Defining Science

As with the previous post describing the differences between how a science theory is defined vs a layman’s concept of a theory, this post is designed to lay the groundwork for further discussions on various topics. This post is not written to get into any specific controversy, but to set the stage for later discussions.

As with the discussion on Theory, I will be showing some common definitions and then expanding upon these further.

As defined by Websters, science is:
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; perhaps akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split
1: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a: a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study
b: something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
3 a: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena
4: a method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws

The overriding themes on these definitions seems to be knowledge and the search for knowledge. This means that Science is concerned with learning and acquiring information, or knowledge.

As Dagobert Soergel stated with regards to Information Sciences at his American Society for Information Science Award of Merit Acceptance Speech:
Information science is concerned with conceptual foundations: with the structure of knowledge and the structure of problems; with problem solving and decision making and their synergy with external information; with information processing, learning, and reasoning by people and machines; and with the role of information in social groups and organizations.

While this is one VERY important aspect of science, it does not quite give the entire picture by itself. There are still at least two other important aspects which Websters mostly overlooks that I would like to delve into.

As with Theory, dictionary.com seems to have a similar but bit more expansive description of Science:
1: a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws
2: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation
3: any of the branches of natural or physical science
4: systematized knowledge in general
5: knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study
6: a particular branch of knowledge
7: skill, esp. reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency
8 a: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena
b: Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena
c: Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study
9: Methodological activity, discipline, or study
10: An activity that appears to require study and method
11: Knowledge, especially that gained through experience

The next aspect of Science, which this has covered can be seen in #2 (physical or material world), #3 (natural or physical science), and #8b (natural phenomena) is that science is restricted to natural phenomena (or physical or material world). What this really means is that Science, by definition can not describe the truly supernatural. Any phenomena that takes place outside of the natural world, by definition, can not be studied by scientific means.

As Bruce G. Stewart states in his article Defining Science, Critical Thinking, and the Value of Science:
Matters of opinion, morality, and spiritual beliefs that cannot be tested with empirical evidence are not within the domain of science. “Natural” means explainable and understandable, that is capable of being explained, whereas “supernatural” means unexplainable—beyond human understanding. Thus, supernatural beliefs are excluded from science because they deny the very essence of science, not because scientists are atheists as many people belief. Scientists, like any other segment of our society, have a wide range of spiritual beliefs.

The final aspect of Science that I want to delve into is that Science is concerned with that which can be tested and is falsifiable. While this is alluded to by Dictionary.com #2 (gained through observation and experimentation) and Websters #3a (general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method), neither does a truly satisfactory job of explaining this fully.

An article I came across on About.com describes science as:
Fundamentally, science can be characterized as a method of obtaining reliable – though not infallible – knowledge about the universe around us. This knowledge includes both descriptions of what happens and explanations of why it happens.
The knowledge is reliable because it is continually tested and retested – much of science is heavily interdependent, which means that any test of any scientific idea entails testing other, related ideas at the same time. The knowledge is not infallible, because at no point do scientists assume that they have arrived at a final, definitive truth.
The knowledge involved is that about the universe around us, and that includes us as well. This is why science is naturalistic: it is all about natural processes and natural events. Science involves both description, which tells us what has happened, and explanation, which tells us why it happened. This latter point is an important factor because it is only through knowing why events occur that we can predict what else might occur in the future.

Wikipedia, which as I have mentioned before is not always 100% accurate but in this case does quite a good job, states the following:
These groupings are empirical sciences, which means the knowledge must be based on observable phenomena and capable of being experimented for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions.
Formal science, which also includes statistics and logic, is vital to the empirical sciences. Major advances in formal science have often led to major advances in the physical and biological sciences. The formal sciences are essential in the formation of hypotheses, theories, and laws, both in discovering and describing how things work (natural sciences) and how people think and act (social sciences).
The scientific method seeks to explain the events of nature in a reproducible way, and to use these reproductions to make useful predictions. It is done through observation of natural phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate natural events under controlled conditions. It provides an objective process to find solutions to problems in a number of scientific and technological fields. Often scientists have a preference for one outcome over another, and scientists are conscientious that it is important that this preference does not bias their interpretation. A strict following of the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of a scientist’s bias on the outcome of an experiment. This can be achieved by correct experimental design, and a thorough peer review of the experimental results as well as conclusions of a study.
Scientists never claim absolute knowledge of nature or the behavior of the subject of the field of study. Unlike a mathematical proof, a scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification, if new evidence is presented. Even the most basic and fundamental theories may turn out to be imperfect if new observations are inconsistent with them. Critical to this process is making every relevant aspect of research publicly available, which permits peer review of published results, and also allows ongoing review and repeating of experiments and observations by multiple researchers operating independently of one another.
Science is reasoned-based analysis of sensation upon our awareness. As such, the scientific method cannot deduce anything about the realm of reality that is beyond what is observable by existing or theoretical means. When a manifestation of our reality previously considered supernatural is understood in the terms of causes and consequences, it acquires a scientific explanation.
Resting on reason and logic, along with other guidelines such as parsimony (e.g., “Occam’s Razor“), scientific theories are formulated and repeatedly tested by analyzing how the collected evidence compares to the theory.

In this case, Wikipedia does a very good job of stating tat among other things, Science is based on the idea that observations on natural phenomena must be testable and falsifiable. The results of these tests must also be reproducible by other scientists, and all aspects of the testing procedure is subject to peer review. This helps to ensure that the results are not subject to flaws in the testing procedure, biases of the scientist(s) studying the phenomena.

While one can delve further into the “true” meaning of science the three primary aspects which I wanted to cover are that science is above all a the Knowledge, and/or the search for Knowledge, of Natural Phenomena which is Testable and Falsifiable. When discussing science, what constitutes science, and what should be taught as science, or in a science curriculum, these points should always be at the forefront of your mind.

The previously mentioned About.com article very eloquently summarizes much of what I have tried to convey, thusly:
The definition of science poses some problems for people. Everyone seems to have an idea of what science is, but actually articulating it proves to be difficult. Doing so, however, is necessary to understand what science really is and what science is not. Understanding science is, in turn, necessary because of its incredible power and influence in modern society. Ignorance about science simply isn’t a viable option.