Forums → WEPR → What is Science?
| 83 | 34290 |
Hello!
Most of the threads I have made regarding scientific topics have failed because we all come from different backgrounds, making it hard to find a common topic we can actually debate about. But, looking over the types of people the post in the WEPR, I still feel like there is a general interest in science, so, following Moegreche's lead, this is going to be more of a philosophical discussion.
Feel free to join in even if you have no formal scientific education, everyone's opinion can contribute something worthy here. This is intended to be more of an opinion based thread, I'm interesting in what other people think about science. Feel free to make a new thread, however, if you want to talk about how science is different from religion. While it might come up here and there in this topic, religion is really beyond the scope of this thread.
Okay, now that you've read the fine print, lets get down to business. The first questions I would like to address are these:
1) Where do you think science comes from?
2) What is a typical scientist? How do you think one becomes a scientist?
I would to focus on current science for these questions, by the way. Current being the last 20 years.
- 83 Replies
1) Where do you think science comes from?A question I can finally answer, and a topic I know a lot about.
1) Where do you think scientific ideas come from?
2) What is a typical scientist? How do you think one becomes a scientist?
Science is blasphemy and practised by heathens condemned to eternal ****ation. I do believe that scientific ideas came from said heathens to convert blessed and righteous people to the path of Satan and the infinite tortures of hell. A typical scientist would be an atheist condemned to all of said torments, and to become an scientist you must disown God, and renounce any claim in going to the ever so utopian paradise of heaven in your afterlife.
Science simply put means knowledge.A common misconception perpetuated by the ****ed and the godless, save yourself and profess your sins to Jesus our saviour.
The development of science in general stems from philosophical thought*The development of science in general stems from heretical thought
*The development of science in general stems from heretical thought
You'd make a nice Taliban member.
*The development of science in general stems from heretical thought
Is using the technology developed through scientific principles, such as whatever device you're connecting to the internet with, also considered heretical?
Feel free to make a new thread, however, if you want to talk about how science is different from religion. While it might come up here and there in this topic, religion is really beyond the scope of this thread.
*cough*
I don't care who started it, don't feed the (incredibly obvious) trolls on this thread please. The current topic is dealing with reproduciblity and how it relates to the scientific process.
(sorry if that came of backseat-modish, I would just like this thread to remain somewhat focused, and I see the last few posts as being highly tangential)
You'd make a nice Taliban member.
No he wouldn't, he is christian not Islamic.
Science is the study of the universe, all its littles nooks and crannies.
It is, however, unable to explain every aspect of the universe.
~~~Darth Caedus
It is, however, unable to explain every aspect of the universe.
Yet.
"A scientific study is reproducible when one could conceivably conduct a seperate study that, if the initial study was valid and the second study was executed properly, would be likely to produce similar results."
Agreed.
Also let's not forget that just because you make a study noone did before, means your work is the absolute reference. Technically any study working on a similiar topic, independent of each other, are of equal value. Indeed, using the above definition for reproducibility, this would mean it is already satisfying if a cloud of papers do not contradict each other, even if there are slight differences.
Science has no beginning nor end. It just is. It is bound to everything and everyone. It exist whether one knows it is there or denies it's existence. It can be no more, no less.
No, science is a process we developed over time. More simplistically and general it's knowledge. That's where the word came from 'Latin, scientia meaning "knowledge", scio meaning "to know".'
I'm curious though. What do (or perhaps now did) think science was?
"A scientific study is reproducible when one could conceivably conduct a seperate study that, if the initial study was valid and the second study was executed properly, would be likely to produce similar results."
That could be a working definition. Though I came across something that touches on what we are talking about.
"2. Replicability vs. Reproducibility
The crux of my argument is that replicability is not re-
producibility. Reproducibility requires changes; repli-
cability avoids them. I use the word \
eplicability"
to describe the view that I think is prevalent in the
machine learning community. In opposition to this, I
want to establish that the meaning of the word \
epro-
ducibility", as used in science, is much broader than
that. Although, I admit, I am making a semantic dif-
ferentiation, I want to avoid an unproductive debate
based on the dictionary denitions of the words. Think
of \
eplicability" simply as a label I have attached to
this view. I believe the meaning of the word \
epro-
ducibility" in science is best ascertained through its
use from a historical perspective.
2.1. Replicability
In this section, I will clarify why I have used the
term replicability for what others have called repro-
ducibility in our literature. The paper from JMLR,
discussed in the introduction, states \\ Reproducibil-
ity of experimental results is a cornerstone of sci-
ence.. . . . . . experiments are quite hard to reproduce
exactly . . . . . . Reproducibility would be quite easy to
achieve in machine learning simply by sharing the full
code used for experiments." (Sonnenburg et al., 2007,
page 2449). I want to focus on the phrase \
eproduce
exactly", which appears in the above quote. It seems
clear that authors believe that there should be no dif-
ferences between one experiment and its reproduction.
Certainly this would seem to be the main point of hav-
ing access to the full code.
I have cited this paper a number of times through-
out this work, using it as the archetype of the view
I wish to counter. It is not my intent to specically
target it or its authors. I chose it because it had a
number of desirable qualities. Firstly, there are many
authors on this paper, sixteen in all and some are quite
well known. It should therefore, hopefully, represent a
view held by a signicant part of the machine learn-
ing community. Secondly, the paper makes the point
of view about reproducibility explicit, others are less
direct. I suspect that many in the community hold
similar views but without investigating the issue so
thoroughly.
Other authors, such as Blockeel and Vanschoren
(2007), also would seem to contend that reproducibil-
ity must be exact. They argue \\[In papers] it should
be clear how the experiments can be reproduced. This
involves providing a complete description of both the
experimental setup . . . . . . and the experimental pro-
cedure . . . . . . an online log seems the most viable op-
tion.". Requiring a complete description or an on-line
log would again suggest replication is the aim.
From these two quotes, I think it reasonable to call
this generally held viewpoint \
eplicability". As a
corollary, it also seems reasonable to claim that this
version of \
eproducibility" means to exactly replicate
the original experiment and that nothing else will do.
2.2. Reproducibility
In this section, I aim to clarify what reproducibility
means in science by exploring how it has been used as
part of scientic practice for some time. One interest-
ing issue in the history of science is the long disagree-
ment about whether or not the speed of light is nite.
I take the story from Mackay and Oldford (2000), who
detail the con icting views held throughout the ages.
Many considered the speed of light innite. We now
know, of course, that speed of light is nite but su-
ciently fast that measuring it on earth requires quite
sophisticated equipment. Certainly, any simple exper-
iments would do nothing to show that it was not in-
nite. So, it is not hard to see how in antiquity it would
have been experimentally next to impossible to prove
it to be nite.
The issue, however, was seemingly resolved by Romer
in 1671 by using extraterrestrial information. He ob-
served the time that the moon Io was eclipsed by the
planet Jupiter depended on where the Earth was in
its orbit around the sun. The time became shorter
as the Earth moved towards Jupiter and longer as it
moved away. He proposed that the dierence was due
to the nite speed of light having to travel the dierent
distances between Io and the Earth. Surprisingly, this
observation was not considered the conclusive evidence
we might have thought. Other explanations, based on
Jupiter's orbit and its interaction with its moons, were
considered more plausible at that time by many.
It wasn't until more than fty years later that addi-
tional evidence came in that convinced the vast major-
ity of scientists. In 1729, Bradley had been studying
parallax in stars, their apparent change in position as
the earth moves, and discovered changes that could
not be accounted for by this eect. It could, how-
ever, be accounted for by a nite light speed. In 1809,
Delambre using the eclipses of all Jupiter's moons es-
tablished a gure for the speed of light very close to
the one accepted today.
I think it reasonable to claim that Bradley and later
Delambre \
eproduced" Romer results. The lesson, I
believe, that can be drawn from such an example is
that Bradley obtained the result from quite a dierent
experiment. In fact, apart from the result there seem
few similarities. The original experiment certainly
wasn't replicated. In fact, the claim that the speed
of light was nite would not have been accepted by
the community, in general, unless the experiment was
very dierent. There were alternative ways to explain
the results. Even Delambre, focusing like Bradley on
Jupiter, used all the moons instead of just one. So,
again there were substantial dierences between this
experiment and its predecessors."
http://cogprints.org/7691/7/icmlws09.pdf
No, science is a process we developed over time. More simplistically and general it's knowledge. That's where the word came from 'Latin, scientia meaning "knowledge", scio meaning "to know".'
If you are referring to science as the ability to observe an element, substance, or theoretical substances then yes, science is something that human beings created. But what binds elements together, the principle they run by, cause and effect of every energy substance that has existed longer than earth then no science has existed since the big bang. Writing down an equation or observing of a substance is not the extent of science.
Many words came from Scientia. Science, Scientology, Scienter, Scient, all rooting from the same word. And words do not define somethings existence or prove its validity. Words and names are merely a system of letters used as cross referencing for certain actions, events, people, things, etc; and in the process of doing so making things understandable (to an extent).
*The development of science in general stems from heretical thought
Incorrect. Science stems from the philosophy of Greek astronomers and philosophical entities, not heretics.
Here is the difference between religion and science. Ready for this?
The bible:
Man began with Adam and Eve. And Adam and Eve had Cain and Abel. Cain and Able got married.
Question 1: TO WHO?! No one knows. And the bible was written by enlightened people, if not God. Why is there a mistake? God can make mistakes?
Question 2: Where did Adam and Eve come from? God. Where did God come from? He just is. Where does God live? Heaven. Where is heaven? ... err.
Question 3: How was the universe created? God said let it be. How does that make the universe?
Question 4: Why can't God destroy the devil? Why can't God make children born without sin? Why is the power of the creator of everything reviled by a man in the center of the planet?
By the way none of these questions are rhetorical.
Science roots from people who observe the world around them and see how things act, question why things are the way that they are, and find answers to questions no man or woman can even comprehend (at the time of it's founding). Science has evolved over the years while religion is never changing. It keeps the knowledge of men and women (most likely there were very few women) who have seen the earth through one perspective. Science sees all perspectives. Scientist and those who love science who have a discovery of something are also willing to admit they are wrong about something when they are wrong. In no religion will some disciple or priest (or something similar in any other religion) look at ancient text and say "I think this is wrong" observe it further and see it's validity. And even then you will still be closed minded to one frame of mind.
And science has made more contributions to the world. In fact, science has contributed to the world so much that you wouldn't even be able to make that comment without internet, a computer, and/or electricity.
Yet.
It will still be "yet" for many more years to come.
If you are referring to science as the ability to observe an element, substance, or theoretical substances then yes, science is something that human beings created. But what binds elements together, the principle they run by, cause and effect of every energy substance that has existed longer than earth then no science has existed since the big bang. Writing down an equation or observing of a substance is not the extent of science.
I think when we say science, we mean the scientific community, scientific methods, scientific discoveries, all that. Not the physical laws of our world, which are independent of any human institutions.
It will still be "yet" for many more years to come.
Irrelevant to my point. I'm just saying our scientific community has the potential to unveil it all, even if it probably will collapse with our society long before it ever reaches that goal.
I'm just saying our scientific community has the potential to unveil it all
It's funny - I was thinking about this very claim earlier today. I'm wondering if we are reaching certain boundaries regarding what we can know empirically. So let's suppose that M-theory is correct and the universe is composed of tiny one-dimensional strings with different vibrational patterns. Is there any way in principle to directly verify this claim? As a theory, it might offer some incredible explanatory power but the basic claims that support it seem far out of our reach.
And I don't think this is a matter of getting the right technology. We simply can't interact (in any meaningful way) with one-dimensional objects. Or if we go the other way and suppose that spacetime has 27 dimensions. Again, there seems to be no way, in principle, to verify this. Even more extreme is the idea of a multiverse which is used to explain informational loss and entropy within our own universe. Here we have other universes which, by definition, we can't interact with.
Are we going to reach a point where hardcore physics is simply theoretical and unable to be supported by experimental physicists? If so, what would this say about the conversation so far regarding reproducibility?
Then they should be asked in a relevant thread.
The comment made was not in that thread however. Plus I'm sure we both know that these questions will not be answered.
I think when we say science, we mean the scientific community, scientific methods, scientific discoveries, all that. Not the physical laws of our world, which are independent of any human institutions.
Well it is no wonder it feels like I am giving an answer to the wrong question, I am. Well in that case, the question itself is non-explicit. Science is science though. But if you look at the question "What is Science" you'd expect the actual interpretation. Even the question "Where do you think science comes from?" can't refer to the scientific community. The correct question referring to such would be "What do you think science does for people?" or "How does the scientific community effect the world?".
Is there any way in principle to directly verify this claim?
M-Theory is an interesting theory. I haven't read up on where it originated from but it does seem quiet interesting. I can't even comprehend what a one dimensional string would look like. But I digress. It's hard to imagine a theory like this. My guess is that it roots from research done in Quantum Physics and Particle Physics. Other then that I got nothing.
Are we going to reach a point where hardcore physics is simply theoretical and unable to be supported by experimental physicists?
Hardcore physics currently is theoretical, but in the near future I doubt it will. As research continues we are bound to find something. This is only the building block for physics.
I'm not sure how it would effect experimental physicists though. Experimental Physics is something in its own right, theories will not in any way (that would have a strong impact) effect experimental physics. Plus the theoretical community will have to bring forth a large amount of data in order to make people consider the validity of such a theory. With all these theories being thrown out there one will need to prove it with much effort. Experimental Physics do exactly that, they can experiment with these theories or find new discoveries to tinker with. There aren't many consequences that can occur here.
God. Where did God come from?He always was, and since he is exempt from the rules of the universe, this can be true.
It makes more sense then the atheist version, the universe always was, and randomly, even though nothing AT ALL had happened for an infinite amount of time, it started expanding (because if there had been actions then all the heat would have been wasted as each action releases a small amount of heat that cannot be re-accessed)
Why can't God destroy the devil?This reminds of the times when the strategy to destroy something was to adopt its tactics and in effect, become what you were trying to destroy..
Why can't God make children born without sin?Because you can't create beings with completely free will without the ability to sin.
Why is there a mistake? God can make mistakes?Adam and Eve had an unspecified amount of children, who married each other (not unheard of among stories such as this, see the family of egyptian gods), and somewhere down the line, Cain married one of his (slightly) more distant relatives, had his own children, and as the number of people grew, so did the distance between relations.
Also, Abraham's wife was his half-sister (genesis 20:12) source
also, I don't think able married, as cain killed him pretty early.
but please don't derail this thread.
p.s. I am not asking you to convert, just trying to use logic.
~~~Darth Caedus
Plus I'm sure we both know that these questions will not be answered.
I could answer some to an extent, but it would just be spam here.
but please don't derail this thread.
Too late...
You must be logged in to post a reply!