what is the purpose of science?

[w!zard]

to many, science is a method for truth-finding. as more is uncovered by science, it is said the closer we come to the truth. i disagree with this view. i believe progress in science is measured ONLY by increasing predicative power. anything else that is gained through it is a coincidence.

in science, there is a problem of induction: no matter how many observations are made that are consistent with an explanation, the explanation cannot be verified. this is because there may be that one (or more) observation that we haven't found yet that is inconsistent with the explanation. since the sole purpose of observations is to disprove, nothing found through science can be verified to be the truth. this is not to say the truth is unreachable through science, only that it would not be known if it were found.

but truth-finding is not even a consideration in science. success is measured by achievements in predictions. the more an explanation is able to predict observations, the stronger it is said to be. there is no mention of “closeness to truth” because there is no method of evaluating truthfulness. it is very possible that while an explanation has high predicative power, it could be completely wrong. this can be demonstrated through a mathematical analogy: say the truth is described as y=x but the only points given (which represents observations) are (0,0) and (1,1). one could pick y=x, but y=x^2 is also correct, as is y^2=x, etc. but nothing can tell us which of the possible explanations is “more likely” to be true. all that can be done is prediction and disprovation. thus, science cannot and does not attempt to search for truth, but only for explanations that predict well.

 

[2001]

Do you think the earth is flat?

 

[w!zard]

no.

does that make it true?

 

[|RK|]

What? Science is meant to provide explanations for common occurrences and to expand our knowledge of the universe around us. That's it.

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

For once I agree with Joker.

The job of a scientists is to add knowledge to the world through their discoveries.

 

[RDK]

All science does is try to explain the natural world around us through testing and observation. The more tests we can do, the better we can nail down a probability on something. The very nature of science is that some things are inherently more probable than others. That way we can weed out bad ideas and keep the good ones.

Here's a cheesy math comparison: think of the evidence we glean via induction as dots on a graph. Science is basically an attempt to find the line of best fit. Once in a while a dot will pop up that we didn't previously anticipate, and we have to adjust our line accordingly. Whether that means nudging the line one degree to the right or drawing a new line completely, it doesn't matter. What matters is whether or not the framework (or scientific mindset) that we're working with is supported by the evidence. If our body of evidence contradicts a known view or theory, then the theory changes. That's the beauty of science; our understanding evolves with experience.

There's no "truth" involved in science; only probability. If you want truth, go take a philosophy class.

 

[2001]

no.

does that make it true?

Your opinion doesn't make it true but im 120% sure that there is proof. So sure I shouldnt even have to give a source.

Humans have eukaryotic cells. Does my opinion make it true? No but there is proof. What is the point of this topic.

 

[w!zard]

that's the point. there IS no proof. you cannot prove ANYTHING with science because there is always the problem of induction. all you can do is create a best-fit model and hope it's successful in its predictions.

 

[Barge]

Its better than not knowing anything at all, hmm?

 

[2001]

that's the point. there IS no proof. you cannot prove ANYTHING with science because there is always the problem of induction. all you can do is create a best-fit model and hope it's successful in its predictions.

The thing that is wrong with your idea is that there are things that are proved my science. Granted these things are much simpler than ideas like the big bang theory, but there are such things as FACTS.

 

[Zero Beat]

In addition to the "simpler ideas," we could use Newton's law of universal gravitation(F=Gm1m2/d^2 or F=GMm/d^2, whatever floats your Physics boat).

 

[w!zard]

The thing that is wrong with your idea is that there are things that are proved my science. Granted these things are much simpler than ideas like the big bang theory, but there are such things as FACTS.

going from a reasonable standpoint, yes there are things such as facts. but the only facts are direct observations. explanations, the product of science, cannot be proven; so they are not known as facts.

 

[KrazyGlue]

w!zard is right; nothing in science can be proven. All the observations we make are based off of someone else's observations, and those are based off of earlier observations, so on and so forth. There's no fact involved anywhere; it's just educated guessing based off previous observations that we assume to be true.

 

[|RK|]

Not necessarily. I mean, if I bend a paperclip back and forth really quickly, that creates friction which creates heat. What do you mean?

 

[KrazyGlue]

Not necessarily. I mean, if I bend a paperclip back and forth really quickly, that creates friction which creates heat. What do you mean?

Well, by using friction, you are assuming that the two surfaces are chemically bonding (this is what causes what we call friction). We also assume that energy is not being created, just converted to heat. We also assume that if you slide an object on a surface with "friction" that the object is not moving. We also make extremely simple assumptions, such as assuming that two objects are making contact.

While some of these may seem incredibly obvious, we are still assuming them to be true, and we have no way to completely prove it. Because every reason we give for this can be traced to its roots to find another observation that it is based off of. While I am 99.999% sure that what you said is true, there's no complete proof.

 

[RDK]

Well, by using friction, you are assuming that the two surfaces are chemically bonding (this is what causes what we call friction). We also assume that energy is not being created, just converted to heat. We also assume that if you slide an object on a surface with "friction" that the object is not moving. We also make extremely simple assumptions, such as assuming that two objects are making contact.

While some of these may seem incredibly obvious, we are still assuming them to be true, and we have no way to completely prove it. Because every reason we give for this can be traced to its roots to find another observation that it is based off of. While I am 99.999% sure that what you said is true, there's no complete proof.

This discussion is pointless and will get us nowhere. We obviously have to accept the axioms of scientific investigation beforehand, or there's no point in carrying out any tests.

Unless the topic of this thread can be slightly altered or directed into something else, there's no point in continuing, as arguing without accepting scientific axioms will just degrade into a shouting match. Get off this point or the thread will be closed.

 

[|RK|]

If you are near absolutely sure that what I just said was true, then what does it have to do with anything? We understand the purpose of science, and that is to understand everything around us.

 

[Eor]

I think science formed both out of natural human curiosity and because humans have always tried to create order in the world

 

[KrazyGlue]

I apologize. I didn't realize that my explanation was so unwanted. I just figured since everyone was agreeing on the main topic, I would just respond to the tangent discussion of whether anything in science can be proven.


In terms of the main topics "what is the purpose of science", I would have to agree with everyone else that it is to further our knowledge of the world around us, often for the purpose of helping us live better lives.


EDIT: I agree with Eor as well, but I would also add that a lot of the reason is to help us have a better quality and longer life.

 

[Eor]

I was more talking about how science started out, such as when we were in hunting/gatherer societies, but yeah improving life is a pretty big part I forgot about. In the very beginning science and philosophy/religion were pretty much the same, since people had little knowledge and relied on supernatural means to explain occurrences (like diseases and the sun/stars), so it pretty much ties in with the order part, since most of the earlier things found diseases to be supernaturally caused, so to not get sick you had to pray or not do bad things as a result of some mystic law of cause and effect.

 

[w!zard]

the OP was talking more about the nature of science rather than sociological factors associated with it. but once you factor that in then it's all about trying to improve our lives. if something isn't going to prove to be useful in some way, it's not going to get funding.