What Science Is .. and Isn't

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?

Science does not answer “why” questions (sufficiently). It answers “how” questions (sufficiently).

If you confuse why for how, then you’re going to misunderstand the basic essence and function of science.

Science specializes in logical truisms (math) and finds applications for these truisms through experimentation and empirical premises. However, science does not actually apply scientific discoveries or inventions in practice. This is the difference between morality (dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima), religion, and invention (building a bomb and seeing if it works), science.

Philosophy is deciding and justifying the use of the bomb, before dropping it. Philosophy, science, and religion are all separated distinctly.

Science is horrible at descriptive language. Science describes nothing well. But science explains everything very well. This is why everybody loves science, because it explains everything. But it does not “describe” everything.

Religion and artistry describes “everything”. This is poetry. And philosophy dabbles in this too. But religion is best fit for definition, since is a straight appeal to emotion.

Description appeals to emotions, and this is one of its best and most useful functions. Descriptive language binds the subjective world with the objective world. It keeps humanity attached to nature.

My words are on fire. Metaphors. Do you feel burned by them?

This is completely anti-science and anti-scientific, yet meaningful and purposeful.

In the news, Bill O’Reilly routinely uses fiery rhetoric to inflame his opponents.

You don’t seem to be getting it.

Again, that’s a religious notion.

Since when does declaring something make it true? If the understanding is wrong, it can be modified. There is no need to accept, or adhere to, a strict ontological framework in such an absolute sense.

There is the rub.

It’s possible to construct an ontology which is precise and true by definition.

However, any system which seeks a correspondence with existence is only tentative … always subject to falsification by brute reality. That’s science in operation.

I think we basically agree on those bits.

I don’t see philosophers submitting their theories for testing by science. I don’t see a ‘why’ formulated by philosophers. The ‘why’ is defined in terms of cause and effect and the interaction of objects and energy in a vast machine. It’s done by scientists. What can philosophers add?

No. That is rational thought and definitions of words.

Since the invention of declared definitions.

Which immediately makes it a DIFFERENT understanding.
What else does “different” mean?

The need is language and rationality.
Else we can just say that Christianity stands for the same thing a quantum physics.

You had better explain or describe what you mean by 'explain ’ and ‘describe’ because everything that you write seems to depend on your use of these words.

That is only because they don’t call themselves “philosophers”. They call themselves “scientists” and “theoretical physicists” even though what they propose is often anything but observationally demonstrated.

Science proposes NO ontology.
It merely verifies the observational coherency of proposed ontologies.
Anyone proposing an ontology is a Philosopher… whether good at it or bad.

Two things that people hang onto religiously. Like you.

You’re referring to words having meanings, not those meanings corresponding to reality. The former is definition, the latter is an approximation of truth.

Not totally, but perhaps in part, sure. Every time I amend a belief, I’m not adopting a totally different ontological framework, which is what you’ve been [wrongly] suggesting.

Yeah, in a religious sense. I know you’re all about that but not everyone shares your sentiments.

Exactly. Case in point.

If you want to call defining the words that I use in communication, “a religion”, then fine.
The IRS might disagree with you, but I don’t really care.

We are not talking about “amending a belief”.
We are talking about the very definition of the concepts that define the belief.

So you AGREE that Christianity is the same ontology as QM???
Wow…