In relation to the posts on the British Science council's definition of science Claudia Stanny wrote: >For those of us in science, the relevant evidence is empirical data >generated from a well-designed study.
And Kevin Grobman: >Science is the pursuit of knowledge by predicting new phenomena >from prior phenomena, while imposing the greatest degree of >skepticism possible and yet assuming just enough to allow shared >knowledge among those maintaining just as much skepticism. >Repeated consistently-found evidence of phenomena by independent >observers leads this pursuit of knowledge to tentatively-accepted truths. >[...] It is notoriously difficult to give an acceptable definition of science (or of scientific methodology), but Kevin includes two components that, to my mind, are basic: testing predictions and replication of results. Parenthetically, we live in an age where scientific results sometimes get publicised in the press and broadcast media (thanks often to University press releases designed to gain widespread publicity) with no mention that scientific claims should not be accepted before they have been replicated. A case in point is the Anderson et al (2004) claim that Freudian repression had been experimentally demonstrated. This generated press headlines such as that in The Guardian, "A Freudian theory proved [sic!]". Leaving aside that the experiment did not actually test *Freud's* notion of repression, there was no such publicity for the two later experiments that failed to replicate Anderson et al. (References supplied on request!) Incidentally, the Guardian reporting of the "definition" of science to which Chris Green drew attention is unsatisfactory in that it has a rather sneering tone that is not justified from an examination of the *full* statement from the Science Council. First the Guardian journalist: "Perhaps with an eye on that, the Science Council has seen fit to spend a year working out a new definition of science. It may be, they claim, the first "official definition of science" ever published. Here's what they've come up with: " 'Science is the pursuit of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.' " "Not bad for a year's work ..." http://tinyurl.com/dg8ozj No link is given to the relevant webpage of the British Science Council, but if one turns to that webpage one finds that in addition to the quoted "definition", the Council panel spell out the following: Scientific methodology includes the following: Objective observation: Measurement and data (possibly although not necessarily using mathematics as a tool) Evidence Experiment and/or observation as benchmarks for testing hypotheses Induction: reasoning to establish general rules or conclusions drawn from facts or examples Repetition Critical analysis Verification and testing: critical exposure to scrutiny, peer review and assessment http://www.sciencecouncil.org/DefiningScience.php Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org ****************************************************** Subject: Re: Does the new definition of science measure up? | Science | guardian.co.uk From: "K. H. Grobman" <[email protected]> Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 18:07:05 -0600 Hi Chris & Everyone, That is a surprising definition of "science" from an authoritative source. My undergraduate degree is in physics. I then studied philosophy of science because quantum mechanics disillusioned me and made me wonder if science really can tell us anything special. After being satisfied with traditional philosophy of science, but dismayed by newer philosophy of science, I returned to science by studying developmental psychology. Here's my definition: ====== Science is the pursuit of knowledge by predicting new phenomena from prior phenomena, while imposing the greatest degree of skepticism possible and yet assuming just enough to allow shared knowledge among those maintaining just as much skepticism. Repeated consistently- found evidence of phenomena by independent observers leads this pursuit of knowledge to tentatively-accepted truths. Two minimal assumptions of science that allow shared knowledge while remaining as skeptical as possible are: (1) truth is a correspondence between observed phenomena and statements (e.g.., hypotheses, mathematical equations) and (2) an understanding of a whole phenomena is the combination of understanding of parts of the phenomena. ====== The definition excludes religion, intuition, values, and common sense. However, the definition does not include so much skepticism that we end up believing nothing (e.g., solipsism) or extreme forms of post-modernism. Intelligent Design is not science because it makes an assumption that is not necessary to predict phenomena (i.e., it is not as skeptical as possible) and because it invokes teleological mechanisms instead of explaining solely from prior causes. Any domain can be studied scientifically. "Content analysis" by our colleagues in mass communication is scientific study of television and there is no reason the same can not be done for art, literature, or history (e.g., Herb Simon's computation models based on diaries of historically important scientists, Howard Gardener's studies of children's changing appreciation of different kinds of paintings). Nobody always does science; I teach with intuition and make choices according to moral feelings. So I am certainly not saying that because something is not science, that it is somehow not worthwhile. Nevertheless, science has a special place in our lives precisely because its truths required so much skepticism be overcome to be produced. No matter how much we disagree on issues of faith, intuition, common sense, or emotion - we can still agree to incorporate scientific truth into our world-views. Kevin ********************************************* Subject: RE: Does the new definition of science measure up? | Science | guardian.co.uk From: "Claudia Stanny" <[email protected]> Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2009 10:48:52 -0600 I was struck by this similarity between literary close reading and scientific hypothesis testing the first time I had a serious discussion about how people in the humanities do their scholarly work. Granted, this isn't science, but I think the analysis qualifies as the same sort of evidence-based critical thinking that scientists use when evaluating a hypothesis. For those of us in science, the relevant evidence is empirical data generated from a well-designed study. For those in these other areas, the evidence is the text written by the author. The hypothesis might be something like "Jane Austen uses this metaphor, literary technique, or symbolism to represent xxx." There is a similar type of hypothesis testing that historians use, with text from primary sources (diaries, newspaper articles of the time, etc) as the evidence. There are certainly differences in methodology. But I think they have a legitimate point about the use of evidence. A big difference is what "counts" as evidence. Claudia J. Stanny, Ph.D. Director, Center for University Teaching, Learning, and Assessment Associate Professor, Psychology University of West Florida Pensacola, FL 32514 - 5751 > -----Original Message----- > From: Christopher D. Green [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 11:55 PM > To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) > Subject: [tips] Does the new definition of science measure > up? | Science | guardian.co.uk > > The British Science Council attempts to define science. > http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2009/mar/03/science-def inition-council-francis-bacon > > In addition to the problem noted in the article (viz., that > the definition doesn't distinguish science from many > humanistic disciplines, such a history), I think the use of > the term "evidence" here is vague. > "Empirical evidence" might have been better. As it now > stands, those who, for instance, use citations from Scripture > as "evidence" for a claim, could also claim to be > "scientists" under this definition. > > Chris > -- > > Christopher D. Green > Department of Psychology > York University > Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 > Canada --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
