What is Science?

[Cynar]

What is Science?

Since this board is new, but likely to be talking about a lot of fringe science ideas. I thought I would be wise to clarify a few things about science and the scientific method. Most of these are things that get confused either easily or deliberately. If your wondering why a bit of 'science' has not been accepted it's well worth a check below.

First off, science is about prediction. Nothing more, nothing less. If a scientific idea makes better predictions than it's predecessor then it is generally accepted, at least once this is proven. The 64,000 question, though, is what is 'better'? In science, better means either making more accurate and precise predictions with a lower margin of error. It also applies if an idea widens the range of correct predictions it can make. Finally it is better if it reduces the complexity of the idea without reducing it's predictive power.

There are a few cases beyond this that might occur, but they are the exception rather than the rule. If your idea breaks any of these, then it will usually be ignored in favour of the standing ideas.



Theory, Theorem, Hypothesis, Idea, Law, Interpretation, Evidence

These terms are used interchangeably by most layman (non-science trained individual). However they each have distinct meaning that may also differ from the normal day-to-day usage.

Theory:
An idea that makes distinct, predictions that can be tested. Generally expressed using mathematics. If it's predictions disagree with experiment it must either be reformulated or dis-guarded. This applied to ALL experimental reliable evidence.

Theorem:
Generally considered to be a theory that has been well tested and found to hold up under all circumstances in it's purview. Also used when discussing groups of theories that are interlinked into a single Theorem (i.e. electricity, magnetism, light and quark-colour interactions into Quantum Electro Dynamics)

Hypothesis:
This is an idea or theory being tested in an experiment. The experiment is generally set up with a null hypothesis. It is considered evidence if it rejects the null. (I.e. plants grow towards light is the hypothesis. Plants do not grow towards light is the Null. If the experiment tests for deviation from the Null)

Idea:
Generally used when a concept is not formulated well enough to be called a theory or a Law. Normally because it does not make specific predictions or currently lacks proven mathematical basis.

Law:
An observation about a system not based on a deeper understanding of what is happening. A good example is gravity. The laws of gravitation simply state what is happening, not why. A theory attempts to do this. To note a Law can never become a theory and a theory can never become a Law. They are fundamentally different.

Interpretation:
An interpretation is an attempt to describe in more layman terms what is happening with a mathematical theory. Generally Interpretations are indistinguishable from one another in predictive power. If they become distinguishable, then are normally reformulated into theories.
A good example is the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics vs the many world interpretation. The two interpretations describe fundamentally different structures to our universe but are mathematically identical, therefore cannot currently be distinguished by science.

Evidence:
The basis of all science. Theories and Laws are compared to the evidence and are supported/ disregarded based on it. If theory does not match evidence then the theory is wrong, plane and simple. Generally evidence is mathematical in nature. Simply because it is very easy to determine error ranges and make comparisons to theory without human bias. One caveat with evidence. A flawed method in gathering it will invalidate it. Much of the debate in science is on the validity of bits of evidence.

Mathematics:
Maths is a method of describing things in absolute terms. The only thing that can be proven are mathematical in nature. It is totally unbiased in it's action and therefore very good at removing human bias from the scientific method. Hence why it has become the language of science. While you could probably understand a reasonable amount of science without it, you would be very unlikely to be able to advance science at all without a good mathematical knowledge.



This covers a good chunk of the useful and relevant bits for the board. If you've any questions/comments, post away. If your willing to say it a lot more people will be thinking it.

Cynar

[7redorbs]

Wow, Cynar, I can't thank you enough for being kind enough to enlighten us with this great thread on of the scientific method. This is so good perhaps it should also be an article too?

I would add without science none of the great accomplishments of the 20 and 21st century would have been possible, Indeed, people like myself depend on people like Cynars' patience a great deal, we may have some very valid experiences, but it can't be called science without some cold blooded, hard evidential data to support the theorem, at least not science as we know it!! Experience - that is. Experience is a hard thing to repeat, right? Paul? ;-)

Very interesting stuff. Hope people will have some useful comments !

1 clarity point awarded ;-D

Cheers,
A