• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Here we flippantly define science in one sentence

Trakar said:
Which is precisely what makes it a philosophy/religion issue.

It is essentially a "why" question that depends largely upon the baggage, expectations and understandings one brings to the question.

"truth" is one of those issues that are more subjectively human than objectively and universally obvious in nature.
Click to expand...
Things fall at 9.8m/s2. That is a scientific statement because it can be tested and measured, and it is a true statement in that it accurately describes how things behave.

But we're not here to argue about truth, we're here to flippantly define science.

Would it help if I restated my definition as 'Science is the only reliable way to determine what is real'. That way we avoid that tricky 'truth' word.
 
Last edited:
jiggeryqua said:
And mother's chocolate chip cookies taste better, but not really better, just imaginary better...can you tell the difference? Science (by that token) is a recipe for uniformity and the suppression of individual experience.
Click to expand...

Or the suppression of anecdotes parading as facts.
 
paiute said:
Or the suppression of anecdotes parading as facts.
Click to expand...

I was going to advise you to take issue with the author of the flippancy I was responding to, but I see it was you, so fair enough...if you insist, science is a recipe for uniformity and the suppression of anecdotes parading as facts.

It's a fact, however, that my mom's chocolate chip cookies do taste better than generic 'scientific' cookies. It's an anecdote to say so, of course. An anecdotal fact - there's a thing.

I'd be disappointed if the scientific establishment were principally seeking uniformity and suppression, though I see how they might be side effects.
 
Science is a way of kicking parts of the tree of knowledge so that rotten bits fall off, giving us increased confidence that what remains is strong and healthy.
 
Science: a rule-based, explanatory system where natural selection (of good ideas and replicated data) creates closer approximations to truth with each new generation of participants.
 
Molinaro said:
Science is the opposite of just making stuff up.
Click to expand...

That's pretty great.
Everyone knows about just making stuff up, even if they know nothing of science. You're definition provides the non-scientific an access point.
 
arthwollipot said:
Things fall at 9.8m/s2. That is a scientific statement because it can be tested and measured, and it is a true statement in that it accurately describes how things behave.
Click to expand...

Except that things don't actually "fall," they accelerate in the presence of other mass along the curvature of warped space-time. The greater the influencing mass the greater the acceleration (rate of fall). "truth" is a subjective, qualified condition, dependent upon perspective and considerations.

In general, I agree, and the "flippant" portion escaped my initial considerations in participating here. I realized this later, and thus avoided repeating my error in the way I responded to your post,...my apologies.

Would it help if I restated my definition as 'Science is the only reliable way to determine what is real'. That way we avoid that tricky 'truth' word.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that "real" has that many advantages over "true."
:)
 
"Science sucks!"

(Johnny Kawalski, 10th grade student at JFK high school, Peoria, Illinois.)
 
Science is the attempt to show that something doesn't exist, with usual success and very interesting failures.
 
jiggeryqua said:
I was going to advise you to take issue with the author of the flippancy I was responding to, but I see it was you, so fair enough...if you insist, science is a recipe for uniformity and the suppression of anecdotes parading as facts.

It's a fact, however, that my mom's chocolate chip cookies do taste better than generic 'scientific' cookies. It's an anecdote to say so, of course. An anecdotal fact - there's a thing.

I'd be disappointed if the scientific establishment were principally seeking uniformity and suppression, though I see how they might be side effects.
Click to expand...

I don't see why you conflate uniformity with suppression.

In science and manufacturing, I assure you that optimizing the recipe so that it is reproducible and also delicious is not flippant. It is basic to the process. If you study statistics, you will find that two of the large drivers historically in the development of tools to make manufacturing so were Hershey and Guinness, who needed to turn out delicious uniform products from raw materials which varied from lot to lot.

I am a fan of America's Test Kitchen, for example. They take a scientific approach to things like making delicious chocolate chip cookies.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom