Re: PSEUDO-SCIENCE

[Robert A Cohen <bbq@ESU.EDU>]

On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Jack Uretsky wrote:

>         Definitions are arbitrary.  Tell me your definition of "science"
> and I'll know what YOU mean whenever you use the term (well, more or less,
> "know").  Although people do occasionally go to war over definitions, I
> don't consider that to be a worthwhile enterprise.
>         The one question that I think is fair is whether a particular
> definition is useful; the answer depends on the context in which the
> definition is used.
>         I have not seen, so far in this discussion, any benefit from
> defining who is, or is not, a "scientist".  Have I missed something?

You are right that I haven't defined science.  I kind of like the
statement put out by the APS committee myself.  Regardless, my point is
that the problem with these discussions is that:

(a) if the definition tries to restrict science to observation, prediction
AND testing, then someone will attack it as being too narrow, citing
either
    (i) other fields that have particular attributes of science (i.e., are
LIKE science) or
    (ii) people in a "accepted" scientific field (like physics) who limit
themselves to only certain aspects of the science (like experimental
design, theory, simulations, etc.)

(b) if the definition tries to broaden science to EITHER observation,
prediction OR testing (as in Greg Kifer's definition below), then someone
will attack it as being too broad, citing studies that are LIKE science
but are not in "accepted" scientific fields (like astrology).

Speaking of definitions, I searched through the archives and couldn't
really identify what made the APS definition so terrible.  I'd appreciate
some insight, particularly given what I've written above.

> > On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Greg Kifer wrote:
> >
> > > It seems that much of the discussion on this thread has been about
> > > justifying the apellation "science" in many instances, but (unless I
> > > missed it) not much has been said about what science IS.  At its most
> > > democratic I propose to define science as any systematic observation of
> > > a phenomenon.  Perhaps as pscyhology and other "soft" sciences have
> > > attempted to standardize nomenclature and and derive quantitative
> > > representations for their observations they have become sciences (?)
> > > Just a thought.

----------------------------------------------------------
| Robert Cohen               Department of Physics       |
|                            East Stroudsburg University |
| bbq@esu.edu                East Stroudsburg, PA  18301 |
| http://www.esu.edu/~bbq/   (570) 422-3428              |
----------------------------------------------------------