What Science Isn't

"Distinguishing modern science from other endeavors requires focusing in particular on its methodology — the means by which it achieves results. Fundamentally, then, science can be characterized as a method of obtaining reliable — though not infallible — knowledge about the universe around us. This knowledge includes both descriptions of what happens and explanations of why it happens." (About.com's definition by "agnostic/atheist" writer, Austin Cline)

The emphasis on, "methodology" is his and reflects a religious slant that is further clarified by Cline:

"The knowledge involved is that about the universe around us, and that includes us as well. This is why science is naturalistic: it is all about natural processes and natural events. Science involves both description, which tells us what has happened, and explanation, which tells us why it happened. This latter point is an important factor because it is only through knowing why events occur that we can predict what else might occur in the future."

This time I have emphasized the part about "naturalistic", which is supposed to keep "science", as he defines it, out of "supernatural" or "non natural" subjects. This definition of "science" excludes any reference to anything that cannot be included under the definition of, "natural". In other words, you can only include things we currently understand as, "natural or observable". This is, in other words, a definition of science which conforms to the beliefs of those that do not accept the fact that we do not currently know or understand all that there is to reality.

What Cline has really given as a "definition for science" is in fact a definition for a system of study that conforms to his religious perspective. As an agnostic/atheist he sees anything "non naturalistic" as dubious and hence, "unscientific". This may seem to make sense since we don't want to include such things as "astrology" in legit "science". But, this way of confining science also has a stifling effect. You can no longer study anything "unknown" by Cline's definition. This sort of "science" is stuck in current knowledge about the universe and reality.

Is "science" a "society"
of "working professionals" doing "science"?

No, this is an elitist concept that is used to dominate a discipline based on the commercial marketability of one's research or experimental pursuit. In reality, science is far more inclusive. Some of the most important and successful "scientists" never make a cent for their efforts. They care little about popularity or the status quo. Instead, they poke around for holes in assumptions and recognize a theory for what it is, none are sacred. They are willing to "question" the, so called, "experts" as needed.

I once asked a college biology professor of mine about some fossils on display in his office. I asked if the fossil bones contained any of the original material from the once living creature. He emphatically said, NO! Several years later while visiting the Science Museum in St. Paul, MN. i came upon a counter fronting one of the curator's work areas. Visitors were able to interact with the curators there as the curators were preparing fossils for exhibition. One of the workers was picking debris off a very large bone he had place on the countertop. The bone seemed odd in that half was light colored and the other half was charcoal black. I asked what it was from and the reply was "t. rex". Wondering about my professor's earlier assertion, i asked if the black area of the bone contained original (but carbonized) material from the animal and he said rather matter of factly, "yes". Only recently has it been made public that, Yes, dinosaur bones often are found to include original material and even "soft tissues" from the animal itself.

Who can be called a "scientist"?

A scientist can be anyone who tries to increase our understanding on a subject, whether it be thru thought, research, study, experimentation, investigation or even just careful observation and documentation.

Even though I don't have a personal interest in "astrology", who can deny the importance of the moon and the tides it produces, or how the sun's position and length of daylight effects plants and animals. Most of us know that any study can be called "science" when it is done with reasonable care and subject to relevant critique. "Straw man tactics", "personal attacks", "no real scientists..." sorts of harassment or ridicule are never methods employed by legitimate "scientists" to turn the public against those that disagree with them, no matter how foolish they may be perceived.

I once was a judge in a local science fair and some of the students "science projects" were rather "far fetched" in my view. But, as a responsible judge, my duty was to consider each project in the light of a student's level of education on the subject, the care and methods used to test the hypothesis or idea and how the conclusions are qualified with a justifiable level of certainty. This is the way all "scientists" should view the studies and work of others.

Anyone who carefully investigates ideas or studies data with a "critical thinking" approach to any subject with openness and basic humility qualifies as a genuine "scientist".

Science is nothing more than the responsible pursuit of increasing our knowledge. It's really quite useful and mundane at the same time. Kept in this perspective, it has been a tool to increase human understanding about the wonderful world that we've been privileged to live in and experience.

Wayne Hollyoak

Keeping Science in Perspective

Our New Store