|
Post by dharmasatya on Mar 31, 2009 20:13:48 GMT -5
I noticed we don't really have a science section, so I figured this would fit here... sorta... kinda...
Screw it. It's close enough.
I went away for two weeks to visit my statistically significant other, and while I was there I ended up in conversation with an old friend wherein they tried to tell me the scientific method was:
Hypothesis - Experiment - Observation - Theory - Conclusion
....
My first outburst was not the most successful gambit, I admit:
"No, that's how you do a science experiment in fourth grade, that's MOST CERTAINLY NOT what could be described as the scientific method".
I patiently explained that the whole thing goes like this:
Observation - Hypothesis - Experiment - Observation - Theory - Observation - Hypothesis - Experiment - Observation - Refinement of Theory - Observation - Hypothesis - Experiment - Observation - Refinement of Theory- Observation - Hypothesis - Experiment - Observation - Refinement of Theory - and so on until the universe ends.
No matter how hard I tried I could not get that poor, blinkered bugger to see that science starts with an observation of the natural world, and experiments are not intended to find stuff, but to explain what you have observed to ensure your observations are correct.
Then there was the issue with the definition of the scientific method being a cycle of never ending refinement and self correction. My friend could not seem to wrap his head around the fact that science is not a thing that you do, but a method by which you understand the workings of the universe with the understanding that the knowledge you gain from these methods is not absolute, therefore there are no conclusions in science, but theories which will forever be subject to correction - That being the only way in which science can advance.
...and I realized that I was the only person in a room of seven educated adults who saw it this way. They all felt that science was about "facts". That you could, as a scientist, make concrete conclusions which you could say with absolute certainty were 100% correct and that at that arbitrary point, no further experimentation should be necessary or even welcomed, as it would simply be a waste of time and resources.
So now I'm asking you, FSTDTers... What do YOU think?
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Mar 31, 2009 20:23:00 GMT -5
As a FSTDTer and a science major, I think that science is taking known facts and forming coherent models out of them. I don't think that it matters so much if the method starts with a observation or hypothesis, just as long as the experimentation phase is solid and objective. Just make sure direct observation is acceptable. I mean, I really don't call looking through a telescope or digging up fossils experiments. But, astronomy and paleontology are most definitely scientific fields.
I also have yet to see a scientist make a concrete conclusion, and I've met many and currently know many.
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Mar 31, 2009 20:28:37 GMT -5
I can't find the cartoon, but there was one about the difference between a scientist and a regular Joe.
Big red button that says "Do Not Push". Both push it, both get zapped.
Regular Joe ~ Guess I shouldn't do that again
Scientist ~ I wonder if that will happen every time I touch itFound it Should of known it was xkcd
|
|
|
Post by Bluefinger on Mar 31, 2009 20:29:16 GMT -5
Actually, your explanation pretty much nails how Science works. There is always a margin of error in Science, which it strives to 'lessen' in the pursuit of gaining models that can explain and predict to a degree of accuracy how certain observed phenomena act. From this understanding, which is always being refined in the pursuit for more accurate models, we get technology, which harnesses whatever phenomena we have observed into a useful purpose, using the models available so to recreate the intended effect.
Nothing Science presents is 100% accurate or concrete. We may get to 99% or 99.999% accuracy, but there will always be that 1% or 0.001% margin of error that scientists want to lessen so to get more accurate results/explanations. 'Facts' are merely bits of information, observations, results from a single or multiple experiments, and generally are treated as the lowest segment in the hierarchy. Hypothesises take 'facts' in order to create a preliminary model to provide a potential solution to a problem. Experiments are done to verify/falsify these Hypothesises in order to see whether the proposed model is accurate enough for further testing and scrutiny. Only after exhaustive research, involving a tonne of experimentation, observation and refinement through a brutal peer-review process, does a hypothesis eventually become a theory. And even then, it isn't the end of the story, as by now, other scientists join in with the research to repeat and verify what has proposed, and further refine/refute the theory in question.
Science is a harsh meritocracy, but it yields results. It isn't perfect, but then again, nothing about Science is perfect, as constant refinements are the norm, and the emergence and destruction of ideas are commonplace. It simply is an ongoing process and method that works.
|
|
|
Post by mudflappus on Mar 31, 2009 20:32:26 GMT -5
It would seem to me that you are correct in that science does not rest on its haunches once a conclussion about something is reached. More questions arise out of the same conclussion and hence the process simply continues. I think this is one of the biggest misconceptions fundies have about science. They truly belive that if ALL the answers aren't provided in one simple step, the whole system is flawed and can't be relied upon for anything. This despite the fact that the whole world around them is proof that science works just fine.
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Mar 31, 2009 20:33:46 GMT -5
Stephen Hawking has an excellent explanation of what a scientific theory is, unfortunately I can't find that now either.
I hate being sick, my brain is bogged down with mucus.
|
|
|
Post by dharmasatya on Mar 31, 2009 20:41:52 GMT -5
It would seem to me that you are correct in that science does not rest on its haunches once a conclussion about something is reached. More questions arise out of the same conclussion and hence the process simply continues. I think this is one of the biggest misconceptions fundies have about science. They truly belive that if ALL the answers aren't provided in one simple step, the whole system is flawed and can't be relied upon for anything. This despite the fact that the whole world around them is proof that science works just fine. ...and yet these were not fundies, but intelligent, rational atheists. I found it disturbing. Stephen Hawking has an excellent explanation of what a scientific theory is, unfortunately I can't find that now either. I hate being sick, my brain is bogged down with mucus. I am sorry you are filled with mucus. May your drainage be soon and swift.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Mar 31, 2009 20:51:18 GMT -5
Intelligent and rational doesn't necessarily mean educated, especially not scientifically literate. I find that a lot of people have no idea what science actually means. I get sick of telling people what my major is, only to be asked what is and what I can even do with it.
Also, I admit, it can be fun to start telling people exactly what it is I do and what I'm studying, just to see the look of shock/horror.
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Mar 31, 2009 21:51:03 GMT -5
If put as a series of steps, I suppose my understanding of science would be very close to the one you explained. I generally think of it in terms of creating models that explain as much of the available information as possible and are continuously adjusted or replaced to account for new information. I've met lots of people that think of science as a collection of data, but this is not accurate. Science being a method is just too foreign a concept for some.
|
|
|
Post by Paradox on Mar 31, 2009 23:14:44 GMT -5
I would say that science can come to conclusions, but that said conclusions are always tentative, subject to revision in the face of new evidence.
|
|
|
Post by perv on Mar 31, 2009 23:44:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Lady Renae on Apr 1, 2009 13:23:18 GMT -5
Actually we do have a place for science posts. It's called the "Science and Technology" sub-forum, which is where this thread has been moved.
|
|
|
Post by peanutfan on Apr 1, 2009 17:26:26 GMT -5
Intelligent and rational doesn't necessarily mean educated, especially not scientifically literate. I find that a lot of people have no idea what science actually means. I get sick of telling people what my major is, only to be asked what is and what I can even do with it. Also, I admit, it can be fun to start telling people exactly what it is I do and what I'm studying, just to see the look of shock/horror. So what ARE you studying?
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Apr 1, 2009 17:50:49 GMT -5
Biotechnology, it's all kinds of fun.
|
|
|
Post by peanutfan on Apr 1, 2009 18:07:30 GMT -5
Biotechnology, it's all kinds of fun. Cool. So when can I get those gills installed in my neck?
|
|