Talk:What is science?
Is science concerned with what can be objectively verified, or what is true? Are we being unduly influenced by contemporary trends? Should historical considerations of science be considered? The Jade Knight 06:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- What distinction are you trying to draw between "objective verification" and "truth"? Within science, "truth" is relative (not absolute); if multiple independent and skeptical observers can find support for an hypothesis, then they develop some confidence that the hypothesis true. Scientists often avoid use of the word "truth" because it has alternative meanings (example) that flirt with truth as being absolute and unquestionable. It would be useful to have a Wikiversity learning project for the history of science. We already have some starting material for Philosophy of Science. --JWSchmidt 16:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
- Once again, what scientists do now is what contemporary scientists do. It clearly does not apply to thinkers like Plato or DesCartes. Often, "what is science" is tainted so much by modern perceptions of science that people forget to question modern assumptions, and consider what earlier concepts of science have been. Plato was after Truth. DesCartes (who largely invented the scientific method) was after Truth, and the Method was simply a way to try to reach Truth through systematic means. But DesCartes was certainly not the first scientist. Unfortunately, I'm not much of a Science expert, but I am a bit of a History expert, and I think it would be great if a historical perspective were considered here. The Jade Knight 04:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
- Once again, what scientists do now is what contemporary scientists do. It clearly does not apply to thinkers like Plato or DesCartes. Often, "what is science" is tainted so much by modern perceptions of science that people forget to question modern assumptions, and consider what earlier concepts of science have been. Plato was after Truth. DesCartes (who largely invented the scientific method) was after Truth, and the Method was simply a way to try to reach Truth through systematic means. But DesCartes was certainly not the first scientist. Unfortunately, I'm not much of a Science expert, but I am a bit of a History expert, and I think it would be great if a historical perspective were considered here. The Jade Knight 04:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
A good starting point for exploring "What is Science" is A book called "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" - Kuhn 1962. The idea that science is made up of different paradigms or collections of accepted facts is crucial to the advancement of science as it is today. The use is in the fact that future scientific thought and investigations can be built upon a paradigm without having to recreate it, and as life is too short to know and understand everything, paradigms present a useful platform to propel yourself into new unknown science.--Star Teacher 20:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)