What is science?

[kyle forinash <kforinas@IUS.EDU>]

The second definition of science below occurs in the most recent edition of
AJP. It incorporates a key point of the philosopher Sir Karl Popper who
stated something along the line that the buisness of science is to disprove
theories, not to prove them. I think the statements below are fine as far
as they go but we should be aware that there are some crucial underlying
questions which are not treated in that definition:

1. A great deal of creativity goes into deciding exactly what to observe,
what 'knowledge' to gather. This involves speculation, hunches, guesses,
dreams possibly hallucinations, none of which appears in any definitions of
science that I know of. Surely a lifetime spent gathering data and
inventing and disproving theories about umbrellas is not science, the the
definition below would not rule that out.

2. This creativity in approach is precisely why we need to adress gender
and ethnic diveristy questions in physics: We need to start with as many
different viewpoints and ideas as possible. From there we go on to test,
elimiate wrong ideas etc. but the creative part is critical to the success
of the project.

3. Many scientists make NO observations. Einstein did no important
experimental work at all. Science requires a community of scientists; no
one scientist does it all. We need each other to look over our shoulders to
keep us honest. The social relativits got this one right: science is a
community project.

4. Historically it is seldom the case that scientists abondon a theory
based only on contrary evidence. Usually a better theory has to be found
before an old theory is considered to be overturned. In the meantime the
old theory is patched together with the knowledge that it isn't really
working all that well. Wrong theories can also often be useful because they
suggest new things to try; new approaches.

5.  How much testing should be done on a theory? Are we ever 'finished'
testing a theory? If so, how do we know enough testing has been done? Do we
test forever (in which case there are no theories that are truly accepted)?
What scientists seem to do is test ideas in bundles. We assume x,y, and z
are true in order to test theory w (we assume our knowledge of e&m is
sufficient to expect that voltmeters work in order to measure properties of
electrons, for example). We may eventually test x while assuming y,z and r
are true but for testing w we act as if x is true for the time being.

6. Along the same lines: An important missing element in the definition
below is that it is perfectly rational and acceptable to "beleive" or
accept as provisionally true, the best or most useful theory available. If
we understand the history of science we can't help but think that better
theories will emerge. Does that mean we should abandon what we are using
now, before it is eventually superseded? I don't think so.

kyle
> ------------------------------
> Date:    Tue, 17 Aug 1999 11:25:02 -0400
> From:    Lois Breur Krause <krause@CLEMSON.EDU>
> Subject: what is science?
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> i've said:
> "Any scientist who says of an observed event, that it couldn't happen
> because we don't understand how or why it could happen, is a poor
> scientist."
>
> i'd love some comments on this from y'all. :-)
>
>
> > Hi all-
> > ************************************************************
> > Hershel Neuman supplies us with the following quote from a bunch of
> > educators:
> > Science is the systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world
> > and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and
> > theories.
> >
> > The success and credibility of science is anchored in the willingness of
> > scientists to:
> >
> > (1) expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by
> > other scientists;  this requires the complete and open exchange of data,
> > procedures, and materials;
> >
> > (2) abandon or modify accepted conclusions when confronted with more
> > complete or reliable experimental evidence.
> >
> > Adherence to these principles provides a mechanism for self-correction that
> > is the foundation of the credibility of science.
> > *****************************
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

-----------------------------------------------------
  kyle forinash   812-941-2390
  kforinas@ius.edu
  Natural Science Division
  Indiana University Southeast
  New Albany, IN    47150
  http://Physics.ius.indiana.edu/
-----------------------------------------------------