5 ms·

> How can we disprove the hypothesis “If we can’t disprove it - it isn’t science.”? That statement isn't science. It's a definition. It's philosophy of science

by mcv 3y ago

> How can we disprove the hypothesis “If we can’t disprove it - it isn’t science.”? That statement isn't science. It's a definition. It's philosophy of science. It's the briefest summary of Karl Popper's definition of the scientific method. According to him, science can never be proven, only disproven.

ukj 3y ago
It is in the nature of definitions to include some things and exclude others. If the definition of “science” excluded computer science as a science; would you say the definition is correct?
- mcv 3y ago
  In this context, most of computer science is more a form of applied mathematics. Of course there are different ways to look at science, like making a distinction between analytical (or empirical) science, and synthetic science; the science that makes stuff, rather than analysing it. Not sure if that's really a good distinction; the latter is really technology, isn't it?
- JohnFen 3y ago
  There is such a thing as computer science, but the majority of what gets called that is really engineering, not science. People often get those two things confused because they have a fair bit of overlap in the Venn diagram, but they are two different things.
  - ukj 3y ago
    I am talking about (theoretical) computer science, not (practical) software engineering. This should've been clear in the context of my question: "Are the formal sciences (logic/mathematics/computer science) not science?"
    - anonymous_sorry 3y ago
      > "Are the formal sciences (logic/mathematics/computer science) not science?" Not by this definition. The distinction between mathematical theorems and scientific theories is a useful one.
      - ukj 3y ago
        >Not by this definition. Which is precisely the problem with all definitions I am drawing attention to - they are exclusionary in nature. Sometimes creating distinctions is useful. Sometimes erasing distinctions is even more useful. How much physics could you do without Noether's theorem?
        anonymous_sorry 3y ago
        How much engineering could we do without Mathematics? How much commerce? I don't see it as exclusionary. You won't find many scientists in doubt about the fact that everything they do is built upon Logic and Mathematics, in addition to observation. But don't we need a word to group fields that try to systematically describe, understand, and make predictions about the physical world? (Rather than seeking to explore and characterise idealised logical constructs?). What would you suggest?
        ukj 3y ago
        You may not see it as exclusionary but many people do. Just look at the comments! It's precisely the grouping I am talking about. If you group science in such a way so that logic/mathematics/computer science falls outside the group then isn't that an erroneous grouping? Isn't that a silly definition? True and False are idealized logical constructs. It's the idea; and the idealization of the notion that there is a difference between Truth and Falsehood. Or if you want to get biblical - there is a difference between Right and Wrong. If True ≡ False then... fuck it.
        anonymous_sorry 3y ago

by mcv 3y ago

ukj 3y ago

It is in the nature of definitions to include some things and exclude others. If the definition of “science” excluded computer science as a science; would you say the definition is correct?

mcv 3y ago
In this context, most of computer science is more a form of applied mathematics. Of course there are different ways to look at science, like making a distinction between analytical (or empirical) science, and synthetic science; the science that makes stuff, rather than analysing it. Not sure if that's really a good distinction; the latter is really technology, isn't it?
JohnFen 3y ago
There is such a thing as computer science, but the majority of what gets called that is really engineering, not science. People often get those two things confused because they have a fair bit of overlap in the Venn diagram, but they are two different things.
- ukj 3y ago
  I am talking about (theoretical) computer science, not (practical) software engineering. This should've been clear in the context of my question: "Are the formal sciences (logic/mathematics/computer science) not science?"
  - anonymous_sorry 3y ago
    > "Are the formal sciences (logic/mathematics/computer science) not science?" Not by this definition. The distinction between mathematical theorems and scientific theories is a useful one.
    - ukj 3y ago
      >Not by this definition. Which is precisely the problem with all definitions I am drawing attention to - they are exclusionary in nature. Sometimes creating distinctions is useful. Sometimes erasing distinctions is even more useful. How much physics could you do without Noether's theorem?
      - anonymous_sorry 3y ago
        How much engineering could we do without Mathematics? How much commerce? I don't see it as exclusionary. You won't find many scientists in doubt about the fact that everything they do is built upon Logic and Mathematics, in addition to observation. But don't we need a word to group fields that try to systematically describe, understand, and make predictions about the physical world? (Rather than seeking to explore and characterise idealised logical constructs?). What would you suggest?
        ukj 3y ago
        You may not see it as exclusionary but many people do. Just look at the comments! It's precisely the grouping I am talking about. If you group science in such a way so that logic/mathematics/computer science falls outside the group then isn't that an erroneous grouping? Isn't that a silly definition? True and False are idealized logical constructs. It's the idea; and the idealization of the notion that there is a difference between Truth and Falsehood. Or if you want to get biblical - there is a difference between Right and Wrong. If True ≡ False then... fuck it.
        anonymous_sorry 3y ago