What is science (or how do you define it?)

[adamjedgar (adam james edgar)]

@Paulm12

I like the idea you put forward of science being an umbrella term that often encapsulates different ideas but doesn’t necessarily need all of them or a 1-line definition.

The challenge is edge cases, and what frustrates me is the fact that definitions of science are often done with an agenda (like trying to exclude ID), without realizing that this can undermine the relationship of science with truth and thus trust in science.

Unfortunately what can happen is scientists, who often make poor philosophers [Einstein’s quote], start making philosophical claims about science, and don’t realize their venturing into a territory where they aren’t an expert.

I agree here Paul. It is a very difficult problem though, because one cannot deny ones personal belief structure when interpreting anything that is observed through the senses.

The dilemma for me is, what should come first, “the eyes” through which we observe, or the mechanism by which we make those observations? How can I rationally make sense of observations if I haven’t yet asked the epistemological questions of how, why and where?

maybe i am missing a step in putting the epistemology first? i do not agree that one can make the claim that the science was already there…that is a bit of a straw man argument in my opinion…we know that God was already there too but he is very different to the principles of science…God is a conscious being…science is not conscious of anything. The rules of science we create…they didn’t create themselves. We compile those rules into our little science books only when those rules largely agree with each other. Those that do not agree seem to get left out.

“Oh but the general consensus” is often thrown in at this point…yes but the general consensus starts out with “there is no God”! So anything pointing to a God wont be included. That is exactly where my problem arises. I like that TEism sort of tries to find common ground, but it does not do this by staying consistent with both sides of the dice, it rewrites the self evident interpretation of bible theology in order to try to make it fit interpretations of the world around us that largely are based on the idea there is no God! That causes huge problems for Christians and it starts with the creation account, fall of man through sin, and the very real and physical crucifixion of our saviour. If the “wages of sin” is an allegory or merely a spiritual event, how do TEists reconcile a physical torture, death, and resurrection of the messiah? (i note it is documented in the Bible that about 500 people saw him after he was raised)

My point is, my science is one that is through the eyes of a Christian who believes in the 4th commandment in Exodus 20:8-11. I read that commandment exactly as written and its quite logically written the way i read it…there is no personal interpretation in my view there.