Science is an empirical proccess through which one attempts to arrive at general conclusions concerning the Universe. Scientific arguments develop inductively, meaning that by multiple observations of certain phenomena, variables are measured and causally linked to each other. Continuous validation of hypotheses (which, unlike many think, are derived from previous observation) leads to the formulation of a theory, which is then scrutinised so as to be accepted or falsified. Falsifiability is a key concept, as assumptions that cannot be proven wrong are not considered scientific -since after the formulation of a theory, one has general statements at their disposal which apply to specific instances; also known as "predictions" of this theory. If so much as one of them is falsified, the theory is refined, or scrapped altogether. By experimentation, mathematical relation between variables are estabilished, while the whole process is repeated ad infinitum, so that theories are accepted or cast away according to their accuracy in describing the natural world.
There are certain misconceptions about the scientific method. One of the most usually claimed is that science, too, depends on blind faith. On the contrary, the only "faith" that exists in science is that the Universe has some laws governing the reaction between matter and energy, and that we, as humans, are able to understand it. Apart from that, as stated above, any unwarranted claim is met with a demand for evidence -natural, observable, objective data. Every formally defined system -including mathematics, heavily used in science- contain some axioms, but these can be regarded as more of definitions that assumptions.
Another false impression is that scientists are a group of back-patting individuals. This is simply not true, as there is a quite high level of competition amongst them. This is, of course, not a problem with the method per se, but rather human nature, which is unrelated. In fact, it is useful, as it speeds scientific advancements, while, unfortunately, leading to some occurances of fraud. However, those are generally uncovered due to scientific rigor, peer reviews, and the like.
A gross -and, sadly, quite common- misconception has to do with the meaning of the term "theory". Some believe that it is a synonym for "assumption", while, in science jargon, it is an explanation of the facts. The facts are objective, while the theories attempt to link them and find relations between parameters. The colloquial use of the term differs, of course.
Moreover, indoctrination and conformism really have to do very little with science, since it is simply a tool to understand the world around us. Going against a well-established theory is not anti-conformisting nor intellectually meritable, unless one can provide rational or empiric warrants.
Lastly, some persons regard science and scientific laws/theories to be prescriptive, meaning that they are supposed to provide a moral framework of some sort. On the contrary, scientific laws are descriptive, dexcribing reality in the most accurate way possible. They document cold, hard facts and the causes of phenomena. While it is true that such scientific conclusions can be used to further an agenda, that is not their purpose.
Long story short: science was basically born the day a philosopher called Archimedes woke up and said, "OK, guys, stop binge-eating and philosophising; we COULD get out and see if we're correct, right?" (I love to joke about my ancestors) He did not follow his own advice, but it was a start, with Galileo, Newton and then Einstein and all the modern scientists following, adding to the definition of the scientific method.
Science is all the above. It is not a religion, an ideology, a doctrine, a belief system or a faith. It is an empirical inductive model to arrive at conclusions regarding the laws governing the Universe. Nothing more, nothing less.
And, one last thing; I implore you, never, ever confuse the scientific method with the applications of it. Never.
There are certain misconceptions about the scientific method. One of the most usually claimed is that science, too, depends on blind faith. On the contrary, the only "faith" that exists in science is that the Universe has some laws governing the reaction between matter and energy, and that we, as humans, are able to understand it. Apart from that, as stated above, any unwarranted claim is met with a demand for evidence -natural, observable, objective data. Every formally defined system -including mathematics, heavily used in science- contain some axioms, but these can be regarded as more of definitions that assumptions.
Another false impression is that scientists are a group of back-patting individuals. This is simply not true, as there is a quite high level of competition amongst them. This is, of course, not a problem with the method per se, but rather human nature, which is unrelated. In fact, it is useful, as it speeds scientific advancements, while, unfortunately, leading to some occurances of fraud. However, those are generally uncovered due to scientific rigor, peer reviews, and the like.
A gross -and, sadly, quite common- misconception has to do with the meaning of the term "theory". Some believe that it is a synonym for "assumption", while, in science jargon, it is an explanation of the facts. The facts are objective, while the theories attempt to link them and find relations between parameters. The colloquial use of the term differs, of course.
Moreover, indoctrination and conformism really have to do very little with science, since it is simply a tool to understand the world around us. Going against a well-established theory is not anti-conformisting nor intellectually meritable, unless one can provide rational or empiric warrants.
Lastly, some persons regard science and scientific laws/theories to be prescriptive, meaning that they are supposed to provide a moral framework of some sort. On the contrary, scientific laws are descriptive, dexcribing reality in the most accurate way possible. They document cold, hard facts and the causes of phenomena. While it is true that such scientific conclusions can be used to further an agenda, that is not their purpose.
Long story short: science was basically born the day a philosopher called Archimedes woke up and said, "OK, guys, stop binge-eating and philosophising; we COULD get out and see if we're correct, right?" (I love to joke about my ancestors) He did not follow his own advice, but it was a start, with Galileo, Newton and then Einstein and all the modern scientists following, adding to the definition of the scientific method.
Science is all the above. It is not a religion, an ideology, a doctrine, a belief system or a faith. It is an empirical inductive model to arrive at conclusions regarding the laws governing the Universe. Nothing more, nothing less.
And, one last thing; I implore you, never, ever confuse the scientific method with the applications of it. Never.
Religion, politics and controversial issues have nothing to do with science itself. They sometimes have to do with the scientific community.
There have been frauds, of course; how about the scientist who claimed that he transplanted black rat's skin to white rats, only for a cohort of him to discover that they were... painted? Scientists are not gods; nobody has ever claimed that -rather, some claim that scientists claim it. To play God is to alter nature, not discover its laws. Again, this is a confusion of technology and science; related, but different.
There is no indoctrination; you cannot indoctrinate someone with empirical facts, neither the description of theories. Finally -and a late thank you to anyone who bothered to read this wall of text-
religion and science are only enemies when one of them swims in the other's waters -that is, when scientists try to derive conclusions about what we should do, and when theologists claim entities that CAN be falsified, and therefore are in the realms of science. Scientists answer WHAT, WHEN, and HOW. Religious people -or philosophers, for that matter- answer WHO and WHY. Stick to your job, people. As long as you don't get in the way of the other search party, we'll all be fine.
There have been frauds, of course; how about the scientist who claimed that he transplanted black rat's skin to white rats, only for a cohort of him to discover that they were... painted? Scientists are not gods; nobody has ever claimed that -rather, some claim that scientists claim it. To play God is to alter nature, not discover its laws. Again, this is a confusion of technology and science; related, but different.
There is no indoctrination; you cannot indoctrinate someone with empirical facts, neither the description of theories. Finally -and a late thank you to anyone who bothered to read this wall of text-
religion and science are only enemies when one of them swims in the other's waters -that is, when scientists try to derive conclusions about what we should do, and when theologists claim entities that CAN be falsified, and therefore are in the realms of science. Scientists answer WHAT, WHEN, and HOW. Religious people -or philosophers, for that matter- answer WHO and WHY. Stick to your job, people. As long as you don't get in the way of the other search party, we'll all be fine.
by Anonymous Scientist October 14, 2008
1. Something that most people choose to not give a shit about, despite the fact that gaining more knowledge about the universe and how it functions will better us as a race.
2. Something that people rarely contemplate or participate in on an advanced level because they are to caught up with the pointless routine of everything that is right in front of them, and absolutely nothing that is beyond them or of any relevance or importance on the incomprehensibly large scale of the universe.
3. Something that everyone should care about and be interested in.
2. Something that people rarely contemplate or participate in on an advanced level because they are to caught up with the pointless routine of everything that is right in front of them, and absolutely nothing that is beyond them or of any relevance or importance on the incomprehensibly large scale of the universe.
3. Something that everyone should care about and be interested in.
Amanda: I love sitting around and watching TV, talking to cute boys, never contemplating the fact that our planet is orbiting a single star amongst billions of stars in a single galaxy amongst billions of galaxies in the universe. Yeah, thats pretty much what every other young person around me does too, isn't that encouraging?
Scientist/astronomer: No!!!!!! That is quite alarming! our entire race should be more focused on the things that actually matter and will better both our intelligence and longevity as a race. Like maybe......science and the massive universe around us that we know little about.
Amanda: Yeah, but that stuff is boring. I think I'll just stay caught up in my life of things that are of no importance in comparison to the vast field of potential and knowledge and understanding that lies beyond me.
Scientist/astronomer:..........Fuck.
Scientist/astronomer: No!!!!!! That is quite alarming! our entire race should be more focused on the things that actually matter and will better both our intelligence and longevity as a race. Like maybe......science and the massive universe around us that we know little about.
Amanda: Yeah, but that stuff is boring. I think I'll just stay caught up in my life of things that are of no importance in comparison to the vast field of potential and knowledge and understanding that lies beyond me.
Scientist/astronomer:..........Fuck.
by HYDN95 August 19, 2011
It is originated from chinglish "zhe bu ke xue". It is always used to express surprise or astonishment at unexpected or unusual things. By saying that, one means the thing he/she is told or sees is out of his/her expectation.
A: You know what, Tom just got the offer from Morgan Stanley, but he rejected it and decided to go to a small local bank.
B: Oh, that is not science.
B: Oh, that is not science.
by ritotila April 27, 2014
(n)
1. knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method and concerned with the physical world and its phenomena
1. knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through the scientific method and concerned with the physical world and its phenomena
by krishna February 27, 2005
teacher: can someone name me a prime number
idiot: err...21?
teacher: no, you fool, 21 is a product of 7 and 3
student: you've been scienced
idiot: err...21?
teacher: no, you fool, 21 is a product of 7 and 3
student: you've been scienced
by Emily O November 27, 2007
by TROLLKING9001 August 29, 2020
The event in which, while gaming, something unexpected happens and you need to explain why.
Alternatively it is used to explain why you are doing something difficult or boring but provides rewards on completion.
Finally it can be used as a good old exclamation in everyday life.
Alternatively it is used to explain why you are doing something difficult or boring but provides rewards on completion.
Finally it can be used as a good old exclamation in everyday life.
Example 1)
*Character is floating in mid-air*
Observer: What!? How is that possible!?
Gamer: SCIENCE!
Example 2)
Observer: Why are you going all the way over there for a sword?!
Gamer: because SCIENCE!
Example 3)
Person: SCIENCE!
*Character is floating in mid-air*
Observer: What!? How is that possible!?
Gamer: SCIENCE!
Example 2)
Observer: Why are you going all the way over there for a sword?!
Gamer: because SCIENCE!
Example 3)
Person: SCIENCE!
by Jigsaw232 August 31, 2011