What Science Is .. and Isn't

It is a common misunderstanding that Science provides truth of some kind. That isn’t what Science does.

Science is specifically a method for observationally verifying that a proposed ontological construct, “a hypothesis”, is not untenable. Science does not ever proclaim that anything is true. It merely proclaims that certain thoughts have not been observationally proven to be false.

In the cases of classical physics and quantum physics, it is the duty of Science to verify that each ontological theory isn’t necessarily false. In so doing, each proposed theory is adjusted such as to avoid such condemnation and thus each theory becomes more observationally true. The limit of such a method for forming a completely true ontology (a proposed conceptual picture of reality) is in its ability to be evaluated by independent and repeatable observation.

A fairly recent concern and issue in Science is that independent observation concerning very expensive experiments has become impossible. In addition, there are military and political concerns involving revealing any truth concerning potentially dangerous details, such as simple means for creating weapons of mass destruction, or political revolution. In the case of the recent Higgs boson experiment, it took 10 years of observing, billions of dollars spent, to merely find evidence lasting for only a microsecond or so of something that resembled the proposed Higgs boson. But the foundation involved became in jeopardy of losing its justification for such extreme expenditures and thus something had to be found immediately. Such doesn’t actually qualify as Science.

The construction of ontologies to be proposed is actually the business of actual philosophers and metaphysicists. Scientists are the technicians that carry out proposed falsifiable tests on such proposed hypotheses. When the technicians begin making their own proposals, very many irrational proposals get into the picture. This is literally no different than electronic technicians proposing the theories that electronic engineers are supposed to be the experts at understanding. The techs are not necessarily wrong merely because they are techs, but a great many technician misunderstandings get into the picture very quickly.

Science is merely a means for verification of ontological proposals. The only truth that Science proposes is that a submitted ontological hypothesis (and there can be very many independent yet true ontologies) has been independently and repeatably demonstrated to not conform the hypothesized observation.

In other words, “What you predicted to be seen, wasn’t what was seen”.
And that is ALL that can be called Science.

“Great post, would read again!” :smiley:

8/10 =D>

That is certainly some scientists conception of what science does. And if we label any act that contradicts this as not science, then it can be consistent. But actually I see nothing remotely like consensus on this issue or poppers falsification being primary, etc.

If we stay at the level of reified processes, like Science, in some ideal realm, I don’t know what use the proclamations are, really.

If we look at what is actually happening with science, I find that regular assertions of what is are being made, in research abstractions, textbooks, scientist statements, scientific theories as presented in different media, and so on. Extensions from models are also made regularly in various media including official science ones, about what this means about other ideas, the likelihood of certain phenomena heretofore not verified and so on.

One obvious observation, easy to see about science from the philosophy perspective, is that science does not merge meaningful statements with explanatory statements. Science only concerns itself with explanation, not meaningful descriptions.

Therefore, anything beyond “common sense” or even poetic science, is useless to the masses and the average mind.

This is why N called it the “Gay Science”.

Any “pure” science is completely impractical and useless, from the onset. Science and pragmatism are separated at the beginning of science. It is religion that merges science and practice (pragmatism) together.

Ever heard of descriptive science?

Descriptive science is linguistics, poetry, art, N’s “Gay Science”, neuroscience, neurology, theology, theosophy.

I personally plan on developing a mastery in Theosophy after I finish with philosophy, move onto a more artistic and creative avenue for ideals.

…what? Most of those things have nothing to do with science.

And what makes you think description has anything to do with science???

Science does not describe the world, the universe, or reality. Science has very little to do with reality.

I’m not familiar with all your references James, but for the most part I agree.

Science is heavily descriptive. That’s what it does. It can only be considered explanatory insofar as it accurately describes reality.

I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.

I used to talk about the idea that philosophy is what lies between science and art, I haven’t thought much about that lately, so I’m open to changing my mind, but I mentioned it because it might be useful to this discussion.

Statik, wanna give me a go and see who knows more, or less about this???

I’ve been studying the difference between descriptive and explanatory (explicative) language for a long time. I know what I’m talking about here.

Science does not “describe” reality. Science explains reality. You need to learn this difference. Science explains the world, the “how”. Science does not describe the world, the “why”. Philosophy and religion are much more apt and useful to describe the world and the “whys”.

Description trends toward art, not science. Science does not make for good poetry. Trust me on this one.

Explanation is just a matter of linking descriptions. You can’t explain without describing. Descriptions do not necessarily answer “why?” - that is a matter of purpose. I still think you don’t know what you’re talking about.

I would agree with the distinction that you are making, except that you claim that it is “Science” that is making these descriptions. The point to the OP is that such is NOT Science. Philosophers of one type or another make such descriptions. The sole task of Science is to verify that any such theories are not observationally false.

Science makes NO truth claims.

Science is often presented, just as the various religions, as “saying” things when those things were never claimed by the authorities or experts involved. Science has a great many evangelists, preachers, and pastors. But in reality, those are not scientists.

All religions came about by that same mistake. Someone proposes a theory concerning reality. Others later, often misinterpreting what had been stated, preach their version to the crowd for sake of gaining a following, a “religion”. For religions to do that is at least honest in that they openly state that it is a matter of Faith for them.

The Christian notion of a 6000 year-old Earth is one of those notions that was never actually in the scriptures. The religious leaders allowed such a notion, perhaps some of them believing it themselves, because maintaining the gathering is their job as a religion.

But Science claims the opposite. Science is specifically the claim that they only believe what has been observed. Yet the Science evangelists preach of things that they could never observe and call it Science. Quantum Physics is filled with purely imaginary entities and speculations that could never be observationally proven and are often logically disproven. Yet it is called Science merely because it involves mathematics and technology. It is “Scientism”, a false religion and a false Science.

Okay, I’ll bite. Show us your wisdom.

Science describes and in the process answers both ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions.

Why does light bend when traveling from air to water?
This asks ‘what interactions of energy and matter cause the bending?’

How does light bend when traveling from air to water?
This asks ‘what is the angle of bending and in what way does it relate to the configuration of light , water and air?’

‘Why’ identifies cause. ‘How’ maps structure.

No Science does NOT.

Science ONLY “says”, “We don’t see any evidence that you are wrong… yet.

“Why” and “How” are up to metaphysicists and philosophers.
And there can be many different yet very correct answers.

That sums up every human endeavor.

Philosophy says : We have not yet seen evidence that our philosophy is wrong.

When it is shown to be wrong, then there is a reworking of the philosophy.

This is necessary because there is no flag that pops up when something is ‘absolutely right’. On the other hand, negative consequences pop up when something is wrong. We function with tentative adequacy until the error of our ways becomes obvious.

Not at all true.

But it also SAYS; "This is what is true (within THIS particular ontology).

In philosophy statements are made that define the particular philosophy. When those statements are shown to be false, logically incoherent, the entire philosophy is forfeit.

Again, not true. That which is true “by definition of the ontology” is precisely and exactly true… period.
That doesn’t mean that the ontology is observationally correct or useful. But it cannot be disputed as being true for that ontology.
Each and every ontology declares the concepts and definitions involved. They are not up for truth debate. If they change, it is a new and different ontology and philosophy. Solipsism cannot evolve into empiricism, except by name through misuse of the label. Otherwise, nothing could ever be said to be false.

Science on the other hand, is a method, not a proclaimed truth ontology. Thus the only way for Science to be declared “untrue” is to find that the method of observation is untrue, which doesn’t even make sense. The method can have limits, but it is merely a method for something. There is no “truth” involved.

Science: “You proposed that if I did this, I would get that. I did this and I didn’t get that.
Science does not say that anything is true, merely that you have or have not proposed something logically coherent with observation.

The hell they aren’t. If they aren’t up for debate you’re not doing philosophy. You’re practicing religion.

Bullshit.
You are merely building an understanding that is to be tested for usefulness.
The components of the understanding are whatever they are… period.
If the understanding is that circletoids are round, then circletoids, in that understanding, are round.
End of story. There is no testing to “see if circletoids are round”. They are declared to be round.

How do you know that a circle is really round?
Have you actually ever seen a perfect circle?
How do you know that what you were looking at was actually a circle of any kind?
Maybe they got it wrong?
How do observationally test to see if what you are calling a circle really is a circle?