OT: Definition of science (WAS: Making money from Java)
- From: "Oliver Wong" <owong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 20:59:31 GMT
<docdwarf@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:dnscei$kiu$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> In article <5Hhof.166802$yS6.142470@clgrps12>,
> Oliver Wong <owong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> I don't have a formal, rigorous definition of "science", but I believe
>>that any body of knowledge that has the label of "science" should have
>>been
>>primarily (if not exclusive) developed via the "scientific process"; that
>>is, objective observations made via experiments which are independently
>>verifiable.
>
> Ow... close to tautology there, Mr Wong, that '(a) "science should have
> been... developed via the "scientific process"' (" original);
I should have been more explicit in expressing that my belief does not
make any assumption that "scientific process" has something to do with
"science".
What is, what I meant is, we have a term called "scientific process" and
let's assume for now that we all agree on what that term means, and that the
definition of that term doesn't involve the term "science". Now, I can
define the term "science", and the definition I will provide uses the term
"scientific process".
[snip]
>>
>> If someone says "I have a theory about how electrons work, and I came
>>about this theory because I did such and such experiment and arrived at
>>these results", someone else, on the other side of the world, reading
>>about
>>it over the Internet, should be able to say "Let me try the same
>>experiment
>>and see if I arrive at the same results".
>>
>> Most of psychology, anthropology, etc. does not fall under this
>>definition, but psychologist, anthropologists, etc. sometimes get touchy
>>if
>>you try to tell them what they are doing is not "real" science.
>
> That might be because human beings - the objects of study for the 'soft
> sciences - are not electrons. On the other hand psychologists can say
> 'given a certain set of behaviors it has been found that, in a number of
> instances, they can be changed if...'
Yes, and if another psychologist on the other side of the word tries the
same experiment and gets a completely different set of results, what then?
The results are not typically reproduceable, and hence, not "science" under
my definition.
But so what? There are lots of things that are not "science" which are
"Good" or "Useful" or whatever other positive adjectives you'd like to use.
To me, it's just an issue of mis-using a term. I might ask other people to
refer to me as a "surgeon" because I slice open computer programs, examine
their innards, and make modification to ensure their continued functioning.
Doesn't mean it's the most appropriate term to describe my occupation.
- Oliver
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Re: Making money from Java
- From: Peter Lacey
- Re: Making money from Java
- From: Oliver Wong
- Re: Making money from Java
- From:
- Re: Making money from Java
- From: Oliver Wong
- Re: Making money from Java
- From:
- Re: Making money from Java
- Prev by Date: Re: Earley Parser for OO-COBOL?
- Next by Date: Re: Making money from Java
- Previous by thread: Re: Making money from Java
- Next by thread: Re: OT: Definition of science (WAS: Making money from Java)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
