Which of these should be taught as "science"?

[MarcoPolo]

Here is a list of studies, some general, some more specific. In your opinion, by your definition of science, which of the following should be taught in classrooms under the label: “Science” ???

Abnormal Psychology
Medicine
Forensic Anthropology
Irreducible Complexity
The Role of the Observer in Quantum Physics
Weather Forecasting

If you’d like to throw out a short definition of “science”, feel free!

 

[ribozyme]

Here is a list of studies, some general, some more specific. In your opinion, by your definition of science, which of the following should be taught in classrooms under the label: “Science” ???

Abnormal Psychology
Medicine
Forensic Anthropology
Irreducible Complexity
The Role of the Observer in Quantum Physics
Weather Forecasting

If you’d like to throw out a short definition of “science”, feel free!

2,3,5,6…

I do not know what abnormal psychology.

4, might be acceptable if it didn’t the connotation with intelligent design.

 

[john_doran]

4 and 5 are philosophy.

the rest look ok.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

Well, really any system of knoledge and such can be asserted as science, if you are talking about natural science then you are generally talking about inductive reasoning, offering ways for the theory to be falsefied, but always keeping Quine’s counter argument to Poper in mind.

I can’t say if any of those to be science unless you define what you mean by them.

 

[MarcoPolo]

keeping Quine’s counter argument to Poper in mind.

Who are these individuals?

 

[IvanKaramozov]

Who are these individuals?

Quine was a logician/philosopher Karl Popper was a philosopher. Popper specalised in Philosophy of Science who came up with the the idea that for a theory to be scientific it must make risky predictions, and show how it could be proven false.

Freudism isin’t scientific because it cannot be proven wrong, Einsteins General Relativity is because it made riscky predictions, and gave a criteria to be proven wrong.

Popper made a distinction between truth and science, Freudism may well be true, but it’s not scientific

Quine pointed out that we don’t make theories in isolation, which disrupts Poppers theory a bit.

 

[Kaninchen]

Quine pointed out that we don’t make theories in isolation, which disrupts Poppers theory a bit.

Popper never said that people did make theories in isolation - indeed it was central to his arguments on induction that that you couldn’t ‘observe’ without having some ‘guess’ (at least) as to what one was looking for - in other words, the mind, even at birth, wasn’t a tabula rasa. What was important to Popper was that knowledge did not and could not legitimize itself by its pedigree (promising ideas could come from anywhere at all) but by its openness to testing and success at withstanding crucial tests - even then it wouldn’t be true, just successful/influential as you suggested.

The apparent criticism (Quine/Kuhn etc and, to a certain extent, Lakatos) of about how ‘normal science’ works, the various stratagems (including ad-hoc stratagems) that people will use to defend a theory until well past its sell-by date (I’m reminded of the great classic of methodology courses ‘Ignaz Semmelweis and the discovery of the causes of puerperal fever’) does seem more apparent than real in many ways. The thing is that Popper had never said that such activities didn’t happen, more that it was counter-productive - you end up with astrology (or ‘Intelligent Design’).

 

[MarcoPolo]

Interesting replies. Anyone know of any classes/ideas taught in a science classroom now that should be cast out?? Similar to the way ID was legally cast out in the Dover case?

 

[The_Barbarian]

BTW, irreducible complexity is a fact. But it evolves, and has been observed to do so.

Harmless fact, with no particular application, other than debunking ID.

 

[strngrnrth]

Abnormal Psychology
Medicine
Forensic Anthropology
Irreducible Complexity
The Role of the Observer in Quantum Physics
Weather Forecasting

Ab Psych: Still an art. Good to learn, as an art, and may one day be a science.

Medicine: A practice of science, in this case of biology. Good to learn but not an entire science in itself.

Forensic Anthropology: Don’t know enough about it to say how it should be taught.

Irreducible Complexity: A fact within the science of biology. Good to learn as part of biology.

Role of Observer: Part of physics.

Weather Forecasting: Part of physics, still an art, a practice within physics.

 

[puzzleannie]

how is this for an oxymoron
political science

 

[Al_Masetti]

If results can be reproduced as the result of experiments by independent researchers working in different locations at different times, then it’s science.

If the “results” require hedged language, or shilly shallying, or only work some of the time (95th percentile sorts of things), then it ain’t science. Or if the persons discussing it start saying “the science is settled”, then it ain’t science.

Just because we may desperately want something to be science, doesn’t make it science.

“It” may be political debate, or scienc-esque debate, or bar room debate, but it ain’t science.

[Real science is terribly boring. You take data for decades and decades and at the end may have nothing useful except a pile of numbers. You show people your numbers freely and willingly and they poke holes in your data (the temp and pressure varied when they were supposed to stay constant) or (the last data point was supposed to be “zero” based on the way the experiment was designed… but it was some value other than zero… the experiment was an expensive failure. That’s real science.

No parades; no brass bands.

The guy who came up with the notion of continental drift was ridiculed his whole life and he ended up dying up in Greenland by freezing while collecting more data.]

 

[MarcoPolo]

If results can be reproduced as the result of experiments by independent researchers working in different locations at different times, then it’s science.

Interesting. So let’s take the Big Bang…our observations and experiments have lended themselves to support the hypothesis of the Big Bang. Yet the Big Bang is not observable to us except by deduction about things we can observe. So should it be taught in a science class?

 

[Al_Masetti]

Interesting. So let’s take the Big Bang…our observations and experiments have lended themselves to support the hypothesis of the Big Bang. Yet the Big Bang is not observable to us except by deduction about things we can observe. So should it be taught in a science class?

Teach it a-n-y-w-h-e-r-e you want to.

Call it speculation.

Call it guesswork.

Call it a hypothesis.

Just don’t call it science.

[In fact, (since this is a Catholic Web site, and telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is essential), you are OBLIGATED to “divulge” all of the limitations and opposing viewpoints with respect to the Big Bang Theory.]

[Tell the whole truth. Let it all hang out.]

[metaphorically-speaking]

 

[MarcoPolo]

Teach it a-n-y-w-h-e-r-e you want to.

Call it speculation.

Call it guesswork.

Call it a hypothesis.

Just don’t call it science.

[In fact, (since this is a Catholic Web site, and telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is essential), you are OBLIGATED to “divulge” all of the limitations and opposing viewpoints with respect to the Big Bang Theory.]

[Tell the whole truth. Let it all hang out.]

[metaphorically-speaking]

Yes, I understand all that…but if I am not mistaken, you can find the Big Bang in science classes. No?

 

[Al_Masetti]

Yes, I understand all that…but if I am not mistaken, you can find the Big Bang in science classes. No?

Humorous.

“Science Classes”.

You can find most anything in “science class”.

Doesn’t mean that all of that stuff is science.

I dislike labels, generally (but not always). [That’s one of my hard and fast rules.]

However, in my humble opinion, we shouldn’t even have “science class” … Because all of what we daydream about as being science is really speculation. What we like to speculate about as being science is really multi-disciplinary investigation.

A lot of it is really metaphysics … more suited to the philosophy class.

Can this stuff be TAUGHT in “science” class? Should it be TAUGHT at all? Should we, instead, send the students to the libraries to research for themselves what has been done in these areas? Should we send the students to interview the astronomical researchers? Should this topic be taught in “journalism class”?

imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/ask_an_astronomer.html

imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/resources/pathways.html

imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/lcteam_1999.html

Ya know, there is such a thing as “multi-disciplinary” education … meaning that there is no such thing as “a science class”. There is instead a mix of math (which you learn in physics), chemistry (which you learn when studying electrical phenomena), and physics (which you learn mostly in the laboratory, along with some chem). And there is biology, which can be mixed with electro-chem.

And we do experiments to see what works and what doesn’t work to produce reproduceable results.

[Check out the “Journal of Irreproducable Results”]

jir.com/

One of the major problems with science and applied science today is the focus on one discipline at the expense of getting an overview of the whole expanse of what is going on out there.

So folks limit their studies to a very small amount of reading and investigating and focus on anecdotes. That’s not science.

Try teaching “dark matter”. Neat stuff. More metaphysics than physics. More metascience than science. Kind of about the nature of God and why did he invent the platypus, sort of thing.

Normally, Wiki leaves a lot to be desired, but here’s an article about “dark matter”. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

Consider, that photographs taken in the visual spectrum of the universe show a lot of empty places and blanks.

And that images taken of the infrared wavelength(s) show more stuff.

And, variously, the ultra violet and X-ray and other spectra show still more stuff. Stuff we can’t see, but shows up when we search just for those wavelengths.

And when combined all sorts interesting questions arise. Most of the questions come up with the word “why”.

Which gets us back to metaphysics.

Which gets us back to … swiftbat.org/outreach/podcast/episode1.txt

 

[MarcoPolo]

Consider, that photographs taken in the visual spectrum of the universe show a lot of empty places and blanks.

And that images taken of the infrared wavelength(s) show more stuff.

And, variously, the ultra violet and X-ray and other spectra show still more stuff. Stuff we can’t see, but shows up when we search just for those wavelengths.

Indeed.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Here is a list of studies, some general, some more specific.
Abnormal Psychology
Medicine
Forensic Anthropology
Irreducible Complexity
The Role of the Observer in Quantum Physics
Weather Forecasting

Abnormal psychology - could be science but presents a standing temptation to pseudoscience.
Medicine - not a science, but something allied to it.
Forensic anthropology - science, of a very debased kind.
Irreducible complexity - presented as a scientific theory, in reality simply a dressing up of creationism.
Quantum physics - science. Presents a standing temptation to pseudoscience.
Weather forecasting - clearly science, though not an accurate one.

Scientists try to draw conclusions from observations. If the conclusions are of no general interest but follow from the evidence, as in forensic anthropology, then the effort gradually loses scientific status. Similarly the medical doctor is mainly interested in diagnosis as a guide to treatment, though some of what he does gets very close to scientific measurement and even experimentation.

The method, not the subject matter, determines whether something is a science. However not all subjects lend themselves to scientific study. You could do audience response surveys on Hamlet, for instance, but it is unlikely that it would be illuminating. However it would be a scientific approach.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

how is this for an oxymoron
political science

actually it’s not quite as silly as it may sound. Scholars have been able to formulate hypotethesis and approproate testing of same to develop some actual predictive statements.

Several years ago, an MSU prof had become quite good at predicting US SCT decisions by using a computer program with a hypothesized set of parameters. He was up in the high 90’s in determining the actual vote and who voted on which side.