What is Science? Can it be defined concisely?

Science and Technology
1

I offered the following:

The Missing Key to Stephen Gould’s “Nonoverlapping Magisteria”

“… missing was a much more fundamental division crying out for recognition. Specifically,

the magisteria of Physical Reality vs the magisteria of our Human Mindscape. …”

The missing key is appreciating the fundamental “Magisteria of Physical Reality,” and recognizing both science and religion are products of the “Magisteria of Our Mindscape.”

>>> Science seeks to objectively learn about our physical world, but we should still recognize all our understanding is embedded within and constrained by our mindscape.

>>> Religion is all about the human mindscape itself, with its wonderful struggles, fears, spiritual undercurrents, needs and stories we create to give our live’s meaning and make it worth living, or at least bearable.

What’s the point?

Science, religions, heaven, hell, political beliefs, even God, they are all products of the human mindscape, generations of imaginings built upon previous generations of imaginings, all the way down. …

https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-missing-key-gould.html

or if you want to dig deeper into the person that wrote it,

see: http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2019/04/citizenschallenge-why-you-earth-centrist.html

 


Holmes tells me:

I’m frankly tired of people telling me what “science” is – you have no idea to whom you speak,

no idea how juvenile and naive you appear.


I know it’s an odd complaint - if the Holmes doesn’t understand “science” or is trying to use the name of science for something that is NOT science, why shouldn’t people try to correct him, to educate him. Why should he feel resentment towards being offered some lessons to chew on?

 

But beyond that, as for my words, I myself think I’ve done a pretty good job of concisely defining something important that most have never thought about and definitely never discuss as directly as I’ve done. Agree or disagree, seems to me, I’ve stated my thoughts clearly enough so that refutations could be done just as clearly and concisely - quote and counter - simple as that.

Can someone offer better simple definitions for “science” and the human practice of doing science?

 

Also I’m wondering about my notion that,

"We need each other to keep ourselves honest,"
is it a fair assessment of a fundamental principle of science, if not life in general. I'm saying the conception is at the root of the principles of 'reproducibility' - 'empirical falsification.' Are my assumptions misplaced?

 

Please weigh in . . .

2
I’ve stated my thoughts clearly enough so that refutations could be done just as clearly and concisely – quote and counter – simple as that.

Can someone offer better simple definitions for “science” and the human practice of doing science?


The problem with defining science is that it’s not well defined. Definitions that I know include words like, “a loose collection of principles and methods”. It also is based on probabilities, something Holmes prefers to exploit rather than understand. He offers no method for comparing the truth of anything, rather just keeps pointing that the most important thing is that nothing is proven, nothing is certain. That’s a starting point, not an ending.

So, yes, you’ve been clear and it’s reasonable to make your case as best you can and remain open to refutations. I think I’ve linked this before, a good place to find points to discuss.

I’d even be willing to start here. Anything has to be better than this Merry-Go-Round we’ve been on.

 

3

So we agree then. Except that last bit.