what is science..the word..the system..your view

[xelasnave]

Seems simple but laymen and scientists give different meaning to the word and to the system or method. I would like to see a discussion so information may flow. We have folk here who hopefully will input. So please offer input.As a layman what do you think science is what does it do. What problems do you feel are present...and if there are scientists are you prepared to explain the fundamentals..theory models the limits the method of peer review. Or we could just let this thread pass by..If so no worries it is after all a difficult subject. Regards Alex.

[julianh72]

The Scientific Method has served us pretty well for a few hundred years : Observation, Hypothesis, Prediction, Test, Revise and Repeat.

Observation: You observe a natural phenomenon, and you pause to think "Why is it so?"

Hypothesis: You develop a theory that fits the observational evidence, and tries to explain what is seen.

Prediction: This step is critical in distinguishing Science from non-science. A conjecture which makes no testable predictions may be an interesting discussion point, but a hypothesis which makes predictions about as-yet unseen phenomena, and where the predictions are capable of distinguishing the validity of competing theories, is capable of advancing our understanding of the universe.

Test: An experiment is devised to test the prediction of one theory versus the alternatives. An affirmative outcome builds support for the theory over the alternative models. The results are published, and importantly, must be capable of being tested and repeated by others. Experimental outcomes which cannot be repeated by others may suggest the experimental technique was flawed, but successful repetition will build support for the theory such that it becomes integrated into the accepted paradigm.

Revise and Repeat: Whether an experiment to test a prediction is successful or not, it only reveals part of the "whole truth". Theories are continuously modified and developed in the light of an ever growing body of observational and experimental data.

[Allan_L]

Working out why "stuff" is, or happens.

[xelasnave]

Excellent and sincely I thank you Julian for such a great post. I hope others can contribute on differences between the language of the layman to that of the scientist..the word theory in particular. Is science concerned with truth or reality as such is the layman mistaken in his beliefs as to what science says. Science relies on the best model why should a model stand if to the layman it seems odd or unreasonable. My motivte is to help the arm chair scientists on this forum which is where I place myself. It took me some time to understand the basics.theory.best model.review process. And I was to a degreeimpatient with mainstream until I learnt what I call the basics. I visit cosmoquestwho have excellent writers who show the wonderful way science works with scientists playing their game at its best. It would be wonderful to assist arm chair scientists on this forum who probably will never enjoy expossure to a site such as mentioned. Thanks again I hope more will follow. Regards Alex

[xelasnave]

And thank you Allan..what is stuff and what does it mean ..how it works..what does that mean ..how do we express such things..thanks for posting Allan I really hope to see some interesting posts from some interesting people in this thread. I feel science is getting a poor run. I think that is relatrd to a misumderstanding arising from the failure of science to show what it does and does not do. Regards Alex

[julianh72]

One thing that really "grinds my gears" is when someone attempts to discredit any scientific theory (but Evolution in particular) by saying "But it's only a theory".

A theory is SO much more than a mere conjecture - it requires a sound theoretical basis, conformance to and consistency with all of the observational and experimental data, and as I said in my previous post, the ability to make predictions which distinguish it from all the other theories.

The best scientific experiments are specifically designed to filter out the competing theories, to progressively build a better and more complete model of what is actually going on. If Theory A predicts "this" and Theory B predicts "that", then a well-designed experiment will test the two predictions to reveal either Theory A or Theory B to fit the data, or perhaps both may be found wanting, in which case we go back to the drawing board and amend our theories and devise new predictions and experiments to test them.

It is a truism that Science cannot prove anything to be "true", but it can demonstrate that something is false (or perhaps "incomplete").

Sometimes, scientific theories lead to predictions which cannot be tested (yet) due to the limitations of our observational / experimental capabilities - hypotheses about multi-verses, and what is "out there" beyond our "observable universe" etc spring to mind. This does not mean that such theories are not "Science", but we may have to "park" them for a while (perhaps forever?) until we think of a way of actually testing them. Indeed, it is entirely possible that there are some things which are "true" but are not provable or testable. (Read up on "Gödel's incompleteness theorems" - it is bound to "do your head in" if you haven't come across them before! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorem s )

Any "theory" which cannot make any testable predictions (testable in theory, if not always in practice) is not "Science", and has no place sharing time in our Science curriculum. So-called "Intelligent Design" is a case in point. Saying that "life is simply too complex to have evolved by chance, so there MUST be an Intelligent Designer behind it all" fails to ask any questions or provoke new thought or experimentation. Darwinian Evolution, on the other hand, explains how complexity can arise from simple beginnings, and indeed makes predictions about intermediate life forms which must have existed, and we do indeed find them when we know what we are looking for, and where we should look (also explained by the theory).

[xelasnave]

Oh how I agree. And I think I know the problem..at least with the wotf theory..its the wrong word ..In general use it means something akin to notion or a casual thought..wellthats my view. Clearly the general public wont chsnge that approach so we would be taking a large step would it not be worthwhile for science to find a new wotd..one that mbodird our current meaning of theory..mm.let me think..preferred current paridim..current accepted observation.. Crude attempts but at least we would not get the..its only a theory thing. I have said its only a theory mydelf in my beginings about the big bang.. So I feel foolish but happy I am past that ppint.
Mmm Inteligent design. If I was not so on side with your vores I would play drvils advocate or rather advocate of the inteligent designer to rev you up I would love to vent more than you I bet. Still lets leave it where it is ..umfortunatelyits out thete. Its lurking around our schools and I bet it is sectetly taught in some of our schools at this very time.
That is a worry. I have talked in person to one of these folk anf he id up to this point intelligent..then ID I cant argue..never argue against belief ypu cant win with fact or proof and that is all you must focus upon.
Your post was so very intetesting and the sort of thing I feel will be of benefit to thosr who have an interest in science but..like me once go off half cocked with refutations that ..its only a theory.
Most enjoyable thank you for taking your time to contribute. Regarfs alex

[xelasnave]

Sorry cant edit so its a code breaker which will be a test but they are coming to take me away to run wites up my groin to inspect the tecent surgery. So is that not wonderful. Thanks again

[xelasnave]

and yes I know the theorms or at least worked with them recently but worth a re run..still waiting but now the forms are signed. I hate the wait

[xelasnave]

more than i remember. i can only takr away an idea re difficulties .

[Shano592]

Seems a little philosophical, Alex. With that in my mind, I could only think of this (all credits to Eric Idle):

"Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at 900 miles an hour.
It's orbiting at 19 miles a second, so it's reckoned,
The sun that is the source of all our power.
Now the sun, and you and me, and all the stars that we can see,
Are moving at a million miles a day,
In the outer spiral arm, at 40,000 miles an hour,
Of a galaxy we call the Milky Way.

Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars;
It's a hundred thousand light-years side to side;
It bulges in the middle sixteen thousand light-years thick,
But out by us it's just three thousand light-years wide.
We're thirty thousand light-years from Galactic Central Point,
We go 'round every two hundred million years;
And our galaxy itself is one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe.

Our universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding,
In all of the directions it can whiz;
As fast as it can go, at the speed of light, you know,
Twelve million miles a minute and that's the fastest speed there is.
So remember, when you're feeling very small and insecure,
How amazingly unlikely is your birth;
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth!"

I think the ending says it all really!

[xelasnave]

wonderful.
Well there is an aspect of philosophy is the way we do science and even math in the context of a direction and method of management. Peer review could be a different system for example. Science papers could be approved by a government board say one could come up with other ways. So that duggests a philosophy.. no worries.I think peer review could be better only because from time to time fraud appears..but that is why it is so good fraud gets exposed. An alarming case I read a person used faulse data agree to withdraw papers two aeay two but one remainef and it was sited in 87 papers over 17 yrs. that is not the system is the addmin of the system. the matter was sorted but the government agency..involved because grant involved..should have sren to it all papers were withdraw..what famage was done I dont know. So for a lay man this is ammunition for ridicule but really I cant think of a better system.
Thanks for your contribution we were yrying to rember the song cause i could not tecall milky way diameter..song says 100k but my number having that jog is 150k
I hope folk get something from this our inputs are valuable
tegarfs alex

[Bassnut]

Whoa, thats a mighty broad statement that arguably has little to do with science, or even scientific pursuit. IMO "why" stuff "is" generally, is a philosophical question science hasnt got close to how to even start understanding or quantifying :shrug:.

[Wavytone]

As one with a BSc in physics... Science is...

"systematic, logical deductions founded on and proved by objective, testable evidence."

[xelasnave]

Thanks all for your contribution. Clearly some like short answers but it is not a question that can be all that simple. So lets keep digging maybe focus upon what the difference is between laymans and profrssional scientists views. Excellrnt so far please jump in folks ..if a layman what dont you like you wont br ripped apart I promise politened is parramount. alex

[xelasnave]

And is philosophy a science. Economics for example..where is the line to be drawn. One I like ..is cosmology science or is cosmology philosophy suported by science. I will through it in..big bang started from a philisophical starting point and supported by science..in true scienticic method thankfully..but can we call cosmology science..consider the meaning of the word and how it changes when applied to main stream to anything other than mainstream..Using a turtle to carry the world and serpents that create rivers etc is cosmology isnt it..anyways its 3.53 am the pain has eased I may try and sleep again. So thoughts born from pain and sleeplessness..best wishes alex

[avandonk]

Philosophy is NOT a science as it just is abstract thought and 'logical' manipulation of concepts that may have no basis in physical reality. Economics is somewhat the same. How many angels can dance on the end of a pin comes to mind. It is useful though for exploring the unknown unknowns to figure out how to scientifically explore them.

Physics of course is not philosophy as it uses real world evidence or data to test hypotheses that can later be formalised as a theory for further testing and refinement. Internal logical consistency to all the current known laws of physics is also paramount. Resorting to 'magic' as an explanation does not cut it. The 'invisible hand' in economics is a magical force.

That is why Einstein baulked at the very real 'spooky' instant action at a distance of quantum entanglement. We just do not understand quantum mechanics fully. We have missed something. This is why we cannot tie quantum theory with space time gravity. To understand black holes would need this as gravity is acting at the very small where quantum effects usually fully describe what is going on.

Dark matter and dark energy are real. We just do not know what they both are yet.

Here is a good introduction

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VmXZn702v0


Bert

[xelasnave]

Bert you have made my day. It is wonderful to read your words. I hoped to get a responce but to hear you again is just so good. I have come a long way in reforming my approach a little like a reformed smoker if you can see the point.
I lost that link to the water thing you posted I hope you recall it. That caught my attention to such a degree..do you remember the matter. Your photos are fantastic I follow your work I come here daily but never lock in but it serms I log in auto now..its the phone I havent got a clue. It hides text as I type so you need to do codebreaking .
I am sorry I did not come to your support re that Anzac day stuff..but I could see folk just did not get it..I did I knew exactly your possition. Well again thanks for your input
I hope you are well best wishes alex

[avandonk]

Alex I was fortunate enough to spend my whole working life surrounded by more than one hundred scientists of all backgrounds to interact with. Even if only a tiny amount of their combined knowledge diffused through to my world view I am better off. I have still not stopped learning.

It is the questions in science that are far more important than 'correct answers'. 'Correct answers' have a use by date. It generally coincides with the deaths of the leading practitioners in any fast moving field making way for the younger generation.

A lot of my time was spent teaching young PhD students everything I knew. I used to joke it would only take till lunchtime on their first day. The reality was a few years later one by one they would call me an idiot for being wrong on something as I had predicted to them.


Bert

[julianh72]

So why do pretty well all professional scientists have a Doctor of Philosophy as their main honorific? :question:

And Newton's great work is known as "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica" ("Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy").

And The Society for Natural Philosophy nourishes specific research aimed at the unity of mathematical and physical science.

And if you study at Oxford, Cambridge or Dublin University (among other "traditional" universities), you will graduate as a Bachelor of Arts, WHATEVER field you study.

"Philosophy" has been defined as "the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline".

I think "Science" can be considered to be a subset of "Philosophy" - but use of "the scientific method" means that strict rigour must be applied, to an extent which is not always evident in "the liberal arts" and "social sciences", for example.

[el_draco]

I could mirror several posts here in terms of the technical description of the Scientific Method but, from a philosophical viewpoint, I see Science as the one thing that separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom, but only just. Some species can think and experiment but we do it on a grander scale and for reasons beyond basic evolutionary advantage.

I suspect that Science is the unwilling villain in much of our endeavor and possibly our ultimate savior. For me personally, its the reason for existence because it allows us the possibility of comprehending the impossible without resorting to "blind faith".

[madbadgalaxyman]

The Royal Society was founded in 1660 to discuss and practise and promote "Physico-Mathematical Experimental Learning", which is as good a short definition of science as I have ever heard of.

The word "science" itself is a very new one, and it is not particularly helpful, in that it means very little in and of itself. Physico-Mathematical Experimental Learning, is an accurate one sentence definition, and it sounds like a much more exciting thing to be doing .

[xelasnave]

The little I know of your life Bert makes me feel mine was wastef. I wanted so much to be a chemist I loved it at 11 yxks.
But taking art cut me out later on maths 1 and 2 so later I could only do combined sciencers I knew high school chemistry because I just read everything..had cousins teachers and I would grab their books.. Anywaysit is a privledge to talk to you and the other wonderful people here.brst wishes alex

[xelasnave]

Thank you for input Robert Your views would be missed if you fsiled to post. thank you very much

[avandonk]

Monty Python's take on philosophy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_WRFJwGsbY


Bringing up pedantic linguistic arguments is just what philosophy is all about. It is still not science!

Bert

[avandonk]

No life is ever wasted if lived to the best of one's abilities Alex. Life is really wasted when young men and many civilians die in absolutely futile wars.

Bert

[julianh72]

"Do all philosophers have an "s" in them?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa0bCzwSNA0

[xelasnave]

Thanks Bert I always did my best always won so thats wonderful teally. I read re THEGREAT WAR as they happily called it..says somethimg abput the sad mentality. It eas so sad so many gpne brothers many brothets all taken as say waste..folk miss our point unfortunately ..you know what I mean I know it.

[Steffen]

Then there is mathematics, of course. No testable hypotheses, just axioms, and derivation rules, and isomorphism everywhere the eye looks :)

Cheers
Steffen.

[xelasnave]

I propose a convention mmm a week on the gold coast to discuss the matters raised mmm hotel food luxury all to clear all this up.
Funded by the inteligent design crew.. tell them is an I D convention and send the plate around....

[xelasnave]

:)Are you guys reving me up? If so I say this General Relativity is our best theory of gravity and that model suggests that there is unobservable matter out the which explains annomolies in the rotation curves of galaxies and various observation showing gravitational lensing... The observed expansion of the universe is consistant with the existence of an unseen energy which causes the expansion. Both dark matter and dark energy are consistant with the predictions of General Relativity. That is mainstream view at this time.. now honest injun..were you baiting me either of you..or Fred are you offerring critisism of mainstream without a new theory that may support the coyncerns you express..Alex:shrug:

[bkm2304]

The philosophy appellation is a hangover. It has its meaning in Greek and translates to "lover of knowledge" though I'm sure the classical scholars have a tighter translation.

I have a PhD and this is an inheritance for the British Oxbridge system of study. I was fortunate to do my PhD the old way - a supervisor, a vague plan of investigation and three glorious years of trying stuff. My old supervisor used to say, " Richard, you don't have to win the Nobel Prize with your thesis son, so calm down and learn a bit along the way about how the scientific method works, and - more importantly -where it does NOT work."

The Scientific method is a wonderful technique for stripping back nature and then making sense of it and sometimes even making use of the way the universe works , say electricity or gravity.

As it is only a method for doing this it is limited and therefore folly to try and answer the Big questions around religion and meaning and the like. It just isn't able to do that and many people arguing for say, an intelligent designer of the universe, immediately disqualify their question from the method; they are trying to use the method where it simply doesn't work.

Far and away, the grossest abuse of the method lately is of course climate change denial. The same lollies who "question the science" - and who knows how they can do this- are the first to submit willingly and unquestioningly to their medical treatment. Apparently the science behind medicine can be believed but that behind climate change can't - which is of course utter bollocks and shows ignorance rather than any measured judgement. So in the end the deniers are abandoning the scientific method to then scrutinise the science- sorry that's also bollocks.

Richard.

[bkm2304]

I dispute that - my chooks have just commissioned their own LHC out the back..... Er that's Large Hen Collider....:lol::eyepop::lol::lol:

Richard

[Steffen]

That's right, science doesn't deal with the untestable, unknowable. That's the realm of faith (aka needful metaphysical belief without good evidence).



I think it's rather more than that, it's a firm agenda, and lots of dollars at stake for some people. Just look at who bankrolls the climate deniers.

Cheers
Steffen.

[xelasnave]

So why cant ID fill the place folk want it to.. does it matter if the masses are given something allowing them to blame something and abdigate personal responsibility.
Of course the arguement that random cant produce complexity seems short sited as information one would think would be bin:eyepop:ary even in nature and so random rules.

[avandonk]

About thirty years ago Alex I was at a lunch with my group and a few visitors. Two of these visitors happened to be Nobel Laureates. The discussion turned to creativity and insight. I put forward the proposition that the human brain must work at some sort of quantum level.

The immediate response was 'what makes you even think that?'

My answer was that very often when I was faced with a very difficult technical problem a solution would materialise in my mind from seemingly nowhere!

I had no real proof only conjecture from my own experiences. These very wise men said 'collect some evidence to prove your hypothesis'. I still do not have any decent testable evidence. Metaphysical Inspiration from a higher plane just does not prove anything in reality.

My niece is working on building quantum computers or at least the components that could possibly build one. She is doing a PhD after getting a Masters in Astrophysics.

We will know when an advanced quantum computer is finally built what it is really capable of.

Bert

[xelasnave]

Thank you Bert.. I have devil dgr I am being nice to..keep peace is better for me than gettimg frustrated by mmm what do ypu call it and remain polite
alex

[xelasnave]

He was discharged an hour ago so no more problems. Being polite can be a dtrain.
I cheered a lady up and she thought I was sent by the ID himself if ypu get my drift.

ANYWAYS....
wonderful input but we are still like the blind men describing an elephant

Who will add to the mix.. can we add to the mix.

[xelasnave]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140714104103.htm

Thought you may be interested..

[avandonk]

Alex here is a brief overview article linking quantum effects in biological systems.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2839811/


Photosynthesis relies on quantum tunnelling for charge transfer from the photosynthetic site. This is at room temperature! So plants 'knew' about quantum mechanics a few hundreds of millions of years before us!

Roger Penrose has also postulated that the human brain and others may have a quantum mechanical mechanism for its function.

And many more including enzymes.

All of chemistry is just quantum mechanical interactions.


Bert

[xelasnave]

Thank you Bert.
We know so much but somehow so little.
Just considering a single cell there is just so much going imams as much as we know I suspect we know not that much.
You know my fascination with gravity
It lead to try and math out what I imagined at the basic level.
I considered what may pass a single point in the emptiest space ..a total vacuum for example with not a single atom of matter.
I was presented with geometrically infinite trajectories and a list of waves and or passing particles that made this focal point seemingly incapable of fitting all that would pass they that point..you can see why push gravity appealed.. But my point is not grab otto it is the complexity of even nothing could well be beyond us...And every point next to the one I consider enjoys it own wave or particle traffic jam as it were
Thanks again
Love your photography. I don't post and don't appear as logged in but I am here every day or second day keeping an eye on your work..and others and there aPpmercy ancestries

[xelasnave]

Last sentence..follow folks adventures

[multiweb]

This quantum stuff is sooo cool. Exciting times.

[avandonk]

My boss employed a theoretical chemist to look at the interactions of putative drug molecules and their target protein molecules. With vast computing power he was simulating the interaction of two simplified quantum surfaces over about three nanoseconds. This took two weeks of calculation even with assumptions to simplify the system. I am sure the computers a far faster now so he can simulate a microsecond?

We both agreed that the only quantum computer that behaved just like the molecules, was the molecules themselves!

Bert

[xelasnave]

Go with ID it's easier.... .mmm not very intelligent if it is that complicated
That finally why push gravity could not.gif past an idea.. How could you describe it..at a particle to particle.let alone trillions interacting in a box built of small phlanks.
Counting angels on a pin head is easy against your chemist experience

[avandonk]

As a final sobering thought Alex. All of the complex chemical and physical interactions in your body that make you who you are were 'discovered' by three billion years of completely blind trial and error evolution by bacteria and their even simpler ancestors.

Bert

[xelasnave]

Whot I was not designed such that I could hold dominion over all the birds, animals and fishes.
The complexity gets me.
When you look as I have mentioned many times nothing is most complex.
A simple cell ..well there's a life time needed to have a probably limited knowledge

[Amaranthus]

A major part of science is 'learning by doing' (both adaptive and Bayesian)

I also think about its principal goal as 'bounding or narrowing uncertainties' rather than seeking absolute truth.

[avandonk]

The bacteria knew this a few billion years before you!


Bert