[ASC-list] definition of science

[david ellyard]

Mick

 

Thanks for your question. 

 

There are any number of well known definitions of science, but they usually
too snappy to be complete or even very useful.  eg TH Huxley's "science is
nothing but  trained and organised common sense".  (I actually think this
definition is wrong. Much of science, eg in physics, runs contrary to
"common sense").

 

I like George Sarton's "Science is systematized positive knowledge, or what
has been taken as such in different ages or in different places". 

 

This underlines the ephemeral nature of scientific statements, which can
change as new phenomena are discovered or as new techniques of investigation
are developed (or as different questions are asked). I take "positive" to
mean statements that can be tested (or falsified, at least in principle) by
observation and experiment.

 

Sarton has a "theorem" that follows from his definition. "The acquisition
and systematization of positive knowledge (ie science) are the only human
activities which are truly cumulative and progressive". I tend to go along
with that, though I would say "can be" rather than "are".

 

None of this says what science is for. We cannot really say, for example, as
some would, "The role of science is to promote human welfare" since it has
often been used for the opposite purpose. 

 

If I might have a go at a definition (a bit longer than most), dealing with
what science does rather than what it is.     

 

"Science provides a set of interim statements (hypotheses) as to why various
parts of the natural order (or "nature" or "the universe") behave as they
do. These statements are derived from and tested against observation and
experiment. Their value/ usefulness  is that they can generate  predictions
as to how the natural order will behave in a given set of circumstances".

 

This I think covers the case of your chemists working with "artificial
molecules". The particular molecules may not exist in nature, but they
follow the same patterns of behaviour ("laws") as "natural molecules" and
that is why their behaviour can be predicted (eg enhanced ability to target
certain diseases).

 

Cheers

 

David 

 

 

  _____  

From: asc-list-bounces at lists.asc.asn.au
[mailto:asc-list-bounces at lists.asc.asn.au] On Behalf Of Michael David Moylan
Sent: Monday, 8 December 2008 6:29 PM
To: list at asc.asn.au
Subject: [ASC-list] definition of science

 

Hi ASCers

 

Does anyone have a good definition of science?

 

I'm helping to write a response to the National Science Curriculum Framing
paper 

(http://www.ncb.org.au/our_work/preparing_for_2009.html)

 

They define science as "a way of answering questions about the natural
world" (paragraph 12, page 5), and I am very uncomfortable about that
definition. 

 

The majority of the research chemists I work with do not investigate the
natural world. Some make and study artificial molecules to cure
well-understood diseases. Others investigate nanometer-sized objects that
don't form naturally. They might be manipulating the natural world or trying
to improve the the natural world but they are not answering questions about
the natural world.

 

I would also like to have an adjective between "a" and "way". Something like
"a useful way", or even "a systematic way"...

 

I'd appreciate your suggestions.

 

Thanks

 

Mick.

 

 

 

 

 

Mick Moylan

Chemistry Outreach Fellow

Victorian Institute for Chemical Sciences

School of Chemistry

University of Melbourne, VIC, 3010

Australia

p +61 (0)3 83446465 f +61 (0)3 93475180

e mmoylan at unimelb.edu.au

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

To get the latest news on VICS Outreach or RACI(Vic) Education events, sign
up for our newsletter. 

Send a plain text email to mailserv at unimelb.edu.au with subscribe
chemistry-connections in the email body.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://www.lists.sublimeip.com/pipermail/asc-list/attachments/20081209/79d08e58/attachment.htm>