What is science?

[unoduetre]

[mention=705]Seiei[/mention]

Sure, no worries. A good thing about forums is that we can stop and resume the discussion at any time.

[Beerkeg]

Diverging from the cesspool that is Crazy League to bring a more serious view on the matter...
Science is not inherently logical. Science adjusts its views based on what is observed. While logic plays a part in the observation process, you can't always rely on logic alone to come to a conclusion. When it comes to for example chemical science, you can calculate the results based on the theory, but there are some exceptions even there with atomic and molecular deterioration in entropic environments.
As per the thought brought up in the other topic, theory does not mean opinion. It's possible that what Seiei though of was a hypothesis. A theory is a collaboration of change based on the known behavior of variables. What theory lacks is proof of concept, a real life recreation of the theory. This doesn't always give the expected results when observed, which leads to more theories of why the outcome didn't meet expected results.

Note: this is my interpretation, not fact.

[unoduetre]

@Beerkeg

Science is not inherently logical. Science adjusts its views based on what is observed. While logic plays a part in the observation process, you can't always rely on logic alone to come to a conclusion.

Yes, it is logical. I think what you have in mind is that it is not possible to reach scientific conclusions through logic only and experiments are necessary. And that's true. But science is inherently logical. What science does is creating logical (and sometimes even computational) models of reality. The models are inherently logical and based on logic. But even if a model is based on logic it doesn't automatically mean that it matches the reality. Someone needs to check if a particular model matches the reality by performing experiments.

Imagine someone told you a story which is logical and coherent and everything follows logically from other things. But it doesn't mean that what they told you really happened. It's a slightly similar thing in science. It doesn't mean the theory isn't logical. It is. But it might not be true.

On the other hand mathematics does not need any experiments. That's why mathematics is not science. But it's still very useful of course precisely because it gives you tools to create the models I mentioned above. But experiments are still necessary to confirm that a particular mathematical model matches the reality. Mathematics is of course based on logic.

When it comes to for example chemical science, you can calculate the results based on the theory, but there are some exceptions even there with atomic and molecular deterioration in entropic environments.

Exceptions are (or should be) also covered by the theory. If the theory doesn't cover the exceptions, the theory is incomplete (there are things which the theory doesn't cover and it doesn't claim to cover them) or false.

E.g. the Newton's theory was thought to be complete until some experiments proved it to be wrong. But this theory is still used when the speeds are much smaller than the speed of light and it still works (but the predictions are not precise). Nowadays it's not treated as a complete theory, but as a special (incomplete, less precise and approximate only) case of the Einstein's relativity theory for small speeds. Almost all engineers still use the Newton's theory with great results.

As per the thought brought up in the other topic, theory does not mean opinion. It's possible that what Seiei though of was a hypothesis. A theory is a collaboration of change based on the known behavior of variables. What theory lacks is proof of concept, a real life recreation of the theory. This doesn't always give the expected results when observed, which leads to more theories of why the outcome didn't meet expected results.

Yup. I think I explained in slightly different words above what you explained here.

[Ryuuko]

You do realize that the dictionary lists a theory as an opinion.

Opinions can be a view based on logic and be a commonly accepted opinion.

[Ryuuko]

Science is the study of something. It is not inherently logical.

The approach to learn science or from it is inherently logical because it’s the common approach used.

But just because it’s how we do it doesn’t mean it’s how we should.

[unoduetre]

You do realize that the dictionary lists a theory as an opinion.

Source: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cV8 ... d.&f=false
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.

Source: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Y1w ... t.&f=false
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#De ... anizations

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

---

Dictionaries provide the definitions of words used in common language, not scientific language. Sometimes some terms from common language have slightly different definitions from the definitions used in science.

[Tanya]

We can use Valley Fever as an example here.

What it is, is a fungi infection. The symptons vary quite a bit, to killing some, leaving others infected for life, while others get over it with no problems at all. Although it's been studied it isn't actually known why it effects people differently. You'd think that it would some type of logical action, and perhaps it does. As of right now it does, but that doesn't stop it from being called science when the disease is studied.

Now when a Study is conducted, that is inherently logical because you have a control group. That's inherently logical, so is analyticals.

[WorldIsMine]

in my hot n ready fresh take: science is boiled down to testing a question and then retesting it several times, all while removing factors that could inhibit or fundamentally change the answer

[Tanya]

You do realize that the dictionary lists a theory as an opinion./QUOTE]

Source: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=cV8 ... d.&f=false
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory



Source: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Y1w ... t.&f=false
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#De ... anizations

---

Dictionaries provide the definitions of words used in common language, not scientific language. Sometimes some terms from common language have slightly different definitions from the definitions used in science.

You do realize how many different scientific dictionaries there are?

[unoduetre]

Opinions can be a view based on logic and be a commonly accepted opinion.

Yes. Opinions can be based on logic and be commonly accepted. It doesn't make them true.

[Tanya]

Yes. Opinions can be based on logic and be commonly accepted. It doesn't make them true.

Science isn't necessarily true either, just because it was studied.

It's the best we have though.

You just stated a theory that was proven to be false earlier.

[unoduetre]

Science is the study of something. It is not inherently logical.

The approach to learn science or from it is inherently logical because it’s the common approach used.

But just because it’s how we do it doesn’t mean it’s how we should.

No. Not every study of something is science. It needs to be done through the scientific method. Logic is an element of scientific method together with e.g. experiments.

[unoduetre]

We can use Valley Fever as an example here.

What it is, is a fungi infection. The symptons vary quite a bit, to killing some, leaving others infected for life, while others get over it with no problems at all. Although it's been studied it isn't actually known why it effects people differently. You'd think that it would some type of logical action, and perhaps it does. As of right now it does, but that doesn't stop it from being called science when the disease is studied.

Now when a Study is conducted, that is inherently logical because you have a control group. That's inherently logical, so is analyticals.

I am not sure what this example shows. Can you explain, please?

[unoduetre]

in my hot n ready fresh take: science is boiled down to testing a question and then retesting it several times, all while removing factors that could inhibit or fundamentally change the answer

Yeah, it's an important part of it indeed.

[unoduetre]

Science isn't necessarily true either, just because it was studied.

It's the best we have though.

You just stated a theory that was proven to be false earlier.

Yes. Science is not necessarily true. But it's the best we have, as you said. But the Newton's theory is still (very, very, very, very, very probably) true (within the error margin) for some restricted cases (small speeds). It has not been disproven in the same way as e.g. the ether theory has been disproven.