Would it not be an admirable idea if one of those general-interest, for-the-public science mags, like Discover or Popular Science, put out a special issue on this very important but rarely discussed question: What is Science? Make it Scientific American; in my experience it seems to be the most prestigious of such magazines. The magazine could interview, say, the top one hundred scientists throughout the broad spectrum of scientific studies, asking for, oh, five hundred words or so on that question.
One of the themes I would hope such an issue would bring out is the fact that the word “science” is overused, and often used improperly. A decent working definition of science might be, “a systematic, testable organization of facts and theories describing to the natural world.” The essential point I want to make is that “science” has now morphed into an umbrella term which covers much more than the narrow requirements of this definition, particularly that inconvenient truth about testability.
How about a moratorium on the broad, irresponsible use of the word Science? Instead, why not introduce a continuum of categories within Science? A new labeling system, if nothing else. Science already is subdivided by subject, inclusive of everything from the hard sciences (mathematics, physics, chemistry) to the life sciences (biology, psychology, sociology, etc). You can notice that as one moves from harder to softer, Science takes on a more subjective character. Verifiable results from the duplication of experiments becomes more difficult, if not impossible. Indeed, some of the softer sciences are really more collections of developed opinions than what has traditionally been thought of as the thing known as Science.
Why not subdivide Science by the “degree” of Science, in addition to the current subdivision by subject matter. Gradations of verifiability might be a good baseline standard for “degree.” The “strongest” Science would be that which is proven, non-disputed, replicable and testable. It’s almost unbreakable. Most math, I’d guess, would fall into this category, as would huge chunks of physics.
But Science is not just facts and cause-and-effect correlations. It is also the attempt to solve the riddle of the natural world. So, another area perhaps one degree removed from “strongest” would be for theories undergoing the rigorous proof process. The important thing to note here is that verifiability is possible. We have the know-how and the technology, all that remains is to actually do the experiments and submit them to intensive peer review.
This naturally leads to a third category of Science: theories which we do not have the know-how nor the technology to reproduce its predictions. Because of this, its really intelligent and informed speculation, rather than Science. String theory would fall into this category, as would, I’d imagine, hot topics today such as Darwinian evolution and climatology. Of course, as decades go by and man’s technical abilities increase, such theories may move into the previous category devoted to ideas in the process of being tested.
Obviously, this can’t be done in a rigid sort of way, the way one would like to have scientific theorems proven. But I think it still might be beneficial, if for nothing else to regain the “purity” that the term Science has now obviously abandoned. Who could do such “labeling” and what might the names of the labels be? Scientific American might be a good place to start, though it might not be sufficiently ideologically unbiased. How about journals and the governing bodies of each individual science? Again, there might be bias (mostly through the taint of the whole mess of the government funding business). Perhaps a new governing body might need to be created, something like the Nobel Prize committee was at its inception a decade ago (but no longer is now, mind you). Or some body similar to the ones that grew up around the development and expansion of the Internet.
As far as labels go, why not Strong Science, Potential Science, and Speculative Science? Or something similar; anything, really. Let’s be creative, eh? The gist is to never use the word Science without it’s corresponding adjective.
One of the themes I would hope such an issue would bring out is the fact that the word “science” is overused, and often used improperly. A decent working definition of science might be, “a systematic, testable organization of facts and theories describing to the natural world.” The essential point I want to make is that “science” has now morphed into an umbrella term which covers much more than the narrow requirements of this definition, particularly that inconvenient truth about testability.
How about a moratorium on the broad, irresponsible use of the word Science? Instead, why not introduce a continuum of categories within Science? A new labeling system, if nothing else. Science already is subdivided by subject, inclusive of everything from the hard sciences (mathematics, physics, chemistry) to the life sciences (biology, psychology, sociology, etc). You can notice that as one moves from harder to softer, Science takes on a more subjective character. Verifiable results from the duplication of experiments becomes more difficult, if not impossible. Indeed, some of the softer sciences are really more collections of developed opinions than what has traditionally been thought of as the thing known as Science.
Why not subdivide Science by the “degree” of Science, in addition to the current subdivision by subject matter. Gradations of verifiability might be a good baseline standard for “degree.” The “strongest” Science would be that which is proven, non-disputed, replicable and testable. It’s almost unbreakable. Most math, I’d guess, would fall into this category, as would huge chunks of physics.
But Science is not just facts and cause-and-effect correlations. It is also the attempt to solve the riddle of the natural world. So, another area perhaps one degree removed from “strongest” would be for theories undergoing the rigorous proof process. The important thing to note here is that verifiability is possible. We have the know-how and the technology, all that remains is to actually do the experiments and submit them to intensive peer review.
This naturally leads to a third category of Science: theories which we do not have the know-how nor the technology to reproduce its predictions. Because of this, its really intelligent and informed speculation, rather than Science. String theory would fall into this category, as would, I’d imagine, hot topics today such as Darwinian evolution and climatology. Of course, as decades go by and man’s technical abilities increase, such theories may move into the previous category devoted to ideas in the process of being tested.
Obviously, this can’t be done in a rigid sort of way, the way one would like to have scientific theorems proven. But I think it still might be beneficial, if for nothing else to regain the “purity” that the term Science has now obviously abandoned. Who could do such “labeling” and what might the names of the labels be? Scientific American might be a good place to start, though it might not be sufficiently ideologically unbiased. How about journals and the governing bodies of each individual science? Again, there might be bias (mostly through the taint of the whole mess of the government funding business). Perhaps a new governing body might need to be created, something like the Nobel Prize committee was at its inception a decade ago (but no longer is now, mind you). Or some body similar to the ones that grew up around the development and expansion of the Internet.
As far as labels go, why not Strong Science, Potential Science, and Speculative Science? Or something similar; anything, really. Let’s be creative, eh? The gist is to never use the word Science without it’s corresponding adjective.
So, we have three categories of Science. Theories tested and proven, theories currently undergoing testing, and theories which we do not yet have the ability yet to test. Testing, to me at least, has to be the yardstick here. Anything that can’t be tested does not belong under the umbrella of Science. Move it under Philosophy, or Theology, or anything else you want, but don’t give it the legitimacy of calling it Science.
Just some thoughts off the top of my head …
2 comments:
Hopper, another excellent post and I will try not to get political here. One term I absolutely despise is "Settled Science". There is no such thing. Even provable, testable proof of theses is only provable based on what we currently know. If "what we currently know or pre-suppose" changes, then the thesis may no longer be true.
Here's an example. I was watching teh Science Channel about a week or so ago and the subject was some supernovae from the beginning of the universe sent energy that was just reaching us. Not sure why, but the comment was "If this energy is reaching us, it disproves E=MC squared" I dont understand why but that was the statement. Now we all know E=MC squared is proven fact.
In the end, they were able to "save" E=MC squared by theorizing that the energy dispersed from the supernovae was dispersed as a jet or stream not dispersed in all directions as an explosion. Somehow, thsi saved E=MC squared.
The point of all this: do we really know for sure that science is proven as a concrete, empirical fact that will never change, or do outside influences of which we currently have no knowledge, make these "facts" somehow disproven.
Uncle
Point taken. When I was talking about "Strong Science" I actually had in mind things like the Pythagorean Theorem and the freezing/boiling point of water at sea level. But you are correct in saying that nothing truly is, at its most fundamental level, "settled." (Due in part with God rolling the dice with quantum theory, I suppose.)
Best case example here and a warning for all scientists is Lord Kelvin's infamous pronouncements at the end of the 19th century: (paraphrasing) All that remains in physics is more precise measurements. Immediately after him came X-rays, relativity, quantum theory, and air flight.
Post a Comment