Yes, as I mentioned in my original post, the meaning of “science” has shifted over the centuries and Thomas Aquinas even called theology “The Queen of the Sciences” because it was a philosophical framework which ordered and explained all knowledge. This is why in the “five points of science” listed above (e.g., from the Berkeley website), science is distinguished not only by being a “systematic and logical” study of a topic but something from which you can generate “expectations” (predictions for how an event in nature will go in the future) and then see whether it holds true (it is testable or falsifiable). A particular miracle is unpredictable (not repeatable) and is unfalsifiable so hence outside the scope of scientific study. As I see it.
Important point 1: Yes, science means knowledge, and it never changes. Human minds may change, which makes them say different things at different times. The method is only a vehicle to get to the end. It’s the same method that is used in any human activity. The method has 2 basic components: Induction (putting in information or data) and Deduction (or conclusion), after analysis, observation, etc… using human senses). For instance, Day 1: Small animal, small ears, bushy tail. Day 2: Small animal, small ears, bushy tail. Day 1000: Small animal, small ears, busy tail. Deduction or conclusion: A squirrel! And people must agree on the term for it to be a communication tool. Even in language, sometimes one has to choose intelligeable words that make sense, that has some logic, and can communicate some truth to others. How many times one writes a letter or a contract and changes the words, before getting to the final version?
Important point 2: Science and faith belong to completely 2 different worlds. Science is in the materialistic world while faith is in the immaterial or spiritual realm. Both are created and ruled by their creator, namely God. Science has no effect whatsoever on spiritual matters. Science is NOT needed to prove God who is self-evident! His creation declares His Glory. Everything exists because God created all. God does NOT exist because he is NOT created. Instead, God IS. He told Moses His name. (Exodus 3:14)!
God created mankind and equipped him with some intelligence, which mankind uses to study and know (science) EVERYTHING He created. EVERY HUMAN BEING IS A SCIENTIST if he studies! It all depends on each one’s field of interest. - Enough of those who think they are some kinds of “special” human beings because they call themselves “scientists”. - TO KNOW GOD IS THE SUPERIOR KNOWLEDGE! The more you know the Creator, the more you know the creature!
Do you mean external reality never changes in the sense of uniformitarianism? Because the method of science may be consistent but its findings or what we refer to as scientific knowledge does change. We don’t need to go beyond Newton’s Law of universal gravitation and the orbit of Mercury to make this point.
Be ye humble. Like God in Christ Jesus, and God in science.
Science is defined by two methodological ideals which we shall name honesty and objectivity.
Honesty: In this methodological ideal the scientist insists on testing hypotheses instead of seeking to prove conclusions by whatever evidence they can find. This is different than the vast majority of human activities like politics, lawyers, preachers, and salesmen. What these people do is notoriously dishonest because their arguments only tell one side of the story – what they want you to hear in order to convince you of something – in order to sell you something. This is the methodology of rhetoric quite different from that of science. It is an important part of human civilization, but it does not belong in science.
Objectivity: In this methodological idea the scientist presents its findings in written procedures that anyone can follow to get the same result regardless of what one wants or believes. This is different than the the vast majority of activities like sports, business, marriage/love, and religion. These sorts of activities require you to believe before you can expect its procedures to work. It is not unreasonable because life does not consist of objective observation – it requires subjective participation where what you want is important. But it has no place in science.
Well… there are both experimental and theoretical sciences. But before something can be called fact it must be demonstrated with a procedure others can follow to get the same result.
Well… you might have a hard time telling us what those supposed rules are. Same as trying to tell us what methods it consists of. Science is not quite a paint by the numbers sort of activity. This is why I phrased the above in terms of methodological ideals. Ideals are things we strive for rather than a set of instructions.
Wrong. Intuition certainly does has a place in science. Its role is limited to the beginning of the process and is not a part of the end. In the physical sciences we call it scientific visualization. We try to visualize what cannot be visual because we seek inspiration for our investigations.
99.99% correct. It does assume that the evidence isn’t lying to us – that it is not an elaborate deception by supernatural entities (i.e. beings whose interference cannot be detected).
Science is limited by its methodological ideals. In order to subject its hypotheses to testing, the claims of science must be limited to what can be tested – i.e. things which are measurable. And in order to make written procedures others can follow to get the same result, the claims of science must be limited to what is repeatable.
Mathematics and measurement for starters. And accurately reporting what the evidence consists of.
Sure, there is more to it than that, and sure, some studies are qualitative rather than quantitative, but if your theory requires one plus one to equal three, or error bars of just ±5% to justify a claim that hundreds of thousands of other measurements are all consistently out by six orders of magnitude, or rock formations to be not fractured when in reality they are, then your theory is wrong.
I think you’re missing the point here. Yes, intuition has its place, but the point is that some scientific discoveries fly in the face of what you would expect from “common sense” and intuition alone. Look at quantum mechanics for starters. Or the fact that more entropy means more information – which is the exact opposite of what most people who have never studied the subject properly expect.
In fact this is the exact point that Darwin was trying to make when he described the evolution of the eye as “absurd in the highest possible degree.” He was making the point that common sense and intuition are not a reliable guide to what is “absurd in the highest possible degree” and what isn’t.
When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei , as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science.
Although I have disparaged human intuition in the past, it is still an important part of a scientist’s toolkit. After all, we have to decide to do one thing over another at some point, and that is often where intuition comes in.
As a more general statement, I would like to add my own thoughts on what science is. Science is what scientists do (best said while impersonating Ze Frank).
This is the most subjective and probably worst definition of science in this thread, but I still think it is an important one. As a general rule, experienced scientists have a very sensitive nose for good science. There are exceptions, of course, but scientists are no different than any other profession. A good baseball scout can quickly pick out talented players. A good horse breeder knows a strong runner when they see one. A good doctor can sense a health problem where others would not see one. Scientists are the same, at least the good ones. This is why the scientific consensus holds weight, and why we look to scientists to guide the future direction of discovery and research.
You mean mathematics and measurement have rules – and science certainly should follow those rules when it uses mathematics and measurement. Doesn’t that apply to anything where you use mathematics and measurement whether it is science or not?
That is true.
I think that claim is problematic (note that the link there is not to some authoritative source but to another Biologos discussion and thus to someone’s opinion). It might be true in some restricted sense of the word “information.” It certainly isn’t true in information theory and data science.
Of course it should. I’m not claiming otherwise. Besides, that’s what I mean when I say “science has rules.” Mathematics and measurement have rules. Science relies on mathematics and measurement. Therefore science has rules.
That’s news to me. Could you perhaps explain why it isn’t true in information theory and data science? In particular, could you explain specifically what is wrong with his claim that entropy == information is the whole point of Shannon’s classic 1948 paper?
Interesting paper. It defines an entropy of the information source and shows how the required information capacity of the transmission of information must be at least as great as this entropy of the information source.
I think the problem I was running into when I looked into the topic before reading this paper was the many different ways the concept of entropy has been adapted for use in information theory. None of these adaptations are much related to the concept of entropy in physics where my expertise lies. So I kept seeing the opposite claim probably because it was talking about the entropy of the transmission method rather than the entropy of information source.
Now I know that much more about information theory and will be able to make this distinction when the topic is raised. Thanks.
the naivety of such a statement is amusing. one could think you haven’t done science yet as the testing of a hypothesis automatically creates bias. A lot of people are eager to prove their hypothesis correct as it gives you fame and access to money. There are numerous scandals that you should be aware of, the recent one of faking gels on Alzheimers diagnostics being one of them. The issue with science that people do not understand is that you cannot prove things right even by having repeatable results, as a single experiment can prove you wrong. This is why I teach people to try their best to prove their hypothesis wrong, as that is the only proof that science can obtain and show that you failed in doing so.
Remember that science is done by humans. Do not assume they are a better class of people because they get paid from the magic money tree
But that’s why science requires such things as peer review and reproducibility. For every scientist who is eager to prove their own hypothesis correct there are other scientists who are just as eager to prove it wrong. After all, they themselves may be competing against it for a Nobel Prize.
Really?
If you could prove something supported by repeatable results wrong with a single experiment, you would be granting a free pass to astrology, homeopathy, water divining, reading tea leaves, and tobacco companies claiming that smoking is good for you.
Falsification needs to be reproducible too. Especially when the theory being falsified has a lot of data supporting it. Or has real-world commercial and practical applications. Or has a lot of other science that depends on it.
Yes, but remember that science is done by a lot of humans. With many eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.
The key questions to ask here about any scientific theory or question are these:
- Is there a large amount of evidence, and a large amount of studies supporting it?
- Is the consensus among subject matter experts clear?
- Does it have any practical or commercial applications?
- Are there other scientific theories that depend on it?
If the answer to either (1) or (2) is “yes,” then you may occasionally be able to demonstrate some sort of systemic bias if the subject is politically contentious, though you need to be careful as your own challenge needs to be based on honest reporting and honest interpretation of accurate information, and needs to be consistent with the aspects of science that you are not challenging. But if the answer to either (3) or (4) is “yes,” then trying to challenge it is getting into crackpot territory.
The incomprehension of the English language shown by your comment is amusing. One would think you haven’t ever looked up the word “ideal” or used it in a sentence. People fail to live up to all kinds of ideals and it doesn’t change the fact that many others are determined to defend those ideals by pointing out such failures as contemptable. Do you just use failures as an excuse to trash various ideals of human civilization so you can pursue ambitions and desires at the expense of others? It makes me wonder if the snake fascination I see in so many people with the failures of people to live up to ideals is because they are building of their own case of excuses to do as they please. I am reminded of the TV show House which I have been watching where the main character behaves so contemptible all the time, apparently thinking his talents for diagnosis gives Him the right. Definite God complex.
Science is not about proof. Science is about what is reasonable. If a procedure gives the same results a thousand times then it is only reasonable to expect the same results when you do it again. Thus it is reasonable to expect the sun to rise and the road/bridges/floors you use every day to continue to support you. It is not proof. But knowledge isn’t based on proof, it is based on the everyday experience of what is reliable.
That we try is what the word “ideal” means.
Remember that you are just as human. Do not assume you are a better class of person just because you can throw out wild unjustified accusations at other people. And I definitely know that religious people, Christians included, are human. Have you overcome the foolishness that Christians are a better class of people just because they wear that label?
But yes I definitely think the people who fight for ideals ARE a better class of people. I think this includes many scientists as a better example of faith than we see in most religious people. But the ideals of science are hardly the only ideals people defend to make the world a better place. I don’t even think they are the most important ones. Love, justice, freedom, and service are few of those which I think are worth defending. And so I hardly think scientists are the only ones or even the most important.
What people do you teach? Isn’t it usually scientists who form hypotheses? Are you saying that you teach scientists?
Sounds like I upset the Gods 
I do indeed. The point of trying to falsify your own results is to demonstrate critical thinking by doing controls controls controls. The acceptance of data because they fit your narrative is far too common and the pressure to deliver expected results has become frightening, combined with the lack of scepticism when it comes to machine generated data. Thus Popper is a good reminder about hypothesis and proof. The good thing is that in your PhD you proven your hypothesis wrong is not a failure but a success. Even more important, it is mainly the failures from which we learn. The scientific literature is unfortunately far to biased as rarely people want to publish results that did not meet the expectation.
Where do you teach scientists? Is this an advanced class in some university?
I sure wish the moderators would find Karl Giberson’s excellent article on the nature of science.
Scientists are trained to be skeptics. And they work knowing that at any time another scientist could falsify their work in any number of ways.
I don’t think so. But then I am not willing to give publications of that sort the name of science. Besides there are plenty of others ready willing and able to disprove your hypotheses if you don’t do it first. That how they take the creds right out from under you.
To be sure there is plenty of pseudo-science going on where people with scientific training are paid to produce publications with the requested results. We see plenty of this in creationism but I think there are plenty of that sort of thing on the other end of the political/philosophical spectrum also.
With hundreds or thousands of students looking for PHDs in the same area, trying to reproduce your results in order to understand the science and look for more research opportunities, bias like that doesn’t work for very long.
New rules: now in addition to doing your own (Google) research, everyone must also do their own peer review which they must publish on their own blog, podcast or at least Facebook page. 
Bwahahaha! As a creationist once said, “Someone has got to stand up to these experts!”
There is a difference between science as a method and the story or body of knowledge constructed with science. The story (Big Bang, evolution, etc.) is just that–a story, and a story that could and likely will change as new evidence comes in and challenges older theories. What makes the scientific story different from any other story (think of the creation myths from around the world) is that it is constructed based on a method that tests the story against evidence through experimentation and repeated observations. When people (whether religious believers or post-modernists) say that science is just another narrative (or more annoyingly, just another religion), I always point out that science is really the method used to arrive at the story not the story itself. What scientists need to hold on to is not any particular theory or hypothesis, but the tradition of testing ideas against evidence. Science of course is not the only way to arrive at truth and it is not infallible, but it does have a very good track record when it comes to understanding the natural world.