What is "Science"?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I was wondering what applied to science.

What does something have to do before it can be considered science?

I thought that it needed to work with facts,or needed evidence to be considered science.But then what is theoretical physics? Quantum Physics? Does it work with evidence or facts?


Also...I hear alot that lack of evidence of something can be used as evidence against that something.

For instance since there is no evidence of god,that lack of evidence can be used as evidence against the existance of god.

Is this true?


I've searched for both of these topics and I could not find either on this forum,or google.


Please explain without getting too complicated about it.
Thanks

[Donks]

Originally posted by Dustin
I thought that it needed to work with facts,or needed evidence to be considered science.But then what is theoretical physics? Quantum Physics? Does it work with evidence or facts?
Quantum Mechanics makes testable predictions that have been verified in experiments. Substitute that for "superstring theory" and, at least for the time being, your question will be more pertinent.
For instance since there is no evidence of god,that lack of evidence can be used as evidence against the existance of god.
Not really. As they say, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[wollery]

Science, in the purest sense of the word, is a process.

It consists of observing some object or action, forming an idea about how it might work (hypothesis, or theory), formulating a test that might show the idea to be false, conducting such test in the form of an experiment, using the results of the experiment to modify or completely falsify the idea, forming a new idea, formulating a new experiment, etc.....

In practice it is very rare that a single scientist carries out all of these steps. Theorists form the ideas about how things might work, whilst experimentalists come up with ways to actually test these ideas.

Absence of evidence, unfortunately is meaningless. The god hypothesis is scientifically untestable.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by Dustin

For instance since there is no evidence of god,that lack of evidence can be used as evidence against the existance of god.

Is this true?



No. If it were true, then I could say, "there is no evidence that God does not exist, therefore the theorum that God does not exist must be false and God must exist."

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50700&perpage=40&pagenumber=1

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50700&perpage=40&pagenumber=1


Thanks bodhi.

And everyone else.

[Soapy Sam]

Systematically applied common sense. With notes.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by Soapy Sam
Systematically applied common sense. With notes.


I have yet to encounter any evidence that common sense exists.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Donks
Not really. As they say, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I would disagree with Sagan on this occasion. Absence of evidence can be considered evidence of absence, providing there has been a search for it. Of course this evidence is in no way conclusive or strong evidence, but it still counts as evidence.

[wollery]

Originally posted by plindboe
I would disagree with Sagan on this occasion. Absence of evidence can be considered evidence of absence, providing there has been a search for it. Of course this evidence is in no way conclusive or strong evidence, but it still counts as evidence. That assumes that you know what to look for, in which case the absence of that thing is in itself evidential. This is then not absence of evidence, but actually evidence of absence. True absence of evidence requires that there be no knowledge of whether or not there should be evidence or what form that evidence should take.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by plindboe
I would disagree with Sagan on this occasion. Absence of evidence can be considered evidence of absence, providing there has been a search for it.

You have much more faith in your searchers than I do. I don't see a single Mercedes in the lot outside my window. Have I just obtained evidence that Mercedeses (sp?) don't exist? (By the way, the lot is a Honda dealership....)

[Jorghnassen]

A scientific claim has to be falsifiable, that's about it... For the rest, don't believe everything that empiricists say.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by new drkitten
You have much more faith in your searchers than I do. I don't see a single Mercedes in the lot outside my window. Have I just obtained evidence that Mercedeses (sp?) don't exist? (By the way, the lot is a Honda dealership....)

No, but it is definately evidence that you don't own a Mercedes. Not definitive by any means, but certainly evidence to that effect.

What I usually say is, absence of evidence _where it should be found_ is evidence of absence.

If I claim I have an elephant in my house, but you can't find any indication that I am disposing of elephant dung, than that is certainly evidence that I don't have an elephant. IOW, the absence of elephant dung is evidence that there is no elephant around.

[Pragmatist]

Originally posted by new drkitten
You have much more faith in your searchers than I do. I don't see a single Mercedes in the lot outside my window. Have I just obtained evidence that Mercedeses (sp?) don't exist? (By the way, the lot is a Honda dealership....)

That's a straw man. You most certainly have evidence that would tend to indicate that there are no Mercedes in that particular lot. Whether they exist or not outside that lot is a different matter entirely.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Pragmatist
That's a straw man. You most certainly have evidence that would tend to indicate that there are no Mercedes in that particular lot. Whether they exist or not outside that lot is a different matter entirely.

It's not a straw man at all. "Absence of evidence" simply means that we looked and didn't find anything. But there's a key question that needs to be addressed, which is whether or not we have any reason whatsoever to believe either that the techniques that we were using in our search would have found something,... OR that we were looking in a sufficiently large and representative sample of where the things we were searching for might be expected to be found.

In the total absence of evidence, we have no way of addressing that question, which makes drawing conclusions from "absence of evidence" problematic to the point of futile.

I think Cohen and Pratchett put it well in one of their books. "When someone says : 'there is no evidence for.....', you need to ask three things.

1) Is there any evidence against?
2) Has anyone looked?
3) Would they expect to find any evidence for if they did look?"

[TillEulenspiegel]

What is "Science"?

Ummm It's the class between social studies and lunch?

[Nim]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
No, but it is definately evidence that you don't own a Mercedes. Not definitive by any means, but certainly evidence to that effect.

What I usually say is, absence of evidence _where it should be found_ is evidence of absence.

If I claim I have an elephant in my house, but you can't find any indication that I am disposing of elephant dung, than that is certainly evidence that I don't have an elephant. IOW, the absence of elephant dung is evidence that there is no elephant around.

Well said. I didn't think about it being evidence for not owning a Mercedes, but I immediately thought it was evidence that there was no Mercedes in the lot. Not very good evidence unless you get out and walk around the lot though.

This remind me of how people say that you cannot prove a negative.

[Bruce]

According to pop culture, science has to do with lab coats, nerdy glasses, beakers, and a rack full of bizzarre glassware filled with colorful bubbling liquids.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Bruce
According to pop culture, science has to do with lab coats, nerdy glasses, beakers, and a rack full of bizzarre glassware filled with colorful bubbling liquids.

Its all part of the formula.