Science is a systematic process that progressively builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions.
An added thought: science is the universe trying to understand itself.
I took the word enterprise out of the definition because that word makes it sound like science is something that is disconnected from ordinary people. Well, a lot times science is very enterprise like the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). But isn't science also a personal journey? I think every kid with a telescope or a microscope is also doing science. They may not be contributing to science (although they can) but they are beginning the process of learning how science is done. Every now and then science is done accidentally, but usually it is the result of committed individuals often doing hours of tedious work. The scientific process is progressive because previous discoveries leads to new discoveries. This is the real beauty of science. If science is wrong and it does happen, then the process stagnates. When that mistake is corrected, then a virtual explosion of new science is developed. My favorite all time wrong-turn in science, was the idea that the earth was the center of the universe. This idea persisted for some 1800 years after Aristarchus of Samos, circa 280 BC, correctly understood that the sun was the center of the known universe. The reversal of thought resulted in what is called the Copernican Revolution. I personally suspect that there are some wrong turns in science that are just beginning to slow down the natural progression. In engineering and physics there are always assumptions. This I think is where we often get in trouble. A good theory or even a good design process should always begin with a close look at the assumptions.
The theme for this blog is; assumptions in science that may be wrong!
Here is an index of all my blogs starting with the most recent:
THE COSMIC CORNER: INDEX
Biblical Accounts of Volcanoes with Tsunamis - PART I The first account was written by King David in 2 Samuel.
The Origin of Hogwallows and Gilgai - PART II The conclusion of this blog.
I'd like to suggest a modification to that definition. I suggest it because at least some science is less than perfect in its assessment of what it deems "knowledge."
ReplyDelete"Science is a systematic effort that collects and interprets evidence about the natural world and universe in the form of testable explanations and predictions."
Pertinent background, from this mechanical design engineer's perspective:
1. Though archaeology is deemed a science, a very large part of its interpretations are weakly supported by the evidence and are based on outdated memes about the past.
Archaeology is still operating from many of the conclusions jumped to in the 1800s about the superiority of modern Western white man. In general, any artifacts and edifices that are not obvious in their purpose are labeled "ritualistic. Since the bulk of evidence of ancient sites studied are in graves or in stone, it assigns an inordinate proportion of the evidence to a very small aspect of the lives and cultures being studied. Just imagine if our own society were being studied based on what is on our own graves. It would be totally inadequate and lead to wrong conclusions. Since the interpretations cannot really be tested, it is not clear in my mind that archaeology quite lives up to the meaning of "science."
2. Astronomy suffers from many untestable interpretations/hypotheses, as does cosmology. It does not help, of course, that NASA has been de-funded to the extent it has.
3. Theoretical physics has gotten stuck in what may be a dead end. No major tangible developments have occurred in physics since about 1970, the first time its gone a quarter century with such a drought since the late 1700s. What is wrong or where (if at all) they have gone wrong is debatable and currently unknowable. Physics is almost paralyzed with string theory and quantum theory and seems to not have any way forward. With the cost of testing their hypotheses and theories increasingly going through the roof, with the Higgs-Boson they may have reached the dollar limit of what can be tested. And THAT may be beyond, also. In the meantime string theory has no single definite testable definition, but scores of them. Like opinions and orifices, every physicist has his own interpretation of it all.
Some of these, for me, are frustrating to watch. I myself do not have the answers they seek, but increasingly it seems neither do they. In those fields in particular one gets the impression they've gone down a wrong path and don't know it yet.
So, we can make all sorts of definitions of what science wants to be and sometimes claims to be, but the term "knowledge" in any definition of science is asserting something that only sometimes exists.
My viewpoint is colored by my experiences in engineering, where knowledge is real and tangible and repeatable. Repeatable is what is really meant by "predictions" in Wiki's and your definitions, and I kept "predictions" in, because repeatability is foremost in science. However, in, say, computer models of frontier science, the models of necessity must have some uncertainty, because of the limits/inadequacies of what we understand (and misunderstand). I.e., frontier science models end up with assumptions that enlarge the uncertainty of the output to unscientific (untestable/unrepeatable) levels. The degree of confidence in frontier science models should be - but often isn't - low.
So, the definition should not necessarily include the word "knowledge," since some sciences are going forward with untested (and perhaps untestable) ideas being front and center stage. They have, perhaps, stretched the definition of "science" a bit beyond what science might be in a perfect world.
So, science, including Wikipedia's understanding of it, may be being wrapped in a perfect white mantle that isn't very real world. And that would defeat the whole premise.