What is science?

[Sidd_Budd]

A current P & R thread got me thinking about this question, which I've struggled with on and off in the last five years.

I'm interested in what people think are the common features that define a discipline or activity as science or scientific. Feel free to contrast the term with any other commonly used phrase (i.e., science versus arts/humanities, unscientific, pseudo-science).

[Funkula]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

[forgeforsaken]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

edit: Haha, beat.

[Enidigm]

Empiricalism, repeatability, materialism.

Empirical because it's derived from observation. Repeatable in that it's not an observation unique to a particular observer (otherwise he would be a prophet), material in that it concerns the extant world that can be manipulated.

It's "science fiction" to create a theory about the laws of the universe before the big bang unless those theories make conclusions that can be connected to the actual world, for example. It's not "science" if you claim to have detected cold fusion if you can't explain how it happened or how to repeat the experiment with anyone else. It's not "science" if an observer's observations are mixed with metaphysical actions the observer infers. It's also not science if the observer starts with a metaphysical conclusion and then looks for evidence of it in the natural world.

Art ... i was going to say Art does not draw conclusions, but that's not always correct. Better, though, Art and Poetry seem acts of Creation. Ultimately science is discovery of what is. Where the line begins to blur are in things like biochemistry, but that's still science because while science may create things that have never before existed those things are not created arbitrarily but are governed by the laws that have already been uncovered - Art is something that did not exist before and it's creation is not governed by universal laws. Of course you may discover that Art does follow patterns, especially in things like music, and that these patters constrict and guide creativity. And in biochemistry there may exist, under the laws of the universe, a perfect formula for a perfect anti-cancer drug, exactly fitting to the human physiology, but we don't know it because our knowledge of every detail of every interaction of those laws is imperfect.

Philosophically perhaps the most interesting problem with Science is why we need Science at all. Why is the universe complex and not simple? Why are the laws that govern it obtuse and not transparent? Why is it impossible for us to manipulate the fundamental laws that govern things? It's easy to wax anthropomorphic in these sorts of speculations, but on principle it seems odd that Science, to a certain degree, is necessary at all.

[Fugitive]

Broadly, the traditional definition I've seen is that it's anything that is investigated via the scientific method (observe, hypothesize, test, conclude, etc.).

Of that, one crucial aspect is that the tests must be falsifiable, i.e. you can anticipate potential outcomes that disprove the hypothesis. If you can handwave any potential failures away with "well, yeah, maybe it's still true and something unknown just makes it look like it failed" then it's not scientific.

To touch back on that other topic, the reason I've seen that evolution is considered scientific is that you can hypothesize about features you expect to see in 'intermediate' species, go out and look for them, and see if they match what you expected. If you were to discover a creature that is known to be closely related to others (by, say, DNA analysis), but they were fundamentally different in some major way, that would e considered a falsification of evolution. Say, for example, a link between homo erectus and homo habilis turned out to be a cactus.

Edit: Bah, badly beaten, but it's worthwhile to test my own ability to explain.

[Houngan]

Re: evolution. It's not really a scientific thing, it's an observed phenomenon. Like a tree. The only parts that are exposed to the scientific method are the mechanisms of evolution; natural selection, gradualism, punctuated equilibrium, etc. Evolution itself was never in doubt, from well before Darwin's time. Of course, I'm speaking about "among scientists and natural historians", not amongst the general population.

H.

[Pishtaco]

Science involves a community of mostly honest people working carefully and skeptically at finding out the truth about something, keeping records, and building on past research.

[bigdruid]

Science involves a community of mostly honest people working carefully and skeptically at finding out the truth about something, keeping records, and building on past research.

Like Talmudic scholars!

[Sidd_Budd]

For what it's worth, the Wikipedia entry posted above is a collection of many interpretations of the scientific method, some of which contradict one another, rather than a single set of common features. I'd still be interested in which definitions within the entry posters agree with, and the reasons for preferring those interpretations.

Thanks for the responses so far.

[LesJarvis]

I think one of the biggest mistakes people make when talking about science is framing it as an ideology (for examples, just browse P&R for a few minutes.) Science is a methodology, the distinction being that science does not advocate any course of action. There is a tendency among some people to ascribe ideological motivations to science because scienctific evidence is used for advocacy, and scientists often take part in that. But science as a philosophy is agnostic. It is merely a tool used to describe the natural world, nothing more.

[Ezdaar]

Unfortunately in practice science often seems to involve adopting a pet theory and then doing everything in your power to shoot down anyone who disagrees. Finally when the champions die we can get a new theory and start again. See Kuhn or Feyerabend. It's the best system we have but the theory and the practice are not the same.

[Jason McCullough]

Yeah, the ideology/method line on science isn't always so clear cut; note the common scientific fallacy of "if I can't measure it, it either doesn't exist or isn't important."

[ElGuapo]

I thought it meant the people who tell us that drinking booze every day is good for us.

[madkevin]

According to P&R, it's the stuff that's only valid if it's explained really, really politely.

[Flowers]

Philosophically perhaps the most interesting problem with Science is why we need Science at all. Why is the universe complex and not simple? Why are the laws that govern it obtuse and not transparent? Why is it impossible for us to manipulate the fundamental laws that govern things? It's easy to wax anthropomorphic in these sorts of speculations, but on principle it seems odd that Science, to a certain degree, is necessary at all.

Wow. I'd hate to hear the least interesting problem.

[Houngan]

Yeah, the ideology/method line on science isn't always so clear cut; note the common scientific fallacy of "if I can't measure it, it either doesn't exist or isn't important."

Using a fallacy as a strawman, eh? How about this:

"If it doesn't exist, then it doesn't exist. If it does exist, I'm going to try and measure it."

H.

[Enidigm]

Wow. I'd hate to hear the least interesting problem.

Ah, poor choice of words. I can't help it the only time i can post on Qt3 is at work :).

[Rimbo]

We have in fact determined that this is Science. (http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/science/)

But seriously, I was thinking about this the other day over lunch.

Science is ultimately the Scientific Method. And the Method itself is itself a kind of process that scientists have generally mutually agreed upon to mediate the inherent flaws of inductive reasoning.

That's a mouthful, so let me explain a little deeper.

Generally, the only things that are absolutely true are those which exist within closed, deductive systems, and even then, that is only if (a) the assumptions are true and (b) the deductive reasoning is logically (mathematically) valid.

For example: "If A, then B." If A is true, then B must be true, and there are no exceptions.

The flaw in scientific knowledge is that we're limited to what we can observe. We're making generalizations about what we've seen. For example, up until recently, we believed the Coelacanth to be extinct. Why did we believe this? Because the only Coelacanths anyone had ever seen were million-year-old fossils. Then, one day, someone saw a living Coelacanth.

The problem with the Scientific Method is not that scientific truth is fallible. The problem is that people don't act scientifically, any more than they behave according to strict logic. When standard scientific practice believes one thing and the evidence demonstrates another, the scientific community -- whose careers have been based on the old beliefs -- generally react with scorn. The story of Barry Marshall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall) is the archetype for this sort of thing.

So it's important to know that scientific consensus is essentially meaningless; in Science, the facts are not decided by a democratic vote. However, this statement does not translate into a license by which one can just believe whatever the hell one wants without evidence, reason and counter-arguments that address the almost certain flaws with your evidence/reasoning brought up by the community. That is what the Method is for.

[Rimbo]

I think one of the biggest mistakes people make when talking about science is framing it as an ideology (for examples, just browse P&R for a few minutes.) Science is a methodology, the distinction being that science does not advocate any course of action. There is a tendency among some people to ascribe ideological motivations to science because scienctific evidence is used for advocacy, and scientists often take part in that. But science as a philosophy is agnostic. It is merely a tool used to describe the natural world, nothing more.

In theory, you are correct. In practice, people do make an ideology out of it. Scientists do argument from authority and ignore the evidence just as often as Christians fail to love their neighbors and enemies.

[Rimbo]

Philosophically perhaps the most interesting problem with Science is why we need Science at all. Why is the universe complex and not simple? Why are the laws that govern it obtuse and not transparent? Why is it impossible for us to manipulate the fundamental laws that govern things? It's easy to wax anthropomorphic in these sorts of speculations, but on principle it seems odd that Science, to a certain degree, is necessary at all.

Because as components within the universe we seek to understand, we cannot observe it from afar, without affecting it or in any truly objective manner.

[LesJarvis]

In theory, you are correct. In practice, people do make an ideology out of it. Scientists do argument from authority and ignore the evidence just as often as Christians fail to love their neighbors and enemies.

Well, this is why I tried to make it explicit that I was talking about science as a philosophy, and also added the caveat that people who engage in the scientific method often conflate science with their own ideology. I think it's a very important distinction to make and understand, however.

On a slightly tangential note, this is why I generally don't describe myself as an atheist. Though the definition of atheism is fuzzy, I don't want to present myself as having a positive belief that there is not a god. I prefer say I am a hard agnostic, or occasionally a Bertrand Russell agnostic, though since most people haven't the faintest idea who he is it depends on the audience. I think he put it best, though:

As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one can prove that there is not a God. On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think that I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because, when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

Feel free to replace the Homeric gods with Flying Spaghetti Monsters, giant blue smerfs controlling your fate, or what have you. I myself do not believe in god, but I think to have a positive view that there is not a god is just as bad as having a positive view that there is a god since gods, practically by definition, are not disprovable entities, since you can always just say "god doesn't want us to know he/she/it exists."

[Midnight Son]

Science is reality.

[Rimbo]

Science is reality.

Until recently, Science believed that the Coelacanth was extinct, when it was not. Therefore Science is merely our perception of reality.

[Midnight Son]

Until recently, Science believed that the Coelacanth was extinct, when it was not. Therefore Science is merely our perception of reality.

Science continously self-corrects. That is unsettling to some people, particularly religious people who want certainty. I think that's what makes science great, because you come closer to the "truth," whatever it may be.

[Mr_PeaCH]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

That the first reply (and second) to the question would turn to Wikipedia for the answer suggests the truth of what no less a scholar than S. Colbert has long said... "Science has a well-known liberal bias".

[DeepT]

Generally, the only things that are absolutely true are those which exist within closed, deductive systems, and even then, that is only if (a) the assumptions are true and (b) the deductive reasoning is logically (mathematically) valid.

For example: "If A, then B." If A is true, then B must be true, and there are no exceptions.
Actually, you have described math, not science, and in particular, discreet math (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_mathematics).
The flaw in scientific knowledge is that we're limited to what we can observe.
Careful here, we are talking about Science, not scientific knowledge. there is a big difference.
So it's important to know that scientific consensus is essentially meaningless; in Science, the facts are not decided by a democratic vote.
Not really. It is an excuse to NOT reinvent the wheel each time you want to make a car. Scientific consensus does not guarantee anything, but is generally a very safe bet. It does make it harder for the "crack pot" scientist to prove that he is in-fact, not a crack pot after all. It is a double-edged sword. In 99% of the cases it filters out all the static so you can operate on your current line of research. On the other hand, in the 1% of the cases where the consensus is wrong, it makes it very hard for a correct idea to be taken seriously.

-- Edit: Provided link to discrete math.

[Enidigm]

Because as components within the universe we seek to understand, we cannot observe it from afar, without affecting it or in any truly objective manner.

Nice answer, but wrong question. My speculation was about why the universe is hard to understand and it's laws seem difficult to discover, not why we need science when we have plenty of caves lying around unoccupied.

[BobJustBob]

Actually, you have described math, not science, and in particular, discreet math.

Discrete math. Discreet math is when you do math but no one knows about it because you're sneaky.

[DeepT]

Is it all that hard to understand? Is it just our current perspective makes it seem hard to understand when it is not?

Look at Newtons first law:
An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

That seems pretty basic and not 'hard to understand'. You might be thinking that is a totally obvious statement. Yet... When was newton born? How many THOUSANDS of years did it take to get this law?

If it really was so simple, why didn't Aristotle or Euclid put that rule down? There are dozens of laws like this, Laws that seem like "common sense" today. Yet back that, these were earth-shattering concepts. Only the most brilliant minds of the human race could come up with these concepts.

There is a more recent example of this, and I wish I could find the quote to go with this story.

When Einstein published is theory of general relativity, one of the other great minds in science was asked by a reporter, "What does it feel like to be only one of two people in the entire world to understand Einstein's theory?" The guy thought for a second and said, "Nobody I know understands this aside from Einstein. Who is the third?"

Now this was after the theory had been published for a while and people had time to think about it. So after weeks or months of mulling over the theory, only 3 people in the entire planet "got it". This is some hard science, right?

Fast forward to today. There are probably 10s of thousands people who "really get it" when it comes to the understanding of General Relativity. so what happened? Why were some extremely smart people in the early 20th century not able to get when physics grad students of today are able to grasp it with such ease?

I do not know why, however I would be confident in saying that the ideas were not nearly as complicated they first appeared to be. I would suspect, that scientific principals you find hard to grasp today may be viewed as trivial to understand by future generations.

If I were to guess, I would guess that the younger your are, the more malleable your mind is and the older you are, the more rigid it becomes. Metaphorically speaking, the ability to understand an idea requires your mind to adapt to it's shape or form. Such that today, a young mind can easily adapt to the shape of the "General Relativity" concept, where as back then, the older 'thinkers' already their minds stuck in a more rigid state and it could not adapt to the shape of the mental concept of General Relativity.

So today, the yoingins who are learning about string theory will have an advantage over people who already have developed rigidity in their thinking. To them, it will not be hard to grasp, while the older generations may have a much more difficult time understanding it.


What I am trying to say is that the Laws that govern our universe may not be overly complex. It may just be our mental outlook that make them seem far more complex then they really are.

[baruk]

The problem with the Scientific Method is not that scientific truth is fallible. The problem is that people don't act scientifically, any more than they behave according to strict logic. When standard scientific practice believes one thing and the evidence demonstrates another, the scientific community -- whose careers have been based on the old beliefs -- generally react with scorn. The story of Barry Marshall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall) is the archetype for this sort of thing.


It's a great story, shame it's rather a myth. One of the references in that article is the following: http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-11/bacteria.html
Skepticism is the natural position of science. Only after the H. pylori hypothesis had enough evidence to back it up was it commonly accepted by the scientific community. Further evidence and trials are required before a scientific idea changes medical doctrine ie. treating ulcers with antibotics rather than acid-suppressors.

The epilogue from "Bacteria, Ulcers, and Ostracism?" adds a twist to the story:


"An interesting article appeared in New Scientist a couple of years ago. It turns out that H. pylori lives in “around half the world’s population” and “in parts of the developing world as many as 90 percent of the population carries the bug,” but “only a fraction of these people ever get sick” (Hamilton 2001). Thus it may be a commensal after all. Of more concern is that it may protect against esophageal cancer, a disease that is recently on the rise even as rates of H. pylori carriage are falling. The question of whether it is wise to eradicate H. pylori thus remains open. Such is the nature of science: to march on. To Marshall’s credit, I found the article linked from his own H. pylori laboratory Web site (Helicobacter pylori Research Laboratory 2004).

Commensal is another word for symbiotic ie. H. pylori may be "friendly bacteria" for many people. If it has positive effects, prescribing antibiotics for ulcer sufferers may not always be appropriate.

[Rimbo]

Science continously self-corrects. That is unsettling to some people, particularly religious people who want certainty. I think that's what makes science great, because you come closer to the "truth," whatever it may be.

Ahh, but that is a misconception about religion as well: Religious beliefs continuously change (although it's difficult to say they self-correct).

Actually, you have described math, not science, and in particular, discreet math.

I know. That was my point: Scientific facts, unlike Mathematics, can be questioned, and have a degree of uncertainty. The Method is a means of limiting that uncertainty, a way of demonstrating that uncertainty is not a license to produce any old answer to a scientific question.

Nice answer, but wrong question. My speculation was about why the universe is hard to understand and it's laws seem difficult to discover, not why we need science when we have plenty of caves lying around unoccupied.

My answer describes precisely and clearly why the universe is hard to understand and why its laws seem difficult to discover. There was no value judgment in my statement, except that which you yourself projected onto it.

Consider, as a weak analogy, understanding running software. A software debugger has to alter the way the system behaves to create its observations. The mere act of observing from a debugger alters the behavior, whereas a JTAG or oscilloscope can view the actual bits as they fly by without modifying the system's behavior. It doesn't make the software debugger useless, however; it just makes it trickier to use.

In the same way, if we somehow existed outside of the universe -- and by "outside" I do not mean "in caves" but in some way that is, to steal a Douglas Adams line, "at right angles to reality" -- then it would be easier for us to understand it. The simple fact of being part of it means we interact with it, and thus muck up the very things we're trying to observe by the act of observing them.

The idea of observing the universe from outside of it -- from a dimension orthogonal to the spacetime that makes up the universe -- seems to me to be a not terribly difficult one to understand.

[Rimbo]

It's a great story, shame it's rather a myth.

Is it really a myth, or is it now being tabbed a myth by those who were so outspoken against the ideas in an effort to save face? "Oh, well, I didn't really mean to say that it was --"

"'Stupid, irresponsible, and that Drs. Marshall and Warren should be barred from any future conferences so that their stupidity does not infect impressionable minds who do not yet completely understand the truth.'"

"-- hmm, is that really what I said? Oh, all I really meant to say was just that we needed to see proper evidence in a peer-reviewed journal, and that if he'd just followed standard scientific procedure, then all would have been fine..."

[JeffL]

The other aspect of good scientific method, that seems trivial but is a good way to separate good science and scientists from those who have an agenda: good scientists and good scientific method requires you to run the experiments to try to DISPROVE your hypothesis. You can see the agendas come through when people spend their time running the experiments and and trying to find only those things that agree with their hypotheses.

The best scientist I ever worked with for any extended period of time was superb at taking a hypothesis and quickly seeing the experiments that would clearly disprove it, then running those experiments immediately. He saved a lot of people a lot of time and effort (as well as getting to the truth quicker than 99% of his colleagues.)

[Michael Fitch]

Greetings:
Science is a genre of narrative. It has its conventions, like any genre, but it is ultimately a story we tell ourselves.

Best,
Michael.

[Midnight Son]

All you science naysayers need to send my your PC's, Tv's, Cameras, video consoles, automobiles and other like items. You can't have it both ways.

[Rimbo]

All you science naysayers need to send my your PC's, Tv's, Cameras, video consoles, automobiles and other like items. You can't have it both ways.

The best science naysayers are the best scientists. (http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html)

[Rimbo]

The best scientist I ever worked with for any extended period of time was superb at taking a hypothesis and quickly seeing the experiments that would clearly disprove it, then running those experiments immediately. He saved a lot of people a lot of time and effort (as well as getting to the truth quicker than 99% of his colleagues.)

Exactly! And there are far too few true scientists of this nature, because it goes against human nature to question one's own hypotheses.

[Midnight Son]

Exactly! And there are far too few true scientists of this nature, because it goes against human nature to question one's own hypotheses.

I really don't know what you're arguing. You don't believe in science? You think it's bunk? What?

[Midnight Son]

The best science naysayers are the best scientists. (http://users.tpg.com.au/users/tps-seti/baloney.html)

And this has to do with detecting pseudoscience! Quackery! Perpetual motion machines! Crop circles! Faith Healing!

[Rimbo]

I really don't know what you're arguing.

I noticed that.

You don't believe in science?

Please. Science should not be some sort of religion, where believers dress up in lab coats in order to worship at the Temple of Evolution or whatever! One does not "believe in" science the way one "believes in" angels or God-assisted miracles or what have you.

The problem is that while it shouldn't be that way, it does have people who "believe" in it in the same blind, hypocritical way that so many Christians "believe" in Christ.* Scientists accept things blindly just as often as Christians fail to love their enemy.

You think it's bunk?

No. I think Science is something that scientists should do more often than they currently do.


*And just so you know I'm not completely on my high horse, I admit that I am not an exception -- in either case.

[Rimbo]

And this has to do with detecting pseudoscience! Quackery! Perpetual motion machines! Crop circles! Faith Healing!

Oh, it works well even beyond detecting pseudoscience. It works very well within the ranks of science proper. I've also found it very effective within religion.

It quite applies to anything.

[Brad Grenz]

Right. "Science" is not something to be believed in. It's a method of trying to understand the world that happens to have a greater success rate than alternatives like witchcraft. One of the big problems I see is that people don't seem to understand this when they talk about science. It does not refer to some objective, empirical reality out there to which you can invest yourself.

The philosophy of science is actually one of the most interesting branches of philosophy today. The original question is a non-trivial one and there has already been a good century's worth of interest in the subject.

[Jason McCullough]

Using a fallacy as a strawman, eh? How about this:

"If it doesn't exist, then it doesn't exist. If it does exist, I'm going to try and measure it."

H.

What's fallacious about it? Ignoring stuff that's not easily measured is just a common error that science types seem to make more than people in general do.

[baruk]

Is it really a myth, or is it now being tabbed a myth by those who were so outspoken against the ideas in an effort to save face? "Oh, well, I didn't really mean to say that it was --"

"'Stupid, irresponsible, and that Drs. Marshall and Warren should be barred from any future conferences so that their stupidity does not infect impressionable minds who do not yet completely understand the truth.'"

"-- hmm, is that really what I said? Oh, all I really meant to say was just that we needed to see proper evidence in a peer-reviewed journal, and that if he'd just followed standard scientific procedure, then all would have been fine..."

Are those real quotes? I get the impression they come from off the top of your head.

It's the hollywood version of events. I'm sure many scientists would like to think of themselves as some kind of heretic, demolishing years of established dogma in the face of intense opposition. That doesn't come across if look at a simple timeline for this particular "struggle":

1984 Marshall and Warren's paper is accepted by The Lancet in May and published in June. Many reviewers dislike the paper.
1990 World Congress of Gastroenterology recommends eradicating H. pylori in order to cure duodenal ulcers.
1994 Conference held by National Institute of Health (USA) demonstrating the general acceptance of H. pylori as cause of PUD (Peptic ulcer disease) in the US.
2005 Warren and Marshall are awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their work on H. pylori and PUD

For comparison:

1610 Gallileo writes Sidereus Nuncius.
1633 Gallileo stands trial on suspicion of heresy. His book is banned, and he remains under house arrest for the rest of his life.
1992 The Catholic Church get around to admitting they were wrong.

[Midnight Son]

I've always been more interested in practical things than philosophical naval gazing. I'm gonna rewire my house now.

[Rimbo]

Are those real quotes? I get the impression they come from off the top of your head.

Yeah. I totally made that shit up.

[Euri]

Until recently, Science believed that the Coelacanth was extinct, when it was not. Therefore Science is merely our perception of reality.

Science does not contain beliefs, this sentence is fallacious. Up until recently there was no good reason to believe the Coelecanth existed. When one was found, the truth was immediately accepted. The difference between a person who practices science and a person that practices religious is just that. New information is accepted, folded into current understanding, and dealt with. Religion would instead suppress that knowledge, unless that knowledge fit into an already existing worldview, and would be highly dismissive of it to the point of having its members continually lie to convince others they are correct.

[Rimbo]

Science does not contain beliefs, this sentence is fallacious.

I used the wrong word.

Up until recently there was no good reason to believe the Coelecanth existed. When one was found, the truth was immediately accepted.

Actually, people were looking for it at the time. And that's the reason why the truth was immediately accepted.

You make it sound like there are no disagreements within science or within religion, and that one is always one way and one is always the other. But none of that is the case; Scientists frequently believe things despite the evidence to the contrary and religious folk change their beliefs based on given evidence just as often as scientists do.

[Euri]

There are constant disagreements in the scientific establishment. Scientists that believe things despite unequivocal evidence to the contrary are typically derided and not listened too. You can be an accredited scientist, and still be a complete pariah. One issue is that to the laymen, it often looks like scientists are arguing something very basic, when in fact they are arguing something very fiddly and arcane. Gould was always a lightning rod of criticism in Evolution, and some would consider him wrong. He made a lot of convincing arguments, but unfortunately died before it was really shown whether he was right or wrong.

I also have to call bullshit on religious folk change their beliefs based on given evidence just as often as scientists do.

The most regressive people are always religious in our western world. They accept things that don't "matter" to them. Some new LCD technology, some weird jellyfish from deep in the ocean. These things are not paramount in their worldview and are meaningless to them. Yet, anything that touches on their central tenets it usually dismissed out of hand. This is exactly the opposite of how a scientist would react to any given piece of information. Scientists seek to disprove themselves, it is how science is set up. I absolutely do not accept that these kinds of minds are alike in this regard at all, and trying to draw some equivalence between them is intellectually dishonest.

[Raife]

That the first reply (and second) to the question would turn to Wikipedia for the answer suggests the truth of what no less a scholar than S. Colbert has long said... "Science has a well-known liberal bias".

http://www.conservapedia.com/Science

Science, unlike other academic fields, is not just a body of knowledge but also a methodology for discovering and classifying knowledge. The scope of science encompasses all physical phenomena, but there is more for scientists to study than the material world and natural processes.

You probably don't want to read the entry on evolution. Or maybe you do.

[Midnight Son]

Recommended reading:

Scientific Blunders by Robert Youngson

Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science by Martin Gardner

Voodoo Science - The Road from Foolishness to Fraud by Robert Park.

All in my permanent library.

[Rimbo]

The most regressive people are always religious in our western world. They accept things that don't "matter" to them. Some new LCD technology, some weird jellyfish from deep in the ocean. These things are not paramount in their worldview and are meaningless to them. Yet, anything that touches on their central tenets it usually dismissed out of hand. This is exactly the opposite of how a scientist would react to any given piece of information. Scientists seek to disprove themselves, it is how science is set up. I absolutely do not accept that these kinds of minds are alike in this regard at all, and trying to draw some equivalence between them is intellectually dishonest.

You truly believe that a scientist's brain is qualitatively different in the way it functions from someone who is religious, or that religion and science are mutually exclusive?

You truly believe that scientists are not full of the same petty disagrements and vain jealousies that infect every other person in the world?

In theory, scientists should all be that way, just as all Christians should be non-judgmental folk who love their enemy. However, if you are going to claim that this theory somehow translates into the kind of reality you describe, you're going to have to produce some evidence.

But what you need to recognize is that what I'm saying here is not an attack on the validity of science, but rather an examination of your religious beliefs.

In science, these claims you make require a kind of support behind them that you have not given. And I'd go as far as to say you can't, because I am quite sure that a scientist's brain works the exact same way as every other human's.

In other words, when you say that "the most regressive people are religious in our Western World," you need to recognize that you are making a statement of your own "regressive" religious beliefs and not something that has any valid scientific basis behind it. And if you can't admit that, then that is true intellectual dishonesty.

It's the old "takes one to know one" rule, y'know.

[baruk]

Yeah. I totally made that shit up.

You are hurting the internet.

[JeffL]

Just out of curiosity, how many people posting on these science topics have experience working in the real world of science, with scientists? It's hard to convey intent in an internet posting, but I seriously don't ask that in any put-down way, I'm genuinely interested in the level of experience here.

What I see quite often is that people forget that scientists are just people who took certain topics in school and work in places where you can do science and get paid for it. But the bottom line is that they are just people. No better, no worse. There is a distribution of personalities, levels of integrity, agendas, etc. that are no different from people in other fields, such as accountants, business managers, CEOs, cops, religious workers, software suits, athletes, etc. Think about the range of people you know and work with - same thing. Being people, my experience is that most scientists that I've seen, worked with, etc. over the last 30 years are NOT driven by a pure quest for knowledge. They are driven by the same motivations that everyone else is: how to get promoted, how to make more money, professional ego, fame, a fun place to work, good people to work with, etc.

So, when someone working at a university becomes a professor specializing in nuclear chemistry, global warming, evolution, tribology, catalysis, fuel cells, etc. the perhaps unfortunate reality is that they have vested interests in the results of their research. I have very rarely seen a professor who published papers and earned his/her salary (which means getting public and government grants) in a given field come out and say "Hey, you know I have been saying for years that this is true? Well, we just discovered that I was wrong all these years, and the people arguing with me were right." Because, even if that is the truth, that means they lose face, lose prestige, and lose grants and money. You can argue that it is better for them to say it than have it proved by others, but that's just the way it is for the most part.

Scientists do what they do to make a living. Not because they are pure driven nobles in white robes. Some (fortunately a minority) lie and distort the truth because it helps them make more money in some way. I've had to fire more than one scientist for precisely that reason. I used to think that that couldn't happen, because in one way or another the data would find them out, but you'd be surprised how often data is open enough to interpretation to keep it from being so open and shut. So whenever I take over a new lab or R&D organization, one of the first things I tell people is that I only have 3 unforgiveable sins for which I have zero tolerance, and one of them is lying about the data - then I go on to define lying about the data as any form of misleading people about the data in any way.

I guess my bottom line is that most scientists are good honest people but only in the same way and the same proportion that all people in all areas are good honest people. The ideal that scientists are pure in some way and driven only by a seek for the truth as opposed to making a living and paying their mortgage and buying a new car is just a bit naive.

[Bill Dungsroman]

Yeah. I totally made that shit up.
Wouldn't be the first time, Muchacho del Dos Polos.

[skedastic]

Jeff, the argument isn't that scientists are immune to the foibles of mankind, it's rather that the institutions through which science proceeds are set up in such a way as to minimize the effects of those foibles. Referencing and building on previous work, carefully documenting data and methods, and peer review all act to reduce the ability of anyone, no matter how well-respected, to maintain discredited ideas in the face of contradictory evidence.

That said, I would expect that the average scientist is, in fact, much more likely than the average non-scientist to have genuine interest in understanding how the world works. Scientists aren't a randomly selected subset of the population; there's no reason to expect that the distribution of personalities within science (or any other profession for that matter) is the same as in any field. People with a genuine curiousity about the way the world works are more likely to self-select into science. These traits would be amplified by both scientific training and the institutions mentioned above.

Perhaps Sidd knows of some studies comparing the personality traits of scientists and people in other fields. I'd be genuinely interested to know if my hypothesis is consistent with the evidence!

[JeffL]

Jeff, the argument isn't that scientists are immune to the foibles of mankind, it's rather that the institutions through which science proceeds are set up in such a way as to minimize the effects of those foibles. Referencing and building on previous work, carefully documenting data and methods, and peer review all act to reduce the ability of anyone, no matter how well-respected, to maintain discredited ideas in the face of contradictory evidence.

That said, I would expect that the average scientist is, in fact, much more likely than the average non-scientist to have genuine interest in understanding how the world works. Scientists aren't a randomly selected subset of the population; there's no reason to expect that the distribution of personalities within science (or any other profession for that matter) is the same as in any field. People with a genuine curiousity about the way the world works are more likely to self-select into science. These traits would be amplified by both scientific training and the institutions mentioned above.

Perhaps Sidd knows of some studies comparing the personality traits of scientists and people in other fields. I'd be genuinely interested to know if my hypothesis is consistent with the evidence!

Well, having worked in the field for about 30 years, I"ve seen the distribution to be fairly broad. Political biases, etc. I would say there are more "geeks" in the sciences than, say, journalism, just as there probably are in programming. But you'd be surprised how ignorant many scientists are about science outside their own field. Most people here probably know about as much about biology as the average, say, nuclear physicist.

I've been a referee for peer reviewed journals in the past, and that does help for articles published in those journals. However, I've also seen editors for said journals bias the journals through whom they select as referees (it is very common for it to be their friends in the field) and what they do to override referee comments. Again, you're dealing with people.

The other thing that worries me about a field like, say global warming as the best current example, is that when something becomes as politicized and big as that, it is a goldmine of easy money for any scientist who jumps in. Guess how hard it is to get money to go measure the feather losses on penguins right now? So you get a huge number of scientists with a very personal and real reason to ride the gravy train (if you've ever worked in an area of the sciences where you get paid based on how many grants you can get funded, and know the pain of writing them and submitting them and hoping to get then approved so you can pay the mortgage, you know the glee of finding an area where money is being thrown out in huge sums.) I interviewed in March with a solar panel technology company. The chief technical officer was describing, with glee, how easy it was to get cash from the German government for their new plants, how the German government's "Green Funds" had guaranteed them contracts through 2012 as well as cash for their new plant, and how much everyone's stock options were going to be worth a ton as a result. This guy is considered one of the top scientists in the world in the field of solar cell technology.

I guess my overall feeling is that every field of science should be opened to honest confrontation and questioning, and any time that someone who questions the consensus is immediately personally attacked or made a pariah, that's bad. That disagreement is precisely the process to which you refer that should keep things honest. If the person questioning has less than noble reasons for questioning, so what? The answer should be the same: here's the data, here's how the data was gathered, here are the alternative ways that the data could be interpreted, here are the ways that the hypothesis could be negated and the experiments we did to try to disprove the hypothesis. It is very common for a scientist to be challenged by people in marketing, people at other companies, other scientists, or any one that would benefit from the scientist being wrong. In all cases the correct answer is simply the data, not a personal attack of the person questioning, because that is the scientific response.

[Rimbo]

Jeff, the argument isn't that scientists are immune to the foibles of mankind, it's rather that the institutions through which science proceeds are set up in such a way as to minimize the effects of those foibles.

One could also claim that churches are set up in such a way as to minimize the effects of foibles, and be no more wrong.

Science shouldn't be a religion unto itself, but it has become one, because people still seek some kind of certainty and comfort. People don't want the truth; they want security, and any fallibility -- be it in what they were told the Word of God meant or in Scientific Truth -- is seen as a horrible failure.

[Peter Frazier]

So whenever I take over a new lab or R&D organization, one of the first things I tell people is that I only have 3 unforgiveable sins for which I have zero tolerance, and one of them is lying about the data - then I go on to define lying about the data as any form of misleading people about the data in any way.

Okay, don't leave me hanging, what are the other two sins? Not refilling the coffee pot?

[Raife]

Okay, don't leave me hanging, what are the other two sins? Not refilling the coffee pot?

Nobody talks about Lab Club?

[skedastic]

Jeff, it seems to me that you're correctly pointing out that neither scientists nor the method through which science progresses are perfect, but perfection isn't a realistic standard. Yes, many experts have very narrow ranges of experise, but so what? The nuclear physicist with naive views on biology doesn't publish in or referee for biology journals. Yes, editors have biases, and so too do referees. But editors want cites to their journals, and papers which show some established result to be wrong will be heavily cited. Even the most junior assistant professor at the most obscure university---or even patent office clerk---with a good enough argument can topple giants.

Yes, new ideas may be heavily challenged, but that's not a bad thing, so long as the system is set up in such a way that those ideas cannot be excluded by fiat. In my field, as in all others I imagine, there are legends of now-famous papers being repeatedly rejected for reasons we now see as ridiculous, but those papers did eventually get published and did wind up turning established thought on its head. The system does work, albeit imperfectly. There are no such checks and balances in religion:

Rimbo, the point I was making is that the process through which scientific inquiry operates is set up in such a way as to encourage new ideas which better explain the world to push out older, inferior ideas of how the world works. In what sense is are religious institutions such as churches set up in that way? Is the Bible, like the canon of any scientific discipline, subject to constant revision as new facts and arguments come to light?

[Lazy Shiftless Bastard]

One could also claim that churches are set up in such a way as to minimize the effects of foibles, and be no more wrong.

Science shouldn't be a religion unto itself, but it has become one, because people still seek some kind of certainty and comfort. People don't want the truth; they want security, and any fallibility -- be it in what they were told the Word of God meant or in Scientific Truth -- is seen as a horrible failure.

Seriously, what is with the hard-on for equating science with religion?

[Bill Dungsroman]

Seriously, what is with the hard-on for equating science with religion?
Because the twain rarely meet, so one is often considered supplanting the other.

[Brad Grenz]

Because the twain rarely meet, so one is often considered supplanting the other.

Or rather, because so often science becomes an object of devotion through no fault of its own.

[JeffL]

Jeff, it seems to me that you're correctly pointing out that neither scientists nor the method through which science progresses are perfect, but perfection isn't a realistic standard. Yes, many experts have very narrow ranges of experise, but so what? The nuclear physicist with naive views on biology doesn't publish in or referee for biology journals. Yes, editors have biases, and so too do referees. But editors want cites to their journals, and papers which show some established result to be wrong will be heavily cited. Even the most junior assistant professor at the most obscure university---or even patent office clerk---with a good enough argument can topple giants.

Yes, new ideas may be heavily challenged, but that's not a bad thing, so long as the system is set up in such a way that those ideas cannot be excluded by fiat. In my field, as in all others I imagine, there are legends of now-famous papers being repeatedly rejected for reasons we now see as ridiculous, but those papers did eventually get published and did wind up turning established thought on its head. The system does work, albeit imperfectly. There are no such checks and balances in religion:

Rimbo, the point I was making is that the process through which scientific inquiry operates is set up in such a way as to encourage new ideas which better explain the world to push out older, inferior ideas of how the world works. In what sense is are religious institutions such as churches set up in that way? Is the Bible, like the canon of any scientific discipline, subject to constant revision as new facts and arguments come to light?

I got ya, and you're correct. Sounds like you work in the sciences. But I was really aiming that at people whose only exposure to science is some headline on CNN stating "Scientist agree that XXX causes YYY!" and the perception I have that people here have a naive view of how science in the real world works. My point was just that people working in the fields of science are just people, and they have their strong biases just like people in journalism or law or art or whatever, and they are human enough it effects their work.

I'm a Christian and a scientist, and I have to agree that religions really don't have the same type of process that, say, chemistry does. Internally, I do of course have a similar process of growth and learning in my faith, but churches and religions just aren't a good parallel to science. And I don't consider that a bad thing. In my opinion, my faith is more about my relationship with God and how I behave and act towards others. Jesus never worried about or talked about how God made things or set things in motion, He was passionate about do you love your neighbor and how do you treat others and are you holding yourself up above others, etc. (Sermon for the day, everyone, since it's Sunday, LOL!)

[Calistas]

Jeff, thanks for being a sane representative for both science AND religion. Seldom seen, to the detriment of all of us.

[Sidd_Budd]

I apologize for the delay in returning to this thread. It seems that the question has shifted from “What is science?” to “How do scientists act?” I believe both questions are interesting, but they may not be equivalent. I’ll present my thoughts on original question – what are the essential features of science – and defer my observations of scientists for a later post. Feel free to add IMO to every sentence in this post. Despite working in various departments of behavioral science for close to a decade, I often revise my definitions.

I agree with posters who stated that science is best understood as a method for discovering information. The scientific method states that a researcher develops a hypothesis (often derived from a larger theory), tests that hypothesis by gathering empirical data, feeds the result back into theory (i.e., providing additional confirmation or suggesting the need for modification), and shares the investigation with other experts.

When is a phenomenon able to be investigated with the scientific method? Two conditions are necessary. First, some aspect of the phenomena must be empirically measurable. A religious explanation of how various spiritual entities interact with one another, with no visible effects in the world, can’t be investigated scientifically. Second, the theory under investigation must be capable of being revised. If a community of experts is unwilling to modify theory, regardless of empirical findings, the theory is a worldview or ideology, rather than scientific. For example, Young Earth creationism seems to have an unshakeable belief in a universe creation time of six 24-hour days. Since this theory is not open to revision, it’s not scientific.

I want to make some quick comments on why I don’t include some terms frequently mentioned in other definitions. I don’t include “reproducible” as necessary because there are too many exceptions. Meteorologists can’t create hurricanes at will, cosmologists don’t have multiple births of universes to study, economists usually can’t replicate conditions surrounding natural experiments, and psychologists can’t ethically expose people to large-scale traumatic events. Despite these limits, most people would agree that these phenomena are capable of scientific investigation.

Despite my admiration for Popper, I don’t include “falsifiable” (well-explained by many in the thread, for example Fugitive on pg 1) in my criteria. I believe my second criterion – capable of revision – incorporates falsifiability, but has some additional advantages. I’ll go into more detail about the distinction later today.

[Sidd_Budd]

Popper developed the falsifiability criterion to distinguish science, such as relativity theory, from pseudoscience, such as Freud’s psychoanalytic theory. Freud’s theories are so ambiguous that any observed data could be reconciled with theory. Since psychoanalysis is unfalsifiable, it’s a pseudoscience. On the other hand, relativity theory predicted that light rays from stars would be deflected a certain amount by the sun’s gravitational field. This prediction is falsifiable; if the magnitude of the deflection isn’t observed, the hypothesis is disconfirmed and the theory must be modified or abandoned.

While the criterion may be great in theory, it fails in practice. Later philosophers of science critiqued falsifiability as too simplistic, and historians (notably Kuhn) found that once a scientific theory is well established, most studies seek to replicate findings, rather than disconfirm them. More importantly, findings that disconfirm hypotheses from established theories often do not result in a rejection or modification of the theory.

The discovery of Neptune is an often-cited example. Astronomers in the mid 1800s found that the observed orbit of Uranus didn’t match predictions from Newtonian mechanics. This should disconfirm Newton’s theory. Instead, astronomers assumed Newton was correct, and tried to resolve the discrepancy within the accepted system. Eventually, this led to the discovery of Neptune. The new planet’s gravitational field accounted for the discrepancy in Uranus’ orbit.

Thus in practice, scientists don’t usually abandon a theory on the basis of one disconfirmed hypothesis. Often, they reject the study as flawed. Perhaps they modify the scope of a theory, or alter a proposition within the field. This isn’t necessarily bad practice; the scientists were correct not to abandon the theory, as Newtonian mechanics serve as good approximations even in a post-Einstein world. Even Popper recognized that any theory, even those with falsifiable hypothesis, could become immunized from modification if enough auxiliary or ad hoc propositions are added to it.

But now, there doesn’t seem to be an easy way to decide between science and pseudoscience. Scientists rail against pseudosciences for vague definitions that are unfalsifiable, yet fail to recognize similar behaviors within the established scientific community. An example: arguments between evolutionary biologists and Michael Behe, one of the main proponents of Intelligent Design (ID). Behe argues that ID makes falsifiable predictions. One example: in a lab, subject a simple organism to an environmental pressure favoring an adaptation such as mobility, and see if a complex feature such as a flagellum is eventually produced through repeated natural selection of random mutations over 10,000-15,000 generations. Evolutionary biologists respond by stating that even if a flagellum were to evolve in these conditions, proponents of ID would point to another line of evidence for their theory, or suggest that evolution produces some complex adaptations, but design produces others. They wouldn’t abandon the overall theory of ID, so ID is not falsifiable and not scientific.

I don’t doubt this is what would occur, but is this much different from what scientists do? Evolutionary biologists often demonstrate the falsifiability of evolution by claiming the discovery of a hominid fossil amongst Precambrian ones would be a serious blow to evolution. Realistically, though, this discovery would be explained away as a fluke of some prior seismic shift that shoved different rock strata together. The relative scarcity of intermediate forms in the fossil record, unexpected by evolutionary theory, has led to speculation of variants such as punctuated equilibrium, but hasn’t challenged basic evolutionary theory. If evolutionary theory can incorporate seeming disconfirmation, is it really falsifiable?

Because of the limitations of falsification, I prefer the more general criteria of open to revision for determining whether a theory is scientific. It’s confusing for me, though. I’m uncertain how to distinguish between science and pseudoscience, and I believe many scientific theories are presented as much more open to revision than they actually are.

[Chris Nahr]

Great posts. I agree with what you said, but I think you forgot one critical point: the predictive power of certain scientific theories. Astronomers were slow to doubt Newtonian mechanics because they worked so well to predict the movement of bodies on earth. Sticking with a theory, to the extent of dismissing apparent falsifications or adding auxiliary propositions, appears justified if the theory continues to make useful and correct predictions.

This predictive power is usually exploited in technical applications, and I think that's what ultimately causes general acceptance of scientific theories and puts them above the kind of quasi-religious disputes you get over evolution and psychoanalysis. Nobody has a strong emotional investment in Newtonian mechanics versus quantum mechanics or general relativity -- these theories are known to work well for specific areas, and are used in those.

Ironically, by this criterion Newtonian mechanics are an excellent scientific theory, even though they have been falsified. But that doesn't matter as long as they remain useful.

[bago]

""Yo," says the host, a wannabe rapper named Ali G who wears a tracksuit accessorized with wraparound sunglasses, a Tommy Hilfiger skullcap, and massive amounts of gold jewelry. "Science. What is it all about? Techmology. What is that all about? Is it good or is it wack?" Thus begins a panel discussion featuring two futurologists, an environmentalist, and a creationist."
heh. Troo.

[Ben Sones]

Isn't it a little simplistic, though, to say that if you have abandoned falsifiability if you don't immediately throw out a theory--even one that otherwise has an enormous amount of supporting data--the first time you find anything that contradicts it? If you do 99 experiments that give you A, and then the next one gives you B, then I think an honest scientist would be obligated to do two things: 1. consider the possibility that the theory that predicted A is flawed, and 2. consider the possibility that the experiment that produced B was flawed.

Either way, I think there's still a substantiative difference between a falsifiable theory and one that fundamentally untestable. It's probably also too simplistic to set falsifiability as the sole measure of scientific inquiry, but whatever the flaws in scientific methodology today, I think it's a mistake to call the latter "science."

[DeepT]

Uhh... I think some people here have the concept of falsable / falsability wrong.

What is is NOT:
The concept has nothing to do with science as per the scientific theory / method. You do not try and attack a theory as falsable because the test of a scientific theory is using the scientific method. Hence, suggestion on the validity of newton's laws of motion with respect to falsability makes no sense.

What it IS:
A test for logical soundness in a logical argument.

Falsable argument:
All birds lay eggs (which is true).
Counter argument: There could be a bird on another planet that does not lay eggs. (No way to verify, but theoretically possible)

Non-Falsable argument:
God is all knowing and all powerful.
Counter Argument: None. There is no theoretical context in which you disprove the above properties.

The quintessential non-fasable argument is the circular argument. A -> B and B -> A. The bible says God is all powerful. Men wrote the bible, could they be wrong? No, God inspired them directly, so they are not wrong.

[skedastic]

I think Sidd is getting at a couple of concepts discussed by folks like Kuhn and Lakatos. I think it's important to point out that we ought not reject a theory once one piece evidence is presented against it. That idea of the "the" scientific method, sometimes referred to as "naive falsificationism," is often perhaps unfairly attributed to Popper, and unfortunately still appears on the first two pages of every high school and 101 level textbook as "the scientific method." The upshot of the criticism of this idea is that we neither do, as a matter of practice, reject paradigms on the basis of one piece of nominally falsifying evidence, nor should we. Theories should be understood as sets of propositions making predictions across multiple domains, and one disconfirming instance in one domain is not enough to toss the theory. (A related point that I think DeepT is getting at is that naive falsificationism is also shot down by Hume's problem of induction.) In particular, we should only reject theory A in light of disconfirming evidence X if we also have in hand theory A', which explains everything A does and X. This sort of argument elides the serious point that it's quite rare to have evidence in hand which is unambiguously inconsistent with some theory: in most problems, one can find a way to interpret the evidence in such a way as to prevent falsification.

I don't think it's as easy as Sidd suggests to seperate methodology from what scientists do on a day to day basis (as also emphasized by philosophers of science following Popper). For example, people argue about whether or not we're overly prone to sticking with established theory, even given the considerations above, because of vested interests in established paradigms.

So if we're not just proposing and falsifying theories, and we may be overly prone to sticking with established paradigms, what differentiates science from pseudo-science? It can't just be "capable of revision," as the content of pseudo-sciences can be revised too. In my view, it's the manner in which researchers go about their jobs on a day to day basis. Are arguments ultimately won by reason and evidence? Are there authorities who can prevent ideas from being heard? Is there a coherent theoretical base with causal content? Is evidence collected and systematically documented? Are new contributions required to draw on the existing literature? Are evidence and theory combined in such a way as to provide at least one of falsification, verification, or prediction, where these terms may be understood statistically or with uncertainty? To what extent are the ideas proposed consilient with ideas in other disciplines? Are there incentives such that people will gain if they make correct or novel arguments and lose if they make mistakes or commit fraud? Is there a peer review process? Are there multiple channels through which new ideas can be heard? That is, the difference between science and pseudo-science is in how people go about doing them, not just on a very abstract level, but also in terms of the institutions of the field and the day-to-day details of how people in these fields work.

Perhaps a better definition of science would be: I knows it when I sees it.

[baruk]

>snip unfalsifiability of ID
I don’t doubt this is what would occur, but is this much different from what scientists do?
Yes. ID is a new hypothesis, for which falsifiability and testability should be demonstrated if it is to be taken seriously as science.
Evolutionary biologists often demonstrate the falsifiability of evolution by claiming the discovery of a hominid fossil amongst Precambrian ones would be a serious blow to evolution. Realistically, though, this discovery would be explained away as a fluke of some prior seismic shift that shoved different rock strata together.
Ask a geologist. He would be able to tell for certain if this had happened. There is no concept of "explaining away" in science.

The relative scarcity of intermediate forms in the fossil record, unexpected by evolutionary theory,
Many examples of intermediate forms have been found, more than enough to satisfy evolutionary theory. Any scarcity of fossils is as much a question of geology as evolutionary biology.
has led to speculation of variants such as punctuated equilibrium, but hasn’t challenged basic evolutionary theory.
Evolutionary theory does not depend solely on fossils. It would still be a very strongly supported theory even if there were no fossils at all.
If evolutionary theory can incorporate seeming disconfirmation, is it really falsifiable?
To restate, absence of certain hypothetical fossils is not a disconfirmation of evolutionary theory. You would be wrong to use this as a reason to discount falsifiability.
The theory of common descent is falsifiable because if the evidence supporting it did not exist, it would not constitute a theory.
The mistake here is applying falsifiability to an already well-supported theory, where falsifiability is no longer particularly relevant. Weight of evidence in favour of a theory is not the same as unfalsifiability.

This predictive power is usually exploited in technical applications, and I think that's what ultimately causes general acceptance of scientific theories and puts them above the kind of quasi-religious disputes you get over evolution and psychoanalysis.
The worth of science is not measured by its ability to provide technological applications. The way you phrase it, it sounds as if evolution wouldn't be quite so hard for you to stomach if only it had built you a better toaster.
For what its worth, the theory of evolution has been used in computer science to create evolutionary algorithms that can outperform human designed software at problem solving tasks.
Any useful technological applications for continental drift? Cosmology? Even if there aren't any, it hardly makes them examples of bad science.

Ironically, by this criterion Newtonian mechanics are an excellent scientific theory, even though they have been falsified. But that doesn't matter as long as they remain useful.
Newtonian mechanics have not been falsified outright, but have been shown to be an approximation of reality under certain conditions.

[Rimbo]

It seems that the question has shifted from “What is science?” to “How do scientists act?” I believe both questions are interesting, but they may not be equivalent.

You are correct that they aren't equivalent. What brought up the second question is that there was some disagreement as to whether or not Science, in and of itself, led people to act differently; the answer to that question may have something to say about the nature of Science itself.

Seriously, what is with the hard-on for equating science with religion?

It is an observation about essential human behavior, and it's obvious to anyone with a disinterested point of view. I have been both a Christian and a Scientist. And people are people, wherever you are.

People do not want knowledge. They want certainty. Some people think that God and the Bible provide certainty. Others believe that the Scientific Method can provide certainty. Both groups are easily and provably wrong.

Each side has demonized the other, and looks down upon them; as a result, neither can see the hypocrisy or accept that they themselves might be no better.

[Sidd_Budd]

I think you forgot one critical point: the predictive power of certain scientific theories.
Predictive ability was a criterion in some definitions, but to me, all hypotheses are predictions. I'm far from an expert on all the sciences; can you give an example of a theory that is empirical and falsifiable (or open to change), yet does not have predictive power? If you meant science should prefer greater predictive ability to lesser when deciding between two competing scientific theories, I agree.

[W]hat differentiates science from pseudo-science? It can't just be "capable of revision," as the content of pseudo-sciences can be revised too.
...
Maybe science includes <list of multiple investigative techniques>
....
Perhaps a better definition of science would be: I knows it when I sees it.
Good points. I've modified my "capable of revision" criterion to "capable of abandonment." That’s closer to what I meant with the Young Earthers. If a more accurate theory than evolution should arise in the future, scientists will be stubborn about changing established theory, but they will with enough compelling theory and data. I don't believe Young Earthers would ever abandon the literal timeline set out in the Bible.

Your list of activities that scientists use to investigate theories was excellent, but to me, it overlaps quite a bit with scholarly activity in the humanities. Chemistry and literary criticism both have established methods for collecting data. Both have theoretical paradigms that are logically consistent. Both use publication and peer review to share findings, build a knowledge base, and allow other experts to critique an author's inferences from the empirical data to non-observable theory.

And if I'm really honest, both chemistry and literature share commonalities with a non-academic practice like fortune-telling. For example, all three fields would be able to accommodate some disconfirming data without theoretical revision.

So I'm back to "What is science?" <sigh>

Here’s my hope. Each semester, I try to touch on philosophy of science in my classes, because I believe that the scientific method develops critical thinking. I want to be able to show why psychology is a science, religious studies are an art/humanity (capable of critical scholarship using different tools), and astrology is something else (I'm unconfortable with pseudoscience, but haven’t found a replacement term). It’s surprisingly hard to come up with a concise definition to distinguish these three fields.

When I’m frustrated, I empathize with skedastic’s last statement, and want to growl “Psychology’s a science because scientists say it is!” to the class. But it does seem a bit hypocritical, since I’ve usually just finished discussing the problems with knowledge gained by expert authority :-)

[Euri]

You truly believe that a scientist's brain is qualitatively different in the way it functions from someone who is religious, or that religion and science are mutually exclusive?

Leading question. I know that scientists behave differently from the devoutly religious. It is apparent that most scientists that are also religious belong to various liberal branches of various religious sects, until you move outside sciences that may affect religious beliefs. Somebody studying fluid dynamics or engineering is different than somebody studying particle physics. This is shown every time these people are polled.

You truly believe that scientists are not full of the same petty disagrements and vain jealousies that infect every other person in the world?

No, this is a willful misintrepretation of what I was saying. Good try, though.

In theory, scientists should all be that way, just as all Christians should be non-judgmental folk who love their enemy. However, if you are going to claim that this theory somehow translates into the kind of reality you describe, you're going to have to produce some evidence.

You may as well just say "my anecdote is better than your anecdote."

But what you need to recognize is that what I'm saying here is not an attack on the validity of science, but rather an examination of your religious beliefs.

I have no religious beliefs. I will flatly say that religious is stupid. Theists are misguided at best or deranged/mentally ill at worse. This is an opinion that has morphed over time, yet my opinion regarding science never has.

In science, these claims you make require a kind of support behind them that you have not given. And I'd go as far as to say you can't, because I am quite sure that a scientist's brain works the exact same way as every other human's.

You have just asked me to prove personalities exist. If you really want to take the discussion to this level, you're hopeless. You accuse me of harbouring preconceptions and misconceptions, while blithely repeating your own.

In other words, when you say that "the most regressive people are religious in our Western World," you need to recognize that you are making a statement of your own "regressive" religious beliefs and not something that has any valid scientific basis behind it. And if you can't admit that, then that is true intellectual dishonesty.

This is a word salad. These statements aren't meaningful, and you're trying to sound intelligent. It isn't working.

It's the old "takes one to know one" rule, y'know.

My dad can still beat up your dad.

[Rimbo]

I don't believe Young Earthers would ever abandon the literal timeline set out in the Bible.

Tautology, Sidd -- the many Young Earthers who do abandon the literal timeline set out in the Bible are, after changing their minds, no longer Young Earthers.

If you look at the ranks of people who subscribe to Young Earth Creationism, however, I think you'll find that they're perfectly capable of abandoning the literal interpretation of the Bible, and do so frequently. Why wouldn't they? Their core belief is in the existence of God, not the infallibility of their particular interpretation of the Bible.

[Rimbo]

I have no religious beliefs. I will flatly say that religious is stupid. Theists are misguided at best or deranged/mentally ill at worse. This is an opinion that has morphed over time, yet my opinion regarding science never has.

Because you accept what you believe about Science without questioning it seriously. You have made something which should not be a religion into one.

"I know that scientists behave differently from the devoutly religious." How do you know this? What serious scientific evidence is there? What about good scientists who are devoutly religious? There are thousands, and they are not crippled in their jobs because of their belief in God.

"This is a word salad. These statements aren't meaningful, and you're trying to sound intelligent. It isn't working."

That you don't understand the words doesn't make the statements meaningless or mean I'm engaging in some kind of dick-measuring thing.

Compare your attitude to Sidd Budd's. Sidd Budd is acting scientifically: Even the definition of what "Science" is is up for grabs. Compare that to your statement "...my opinion regarding science never has [morphed over time]."

And you need that certainty. Because if you were to find out that Science were not what you think it is, it would seriously fuck you up. Like Wile E Coyote, as long as you don't look down, you won't realize you're not on terra firma, and you won't fall.

[skedastic]

Chemistry and literary criticism both have established methods for collecting data. Both have theoretical paradigms that are logically consistent. Both use publication and peer review to share findings, build a knowledge base, and allow other experts to critique an author's inferences from the empirical data to non-observable theory.

I know nothing about literary criticism. Given your description, I think it would be reasonable to say that scholars in that field who behave as you describe are indeed scientists. But I am also somewhat skeptical that they have theory as the concept is understood in other disciplines, and I am somewhat skeptical that empirical evidence is used in that field in a manner parallel to that in the traditional sciences. Do you have cite, preferably online, providing an example of this sort of analysis?

I say that in part for purely anecdotal reasons: In grad school I had a room-mate who was doing a doctorate in English Literature. One day she came up to me, put a piece of paper with a number something like, "10124212" written on it in front of me, and asked "What number is this?" I didn't understand what she was asking; she repeated, "Just say this number." So I said "Ten million, one hundred twenty four thousand, two hundred and twelve." And she looked happy and walked away, apparently having never understood her fourth grade arithmetic lessons. So I'm a little skeptical that she went on to study empirical evidence in a manner similar to the way you or I study empirical evidence, although I'm sure her insights into Tolstoy are much deeper than my own.

Have you read Smolins' "The Trouble with Physics"?

[baruk]

People do not want knowledge. They want certainty. Some people think that God and the Bible provide certainty. Others believe that the Scientific Method can provide certainty.

No such thing as absolute certainty in science.

..It is an observation about essential human behavior, and it's obvious to anyone with a disinterested point of view. I have been both a Christian and a Scientist. And people are people, wherever you are.

Each side has demonized the other, and looks down upon them; as a result, neither can see the hypocrisy or accept that they themselves might be no better.

You've made some pretty glib statements here. Science vs. Religion as a topic is so broad as to be meaningless, for a discussion to work you need to focus on something more specific, rather than than making a list of chin-stroking generalizations.
For example, where would you stand in terms of teaching creationism/ID theory in school science lessons? Putting warning stickers about evolution on biology textbooks? In these kinds of areas you can't just wave your hands and say both sides are as bad as each other.

[Enidigm]

Have you read Smolins' "The Trouble with Physics"?

Although this wasn't addressed to me, i haven't read the book in question but i have heard the author speak.

The problem from what i heard, during his radio debate, is that he takes lack of progress as proof of string theories falsifiability, and doesn't, in return, offer a better solution*. He may well be right but it's going to be a hard sell telling professors that they're wrong without offering an alternative.

*(although he admits working on a precursor/alternative to string theory which, at this point, is somewhat "old fashioned" compared to string theory).

[Rimbo]

For example, where would you stand in terms of teaching creationism/ID theory in school science lessons? Putting warning stickers about evolution on biology textbooks? In these kinds of areas you can't just wave your hands and say both sides are as bad as each other.

You bring up the issue of "Science vs. Religion," when what I'm saying is that it's a false dichotomy.

There is nothing inherent in Christianity -- or any religion that I know of -- that requires one to reject evolution. In my experience, most Christians agree with evolution and reject both Young Earth Creationism and the teaching of Intelligent Design in schools. Most Christians think those who reject evolution are idiots -- or worse. And Scientists can be Christians, or otherwise religious, and millions are.

What I'm saying is that there is no Science vs. Religion -- only Religion vs. Religion.

[Rimbo]

And, I should add, this religion that goes by the name of "Science" -- much as the fundamentalists take the message of love and forgiveness and acceptance of Christianity and have turned it into one of exclusion and judgment, or the way the likes of al-Qaeda have perverted Islam -- is a different thing from Science, the pursuit of knowledge.

"No such thing as absolute certainty in science."

Your statement is absolutely correct. ;) ;) ;)

Joking aside, this is in fact what a certain group of fundamentalist atheists are -- quite successfully, I might add -- doing to Science: Turning it from a means of learning about the universe into a set of certainties. Evolution, for example, becomes a certainty, the only possible way life could have come about. The effect of this is that it becomes harder to iron out the details of how things evolved, for fear that investigating or altering even the tiniest of details might give ammunition to the loony Young Earth Creationists or Intelligent Designers. And it happens; every time some new facet is discovered, ID'ers everywhere go, "See? There has to be God in there!" as the YEC'ers go, "See? It's broken!" while the atheists go, "See? Listen to these idiots rejecting evolution!"

It's all straw men fighting against straw men.

[bago]

Well if one straw man is ranting about invisible gods as told by a tribesman hearing voices in his head 3000 years ago, of course he's going to look a bit silly.

[baruk]

First of all, I agree that religion and science are not mutually exclusive.

Joking aside, this is in fact what a certain group of fundamentalist atheists are -- quite successfully, I might add -- doing to Science: Turning it from a means of learning about the universe into a set of certainties. Evolution, for example, becomes a certainty, the only possible way life could have come about.
I'm not aware of this. Let's not beat around the bush, is this mysterious cabal of atheists led by Richard Dawkins?
As a slight tangent: scientific agnosticism, personal atheism for me. Science is simply not concerned with supernatural beings - it has no place in determining whether or not such untestable things exist. I feel this is worth mentioning as sometimes the subtext of associating atheism with a kind of scientific fundamentalism creeps in. Atheism has no basis in science.

The effect of this is that it becomes harder to iron out the details of how things evolved, for fear that investigating or altering even the tiniest of details might give ammunition to the loony Young Earth Creationists or Intelligent Designers. And it happens; every time some new facet is discovered, ID'ers everywhere go, "See? There has to be God in there!" as the YEC'ers go, "See? It's broken!" while the atheists go, "See? Listen to these idiots rejecting evolution!"
It's all straw men fighting against straw men.
You seem to be animating the two sides of the discussion with your own prejudices (your closing sentence is rather ironic..). Actual examples would really help here.
So your problems with science are something like the following:
1. Scientists place too much certainty in their beliefs
2. Scientists are too rude and dismissive of their opponents
3. Scientists are not open to new ideas
4. Scientists are afraid of disproving, or of creating doubt in, their pet theories

With the overall effect of seeming no better than those they argue with.
My take would be:
1. Any certainty that may come across is based on accumulation of evidence. This is what I'd call your everyday, crossing-the-street, pragmatic kind of certainty, not the absolute kind limited to closed systems, mathematical proofs and the like (to make a point of semantics).
2. I've seen many examples of patient, detailed rebuttals. That said, this comes into the realm of public relations. I'm really more interested in the arguments made, not who called who an idiot.
3 and 4. Not true. There's a lot of money and kudos to be made by a scientist who can overturn (or create doubt in) established theory.

The main point is science is not the borg. It's studied by a mass of individuals. One man's pet hypothesis is simply another man's target to be proved wrong. If anything, there is a selective pressure within science in favour of constant change and refinement. By contrast, I would say the gears of religion move at a rather more sedate pace, and changes often simply follow public opinion, rather than being derived from, say, a scholar's new interpretation of an ancient text.

[Rimbo]

As a slight tangent: scientific agnosticism, personal atheism for me. Science is simply not concerned with supernatural beings - it has no place in determining whether or not such untestable things exist. I feel this is worth mentioning as sometimes the subtext of associating atheism with a kind of scientific fundamentalism creeps in. Atheism has no basis in science.

Agreed wholeheartedly.

1. Scientists place too much certainty in their beliefs
2. Scientists are too rude and dismissive of their opponents
3. Scientists are not open to new ideas
4. Scientists are afraid of disproving, or of creating doubt in, their pet theories

I don't think I agree with #2, except for that peculiar hardcore, the sort of "fundamentalist atheists," but we'll get to them in a minute.

I think, to be clear, I would replace "Scientists" with "humans" for items 1, 3 and 4, and also say that this is in general -- describing the way most people behave most of the time. Almost all people will go against these rules at least once, and most will do it several times, but very few will go against these most of the time.

1. Any certainty that may come across is based on accumulation of evidence. This is what I'd call your everyday, crossing-the-street, pragmatic kind of certainty, not the absolute kind limited to closed systems, mathematical proofs and the like (to make a point of semantics).

I agree. The sort of certainty that a minority of atheists find in Science is not so much that, as much as, for example: "Only irrational people have Faith, because Faith is irrational," which an atheist actually shared with me once, utterly oblivious to the fact he had defined his conclusion. To them, Science is rational, and anything outside of Science isn't, and this is by definition. I've met a number of atheists who genuinely think this way.

They're idiots and any right-thinking atheist would want to smack them upside the head. :)

It's not what they believe, but how they believe in it.

There's a lot of money and kudos to be made by a scientist who can overturn (or create doubt in) established theory.

Sure. One can even become a legend, like my ulcer example earlier. There's a loss of money and shame for those scientists who spent their lives developing and supporting the established theory, and for those -- who represent the bulk of all scientists in any given field, the overwhelming majority -- 3 and 4 are most certainly true. And if there's a political push for one type of finding, and there always is, this model of the lone hero making his name by doing something different fails.

The main point is science is not the borg. It's studied by a mass of individuals. One man's pet hypothesis is simply another man's target to be proved wrong. If anything, there is a selective pressure within science in favour of constant change and refinement. By contrast, I would say the gears of religion move at a rather more sedate pace, and changes often simply follow public opinion, rather than being derived from, say, a scholar's new interpretation of an ancient text.

I'll give you that it moves more slowly than Science, but I'd also suggest that religion is far, far less homogeneous than Science. When I went to Sunday School, I was taught that we were expected to study and learn about God and come up with our own points of view, and discuss them. It wasn't merely tolerated or encouraged, it was expected of the church members. It was perfectly okay to tell the teacher or the pastor his message was completely wrong, as long as you could back it up with reason. While this is unusual for one church, it is not unusual among churches for each one to have its own set of interpretations and quite a bit of tolerance of opinions.

This doesn't make religion any better than science, and some would say it makes it worse. The point is that instead of addressing "religion" as a single entity, one should address a particular belief, such as Young Earth Creationism, and discuss that, rather than the whole "Religion is this" crap which pools in such a vast array of different ideas as to be meaningless.

But I think I've gone beyond the point of making a coherent point and into the realm of rambling, so I'll give it a rest for now.

[bago]

Sorry, but anyone who believes in the insane rantings of a schizoid tribal explaining why they can throw rocks at girls over rational double blind analysis is just a bit touched in the head.

[Rimbo]

Sorry, but anyone who believes in the insane rantings of a schizoid tribal explaining why they can throw rocks at girls over rational double blind analysis is just a bit touched in the head.

Why are you apologizing? I agree with you, as does almost all of humanity, theistic or not. What's your point?

[Chris Nahr]

The worth of science is not measured by its ability to provide technological applications. The way you phrase it, it sounds as if evolution wouldn't be quite so hard for you to stomach if only it had built you a better toaster.

I'm an atheist who believes in evolution, you colossal fool. And whether the worth of science is related to its applications is one of the questions that should be asked in a debate about the philosophy of science, a subject you clearly don't understand. Thanks for providing an example of a clueless science worshipper, though!

Predictive ability was a criterion in some definitions, but to me, all hypotheses are predictions.

They may claim to be, but for some classes of theories there's a vast gulf between that claim and their actual ability to predict anything in a testable and reliable fashion. You'll find examples in cosmology, evolution, psychology, and economy. Such theories analyze indicators of past events and try to reconstruct a "story" of what happened that has usually little predictive power.

I want to be able to show why psychology is a science, religious studies are an art/humanity (capable of critical scholarship using different tools), and astrology is something else (I'm unconfortable with pseudoscience, but haven’t found a replacement term). It’s surprisingly hard to come up with a concise definition to distinguish these three fields.

You're attempting to construct a distinction based on the arbitrary limitations of academic disciplines. When you take a closer look, only a surprisingly small fraction of what's going on in universities actually qualifies as "real" science. That's what Feyerabend eventually realized, coming from Kuhn and Lakatos.

[JeffL]

3 and 4. Not true. There's a lot of money and kudos to be made by a scientist who can overturn (or create doubt in) established theory.


One caveat here: while lots of money and kudos can be made by someone who can overturn or create doubt in established theories, in some areas there is also enormous political and professional risk. That has been true throughout the history of science. The bigger the "concensus" the bigger the risk (but also, of course, the bigger the impact.) Past examples are obvious, but even today it's true. Lets take the most politicised area of science today, global warming. If you are a scientist who comes out and states that your data or interpretation of the data is contrary to the concensus, you should expect that you will first be examined for your political ties, then whether you are hooked up to any kind of oil company, etc. It is not an area where arguments to the contrary are tolerated very well - I've personally seen and heard, as I'm sure anyone else here has who has attended any large technical symposiums, the disdain with which people who propose opposing opinions are automatically treated, in a knee-jerk manner. And the reason? "Because the data is so overwhelming that anyone who has a different view MUST have a political agenda" or some similar response. Sure, the overall politicization of the area has resulted in people who have political motivations taking challenging positions, but the fact is that there are people who are afraid to challenge the politically correct view, and I use that term intentionally, and even though I think the data shows that it is very likely the warming is real and significant. I worked with a professor/medical doctor at the University of MI, and during a lunch we had with a friend of his, another prof, the other professor said that his grad students had some very interesting data that suggested some of the data used by everyone in one area of global warming theory is indeed suspect (just one small area, mind you) once you introduced some precipitation data in that they had developed using a pretty cool computer program. But he laughed and said no way he was going to publish it (which led to a spirited discussion between the two profs on how fair/unfair that was to the two grad students) because he didn't want the immediate negative attention and attacks. Something in science is screwed up when you have that type of environment.

Which doesn't mean that science is wrong or the current scientific method isn't the best we can do considering we're humans, just points out that its not a perfect world, which I think everyone has agreed to, so you probably just wasted 1.3 minutes reading this post. ;)

For whoever commented that no scientist could be a strong Christian, I'm pretty hardcore as a scientist and a Christian. I don't compromise on either side - I'm not a real compromising guy. ;) I don't think 6 "days' meant six rotations, and I think its pretty cool that the description, written when it was, has a pretty good order of things happening (space, Sun, earth, moon, world all covered by water, land coming later, first life coming from the oceans, man coming very late in the process) considering what the state of known science was back then. :) FWIW

[baruk]

I'm an atheist who believes in evolution, you colossal fool.

Well, excuse me for not being up to date on the Chris Nahr story. Thats why I qualified my statement with "The way you phrase it, it sounds as if". Waving a flag and saying you're on my side doesn't make you any less full of crap.

My point stands: should a science, eg. evolution be easier for people to stomach if it has obvious technological applications? They don't make it better theory.


And whether the worth of science is related to its applications is one of the questions that should be asked in a debate about the philosophy of science, a subject you clearly don't understand.

I'm arguing that applications do not strengthen the science. They merely act as a public relations exercise, bribery for the weak of mind who can't accept the evidence at face value (I may be playing up a little to the "fundamentalist science" tag here).


Thanks for providing an example of a clueless science worshipper, though!

Where's the room for worship when a theory is both testable and falsifiable, and makes non-trivial predictions? You don't need faith when you have evidence.
Still unsure of this concept of a science worshipper. One whose scepticism does not extend to the methodology of science, perhaps?

[Sidd_Budd]

I know nothing about literary criticism…I am also somewhat skeptical that they have theory as the concept is understood in other disciplines, and I am somewhat skeptical that empirical evidence is used in that field in a manner parallel to that in the traditional sciences. Do you have cite, preferably online, providing an example of this sort of analysis?
…
Have you read Smolins' "The Trouble with Physics"?
With all due respect, if you know nothing about literary criticism, how can you give an informed critique of the discipline on the basis of a single article? Regardless, I’m not expert enough to give a good citation. As anecdotal evidence, one of my undergraduate majors is in musicology. In a number of classes, empirical evidence (i.e., individual songs) was analyzed according to accepted theoretical frameworks (most borrowed from literary criticism). I’ve had a musicological analysis published. Before acceptance, peer review editors asked for minor changes that would strengthen the logical rigor of my arguments. There’s decent overlap between what I did then and my work on psychological research projects now. I do use statistics a lot more now, though.

Unless a well-known poster with a master’s degree in divinity or religious studies wants to share his experience, the best way of finding out what humanities professors do, IMO, is to talk to faculty in English or philosophy departments at your university.

The book you mentioned is on my list of books to read, but I haven’t gotten to it yet. I want to get through both of Greene’s books on string theory before finding out why he’s wrong.

[All hypotheses] may claim to be [predictions], but for some classes of theories there's a vast gulf between that claim and their actual ability to predict anything in a testable and reliable fashion. You'll find examples in cosmology, evolution, psychology, and economy.
…
You're attempting to construct a distinction based on the arbitrary limitations of academic disciplines. When you take a closer look, only a surprisingly small fraction of what's going on in universities actually qualifies as "real" science.
If your argument is that the ability to successfully predict is a necessary condition for a theory to be scientific, I disagree with you. It’s entirely possible to construct a scientific theory that has no predictive power. If data from relevant investigations fail to predict as hypothesized, it’s simply a poor theory, not an unscientific one.

On the second quote, you disagree with my distinctions, but haven’t provided your own definition of science. You are willing to classify activities as “real” science, so it would be helpful for me if you clarified how you are doing so with a definition.

Still unsure of this concept of a science worshipper. One whose scepticism does not extend to the methodology of science, perhaps?
I think Chris (and Rimbo, to some degree) are referring to scientism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism) when they write about science worshipping. Wikipedia’s second definition isn’t bad, but I like this one (http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/scientism_este.html) better. Apologies to Chris & Rimbo if I misunderstood them.

[skedastic]

With all due respect, if you know nothing about literary criticism, how can you give an informed critique of the discipline on the basis of a single article?

Well, the reason I started off with "I know nothing about this discipline" was to advise readers that I was about to guess about something I don't know anything about, thereby explicitly acknowledging that my opinion is largely uninformed and implicitly inviting more informed people to correct me. I wasn't pretending to give an "informed critique" so I'm a little confused over why I'm being attacked. Perhaps this acknowledgement of ignorance was a first here on the intartubes and therefore confusing.

Still, I wonder if what you're calling a "theoretical framework" is a "theory" as that term is understood by philosophers of science. And is the empirical evidence analyzed systematically? Can you not even provide one example? Part of the reason I say that, putting aside my jokey anecdote above, is that I've seen work in fringe disciplines (e.g., nursing) in which they have what they refer to as "theories" and what they refer to as "empirical evidence," but these are not theories or empirical work as I understand the terms and I don't consider much of this research to be "scientific." I am wondering whether literary criticism is more like that sort of discipline or more like the more established sciences; my (diffuse!) prior would be the former.

As I said, if these guys are using theory and evidence in a manner consistent with their use in other disciplines, then I don't have any problem labelling what they're doing "science." You and I both know that one doesn't have to be wearing a white lab coat and holding a beaker of bubbling neon green fluid to be a "scientist."


Unless a well-known poster with a master’s degree in divinity or religious studies wants to share his experience, the best way of finding out what humanities professors do, IMO, is to talk to faculty in English or philosophy departments at your university.

Ewww, now why would anyone want to do that?

No, I do follow some strands of the philosophy literature, and I have a pretty good idea what philosophers do. I'm hard-pressed to think of examples within this literature which I would call "science," as it's usually not evidence-based, much like pure mathematics. Dunno what the hell is going on over the English dep't.

The Trouble with Physics is an eye-opening read for folks like me used to thinking of physics as the gold standard scientific discipline, ie, those of us who suffer from physics envy. But I am afraid my understanding of physics doesn't get much beyond Feynman's introductory lectures and the content of pop books like Greene's, so I'm not qualified to judge how well-aimed his critique is.

[skedastic]

You bring up the issue of "Science vs. Religion," when what I'm saying is that it's a false dichotomy.

There is nothing inherent in Christianity -- or any religion that I know of -- that requires one to reject evolution. In my experience, most Christians agree with evolution and reject both Young Earth Creationism and the teaching of Intelligent Design in schools. Most Christians think those who reject evolution are idiots -- or worse. And Scientists can be Christians, or otherwise religious, and millions are.

What I'm saying is that there is no Science vs. Religion -- only Religion vs. Religion.
When people refer to "science vs religion" they are referring specifically to cases where there is a scientific answer and a religious answer, and those two answers are inconsistent. I'm sure that even the most devoutly religious fundamentalist doesn't doubt the theory of gravity, but that doesn't mean "science is the same as religion," for example.

The most obvious, but not the only, case where science and religion clash is perhaps evolution. Sure, many religious people do believe in evolution. In this context those people have accepted the scientific answer and rejected traditional religious thought. Just like with gravity, that doesn't imply religion and science are exactly the same.

But you are mistaken to claim "most" Christians in the U.S. reject creationism. Only 13% of the population believe that evolution occurred without divine guidance. 27% are quasi-creationists in the sense that they believe that evolution occured but was guided by God. And fully 55% of the U.S. population believes that we were created out of thin air by God and evolution had nothing to do with it (link (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/22/opinion/polls/main657083.shtml)). Further, this poll found that:

60 percent of Americans who call themselves Evangelical Christians, however, favor replacing evolution with creationism in schools altogether, as do 50 percent of those who attend religious services every week.
Obviously, there is "science v religion," even though some religious people accept scientific explanations in many contexts. Many others, most in the U.S., do not in some important contexts.

Further, the argument that "people are people" and therefore scientists and the religious are all the same is squarely contradicted by the evidence. In terms of personality characteristics, meta-analysis of number of international studies (http://www.psp.ucl.ac.be/psyreli/2004.ValuesReliMA.pdf) show that religiosity is associated with, among other differences, personalities which tend to "favor values that promote conservation of social and individual order" and "dislike values that promote openness to change and autonomy." That is, the statistical evidence does not seem to square with the unsubtantiated claim that "Scientists frequently believe things despite the evidence to the contrary and religious folk change their beliefs based on given evidence just as often as scientists do." I'm not going to bother looking up a study to prove this, but I'll also note that the average scientist is more intelligent and more highly educated than the average non-scientist: again, scientists are not a randomly selected subsample of the population. Finally, while there are many scientists who are religious, scientists are many times more likely than the average person to be atheists, and the probability a scientist is religious falls as we consider more and more successful scientists (cite (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html)).

In short: religion isn't the same science, science and religion do sometimes clash, and the set of people who select to become scientists is not random with respect to personality characteristics such as openness to new ideas or cognitive ability. People also respond to incentives, and the incentives to generate new knowledge within science are rather stronger in science than they are in religion.

[Dirt]

Science is believing what you can see, again and again.

[Lazy Shiftless Bastard]

You bring up the issue of "Science vs. Religion," when what I'm saying is that it's a false dichotomy.

There is nothing inherent in Christianity -- or any religion that I know of -- that requires one to reject evolution. In my experience, most Christians agree with evolution and reject both Young Earth Creationism and the teaching of Intelligent Design in schools. Most Christians think those who reject evolution are idiots -- or worse. And Scientists can be Christians, or otherwise religious, and millions are.

What I'm saying is that there is no Science vs. Religion -- only Religion vs. Religion.

Are you a fundamentalist? Your posts in this thread give me the impression of a religious man who feels his beliefs are threatened by Science. I apologize if this is not the case.

In an ideal world, there should indeed be no Science vs. Religion. But not because science is a religion, rather because it's NOT and proper science has nothing to do with religion. This is why you can have Christian scientist whose minds aren't destroyed by internal paradoxes.

For the most part, though I'm sure there's probably a damning example somewhere I'm not thinking of, it seems that the whole "Science vs Religion" war has been started BY organized religion. As someone else said in this thread (I lost track of it), science is not concerned with invisible men in the sky. Science, as vague as the definition might seem, is about figuring out what's ACTUALLY GOING ON in reality. Organized religion, on the other hand, seems to take offense and steps in to attack science. Explanations akin to thunder being the anger of god are challenged by people noticing something about the real world, and instead of suavely explaining the relationship away they attack the science. Sadly, numbers show that most people prefer to be lead by the authority of their church rather than rationality or the teachings of their own religion.

Case in point: this thread. It started with a discussion about a more concrete defintion of "Science!". Then you came in talking about how the scientific community doesn't act scientifically, which has nothing to do with science itself, and devolved into calling science a religion, implying that it is no better equipped than whatever mythology you believe in to describe the real world.

In short, you are hurting my brain. Please stop.