Science is, in essence, the systematic study of the physical universe. The process of science is basically: observe, hypothesize, test, analyze, conclude. The rules mostly have to do with letting the evidence trump your preconceptions, being honest and open about how you got your results, and admitting when you're wrong.
Science should be done primarily by those who are trained in it. Who should support it depends on what science it is (for example, narrowly focused medical or industrial research should be primarily supported by the drug company or industry who seeks to harvest its fruits), but in a general sense all of society (and thus, both the government and relevant charitable organizations) should support it. In particular, the government should support any basic research that might lead to better medical treatment in the future, as well as any research that might further other legitimate government aims (such as reducing crime or poverty).
Most science should be judged essentially internally, as for the most part only people in a given field, or in a closely related field (eg sociologists vs anthropologists) understand a subject well enough to be competent judges. However, the *results* of science are reasonably subject to public scrutiny and debate.
Science should... be used to help determine the best means to an end decided on by normal policy means. For example, if we have decided that we don't want New Orleans flooded again, we should go to relevant scientists, who would come back with proposals (better levy designs, coastal island flood buffers, using infill of some sort to raise the level of the land, whatever). Those proposals should include the costs and benefits of each. Then, by normal policy means (voting, appointed committees, etc) policy makers, *using that information*, should decide what path to take.
Frequently, sad to say, scientists are the *last* people who should be passing information to the general public. Most people don't go into science because they're social butterflies who excel at explaining things to others. Some very few scientists are socially literate enough to do that task, but what we really need is journalists and the like who understand science well enough that they can explain and/or intelligently comment on it. They don't need to be able to actually do serious science themselves, but they should know at least enough about the field they are reporting on that they can read a scientific paper without it turning into gibberish in their brains. Then the scientists can explain the issue to the trained journalists, who can in turn explain it to ordinary citizens in a way that it won't turn into the "Wa, wa, wa" of adults in Peanuts cartoons in their brains.
And, well, we need basic science education in our schools that's good enough that most people at least more or less comprehend things like "the same thing can have more than one possible cause", "no statistically significant increase is not the same as no increase at all", "most scientific values have some uncertainty attached", and so on.
What: Organized common sense.
Who: Everyone. It doesn't matter whether or not you have been trained. The toddler who sees a butterfly, notes the colors, and what it is doing is engaging in science.
Support: It would be nice if there were an independent granting agency that could evaluate the worthiness of a project and support it. Never happen. We are stuck with a market-based system. Still, it does manage to get some valuable studies done.
Judgement: Pragmatically. After publication in some form or other, we take the conclusions and extrapolate from them. If the extrapolation leads to verification, the earlier study is supported. If not, it has to be either modified or rejected.
Informing the lay public: Tricky. Few legislators are capable of understanding the nuances of science. Journalists are in much the same category. Neither group is willing to let the scientist read over the notes taken during an interview. That simple change would eliminate many of the misstatements appearing in the media. People writing press releases tend to be a little better.
Science is a methodology we employ to develop models of physical/biological systems.
Now, that answer maybe isn't 'textbook' but I think it sums up science nicely. Science isn't about determining 'how the universe works'. It's about developing a set of ideas or mathematical relationships (a model) that we can use to help us understand what we observe. We have no way of testing exactly *how* the universe works, but we can test what the universe does under a given set of conditions (an experiment). So these 'models' are not necessarily a description of what really happens but are, instead, a description of a physical system that seems to explain the results of experiment but, given our limited human brain power, may not represent how the universe really works since that's something we can never know!
Who should do science? Well, back in the 17th century it was perfectly possible for 'gentleman' scientists to contribute to multiple fields. Today, the subject has expanded to such an extent that the only people who can make any real additional contribution have been highly trained in specific areas. We don't just have 'physicists', but physicists who specialised in a particular area (say, solid state physics), on a specific topic (say, optical properties), on a specific group of materials (say, II-VI semiconductors), on a specific attribute (say, potential for lasers). THAT level of specialism now means that it the only people who can really do science are people whose field of expertise is in that area. This shouldn't surprise us - the same is true in just about every walk of life. It used to be the case that anyone with a book and some time could fix their car. Now you need to plug it into a laptop, run diagnostics, and replace electronics components. It used to be the case that anyone could learn to program a computer. Now you have specialists in particular languages, on particular platforms, for particular applications.
How should science be supported? Well, we already have good methods for that. If someone thinks that science is useful, they'll invest money. Which is why we have R+D centres in major corporations, or partnerships between industry and universities. If you think that science will be economically good for your nation, you introduce specific funding calls for those areas and finance it. It's not as if this is all done in unlit rooms with brown envelopes being passed about. Government agencies publish their data. Their staff are listed. The funding calls are made public. Those who applied are listed. And so on.
How should science be judged? Well, the best way is by the scientific community. History has shown us that any other method, whether it be by public scrutiny or government scrutiny doesn't work. It didn't work in the case of eugenics. It didn't work in the case of MMR vaccinations. And again, the idea that science be self-regulating might worry people but, like democracy, it may be flawed but no one has managed a better solution despite 300 years of failed attempts.
In terms of policy/public debates, all scientists can do is explain the data, why they have reached the conclusions they have, and why alternative conclusions have been discounted. The problem though is that the language of scientists is often misinterpreted (often deliberately) by those with an agenda.
I can't imagine what the 'agenda' would be for all those scientists to conclude that the planet is warming and we're responsible. I can see why companies with multibillion dollar profits from the sale of fossil fuels might be less than happy ...
Knowledge attained through study or practice (according to Webster)
Anyone who is able to.
By an independent non political body is best, but science is science no matter how it is supported.
How should it be judged is the problem, all through history new science has struggled against conformity and dogma, generally science is accepted through evidence and experiments.
Again this is the difficult part, not all science will get published, not all science is made available some is kept secret,
My believe is the worst way is through the media, as the media always puts it's own slant on information, media doesn't want you to think, they want to tell you what to think.
But scientists should just make available their science whichever way they can, that what they know or believe to be true is there for the policy makers or people to decide how to use it.
Sorry, I can only do one of these on New Year's Eve.
So, I’ll give you my most condensed "What is Science" definition: There is AN epistemology of human knowledge – and I know what IT is – the scientific method. It is only method ever invented – the only process that we have - that defines, finds, identifies, and verifies objective human knowledge.
The only assumption it makes is that objective human knowledge exists (i.e., that it is real). Given that assumption, science tells us that the physical universe is knowable and everything that we need to acquire that knowledge exists exclusively within the physical universe. The scientific method tells us (1) where to search for knowledge, (2) how to search for knowledge, and; (3) how to “know” if what we find is really knowledge - or if it is not real knowledge.
I can’t claim that the method will be perfect, complete, and infallible in every situation for all time, but the fact is that – when properly followed – the scientific method has never – not once – failed to work the way it is supposed to work or to produce – based on the information given it – a false solution.
Thousands of years of philosophy and thousands of really smart people have dealt with the "What is Science" question - but there are not more than two Deniers here who have spent one second out of their entire lives thinking about. In fact, most who answer your question will not think about it even as they answer it - .it is called "willful" ignorance for good reason..
Happy New Year - whenever that happens where you live.
=====
Sagebrush –
>>That kind of 'science' should not be tolerated.<<
The only “kinds” of science are physical, chemical, biological, etc.
Maybe you should learn what science is before being so damn judgmental. It is you ignorant intolerance that should not be tolerated.
=====
Sagebrush --
>> I was taught that Psychology was a Science.<<
I guess you were not what "etc." means, though. Liberals have not changed anything - and they are not responsible for your ignorance.
>>“He who controls the language controls the masses”. – Saul Alinsky in Rules for Radicals <<
"He who lies is a liar." - Gary F
Thanks for identifying yourself as a stupid liar..
What is science? From Wikipedia "Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied. A practitioner of science is known as a scientist."
How should it inform policy debate? Science is the best available factual information, politicians can choose to act upon the facts or not. Denying facts, making facts up, understating, or overstating SHOULD not be allowed to happen. The news media is failing to do their job in informing the public and keeping the politicians honest
If we look at election we live in a world where Republicans (many to this day) accuse Obama of being a Kenyan Marxist, terrorist, Muslim, with a pastor problem . While in fact Obama is right wing, almost as right wing as McCain and Romney.
If we look at health care with moronic arguments like "death panels" while the facts are that a single payer system costs the tax payers less then what was in place before (and since) Obamacare/Romneycare and provides better outcomes.
Obama ran on a platform of greater transparency, yet his administration is going after people who dare to expose the government spying on Americans, with a vengeance. And "1984" was meant to be a warning, not a guide. Gitmo is still not closed and the U.S. has the greatest percentage of people behind bars in the world, even more then dictatorial regimes like North Korea.
And then we have Sagebrush who never fails to amaze me with his "logic" Clearly IF he was a scientist and IF this forum was about science and IF were to follow his own argument he would kick himself from this forum. This time he lies by omission, as not only does he not provide a link, he even starts the quote mid sentence. Here is the answer Al Gore gave in the interview.
David Roberts "There’s a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What’s the right mix?"
Al Gore "I think the answer to that depends on where your audience’s head is. In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.
Over time that mix will change. As the country comes to more accept the reality of the crisis, there’s going to be much more receptivity to a full-blown discussion of the solutions."
In todays politics what Al gore did was pretty mild, I don't think he should have done it as it will only give the other side an excuse to get even more ridiculous, although I can not imagine how they could be even more stupid then their "death panels" argument.
Websites like factcheck [2] and politifact [3] are invaluable in todays politics, there is way to much BS flying around. And clearly the news media is failing to do their job when even "the most trusted source of news" is wrong 93% of the time. [4]
So what needs to happen is that the news media start reporting based on fact, they can still have their fake moral outrage stories about some (bad) singer "twerking" if they want, but please keep it on the back pages.
I am very interested in all the quality answers you will receive especially those that deal with your last question. How should it inform policy debate?
It seems to me that it shouldn't have to be the responsibility of individual scientist to do PR and therefore it will require the education of the individual politician and the individual Citizen.
It is for this reason that I question the value of this forum as it gives a stage to some very uneducated and silly people.
Science is the practical activity including the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Science really is just seeking the truth. Simply that. When someone is caught lying, that person should be immediately get kicked out of the process and all his works voided.
This is particularly important in politics.Yet we presently see the admitted liars advance in this field, even to the extent of getting Nobel Prizes.
Quote by Al Gore, former U.S. vice president, and large CO2 producer: "I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis."
That kind of 'science' should not be tolerated.
Thank you Prico for that clarification. 'Over representation' is just a greenie phrase that the rest of the sane portion of the world call lies. Ha! Ha! Ha! It is amazing that you willingly step in your own feces.
Gary F: I was taught that Psychology was a Science. In fact, it is an older Science than most others. Have you liberals even changed that?
“He who controls the language controls the masses”. – Saul Alinsky in Rules for Radicals
Thanks for identifying yourself as a radical.
Flunky: "Science should... be used to help determine the best means to an end decided on by normal policy means. For example, if we have decided that we don't want New Orleans flooded again, we should go to relevant scientists, who would come back with proposals (better levy designs, coastal island flood buffers, using infill of some sort to raise the level of the land, whatever)."
Come on Flunky, it doesn't take a scientist to figure that out. They did that over in Holland centuries ago. That levy that broke was known to be weak. Every year for years it was in the budget to repair. The Federal government shelled out over a million dollars a year to repair it. That money never went to the repair. It went, instead, into the pockets of liberal politicians.
First, I ask that you define science. That's "simple". The next part is more complex. Who should do science? How should it be supported? How should it be judged? Those are the 3 main components of the second question, although there are more. Finally, how should science inform public policy and public/policy debates? What are the roles of science and the scientist in passing the information of science along to the larger public?
