First
Analog Worms | Homepage | 03.05.07 - 1:31 pm | #

hmmm,...the definition I have come to like goes something like this:

Science is the system man has devised as he has learned how to determine how various natural observations relate to each other. i.e. As we encounter gaps in human knowledge of the natural world, Science provides a means to determine if a gap is a legitimate disassociation or if some new knowledge is needed to fill the gap.....

Hence evolutionist's complain about "the God of the Gaps" without considering their issues regarding their own "evolution in the gaps"

I wonder what the good professor will come up with........
szook | 03.05.07 - 1:36 pm | #

Vox: Where is Mogambo?
Bob Ramar | 03.05.07 - 1:37 pm | #

In a bunker with an RPG. I just haven't been following economics all that closely of late.
VD | 03.05.07 - 1:41 pm | #

Is that "Role Playing Game" or "Rocket Propelled Grenade"?
JustMakingItUp | 03.05.07 - 1:56 pm | #

I don't think he will answer.
nienna | 03.05.07 - 2:03 pm | #

An open Letter to Vox day:

Please provide me with your definition of Southern Bapist, since there are so many of them out there. Please note this has nothing to do with Catholocism or Mary worship.

Thank you
Equus Pallidus
equus pallidus | Homepage | 03.05.07 - 2:19 pm | #

Dear Pale Horse,

A Southern Baptist is an individual who is a member of a Christian church that belongs to the Southern Baptist Convention.

I hope this helps. Please do convey my regards to Pope Benny when you next see him.

Best,
Vox Day

PS - don't you hate "Best,"? Best what?
VD | 03.05.07 - 2:24 pm | #

this has nothing to do with any defense of ID, creationism or any of the presumably anti-scientific bete noirs that offend your professional sensibilities as a biologist.

Asking the man to be a witness for his own prosecution huh? [Think Dawkins would agree with his definition?]
Salt | 03.05.07 - 2:32 pm | #

I doubt he's even given it much thought, so this will have him sleepless for awhile as he struggles to come up with an airtight definition.

Ha!
JCclimber | Homepage | 03.05.07 - 2:34 pm | #

Actually, I was hoping to compare their definitions... I have more contacts at Oxford than my alma mater these days.

Although it would make for a better read if they're all afraid to answer. But Dawkins, at least, won't be.
VD | 03.05.07 - 2:35 pm | #

And in fairness, I'm not targeting Pharyngula here, or even Dawkins for that matter. I just believe that a reasonable definition of science is required to have an intelligent discussion of the subject.

I mean, I can simply go with the OED and have done with it, but that's less interesting.
VD | 03.05.07 - 2:36 pm | #

His nickname/blog name suggest he is still trying to grow a spine, so no, he wont answer.
trk | 03.05.07 - 2:39 pm | #

No problem. Scientists who are afraid to define science make for much better humor than any definition they could possibly produce, however absurd.
VD | 03.05.07 - 2:49 pm | #

Vox answered my question, and I was pretty sure he would. PZ won't answer Vox's question is my best guess, not because he is afraid to, but he looks down his nose and has so much hate for the defenders of faith, he cannot engage in any sort of civil debate, which he probably thinks that Vox is trying to set him up.

Oh, Pope Benny says Hey, Vox.
equus pallidus | Homepage | 03.05.07 - 2:49 pm | #

Science - sci·ence (sī'əns) n. - The organized attempt to disprove the existence of God so we can do whatever we want without feeling bad about it.
Alfonz | 03.05.07 - 3:00 pm | #

“They challenge science to prove the existence of God. But must we really light a candle to see the sun?”

Werner von Braun
Claymore | 03.05.07 - 3:08 pm | #

Interesting strategy, Vox.

It would be even more interesting in the unlikely event you could get Dawkins to answer that question.
Doc Brown | 03.05.07 - 3:26 pm | #

What an obsequious letter, VD. You referred to Prof. Myers by his preferred methods of address, instead of Mr. Myers, Pharyngurl, or Atheidiot; you were not sarcastic, aggressive or wholly dismissive of the man's intellect.

Could this be an ominous indication that a genuinely serious discourse, which is determined to clarify and articulate the nature of Truth, has no place for such things, or is this merely a temporary bout of frail insecurity on your part?
Pretty Lady | Homepage | 03.05.07 - 3:30 pm | #

And in fairness, I'm not targeting Pharyngula here, or even Dawkins for that matter. I just believe that a reasonable definition of science is required to have an intelligent discussion of the subject.

I mean, I can simply go with the OED and have done with it, but that's less interesting.
VD | 03.05.07 - 2:36 pm | #

-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------
Isn't that the first rule of argument: to define the terms used?
nienna | 03.05.07 - 3:34 pm | #

You should have asked him how he squares his definition of science (assuming he provides one) with his worship of that ideologue Stephen Jay Gould. Not so concerned with a value-neutral search for truth, what?
Andy Wooster | 03.05.07 - 3:44 pm | #

Pharyngula?

Is this guy related to Blackula?
cheddarman | Homepage | 03.05.07 - 4:30 pm | #

is this merely a temporary bout of frail insecurity on your part?

No, merely the manners appropriate for making a request of someone.
VD | 03.05.07 - 5:03 pm | #

Yes, dear, I try to follow these sorts of manners habitually--spineless, self-negating pussy that I am. One never knows when one is actually going to be forced to work with someone.
Pretty Lady | Homepage | 03.05.07 - 5:46 pm | #

So, you contantly insinuate his effeminacy, you call him poopyhead a couple of dozen times, and you say "Please, Mr. Poopyhead" one time, and you think he's going to be reasonably civil?

I think that ship, with all it's sheep onboard, might have sailed, VD.
Clay | 03.05.07 - 5:50 pm | #

Clay, my dear Clay, you simply don't understand how I operate at all. Don't you understand that I am a literal, card-carrying Expert? Like cisbio earlier today, you are missing the point entirely.

It doesn't matter what happens, the results are desirable. Of course, I didn't expect him to take the bolder and wiser course of action, but then, one must always allow for the possibility.

And, in the interest of fair play, one must always grant the option.
VD | 03.05.07 - 6:06 pm | #

I didn't expect him to take the bolder and wiser course of action, but then, one must always allow for the possibility.

Didn't instead of don't? Does this mean you got some sort of response?
Giraffe | Homepage | 03.05.07 - 6:24 pm | #

When a ship with which you might peaceably trade with opens fire upon you as its first communication, it's acceptable to return fire. Sucks for the other ship if you have better armor and armament. When you approach said ship and wish to trade, you don't open fire to communicate your intention.
Tallen | 03.05.07 - 6:46 pm | #

Didn't instead of don't?

Talking about my expectations prior to writing the email, ergo past tense. But "don't" also applies.
VD | 03.05.07 - 7:08 pm | #

I think science should be defined as it has been historically defined & understood. An honest individual interested in open discourse does not redefine words commonly understood to have another meaning for the sake of promoting his agenda. We live in a time in which this is all too unremarkable.
Wes | Homepage | 03.05.07 - 7:40 pm | #

Science is the art of acquiring and spending money ostensibly, but not necessarily, for the purpose of discovering and describing the organization and structure of the physical universe. (Applicants must be egotistical and like to travel).

That's how it appeared to me over a period of 21 years in the physics Department of the University of Arizona. (I am not now, nor have I ever been a PhD or a professor).
Art | 03.05.07 - 7:53 pm | #

Art, so science is essentially begging from thieves?
Joshua | Homepage | 03.05.07 - 8:07 pm | #

Actually, it's more like a con. And the marks include government thieves and private thieves and con men alike. Conning the cons, so to speak.
Art | 03.05.07 - 8:20 pm | #

Science: The systematic use of obersvations by the senses to study the physical universe.

(That's what my science teachers drilled into us at the Christian school I attended. Seems incomplete, somehow.)


jml1911a1 | Homepage | 03.05.07 - 9:46 pm | #

You don't actually expect a response, do you?
Tom B | Homepage | 03.05.07 - 10:27 pm | #

Science: the formal epistemology granted a great deal of dignity in our society. Specifically, science is ________.

Fill in the blank with whatever epistemological stance you want to dignify.

That's all anyone can do.
MikeWC | Homepage | 03.05.07 - 10:32 pm | #

This is the dawning of the "post-scientific" age. It's a new day, kids.
Pablo | Homepage | 03.05.07 - 10:48 pm | #

Science: The systematic use of obersvations by the senses to study the physical universe.

(That's what my science teachers drilled into us at the Christian school I attended. Seems incomplete, somehow.)

Because it leaves out the part about creating explanatory theorems and hypothesis. Science consists of both positing explanations (hypothesis and theories) and empirical observations.
Larry | 03.05.07 - 11:11 pm | #

Can anybody prove scientifically that all the breakthroughs that have lead to the explosion of technology in the last 200 years came strictly from the brainpower of humans without input from extra-human realms transmitted to the conciousness of particularly situated human beings at crisis points in history?

For example, was Newton smarter than everybody else or was he helped?
.
Bone Head | 03.06.07 - 12:04 am | #

If you're looking ONLY for the definition of Science (and not Scientific enquiry or the Scientific method, etc.), then I think the American Heritage Science Dictionary's definition is pretty good;

"The investigation of natural phenomena through observation, theoretical explanation, and experimentation, or the knowledge produced by such investigation."

If you want a definition of, say, the Scientific method, well then that's something else. Science is what IS, while the Scientific Method is the tool/methodologies currently used to get there.
Hacker | Homepage | 03.06.07 - 1:01 am | #

Hacker? Your definition provided disagrees with your summation. You might want to update one or the other.

For 'science' to be what 'is' then the definition would have to have referred to outcomes -- not the act of looking for them.
John Quincy Public | 03.06.07 - 1:59 am | #

And the outcome is only what "is" if the methodology is correct as well as the assumptions that underly the experiment.

This is a point often overlooked.
When an experiment is designed it will be based on some assumptions and will be designed, or attempted to be designed, in a way that you are certain that you are measuring what you think you are measuring. It is rather difficult to eliminate, or account for, all possible affects on the outcome.

To assume a perfect experiment that can give the perfect outcome and therefore tell you what "is" is to assume a perfect scientist. One would have to be nearly all knowing to achieve the perfect result.

Of course some scientists and a far larger number of non-scientists seem to think that science has achieved this exalted level.
TL_ | 03.06.07 - 2:13 am | #

JQP - You're correct, I was sloppy. My "what IS" referred to what was being asked for (i.e. the definition of science) - I was trying to keep that separate from the tools used to practice it.

TL_ - Agreed - that's part of the Scientific method - repeatability of experiments by other testers in order to repeat (or refute) a result...
Hacker | Homepage | 03.06.07 - 3:00 am | #

Hacker: Fair enough. Though I fail to see how your definition of 'science' differs from the definition of the 'scientific method'.

Note that I take no issue with that.
John Quincy Public | 03.06.07 - 3:18 am | #

VERY provisional .....

"Scientia" in- the original Latin word just means knowledge.

Science is the process of acquiring that (extra) knowledge, and organising it in a coherent, logical, ordered form, accessible (in theory) to all. This last can be difficult, because of the depths of specialisation that we have now got to.

There is a famous statement by Poincare - a mathematical contemporary of Einstein et al: "Science is built of facts, the way a house is made of bricks, but a random accumulation of facts is not science, any more than a pile of bricks is a house."
Which should give people an idea or two.

Practice: Science rests on a tripod of theory (ideas), observation and experiment. Ideas emerge, or a re discussed, or someone has a brain-wave, and then, if it seems that the idea might have merit ... tests for the idea (technically "an hypothesis" at this point) are devised, and experiments are performed, and observations made as to the outcome.
A huge number of hypotheses fail right there, because the tests clearly show that the idea was wrong.
However, if the tests are passed, it doesn't "prove" the hypothesis "right" or "true" or "valid" - it just shows that so far, so good .....
What then happens is that other tests are made, often by other people, to validate what is going on.
Then it gets interesting.
More work is done, and if the idea is still unfalsified, it may become a provisional small theory.

A theory is NEVER (strictly speaking) "Proven" - this is where the physical sciences differ from Mathematics, where theorems can be proven, and remain, thereafter, immutable.
So, as an example, Newtonian Gravitation remains "true" and valid for all normal uses, UNLESS ....
you are very close to a deep gravity-well, or travelling at velocities greater than 0.1%C ( ~=3*10^5m/sec) at which point you have to use Einstein's relativistic version. But Newton wasn't "wrong" - in all normal cases you don't have to bother with the relativistic "bits", and at low speeds/low gravities, the Einsteinian equations reduce to Newton’s.

This is important: Any new explanation for any set of observed phenomena must take account of all previous observations. A classic example of this is the "big bang". Any new theory must be able to accept and give a coherent, consistent explanation that includes the 3-degrees-Kelvin background radiation, for instance.

A counter-example was the revolution in Geology during the late 1950's-early 60's which produced Plate Tectonics.
Everyone could see that Wegener had a point about the continental jigsaw-fits, but there was no theory or mechanism to explain it. The moment the patterns shown in the base rocks either side of the mid-Atlantic spreading ridge became obvious, particularly with the fossilised magnetic reversals in the rocks, it became clear (VERY quickly) what was going on. A new mechanism ( movement of the mantle, carrying the lighter crust-rocks on top with it) fitted everything together, and gave a coherent explanation for many things: subduction zones and their associated earthquakes, vulcanism is specific areas, etc ......

The other vital point, which I have deliberately left until last, is something that has a horrible name, because no-one has yet come up with a better one:
Metaphysical Naturalism.
Science assumes, indeed MUST assume, that only natural forces are at work, and that there are no special cases or exceptions.
There is the assumption of spatial and temporal uniformity of "the rules", and that these are the only (i.e. Natural) forces at work.

Take it away people!
This is the most powerful tool for examining the universe that has been developed.
Don't knock it!

A last thought.
"Technology" is something else entirely, even though a lot of engineering requires a really good scientific grounding.
A scientific discovery may be turned into an engineering product very quickly - think of the development of Radar 1937-45, or it may take a very long time - current X-ray telescopes depend on work done on (would you believe) crustacean sight, some of which is over a century old.
Or the laser, which was a laboratory curiosity, used a lot by scientists for about 15-20 years, and THEN suddenly became a very useful industrial tool.
G. Tingey | 03.06.07 - 4:24 am | #

Science assumes, indeed MUST assume

And that's where you fail. It was a fine treatise of history until that point.

Science, by definition, assumes nothing. It is either reproducible or it is not. That is how one separates 'truth' from Alchemy. The whole point of the scientific method in genesis. So to speak.
John Quincy Public | 03.06.07 - 5:53 am | #

Metaphysical Naturalism.
Science assumes, indeed MUST assume, that only natural forces are at work, and that there are no special cases or exceptions.
There is the assumption of spatial and temporal uniformity of "the rules", and that these are the only (i.e. Natural) forces at work.

Science doesn't require metaphysical naturalism, at most you might make an argument for methodological naturalism. Requiring metaphysical naturalism is sciencism, not science.
Larry | 03.06.07 - 8:18 am | #

Science assumes, indeed MUST assume, that only natural forces are at work, and that there are no special cases or exceptions.

G. Tingey, my last was directed to you.
Starwind | 03.06.07 - 9:20 am | #

Repeatability is the "trick" - except it isn't a trick.

Someone else must be able to do the same, somwhere else, under similar conditions.
And/or the original reporter can do it again, in front of witnesses (and these days, with the video-cameras rolling, if it is an exceptional claim)

"John Quincy Public, is wrong, for a very understandable reason.

You must assume something.
Even Euclid did that - it turned out that assumption 5 (the parllel postulate) wasn't necessary, but the other 4 were ok.

But the VITAL assumption of science is not JUST reproducability, and consistency, but that it is naturalistic.

"Starwind's" question is a good one.
It is always difficult to judge, but ...
Usually the reproducability requirement will rule out un-natural/supernatural causes.

So far, every time, careful examination, and otheres reproducing (or not) other people's work has always (eventually) come up with a satisfactory answer.
This includes uncovering the admittedly rare cases of fraud, or even of honest mistakes - the latter case'e best recent example being "polywater".

The jury is still out on "Cold Fusion", though the majority opinion is that it was caused by impurities in the apparatus-mix. This is one reason why work is still going on into the subject, because it isn't fully explained or understood, or debunked yet, and it IS important to make sure.

And, of course, there are, these days some VERY sensitive bits of kit for detecting changes in the environment and natural forces acting. But, you have to use the right tools for the job, and it is horribly easy to miss something - which is why it ain't easy, or as easy as some people like to think.

Does that help?
G. Tingey | 03.06.07 - 10:51 am | #

G. Tingey:

Usually the reproducability requirement will rule out un-natural/supernatural causes.

That last was me (sigh).
Starwind | 03.06.07 - 11:35 am | #

OK string theory is a lot of handwaving, supported by some good math - which may or may not be applicable.
We're going to find out quite soon (next 20 years) whether this is a valis theory, or a dead-end. My personal money is that it's a bust. But science has a lot of this, it's just that afterwards, they get forgotten, because a better model has come along.

You can't reproduce the big bang - but you can get conditons in labs back to quite close, and as the enrgy available goes up, closer (we'll never actually get there, of course, any more than you can get to -273.16 C.
And, unlike strings, all the other eveidence supports it.
Any new theory would have to correctly accomodate all the known data we have collected.

The last, is in theory do-able, but no-ones tried it yet, mainly because there are several contesting ideas as to how that first, vital leg-up occurred.
I would gues that sometime in the next 100 years, experiments will be done, but not yet.
Like the big bang - where once we are padt the first tenth of a second, and maybe even less, we can account for all th events, for life, once running the rules are known, though I'm aware that some readers refuse to believe this, threough either prejudice, or ignorance.

What do you mean by "the life itself" in organisms?
Cloning in animals is the production of an identical twin. In plants it is taking a cutting.

For definitions of "life" I suggest you try a good scholl textbook for between 13-18 year olds. There are certain criteria which life must satisfy. It was only relatively recently, for instance, that viruses were agreed to be alive, even though they are 100% parasitic, and cannot exist without other pre-exiasting life to feed on.
G. Tingey | 03.06.07 - 1:35 pm | #

I think the best definition I ever read was:

Science: the art and craft of finding out, in an organized manner, how things work.

But the VITAL assumption of science is not JUST reproducability, and consistency, but that it is naturalistic.

Consistency? String theory is consistent. Classical physics is not.
The Big Bang and Macroevolution have yet to be shown to be reproducible. And math is abstract; not naturalistic. Which just makes your trying to extend the term 'postulate' as used in math to experimental science humorous.

And then you bodger up the necessity of the 5th postulate. Without it there is no Euclidian geometry. For even more abstract kinds of geometry it is not needed; but that is hardly the same thing.

But just for fun I'll grant your definition anyways. So then if a vast abstraction like math is naturalistic so then is religion. And if consistency is a goal then certainly the explanation of the beginnings of everything under a GUT already exists -- so name 'God Unified Theory'. And if reproducibility is an issue then we merely need look at the correct historiography and prophecy in the Bible.

Therefore, by your definition, Christianity is not only scientific but indeed a more consistent and thus preferable theory.

You really need to think on this more.
John Quincy Public | 03.06.07 - 5:28 pm | #

G. Tingey:

OK string theory is a lot of handwaving, supported by some good math - which may or may not be applicable. ... But science has a lot of this, it's just that afterwards, they get forgotten, because a better model has come along.

You can't reproduce the big bang - but you can get conditons in labs back to quite close, and as the enrgy available goes up, closer (we'll never actually get there, of course, any more than you can get to -273.16 C.

Testing [the reproducibility of that "once in 500,000,000 years" event that you assert resulted in the 'origin of life'], is in theory do-able, but no-ones tried it yet, mainly because there are several contesting ideas as to how that first, vital leg-up occurred.

It was only relatively recently, for instance, that viruses were agreed to be alive, even though they are 100% parasitic, and cannot exist without other pre-exiasting life to feed on.

I bow to your greatness, Starwind. Well argued.
John Quincy Public | 03.06.07 - 6:37 pm | #

John Quincy Public, Wow. Thank you for your very kind compliment. (I do believe I'm actually blushing)
Starwind | 03.06.07 - 7:01 pm | #

Just because something is not reproducable does not mean it isn't real, only that the scientific method can't be applied to it.

If someone walks on water and many people see it is it real or not?

If that somebody then dies it will not be able to be reproduced until someone else comes along who can do it.

Now you probably should not go around saying that it is possible to walk on water because this event may have been a fraud of some kind, but you also can't say that it is impossible because their is no reproducable test.

Scientific method can't be applied but it may be true that walking on water is possible.

Science is not truth but, rather, a tool for investigating truth.

It is also a tool that has only developed methods for working in the physical realm. So it is really not possible to apply it to the metaphysical/spirit realm.
TL_ | 03.06.07 - 11:32 pm | #

When you said "Please be assured that this has nothing to do with... any of the presumably anti-scientific bete noirs that offend your professional sensibilities", did you not know you were writing a column called "The Case Against Science" for WorldNetDaily, or were you just flat out lying?
merkur | 03.07.07 - 3:46 am | #

did you not know you were writing a column called "The Case Against Science" for WorldNetDaily, or were you just flat out lying?

Do you not know how to read a dateline? He wrote the column before he asked Myers for a definition of science.
Larry | 03.07.07 - 10:00 am | #

college loan student texas college loan student texas college loan student texas. loan refinancing washington loan refinancing washington loan refinancing washington.
porti | Homepage | 08.20.07 - 8:05 pm | #

luxury watches
replica chanel
replice omega
luxury watches | Homepage | 11.03.09 - 10:56 pm | #

Replica watches
louis vuitton handbags
rolex watch
rolex watches | Homepage | 11.03.09 - 10:56 pm | #

Quality replica watches
Swiss replica watches
Rolex replica watches
watches | Homepage | 12.10.09 - 10:57 pm | #