What is science, again?
I was reading an interesting article at Black Sun Journal, which inspired me to ask “what is science, again?” In this article, BlackSun has a rare comment debate with a creationist and a homeschooler (with a biology degree) who teaches only creationism. So, what is science anyway? According to Science Made Simple:
The word science comes from the Latin “scientia,” meaning knowledge.
How do we define science? According to Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is “knowledge attained through study or practice,” or “knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world.”
What does that really mean? Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge people have gained using that system. Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it.
What is the purpose of science? Perhaps the most general description is that the purpose of science is to produce useful models of reality.
We can also check Wikipedia, but since its definition would basically repeat the previous chunk of text, I will fast forward to the scientific method section:
The scientific method seeks to explain the events of nature in a reproducible way, and to use these reproductions to make useful predictions. It is done through observation of natural phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate natural events under controlled conditions. It provides an objective process to find solutions to problems in a number of scientific and technological fields.
Often scientists have a preference for one outcome over another, and scientists are conscientious that it is important that this preference does not bias their interpretation. A strict following of the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of a scientist’s bias on the outcome of an experiment. This can be achieved by correct experimental design, and a thorough peer review of the experimental results as well as conclusions of a study.
There is a little something called the scientific method that science itself is based on. Science would not and could not exist or even function without it. When something repeatedly fails the scientific method, its tossed out as bad science for a reason. Most scientists would have nothing to gain by banning together to “expel” a particular point of view for any reason other than it clearly fails the scientific method… not once and not twice, but repeatedly by different people all over the world. Moreover, if it fails the scientific method repeatedly, then obviously it is not “science”.
Turning it to the creationism debate: Creationism directly implies you must accept an entire religious doctrine in addition to a simple theory on the origin of life. Science makes no claims on what your beliefs may or may not be outside the realm of what is proven in a particular instance. Nor does science ever assume or assert anything other that what has been proved through the scientific method. To clarify, if one accepts the truths of evolution yet makes room that some godly power helped the process along, at least one is not denying what has been tested and retested by the scientific method. He/she can still believe anything outside the realm of what can be proven; those beliefs generally do not defy science. Whether god exists or doesn’t, it cannot be proved or disproved. However, evolution has only been understood more and more due to the scientific method. On a side note: Evolution isn’t an ‘atheist’ theory, it’s a scientific one. Many Christians and most Jews (in addition to followers of other religions and philosophical ways of life) accept evolution.
I do not “believe” in science (or evolution), I understand it. I know it. I live it. I am it. That is science, simply put. The truth discovered over years of studying and testing.
In my humble opinion, for someone to teach or want creationism taught in not just any ol’ school course (philosophy, religion, or any other class that would seem appropriate) but specifically science class is purely baffling. First, one must understand what the term science means and what it stands for. If one believes in the strict interpretation of the biblical creationism story, you have every right, but its your religion or even personal philosophy. Believe as you like, but please don’t call it science.
Related posts:
Well said, Hussy!
Pirsig (Zen & the Art etc)
When I think of formal scientific method an image sometimes comes to mind of an enormous juggernaut, a huge bulldozer…slow, tedious lumbering, laborious, but invincible. It takes twice as long, five times as long, maybe a dozen times as long as informal mechanic’s techniques, but you know in the end you’re going to get it. There’s no fault isolation problem in motorcycle maintenance that can stand up to it. When you’ve hit a really tough one, tried everything, racked your brain and nothing works, and you know that this time Nature has really decided to be difficult, you say, “Okay, Nature, that’s the end of the nice guy,” and you crank up the formal scientific method.
For this you keep a lab notebook. Everything gets written down, formally, so that you know at all times where you are, where you’ve been, where you’re going and where you want to get. In scientific work and electronics technology this is necessary because otherwise the problems get so complex you get lost in them and confused and forget what you know and what you don’t know and have to give up. In cycle maintenance things are not that involved, but when confusion starts it’s a good idea to hold it down by making everything formal and exact. Sometimes just the act of writing down the problems straightens out your head as to what they really are.
The logical statements entered into the notebook are broken down into six categories: (1) statement of the problem, (2) hypotheses as to the cause of the problem, (3) experiments designed to test each hypothesis, (4) predicted results of the experiments, (5) observed results of the experiments and (6) conclusions from the results of the experiments. This is not different from the formal arrangement of many college and high-school lab notebooks but the purpose here is no longer just busywork. The purpose now is precise guidance of thoughts that will fail if they are not accurate.
The real purpose of scientific method is to make sure Nature hasn’t misled you into thinking you know something you don’t actually know. There’s not a mechanic or scientist or technician alive who hasn’t suffered from that one so much that he’s not instinctively on guard. That’s the main reason why so much scientific and mechanical information sounds so dull and so cautious. If you get careless or go romanticizing scientific information, giving it a flourish here and there, Nature will soon make a complete fool out of you. It does it often enough anyway even when you don’t give it opportunities. One must be extremely careful and rigidly logical when dealing with Nature: one logical slip and an entire scientific edifice comes tumbling down. One false deduction about the machine and you can get hung up indefinitely.
Zombie Feynman has a simpler answer
Couldn’t agree more, AH. One of the main tricks the creationists seem to use is to equate ‘belief’ in a scientific explanation for life, the universe and everything with their own ‘belief’ in a god as creator.
It’s a divergence of vocabulary. If you take a step back from the two uses of the word, the root of religious ‘belief’ lies in faith, as in “I believe in the Virgin birth and life everlasting.” whereas the root of scientific use of the word ‘belief’ lies in the diffidence that all good scientists have in their hypotheses – as in ” I believe this to be true but it will require years of validation by other people to make it certain.”