Before I can establish the scientific basis for evolution and creationism, I should first establish a working definition of science. Dictionary.com defines science as “systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.” That seems like as good a definition as any, but I do feel as if a bit of elaboration is in order if we’re going to be talking about what is and is not considered science.
All right, let’s elaborate on that definition. Knowledge is familiarity or acquaintance with facts and truth, as you most likely know. So, what’s with the systematic part? Science is very much dependent on a method—the scientific method. And the scientific method involves, you guessed it, observation and experimentation. That means that scientists have to set up tests or trials in a controlled setting in order to observe the way things work and in order to prove their hypotheses. Without experimentation and observation, scientists wouldn’t have any sort of reliable account of the natural phenomena that exists in our world. And the system of the scientific method is very much reliable—after all, it’s an integral component of science itself.
So, observation and experimentation: that’s how we go about performing science. So, what exactly is scientifically knowable? What can be scientifically knowable will be a recurring theme once I start describing the different positions I’ll be covering. An important aspect of science is that it can only validate or invalidate hypotheses and theses that are falsifiable. In this context, when a hypothesis is falsifiable doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s false, but it does mean that if the hypothesis happens to false that it can be proved false through the scientific method.
Well, that’s a simple exposition into what science is what it can cover. For my current purposes, this will suffice. In the future as more issues concerning the nature of science and non-science come up, I’ll be sure to cover them.
Self Evaluation Post
14 years ago
I am intrigued to see how the scientific method will hold up in the context of creationism. Also, I wonder, if the other side of the argument will argue that even if something is proven through the scientific method it does not necessarily mean it is truth. Many believe that even if something is proven that does not mean it is fact it just means that it is the best current answer, not the definite answer.
ReplyDeleteI, along with darkmatter, wonder about the connections between the scientific method and creationism.
ReplyDeleteAs for experimentation, there has to be several experiments with a close conclusion in order to deem a hypothesis as generally accepted or not. If one person says that the melting point of formaldehyde is -92 degrees Celsius, then not everyone will believe that person until several others also perform the experiment.
What is a fact? Is it similar to a generally accepted statement?
to darkmatter's thought on proveing something to be fact, statement: Is'nt the only way for one to prove something as fact is to prove evry other possible hypothesis as false.
ReplyDeleteto naturenurture question of fact and generally accepted idea:
a fact is true. and all other possibilities of what something is or could be have been proven wrong.. a generally accepted idea is just that, a generally accepted idea. The majority of the earth could say 2+2 =22. that does not make 2+2=22 fact its just means alot of people cant do math.
It's important to keep in mind that experimentation doesn't set out to prove anything. Rather, a hypothesis must be tested with the intent to disprove. In this way, either a hypothesis either holds up under all circumstances or it is broken down and re-arranged and the process of discovery continues. The scientific community is based on emprical and objective observation and repeatable experimentation. It's inherently difficult to make anything up in the realm of science because there are hundreds of researchers who would love to find something wrong with your ideas. By finding what doesn't work, we can have a better understanding of what does work and investigate the mechanics, using our knowledge (hopefully) to advance the well fare of the planet.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sam that it is important to understand that science does not approach any situation trying to prove any previously believed ideas; science is a process of discovery and in trying to discover new knowledge the idea is proved or disproved.
ReplyDeleteExperimentation develops methods to approach ideas, to view the validity of the argument that is at hand. It provides factual evidence that one is able to recreate. The fact that people are able to recreate the results in scientific experiments, further strengthens that knowledge.
Spartan, I think that your definition of fact has a problem or two. Outside of, say, arithmetic, there's simply no way to disprove every possible hypothesis that goes against any given claim. One would have to spend more than an entire lifetime proving every single possible hypothesis for any given fact: for example, are you willing to take the time to disprove that invisible, untraceable gnomes are casting a magic spell to make the earth appear as if it is spherical? Something like that is not only impossible to "prove", but also an example of any other number of ridiculous claims you say would have to be disproved in order to claim something like "the earth is round" as a fact.
ReplyDelete