Scientific pronouncements

[MrTea]

I was having lunch with a physicist the other day, and was posed the following question: What makes a scientific statemnt....well, 'scientific'? The ensuing debate was most interesting, as I have a science degree, yet was unable to find an adequate definition. At each turn in the argument, my physicist/friend/colleague did an admirable job at playing devil's advocate. So now in turn I pose the same question to anyone willing to answer:

What makes a scientific statement 'scientific'?

[Belz...]

Well, well, welcome to the forum.

As to your question, which I vaguely remember us discussing in the past, I assume you don't want to work with the dictionary definition. But then, what ?

[strathmeyer]

Science is a process. Scientific pronouncements are a reflection of that process.

[jimbob]

I'd separate "rational" statements from "scientific". So using Occam's razor is "rational" but not nescesarily "scientific".

How about: a (potentially falsifiable) explanation to a question that begins "What would happen if..."

A scientific statement must not be invalidated by previously know knowledge?

(arrgh... relativity and quantum mechanics).

I dislike definitions, as in real life, I suspect that I use patterns and not rules. I know one when I hear it/read it, you might disagree.


Jim

[l0rca]

What is the goal of the question?

I never heard of science coining the terms "scientific pronouncement" and "scientific statement", so I think any answer will not have any official power in it, and all definitions left for subjectional purposes. Without a reason -- or goal -- to place this in a specific part of our scientific idiom, I don't see the point in coming up with a definition to this particular juxtaposition of words. My use for either of the phrases have as equal worth as anyone else's.

Does science really need to define these terms?

Couldn't we just use the two as vague statements, like how a critic of literature might refer to "rhetorical harmony," to talk about the amount of scientific inquiry behind, or foreshadowing the statements that another might make in the name of science?

"He/she didn't make a very scientific pronouncement."
"What do you mean?"
"There wasn't a lot of science behind their words."

I hope you guys don't think it's clever to guess at what "science" means.

[blutoski]

I was having lunch with a physicist the other day, and was posed the following question: What makes a scientific statemnt....well, 'scientific'? The ensuing debate was most interesting, as I have a science degree, yet was unable to find an adequate definition. At each turn in the argument, my physicist/friend/colleague did an admirable job at playing devil's advocate. So now in turn I pose the same question to anyone willing to answer:

What makes a scientific statement 'scientific'?

You're asking an epistemological question called "the demarkation question". This is the same question Popper and Kuhn tried to answer. They came up with different solutions.

Popper went with disprovability. He asserted the "conjecture-refutation" model of scientific knowledge. If you can't concieve of a way to disprove something, then it's not scientific. Scientists are in the job of coming up with conjectures and attempting to refute them.

Kuhn went with a social model. He felt that science is whatever scientists do, and scientific knowledge is whatever scientists say they know.

People like to argue over whether Popper or Kuhn was correct.

I feel that both are correct, and that the debate is missing the point and assuming mutual exclusivity of these models.

Scientists use conjecture-refutation to build their local components of the naturalistic model, but others outside the field in question have to trust their results by accepting the experts' internally vetted reputations.

[freudianlip]

I think scientific statements are a bit like beauty....in the eye of the beholder... where the empirical reception of the statement is its succinct validation.
Could be an intellectual attempt at seeking approval from the scientific community. Now any psychoanalysts out there will remind us that Kleinian thought would relate that directly to the breast, along with Sigmund Freud and W.R.D. Fairbairn, who contributed ideas to make up what we now know as object relations. Initially, Freud introduced the idea of object choice, which referred to a child's earliest relationships with his caretakers. Such people were objects of his needs and desires. The relationship with them became internalized mental representations. Subsequently Melanie Klein coined the term part objects, for example the mother's breast, which played an important role in early development and later in psychic disturbances, such as excessive preoccupation with certain body parts or aspects of a person as opposed to the whole person. Finally, Fairbairn and others developed the so-called object relations theory. According to it, the child who did not receive good enough mothering increasingly retreated into an inner world of fantasy objects with whom he tried to satisfy his need for real objects, that was for relationships (Segal, 1980). :p

[The Grave]

Science would want specifics...Who's breasts are we talking about?; What is the milk yield per squirt? Would this be improved by caressing? [One would hope so!].

A scientific statement is one which can be independently verified and proven by repeatable evidential means...otherwise it's non-sense.

[The Grave]

How can a scientific statement be "a bit like beauty....in the eye of the beholder"? That's subjective. I could not repeat the pleasure you get from first reading relativity, that's subjective, but I could repeat an experiment to test it.

A 'S.S.' can be + or - and the truth sought out, it can be subjective to start with but will lose that trait once the scientific process starts to take over.

Griff...

[The Grave]

Yes and I suppose that some people who were fed from a bottle as babies will develop a fetish for Bud! [That's Budweiser, not Buddhism!]

The reason Freud got it so wrong was ... he was stupid, ignorant and lived before the advent of pampers...

Griff...

[freudianlip]

So a scientific statement should have universality... Then why are scientificly accepted IQ norms not culture specific... How can science pronounce the average IQ at 100...I heard Mr Bushes IQ was 90. If a Kalahari tribesman was tested on this standardised e.g stanford binet and wechsler scientific test, it is likely he would not do very well. Plus where would he get a pen??

[freudianlip]

How can a scientific statement be "a bit like beauty....in the eye of the beholder"? That's subjective. I could not repeat the pleasure you get from first reading relativity, that's subjective, but I could repeat an experiment to test it.

A 'S.S.' can be + or - and the truth sought out, it can be subjective to start with but will lose that trait once the scientific process starts to take over.

Griff...

So a scientific statement should have universality... Then why are scientificly accepted IQ norms not culture specific... How can science pronounce the average IQ at 100...I heard Mr Bushes IQ was 90. If a Kalahari tribesman was tested on this standardised e.g stanford binet and wechsler scientific test, it is likely he would not do very well. Plus where would he get a pen??

[freudianlip]

Yes and I suppose that some people who were fed from a bottle as babies will develop a fetish for Bud! [That's Budweiser, not Buddhism!]

The reason Freud got it so wrong was ... he was stupid, ignorant and lived before the advent of pampers...

Griff...
Bob

Bob works hard and spends most evenings bowling or playing basketball
at the gym. His wife thinks he is pushing himself too hard, so for his
birthday she takes him to a local strip club.

The doorman at the club greets them and says, "Hey, Bob! How ya doin?"

His wife is puzzled and asks if he's been to this club before.

"Oh no," says Bob "He's on my bowling team."

When they are seated, a waitress asks Bob if he'd like his usual and
brings over a Budweiser.

His wife is becoming increasingly uncomfortable and says,"How did she
know that you drink Budweiser?"

"She's in the Ladies' Bowling League, honey. We share lanes with
them."

A stripper then comes over to their table, throws her arms around Bob,
starts to rub herself all over him and says "Hi Bobbie. Want your
usual table dance, big boy?"

Bob's wife, now furious, grabs her purse and storms out of the club.
Bob follows and spots her getting into a cab. Before she can slam the
door, he jumps in beside her.

Bob tries desperately to explain how the stripper must have mistaken
him for someone else, but his wife is having none of it. She is screaming at
him at the top of her lungs, calling him every 4 letter word in the book.

The cabby turns around and says,"Geez Bob, you picked up a real b##ch !

[Gurdur]

Science is a process. Scientific pronouncements are a reflection of that process.
Getting drunk is a process. Drunken statements are a part of that process.

The question needs a bit more of an answer than that.

[Taffer]

Getting drunk is a process. Drunken statements are a part of that process.

The question needs a bit more of an answer than that.

No, not really. What, I feel, the OP meant to ask was "how is scientific knowledge different from other knowledge, and why do we prefer it over said other knowledge?". As the quesion is posed currently, the answer given is sufficient.

[freudianlip]

What apparently distinguishes scientific theory from non-scientific theory is that a particular scientific theory must be 'refutable' in principle, hence a set of circumstances need to exist in such a manner that if observed it would certainly, logically prove the theory wrong.
: A correlation between 2 theories does not automatically prove one thing causes the other!
; as the second thing could cause the first thing ( if not an array of extraneous influence)
:Scientific proofs are not known with 'absolute' certainty, although sufficient evidence may be accumalated to be "reasonably" certain.
: Even though a hypothesis cannot be proven absoloutely true that does not mean that it therefore must be false!

[Gurdur]

No, not really. What, I feel, the OP meant to ask was "how is scientific knowledge different from other knowledge, and why do we prefer it over said other knowledge?". As the quesion is posed currently, the answer given is sufficient.
I'm aware of what the OP meant to ask --
and the answers given here are wholly insufficient, not to mention very simplistic and short.

The problem is that the OP question is extremely complex and actually has not been answered in full satisfactorily anywhere.

You can battle througn all 1,379 pages of this excellent book (http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Science-Central-J-Cover/dp/0393971759/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-6009897-8132860?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177250347&sr=8-1), and still discover at the end of that book that no ultimate, fire-proof answer is yet available. You can also study all the other literature on epistemology (the nature of knowledge) and on science, and the philosophy of science, and discover at the end of all that that no ultimate, fire-proof answer is yet available.

I'ld love to see a short thread that somehow managed to sum up all the issues and give a real answer, even if a less than satisfactorily full one. As it is, this thread hasn't even begun.

[Taffer]

I'm aware of what the OP meant to ask --
and the answers given here are wholly insufficient, not to mention very simplistic and short.

The problem is that the OP question is extremely complex and actually has not been answered in full satisfactorily anywhere.

You can battle througn all 1,379 pages of this excellent book (http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Science-Central-J-Cover/dp/0393971759/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/002-6009897-8132860?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177250347&sr=8-1), and still discover at the end of that book that no ultimate, fire-proof answer is yet available. You can also study all the other literature on epistemology (the nature of knowledge) and on science, and the philosophy of science, and discover at the end of all that that no ultimate, fire-proof answer is yet available.

I'ld love to see a short thread that somehow managed to sum up all the issues and give a real answer, even if a less than satisfactorily full one. As it is, this thread hasn't even begun.

As a philosophy of science minor, I'm well aware of this. The answer given perfectly answered the OP as it was posed, but not as it, perhaps, could have be intended. It is up to the OP to let us know if that was what he intended.

And FWIW, I've seen some pretty good answers. It all depends on the question, you see.

[Gurdur]

As a philosophy of science minor, I'm well aware of this. The answer given perfectly answered the OP as it was posed,
No, it didn't.
Kind of like if someone asks you what a human is --
and you reply "a featherless biped".
The answer may be vaguely correct (though it does have problems, just as the answers here have problems) but it leaves an awful lot to be desired. Which is what I pointed out; the specific answer I originally tackled was so skimpy as to be a non-answer.
It is up to the OP to let us know if that was what he intended.
Not really; hopefully the OPer will do some asking, but after all it's a public discussion board.
And FWIW, I've seen some pretty good answers. It all depends on the question, you see.
No doubt. If you have some pretty good answers to the questions here, share?

[freudianlip]

"Science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary."
Albert Einstein (1879-1955) U. S. physicist.

[MrTea]

Thank you all for your input. I was particularly impressed with blutoski’s response, due to it’s simplicity, straightforwardness and apparent unassailability.

“If you can't concieve of a way to disprove something, then it's not scientific. Scientists are in the job of coming up with conjectures and attempting to refute them”.

Can anyone think of a scientific profession that does not follow the quoted rule?

[Rob Lister]

Thank you all for your input. I was particularly impressed with blutoski’s response, due to it’s simplicity, straightforwardness and apparent unassailability.

“If you can't concieve of a way to disprove something, then it's not scientific. Scientists are in the job of coming up with conjectures and attempting to refute them”.

Can anyone think of a scientific profession that does not follow the quoted rule?

dendroclimatology comes to mind.

[freudianlip]

Thank you all for your input. I was particularly impressed with blutoski’s response, due to it’s simplicity, straightforwardness and apparent unassailability.

“If you can't concieve of a way to disprove something, then it's not scientific. Scientists are in the job of coming up with conjectures and attempting to refute them”.

Can anyone think of a scientific profession that does not follow the quoted rule?

Possibly,
:con2: critical discourse analyist or ethnography (ist..??)?