What exactly is science?

[long215]

Rightfully this should be the definition of science: Science is the empirical task of exploring the planet God gave us to find all those inventions, devices, processes and cures that allow humankind to advance. Scientists, if guided by God, could cure all diseases and build fantastical gadgets and structures that could bring about peace and extend our reach far beyond our planet!

 

[Areopagite]

Rightfully this should be the definition of science: Science is the empirical task of exploring the planet God gave us to find all those inventions, devices, processes and cures that allow humankind to advance. Scientists, if guided by God, could cure all diseases and build fantastical gadgets and structures that could bring about peace and extend our reach far beyond our planet!

It’s true that physical sciences can help us build technology that aids humanity in his physical well-being, but …

In general, I don’t think this is correct. Correct me if I’m wrong.

First of all, on a lower level, science does far more than explore the planet (earth, of course) for there is such a thing as astronomy, a physical science that explores beyond our planet.

Also, G.K. Chesterton (as well as I) would question what you mean by “inventions, devices, processes and cures that allow humankind to advance.” Advance? Toward what exactly? Advance in technology or advance as whole in a way that is actually very meaningful for nature and relationship with God in his Church? And then you go on to mention how certain gadgets could bring about peace and stuff. Are you saying that there is a technology that could make us be peaceful? I don’t think so. Technology will never be the agent of peace. The thing that will make us peaceful is God and our cooperation with Him. Or, on a natural level, and if you’re not into that religious stuff, then the answer is more like correct philosophy as Plato and Aristotle would advocate. The essence of peace pertains to the heart and mind of man, and a cleverly designed machine isn’t going to be touch us in that way. There isn’t going to be a gizmo that will ensure world peace.

Also, you seem to say that word science is limited only to describing the physical sciences (for you say “empiricial”), whereas the more traditional and long-standing definition of science is a “organized body of knowledge” which includes systematic philosophy and theology, as well as history and political science, etc. If you take this definition of science, then I might be more inclined to agree that science helps humanity advance [toward God], insofar as it reveals the truth about God, man, and the nature around him … not just his empirical surroundings.

But that’s just me. I might be psycho.

I explain more about the traditional definition of science in this previous post:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5351164&postcount=28

 

[long215]

Areopagite, you are not psycho. I forgot who said it, but the quote is paraphrased as: If you do not have trade crossing your borders, then you’ll have armies crossing them. The items that science could provide creates opportunities. Science is not an end-all and I did not mean to sound like it was. God gave us a PERFECT planet; I am excited to see what this world can do and what it can provide for us! Scientists can unlock those secrets! That’s exciting!

 

[wanstronian]

they just can’t see any logic beyond the empirical method, and feel most uncomfortable when they are challenged outside their comfort zone.

But what value is there in any other method? What method would you suggest that provides truth, or evidence, withouth any kind of empirical, repeatable, reliable approach?

 

[Bluegoat]

Modern science involves the observation of the physical universe, and the construction of theories to explain why it unfolds the way it does - to describe the logos that moves it. So it does indeed presume an immaterial world, though it may be completely inhered in the material. That would not be a question that science could investigate though. There are very few actual scientists that are materialists, though that applies rather less to media and other science hobbyists, and even people with undergraduate degrees in science, who alas get very little instruction in the philosophy of science.

When a scientists notices something, or has an inspiration, she creates a theory to explain it. There may be mathematical modeling that goes into the creation of that theory. It is then that the particular work of science comes; collecting data to support or discredit the theory. Ideally, a theory can allow the scientist to predict a previously unknown phenomena, and if it that phenomena is found, it lends very strong support to the theory.

It’s important to note though, that the scientists can never prove the theory, and any scientist who says so should be slapped. It’s sloppy talk. At any time, it’s possible that a new piece of data could discredit or weaken the theory - you cannot observe empirical facts which haven’t happened or haven’t been part of the data collection, you can’t even prove the things you have observed weren’t abnormal in some way or affected by the observer. Only if it were possible to collect every pertinent fact over all time could science prove a theory - clearly an impossible task. So a theory can be a weak or strong theory, but never a proven theory. (Incidentally, that’s why we don’t talk much about “laws” of science any more - it implies that they are proven. It could get embarrassing, like with the so-called Laws of Motion. Their use tends to be a holdover.)

Of course, science, like all branches of philosophy, is based on faith - though it is perhaps less irritating to the non-religious to say it depends on certain assumptions. One is that the material world we observe is real, and not a figment of our imagination. The most important for all philosophy is the Law of Non-contradiction. And science in particular tends to assume that the same rules apply everywhere in the universe and throughout time. None of these things can be proven by science or philosophy. Most people are quite happy to accept them, I would suggest we are biologically set-up to assume those things and it would be more difficult not to.

 

[j1akey]

If I’m reading these posts right people are saying that even if science in general is 99.9999% sure about a theory in science they say, “well it’s only a theory, it can’t be proven 100% so screw the theory”. Come on, that’s rediculous

Everything that we as a society have today is because of science and math and I’m not talking about music or anything thing here, I’m talking about “stuff”. The buildings we live in, the electricity that runs our cities, your TV, your stove, the water that gets pumped into your house, the clean(ish) air you breathe, the computer you use to post on this message board, the life saving medical procedures that people have every day…everything. But…when it comes to scientific theory’s that are even the tiniest bit out of line with what the church says then that theory is just discounted and ignored by people who don’t want to see it for what it is.

The scientific process didn’t change and biologists and scientists just didn’t start making @#$% up as it pleases them just becuase they’re talking about evolution or some other theory that doesn’t line up with the bible or the church. It’s people that choose to make it different when looking in from the outside. The scientific method is the same no matter what the particular subject is whether it’s gravity, electricity, biology and by extention evolution, physics, etc.

Scientists do not stay in their “little comfort zones” as has been previously stated here because there’s no glory in it. No one ever got rich and famous in science for proving themselves right all the time. Science tries to explain things we don’t understand. Scientists to not use philosophy because it has no place in their chosen profession and it’s that simple. If that’s what you call staying in their comfort zone then they’re doing exactly what they’re supposed to be doing.

Science is pure and raw. It’s only becuase people inject all the extra non-sense into it that it becomes a topic for debate when they don’t like the results. These imagined conspiracy theories that science is out to topple this and that is just rediculous. It is what it is, nothing more nothing less.