Science Definition

[kvraghavaiah]

Science

Scientific Knowledge:
The sun rises in the sky. We do not doubt our brain and eyes in accepting this, since living becomes very difficult if we doubt them. We accept the observations which are reliable for life, irrespective of the facts. We trust our sense organs and brain. When an observation is reliable, it is not mandatory to know the facts of that observation. An observation is reliable unless there is an alternative observation. ‘Sun travels from east to west of the earth in the sky’ was a reliable observation until it was observed that ‘the earth spins’. It cannot be disproved that your brain is under the control of a data injecting system, where your environment is only an imaginary creation of that system. It is impossible to know the facts of an observation. There are always unsolvable puzzles if we go in deep to find the facts of an observation. All reliable observations are reliable beliefs, because we do not know the facts of the observations. But, all reliable beliefs are not reliable observations. Some reliable beliefs are derived from reliable observations, but themselves are not observations. Many presented models of the universe are reliable beliefs based on reliable observations. The beliefs on the basis of reliable observations, which do not have alternative reliable observations, have to be relied on. Because I have been observing that the sun has been rising in the sky every day, I reliably believe that the sun rises in the sky tomorrow also. There are facts too among what we know. It is a fact that space and time are limitless. It is a fact that in any right-angled triangle, the area of the square whose side is the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the areas of the squares whose sides are the two legs. Only some of the facts and reliable beliefs are useful. The observation that a zebra has more combined area of black strips on its body that the combined area of white strips is useless to us. An office sales information is not applicable always and everywhere. Scientific knowledge is the set of facts and reliable beliefs, which are useful irrespective of time and place.

We have to doubt some things. We should not accept and/or believe which does not have enough bases, or which can be disproved using facts or reliable beliefs.

Reference:
http://theknowledgeo..._Psychology.htm

[pijn is fijn]

I doubt science sometimes.
I think for myself.
I know certain things for sure, for example:
Fire burns, molecules get different compositions.
I can confirm this, by practically burning things, and understanding the theory behind it.
I believe this is an example of science.
But when it comes to edge-sciences.. Theories that have not been confirmed, there is some doubt with me, but also curiousity for the truth.
Will I continue to try to understand the truth behind the uncertain theories?
Or should I just leave them for scientists to confirm all the answers for me?
With the right explaination, everything can be explained.

[kvraghavaiah]

The modern physics scientists out there confuse any one and themselves too a lot. It seems as if they just end up creating more questions than what they solve. But dont worry .. the root science is open now.


Please read the below link.. you have perfect answer for your question

http://theknowledgeone.com/documents/Bramha.htm

but you have to read very patiently. Else, you will doubt this excellent article.

[SmallTownGuy]

pijn is fijn

You doubt science sometimes? Good. You might make a good scientist.

Science doesn't ask anyone to just believe. Science at heart is based on skepticism. A scientist goes out, looks at a collection of data (the "set of facts" that the OP mistakes for science), perhaps carefully collects some more data, tries to find ideas to tie some of the data together, and then - most importantly - tries to find ways to test the ideas, because he/she doesn't trust them either.

The article that the OP links to is just some pseudo-Hindu mystic's ramblings, who clearly is not a scientist and does not seem to think to test his theories. It surprises me a bit, but only because I've known several Hindi who were good scientists.

[kvraghavaiah]

I have edited the original post with more explanation for 'Science definition', as it was very confusing to readers with less explanation.

[Mooby the Golden Sock]

No, science isn't a collection of facts, it's a process, a method, a type of study. Science is something you do, not something you have.

[kvraghavaiah]

Mooby the Golden Sock

No, science isn't a collection of facts, it's a process, a method, a type of study. Science is something you do, not something you have.

Hmm .The meaning of the actual word 'Science' is 'Knowledge'. In most historical scripts and in general commonsense, we know science as some knowledge we have. Explaining science as some thing we do is a miss-introduction done by some recent people.

[Layra-chan]

Etymology has no bearing on meaning. "Fog" originally meant "mossy" but nobody cares these days except for linguists focusing on Old English. Language evolves. If you've actually read those historical scripts you should know this. Today science is not a collection of facts, and whatever it was 3000 years ago is irrelevant.
The only merit to common sense is that it is common, not that it is sense. Hey, another term whose literal translation happens to be false.

[kvraghavaiah]

Now I understand want happened:

In Indian languages, a word which is equivalent to 'Science' in English is used as synonym to 'Knowledge'. Also, worlds most ancient script 'Vedha' has synonyms 'Knowledge' and 'Science'. So I had strongly in my mind that Science=Knowledge.

But majority of the world currently sees science as the set of processes around knowledge rather than the knowledge itself. So the definition I developed sounds a bit odd. So, I am with drawing this definition. I am making it as the meaning of 'Scientific knowledge' instead of science. But I will purify the description to take in to account the meaningful comments I received from different people.

[ColtynPhD]

Science is just a way to understand the world around us, similar to something like religion. The beautiful thing about science is that there are ways to confirm the observations.

In retrospect, science is a useless pursuit. It changes nothing. But it's more of what you do with the understanding of science that makes a difference.

[CuAnnan]

kvraghavaiah

The modern physics scientists out there confuse any one and themselves too a lot. It seems as if they just end up creating more questions than what they solve. But dont worry .. the root science is open now.


Please read the below link.. you have perfect answer for your question

http://theknowledgeone.com/documents/Bramha.htm

but you have to read very patiently. Else, you will doubt this excellent article.

your Citation

No one knows what an electron is

An electron is a fundamental particle with a negative elementary electric charge.

The problem with this citation is fundamental in nature. It makes a series of undemonstrable statements which are completely unprovable. There is no means to possibly prove them. You have to take them completely and utterly on faith and faith alone. There is not, and cannot be, evidence for any of it.

It is not science. It is mysticism. Pure and simple.

[FlySammyJ]

kvraghavaiah

Mooby the Golden Sock

No, science isn't a collection of facts, it's a process, a method, a type of study. Science is something you do, not something you have.

Hmm .The meaning of the actual word 'Science' is 'Knowledge'. In most historical scripts and in general commonsense, we know science as some knowledge we have. Explaining science as some thing we do is a miss-introduction done by some recent people.

The meaning of the actual word "terrific" is "frighting or terrifying." Etymology =/= current definition.

All current scientific knowledge has been accrued via the use of the scientific method. Use of this method is criteria for knowledge to be considered "scientific." Mooby's point is valid.

[dxnobodyx]

Mooby the Golden Sock

No, science isn't a collection of facts, it's a process, a method, a type of study. Science is something you do, not something you have.

The science is strong with this one hmmm.

[LowPitchedNote]

kvraghavaiah

Scientific knowledge is the set of facts andreliable beliefs, which are useful irrespective of time and place.

I would like to offer that all of our knowledge is guesswork at best. Some of it is much more reliable than others, but it's physically impossible to "prove" anything. You can only disprove and find a well-fitting model. There are no "facts" in an absolute sense.

[Dysia]

Science is the study of the physical universe. Technology is the application of science.