5 ms·

I find that coloquially we use the term "science" in several distinct meanings, two of which are: 1. Science as the body of knowledge 2. Science as a method /

I find that coloquially we use the term "science" in several distinct meanings, two of which are: 1. Science as the body of knowledge 2. Science as a method / approach I also find that mixing the meanings/perspectives/intent up in a single conversation is common, sometimes accidentally sometimes intentionally. In my ignorance (ComSci major, so not a real science :), I would describe myself as extremely positive / confident to "Science, the approach/method" and, through that approach, pragmatic about the "Science the current body of knowledge". In other words: Yes, there are very much limits to what we currently know, and some of what we think we know will turn out to be wrong, subtly or catastrophically. There are definitely huge limits and uncertainties to Science the body of knowledge! But, acknowledging it is kinda the point, and the best way to figure it out that we are currently aware of is through scientific approach. (I've just realized I might even have become a zealot that you describe, because I can't even figure out what a plausible & feasible alternative method is, if your goals are to actually figure things out. To that point, I find humility and skepticism about your current science body of knowledge a crucial part of science the method, something which most other methods lack). I find distinction is crucial especially in political and religious discussion frameworks. Otherwise, I never know if I agree or disagree with statements regarding "limits of science" etc. (This is all further mixed up by zillion of daily popular articles where "Science says that [...]!!!" or "[...], scientists find", which... ugh, oversimplify at best and deceive more likely) What are your thoughts?

theGnuMe 3y ago
The science of computing is a real science.
- seanr88 3y ago
  I'd agree with this although I understand where the idea comes from. It is difficult for people to understand what is and is not a science and it is easy to think that computer science is not a science even when you study it. The way we learn and study topics is divorced from the original method of discovering those topics. The way people learn Computer Science is generally by absorbing the information, not by doing the experiments. So it is difficult for people to understand that the way we have this knowledge is through hypothesis forming and experimentation i.e. Science.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
Sharlin 3y ago
I think there is a third definition of "science": 3. What is actually happening in academia I think most people exposed to science#3 from the inside can agree that science#2 works – and indeed works surprisingly well – despite science#3, not because of it.
- mathematicaster 3y ago
  Top comment. My adjacent refrain is "Science is not the same as people trying to do science".
  - biomcgary 3y ago
    The work of philosophers and sociologists of science, Kuhn and Feyerabend in particular, support this perspective.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - mistermann 3y ago
    Scientists trying to do science is a component of broad science, is it not?
    - mike_hearn 3y ago
      Only if they succeed at doing science. If they just engage in pseudo-science then it's not.
- NikolaNovak 3y ago
  Agreed; I have a few friends who quit academia, and few who stayed. Some of their experiences are hope-inspiring, some are depressing. Same for those in government employ. But I don't think as academia as the only, or even necessarily the most important place that science is happening in the world today.
- tivert 3y ago
  > I think there is a third definition of "science": > 3. What is actually happening in academia While we're enumerating, I think there's a fourth definition: 4. "Science" as a belief system rather than as a tool/technology. I think in this respect, there's often an unacknowledged (or denied) blurring between science and science fiction (the more traditional "spaceship books" kind, as well as overconfident speculation). There's also a tendency to claim the prestige and authority of science for one's own personal opinions and preferences.
austin-cheney 3y ago
What’s important is not what you think. More important is what other people think, even though their observations are at fault no differently than your own. What’s most important is how you measure compared to other people, as everything else is a biased faulty guess. Younger people are more at risk of getting this wrong because their scope of knowledge and experience are shallower. Introspection grows with age, but when introspection is not deliberate older people are more catastrophically at risk of getting this wrong.
biomcgary 3y ago
I think your distinction between 1 and 2 is very important (but, as a computational biologist, I disagree about CompSci not being science :-). Along these lines, I think the role of consensus in science has been overly dramatized by those with various policies to push. Max Planck's principle is famous in the short form "Science progresses one funeral at a time". One of the professors I worked with as a graduate student had a sign on his desk, "First They Ignore You, Then They Laugh at You, Then They Attack You, Then You Win". These two quotes captures an important tension in the practice of science: consensus both retards the progress of science and captures it for others to build on.
- mcguire 3y ago
  Retarding the progress of science is sometimes (often?) a good thing. Many people regard Einstein's later career as fruitless, but by attacking quantum mechanics, he improved its foundations as well as making it much more acceptable.
nonrandomstring 3y ago
There is also: 3. Science the institution. As in "What Science says about X" as if there was a single authoritative, coherent entity we could call Science.
- Ensorceled 3y ago
  This is often what is meant when the lay person uses "science" or "scientists" in a (usually) derogatory way.
- NikolaNovak 3y ago
  It is frequently used that way, and I suppose I didn't include it because I feel it's an incorrect usage... but I'd have to agree with you that it might even be the most common :-/
ThinkBeat 3y ago
"" > I would describe myself as extremely positive / confident to "Science, the >approach/method "" But what does that actually mean? How do you manifest this in your daily life and in your decisions? My grandmother told me God told me I heard on the news Well, that does not seem scientific nor following the tenants of science. But how can you evaluate information you receive that is called science and in so far as you know from a source of a scientist. Esp. these days in the US everything is incredibly politicized. There is no way to dig deep enough into every tidbit of knowledge we are exposed to. A lot of scientific fields these days are so complicated that you need a degree to start understanding what is going on or to evaluate data. If we are lucky we know a few people in different fields whom we trust. We trust the people to we trust what the say, since they are scientists. We all walk around and -believe- in various things we hear and elect not to believe in others. Then we claim that we believe in this or that "because of science". and because of the scientific method. But we dont know that for a fact because we dont know and probably could not understand all the steps from beginning to end needed to ensure that the scientific model had been applied appropriately at all stages. I dont think real science should state "THIS IS TRUTH BECAUSE THIS IS SCIENCE" it should be "This is our best understanding right now, and there are some other theories out there that may also be valid."
- cowpig 3y ago
  I think the parent comment specifically means coming up with a falsifiable hypothesis and testing it, as opposed to the "body of knowledge" part you are talking about.
mistermann 3y ago
I would add: 3. Science, the mass psychological phenomenenon. Like many ideologies it behaves a lot like a religion, and online discussions are chock full of artifacts. In my case, I have a negative view of "science" because of this phenomenological aspect of it, which I consider dangerous because it results in irrational, tribal thinking (see: covid, climate change, etc)...and it ain't only the "deniers" who are guilty. > Yes, there are very much limits to what we currently know, and some of what we think we know will turn out to be wrong, subtly or catastrophically. There are definitely huge limits and uncertainties to Science the body of knowledge! > But, acknowledging it is kinda the point, and the best way to figure it out that we are currently aware of is through scientific approach. Pro-science people absolutely love this meme, I encounter it several times a day in the online spaces I frequent.
- trimethylpurine 3y ago
  This goes back to the comments on definition. Much of the misinformation on covid was largely due to the general public having a misunderstanding of what can NOT be called science. For example; when a research paper is peer reviewed by its author (e.g. Pfizer reviewing its own drug research) that's clearly not science. Conversely, when the heads of multiple top university epidemiology departments come together to speak out about it, that should be regarded as science. What happened with COVID is that the media declared itself the authority on science, most of the public believed them, and most scientists were pushed aside or stuffed with a sock and labeled "deniers." This altogether framed science as the bad guy. That is; what you described as science in your comment is actually not describing science at all. It's describing the media.
  - mike_hearn 3y ago
    Ironically you're presenting textbook mis-definitions of science, the exact problem being discussed in this thread. > when a research paper is peer reviewed by its author .. that's clearly not science Peer review is something academia evolved only relatively recently. Science long pre-dates peer review, and you can do science without peer review (or with useless peer review) just like you can write programs without code review. As recently as Einstein, peer review was being seen as some offensive newfangled thing which he had no time for. The goal of peer review is to try and ensure that claims that are presented as being scientific actually are. It frequently fails at that task but even when it works it's still just a safety check, not an actual required component of true science. > when the heads of multiple top university epidemiology departments come together to speak out about it, that should be regarded as science A bunch of academics making an announcement is definitely not science. The whole point of science is that it doesn't rely on People With Titles deciding by fiat what's true. That's what religion is! > What happened with COVID is that ... most scientists were pushed aside We have very different memories of these events.

theGnuMe 3y ago

The science of computing is a real science.

seanr88 3y ago
I'd agree with this although I understand where the idea comes from. It is difficult for people to understand what is and is not a science and it is easy to think that computer science is not a science even when you study it. The way we learn and study topics is divorced from the original method of discovering those topics. The way people learn Computer Science is generally by absorbing the information, not by doing the experiments. So it is difficult for people to understand that the way we have this knowledge is through hypothesis forming and experimentation i.e. Science.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Sharlin 3y ago

I think there is a third definition of "science": 3. What is actually happening in academia I think most people exposed to science#3 from the inside can agree that science#2 works – and indeed works surprisingly well – despite science#3, not because of it.

mathematicaster 3y ago
Top comment. My adjacent refrain is "Science is not the same as people trying to do science".
- biomcgary 3y ago
  The work of philosophers and sociologists of science, Kuhn and Feyerabend in particular, support this perspective.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- mistermann 3y ago
  Scientists trying to do science is a component of broad science, is it not?
  - mike_hearn 3y ago
    Only if they succeed at doing science. If they just engage in pseudo-science then it's not.
NikolaNovak 3y ago
Agreed; I have a few friends who quit academia, and few who stayed. Some of their experiences are hope-inspiring, some are depressing. Same for those in government employ. But I don't think as academia as the only, or even necessarily the most important place that science is happening in the world today.
tivert 3y ago
> I think there is a third definition of "science": > 3. What is actually happening in academia While we're enumerating, I think there's a fourth definition: 4. "Science" as a belief system rather than as a tool/technology. I think in this respect, there's often an unacknowledged (or denied) blurring between science and science fiction (the more traditional "spaceship books" kind, as well as overconfident speculation). There's also a tendency to claim the prestige and authority of science for one's own personal opinions and preferences.

austin-cheney 3y ago

What’s important is not what you think. More important is what other people think, even though their observations are at fault no differently than your own. What’s most important is how you measure compared to other people, as everything else is a biased faulty guess. Younger people are more at risk of getting this wrong because their scope of knowledge and experience are shallower. Introspection grows with age, but when introspection is not deliberate older people are more catastrophically at risk of getting this wrong.

biomcgary 3y ago

I think your distinction between 1 and 2 is very important (but, as a computational biologist, I disagree about CompSci not being science :-). Along these lines, I think the role of consensus in science has been overly dramatized by those with various policies to push. Max Planck's principle is famous in the short form "Science progresses one funeral at a time". One of the professors I worked with as a graduate student had a sign on his desk, "First They Ignore You, Then They Laugh at You, Then They Attack You, Then You Win". These two quotes captures an important tension in the practice of science: consensus both retards the progress of science and captures it for others to build on.

mcguire 3y ago
Retarding the progress of science is sometimes (often?) a good thing. Many people regard Einstein's later career as fruitless, but by attacking quantum mechanics, he improved its foundations as well as making it much more acceptable.

nonrandomstring 3y ago

There is also: 3. Science the institution. As in "What Science says about X" as if there was a single authoritative, coherent entity we could call Science.

Ensorceled 3y ago
This is often what is meant when the lay person uses "science" or "scientists" in a (usually) derogatory way.
NikolaNovak 3y ago
It is frequently used that way, and I suppose I didn't include it because I feel it's an incorrect usage... but I'd have to agree with you that it might even be the most common :-/

ThinkBeat 3y ago

"" > I would describe myself as extremely positive / confident to "Science, the >approach/method "" But what does that actually mean? How do you manifest this in your daily life and in your decisions? My grandmother told me God told me I heard on the news Well, that does not seem scientific nor following the tenants of science. But how can you evaluate information you receive that is called science and in so far as you know from a source of a scientist. Esp. these days in the US everything is incredibly politicized. There is no way to dig deep enough into every tidbit of knowledge we are exposed to. A lot of scientific fields these days are so complicated that you need a degree to start understanding what is going on or to evaluate data. If we are lucky we know a few people in different fields whom we trust. We trust the people to we trust what the say, since they are scientists. We all walk around and -believe- in various things we hear and elect not to believe in others. Then we claim that we believe in this or that "because of science". and because of the scientific method. But we dont know that for a fact because we dont know and probably could not understand all the steps from beginning to end needed to ensure that the scientific model had been applied appropriately at all stages. I dont think real science should state "THIS IS TRUTH BECAUSE THIS IS SCIENCE" it should be "This is our best understanding right now, and there are some other theories out there that may also be valid."

cowpig 3y ago
I think the parent comment specifically means coming up with a falsifiable hypothesis and testing it, as opposed to the "body of knowledge" part you are talking about.

mistermann 3y ago

I would add: 3. Science, the mass psychological phenomenenon. Like many ideologies it behaves a lot like a religion, and online discussions are chock full of artifacts. In my case, I have a negative view of "science" because of this phenomenological aspect of it, which I consider dangerous because it results in irrational, tribal thinking (see: covid, climate change, etc)...and it ain't only the "deniers" who are guilty. > Yes, there are very much limits to what we currently know, and some of what we think we know will turn out to be wrong, subtly or catastrophically. There are definitely huge limits and uncertainties to Science the body of knowledge! > But, acknowledging it is kinda the point, and the best way to figure it out that we are currently aware of is through scientific approach. Pro-science people absolutely love this meme, I encounter it several times a day in the online spaces I frequent.

trimethylpurine 3y ago
This goes back to the comments on definition. Much of the misinformation on covid was largely due to the general public having a misunderstanding of what can NOT be called science. For example; when a research paper is peer reviewed by its author (e.g. Pfizer reviewing its own drug research) that's clearly not science. Conversely, when the heads of multiple top university epidemiology departments come together to speak out about it, that should be regarded as science. What happened with COVID is that the media declared itself the authority on science, most of the public believed them, and most scientists were pushed aside or stuffed with a sock and labeled "deniers." This altogether framed science as the bad guy. That is; what you described as science in your comment is actually not describing science at all. It's describing the media.
- mike_hearn 3y ago
  Ironically you're presenting textbook mis-definitions of science, the exact problem being discussed in this thread. > when a research paper is peer reviewed by its author .. that's clearly not science Peer review is something academia evolved only relatively recently. Science long pre-dates peer review, and you can do science without peer review (or with useless peer review) just like you can write programs without code review. As recently as Einstein, peer review was being seen as some offensive newfangled thing which he had no time for. The goal of peer review is to try and ensure that claims that are presented as being scientific actually are. It frequently fails at that task but even when it works it's still just a safety check, not an actual required component of true science. > when the heads of multiple top university epidemiology departments come together to speak out about it, that should be regarded as science A bunch of academics making an announcement is definitely not science. The whole point of science is that it doesn't rely on People With Titles deciding by fiat what's true. That's what religion is! > What happened with COVID is that ... most scientists were pushed aside We have very different memories of these events.