"What is Science" FAQ, draft 2

Larry Klaes (lklaes@bbn.com)
Thu, 09 Sep 1999 09:53:00 -0400

From: Marty Fouts <mathematician@usenet.nospam.fogey.com> Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: "What is Science" FAQ, draft 2
Date: 4 Sep 1999 13:16:54 -0400
Organization: The University of Ediacara Message-ID: <wkwvu6iopm.fsf@usenet.nospam.fogey.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin.ediacara.org

x-spamblock: the return address is valid as is
x-no-archive: yes
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.6.45/Emacs 20.3
X-Trace: nntp1.ba.best.com 936465255 204
Xref: 	spln talk.origins:396879

Having cogitated for a while over the excellent feedback I got from the first round, I've produced a second, hopefully improved, draft of a "what is science" FAQ that I offer for your criticism.

Q: What is science?

  1. "Science" is a term that describes three things:
     It is the method used that makes "scientific knowledge"
     scientific, *not* the subject being studied.  Any subject that
     a scientific method can be applied can yield scientific

     Unfortunately, this also means that any subject, even one we
     normally think of as a scientific subject, can yield
     "unscientific knowledge".

Q: What is the 'scientific method'?

  1. Although much has been made of the 'scientific method', there is not a single method, 'scientific' methods overlap those of other human endeavors, and few, if any, scientists are concerned with all areas of science.

Scientists at various times engage in observation, description, prediction, and explanation. A scientific method is a method of performing those four tasks in such a way as to be objective and accurate. Different subject matter requires somewhat different methods.

It is not unusual to lump together the methods of observation and description under the heading of 'experiment' and the methods of prediction and explanation under the heading of 'theory', although this division is problematic.

Q: What makes a method scientific?

  1. The principle contribution of science to the human quest for knowledge is in _objectifying_ the four categories of method.

An "objective" approach to knowledge is one in which two observers using the same methods will arrive at the same knowledge, since the knowledge depends only on the observation and not on the observer. Clearly there are no purely objective methods, although scientific methods strive to be as objective as humanly possible.

The idea of independently repeating an experiment to show that the observation is objective is useful, especially in laboratory sciences, but taken alone, it only guarantees that two scientists arrived at the same result. It does not guarantee that the method itself is valid.

To reduced the risk of performing bad experiments, scientists describe their methods to other scientists, who look for errors in the approach. The formal method of doing this is by publishing articles in peer-reviewed journals.

Q: How is science made objective?

  1. The way in which science has 'objectified' the quest for knowledge is, in principle, through the application of quantification. To the extent that it can be measured it can be made objective.
  2. Can you sum up 'scientific method', again, please?
  3. The literature on 'scientific method', then, can be seen as a discussion of the ways in which scientists attempt to objectify the four activities of science. For instance:
  4. How do various scientific methods differ?
  5. Some branches of science can rely on laboratory experiments more easily than others, or have more control over the experiments they perform. Physics, for example, can more often do its experiments in a controlled lab, than can anthropology. Some branches can rely more on quantitative descriptions while others rely more on qualitative descriptions. The same is true for predictions.
  6. How does science add to our knowledge?
  7. The branch of philosophy that concerns itself with how we obtain knowledge is called epistemology. One of the concerns of epistemology is determining whether a particular method of obtaining knowledge can obtain certainty by giving us absolute assurance of the truth of the knowledge.

Science does not provide such certainty because it would be be necessary to have observed everything over all time to be able to completely describe all knowledge. To the extent that scientific knowledge is incomplete it must remain uncertain. This is true of any program that wants to be scientific.

The resulting epistemology of western science is often called "empirical pragmatism." This philosophy is grounded in the understanding that all scientific knowledge is *provisional* knowledge and that any scientific knowledge may be rendered obsolete by a future observation. It recognizes that, in order to make any progress at all, science must take as given certain assumptions that can not be validated, but that have been very reliable for a long time, and so, will be used until they are invalidated.

Some key aspects of this epistemology are

Each of these beliefs has served science well, and each is constantly tested against the known observations.

Q: What is the difference between a theory and a fact?

  1. In science, a fact is an observation or series of observations, or a description of a series of observations. Facts are answers to 'what is' kinds of questions, and are the part of science that can be the most objective. A theory is an attempt to explain known facts and usually involves predictions about future observations. Theories are answers to 'how does' kinds of questions.
  2. What is the role of falsifiability?
  3. Consider a theory that makes a prediction. By testing such a prediction, we can determine if the theory is accurate or not. A theory that makes testable predictions is said to be "falsifiable". It is common among scientists to accept as scientific only those theories that are falsifiable in this sense.
  4. What is the difference between a theory and a law?
  5. A "law" in science is an empirical relationship between measurable quantities. Newton's "law" of gravity is such an formulation. Laws often hold only in special cases. Laws are often descriptions. A theory is an attempt to explain and predict. Theories often incorporate laws.
  6. But what about the scientists?
  7. A significant source of confusion in discussions of the philosophy and history of science is to intermix the sociology of scientists with the epistemological method of science. Scientists are humans and suffer from all of the strengths and weaknesses of humans, and so the quest for scientific knowledge is a very human history. But scientific epistemology, which is the theory that results from the practice of science, is an abstraction of human though rather than a sequence of human actions.
  8. Is science a religion?
  9. No. However, many people have made a religion out of a certain set of believes in what science can and can not do. To those people, the use of science has taken a religious role.
  10. Is science the only epistemology necessary?
  11. No. Science tells us what we can do with the universe, it can not tell us what we should do.


[if you commented on the first draft and I forgot to include you here, please send me email and I will rectify that.]

Comments have been provided by

foggg@aol.comeatspam (Foggg)
agisaak@linguist.umass.edu (Andre G Isaak) wilkins@wehi.edu.au (John Wilkins)


				- 30 -