applications and art for applications of skill. Main modern (restricted) sense of "body of regular or methodical observations or propositions ... concerning any subject or speculation" is attested from 1725; in 17c.-18c. this concept commonly was called philosophy. To blind (someone) with science "confuse by the use of big words or complex explanations" is attested from 1937, originally noted as a phrase from Australia and New Zealand.
> 
> 
> 
> Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
> Cite This Source
> .sepTop{padding-top:15px;padding-bottom:12px;}
> 
> Medical Dictionary
> 
> Main Entry: *sci·ence*
> Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s
> Function: _noun_
> *:* knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation ofgeneral laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method and concerned with the physical world and its phenomena
> 
> 
> Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
> Cite This Source
> Medical Dictionary
> 
> *science* sci·ence (sī'əns)
> 
> 
> 
> _n._
> 
> The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
> Such activities restricted to explaining a limitied class of natural phenomena.
> Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
> Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
> The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
> Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.
> Cite This Source
> 
> *American Psychological Association (APA):*
> 
> science. (n.d.). _The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary_. Retrieved November 22, 2009, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science


I am a scientist and he has my agreement. It is foolish that you associate formality with credibility through his title when previously seeming to dismiss a dictionary as an authority.


----------



## Rourk

It was sarcasm more or less. What is yoru science? I agree though, the argument was pointless and stupid and I'm fine with conceding. But I think he is ultimately just some dude on the internet who defines science, same as me. And that it's pointless. I also think this whole thread is a stupid waste of time and should of never come here. But anyway, what is your science?


----------



## Connor Atreid

Well most things in science are in fact theory....example atoms we don t have proof that those things exist...all we have is mathematics calculation.....most of the physic is based on just believing that is true.....and on "common knowledge".....in the same way religion works....on faith that is their opinion correct one....it s because of that i m saying that most science is compilation of half-truths and excuses


----------



## Pac-Man

Connor Atreid said:


> Well most things in science are in fact theory....example atoms we don t have proof that those things exist...all we have is mathematics calculation.....most of the physic is based on just believing that is true.....and on "common knowledge".....in the same way religion works....on faith that is their opinion correct one....it s because of that i m saying that most science is compilation of half-truths and excuses


'Facts' are but the foundation. Inferences are extensions of these facts to deduce cohesive explanations for the unobserved. Commonly, facts - an accepted consensus for a believed variable - surround a concept that is not directly observable. It is with this that we engage in an inductive prcoess to derive answers from environmental factors that lead us to logical conclusions.


----------



## Connor Atreid

yeah but that logic can apply also a priest for example...he can deduct that God exist because he created principles of nature...he created evolution


----------



## Pac-Man

Connor Atreid said:


> yeah but that logic can apply also a priest for example...he can deduct that God exist because he created principles of nature...he created evolution


Of course - but this cannot be disproved or proved - thus it is invalidated as a scientific framework. True science follows an empirical process which is formulated through observations and hypothesises through these. 

The suggested approach may be valid to reality, Connor, but science is not reality. It is a framework of inquiry that is structured in a specific manner. The principles that dictate this framework would exclude any approaches that exclude the essential requirements for the two to coincide.


----------



## Connor Atreid

that s true.....but you said that science is formulated trough hypothesis....and you must accepted fact that all hypothesis can be wrong


----------



## Pac-Man

Connor Atreid said:


> that s true.....but you said that science is formulated trough hypothesis....and you must accepted fact that all hypothesis can be wrong


This is true, but science has evidently enhanced humanity in a practical sense, which certainly indicates that the current procedures are effective with the intent of science - development. There may be a complete alternate methodology that produces superior results, but it is easier for us to refine the current one. 

There may be new approaches to reality in the future, but we have to remain with the accepted ones for now. The reasons are:

Rationality & Practicality - It takes a long time to develop an envisaged theory. Society has progressed to sustain the current scientific practice, therefore it would be foolish for us to proceed to another one when it would be fresh. 

Logic - Our current practice has demonstrated considerable success, and we cannot be certain a second suggested practice would certainly be equally successful. We could take the risk, sure, but it would be a risk that would potentially waste time, resources and development.

You must understand that these scientific frameworks exist for application to reality. Hypothetically, if we were to concentrate on a secondary approach, it would require much dedication for significant development (sufficient to have application to reality in various ways). However, if this were to happen, #2 would be the elementary stages for a while - barely beneficial to society practically. 

If a majority of our scientists are devoting time to develop #2 - which is not yet beneficial to our society - #1 would not be receiving the majority's attention any longer, and our previous way of development would be delayed. Until #2 was sufficiently developed, society would be delayed.

You could approach #2 with a minority, of course, but the required development for practical application would be very, very long - perhaps rendering the approach itself as impractical. Who would want to dedicate their life to an impractical practice? I doubt there would be much funding from Governments and Coporations towards an approach which is impractical, per se.

Science is dominant in this era, and all discipline attempt to incorporate elements of scientific procedure into them for academic recognition.


----------



## Connor Atreid

Then why when we talk about science we don t say that answer that have been given by those methods can be wrong? Why in school don t teach that there is always another way? And you say that science works in "real world"-can you explain to me what is real world?


----------



## iceman44

Science is the definition of knowledge based on what we observe in every day life.


----------



## NephilimAzrael

Connor Atreid said:


> that s true.....but you said that science is formulated trough hypothesis....and you must accepted fact that all hypothesis can be wrong


I am but a casual observer of these comments, however;

A hypothesis is the initial question framed in a manner so as to design an experiment which may provide a supportive *portion* of evidence.

As the process of observation which preceeds the hypothesis is used to develop it, so too are the findings of an experiment used to forward the next question. One builds to the next. 

Of course a hypothesis may not be supported, and in all such circumstances the null (opposite) hypothesis is partially supported.

The process of scientific enquiry becomes a case of swings and roundabouts.. You may lose some support here, or gain some evidence there, but you only find the basic components of a theory by way of asking the questions and providing support that is *demonstrable*.


----------



## Ventricity

to define science is not a particulary good question. you might just as well ask us to define the ocean. in any case you may find perfectly good answers in books on basic scientific method and theory, starting with positivism with karl popper and the likes. 

any original idea or objection about the definition i´m pretty sure would not come up in this thread anyway. allthough you might have asked the question in the form of the quote from Feyerabend: "anything goes"?


----------



## SeekJess

The cd by incubus!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Just_Some_Guy

*Just a little digression...*

A lot of "interesting" replies so far...

My take on it is that science is the quest to explain how the universe looks just so long as the methods we use in doing so are both objective and repeatable. However, Heraclitus wrote that we cannot step in the same river twice. First of all, if we measure the river, we have to subjectively realize that there is a river and then decide that it needs to be measured. I would hardly call this objectivity. Perhaps, “attempting to measure the objective principles set forth by a subjective hypothesis and followed through with a creative experiment.” Objectivity is preceded by the imagination and creativity. I think many forget this. Next in measuring the river, each time we measure it, the temperature, rate of flow and mineral content may be the same, yet everything in it is different. I think we gain a false sense of continuity when we look at principles rather than the actual ontological state of a thing. Sure, my social security number is the same, but am I the same man I was 20 years ago? 

In each case, I think it is very obvious that our universe works in such a way that cannot be captured entirely by objective and repeatable principles. By solely relying on these methods, I think we are missing out on something _huge_. This is not even to mention what is professed to occur during intensive meditative cultivation. As Sam Harris says, to really see what subjectivity is capable of in explaining our universe, we have to seek the meditative experience ourselves. But, not everyone is immediately capable of this. It is as if the meditator is like an astronomer who sees the universe through a telescope. The only catch is that the telescope is not objective. If it were, we could just look through it and say, “Oh yeah, I see what you mean” and call it a(n objective) fact. But as the analogy goes, to see what subjectivity really holds, we need to _build our own telescope_. I think this will become more common in years to come, resulting in some very brilliant people restructuring our paradigms and advancing science in ways that seem outlandish even for science fiction novels.

I thought I would digress a bit to maybe clear up some of the other sidebar discussions in this thread. I hope this helps.


----------



## Lucem

Science is the pursuit of explanations of natural phenomena through observation, experimentation and inference.


----------



## mise en abyme

1. a study of something (hence the "-ology" at the ends of the names for most branches... it's latin or greek and indicates a science or study of something). in this sense, even astrology can fit the bill.

2. a theoretical construct requiring proof that can be tested, with the theories that pass inspection over and over again by battling an onslaught of empirical data becoming a valid science (something rooted in fact) and the ones that fail to pass inspection becoming outdated or pseudosciences.

btw, emotionallytonedgeometry, i agree with you 100%.


----------



## Ishiko

What kind of science are we defining? There are two kinds, I think. Puzzle Solving and Paradigm shifts.

Or do we mean the information we know from "science?"


----------



## Munchies

Science is religion's pedofile.

more seriously,

the experiments and studies related to nature,

hense,

religion's pedofile


----------



## DarklyValentine

Define any word and wrestle with that

like moron!


----------

