Dan+M+WITS+Final+Draft

While science can be referred to in an everyday conversation, it is rare that one can openly define the term “science” into an understandable definition that completely encompasses all of its relevant meanings. Science can be looked at in two different ways, philosophically and empirically. Philosophically speaking, science can refer to man’s seemingly endless drive and will to understand his surroundings and most importantly ask the question “Why?”. Inversely, science can be defined and understood empirically. The current powerhouse of informational gathering is the network of universities found worldwide. In the past was mostly the church, in order to control the doctrine that they preached, and also government to protect and defend themselves and their allies.

When one looks at the earliest scientist, as defined by society, they see that they in fact were not scientists but actually philosophers. Among these famous philosophers are the ancient Greeks such as Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. Socrates was “a true philosopher, a lover of wisdom, who tried to elicit the truth by what has become known as the Socratic Method, in which by a series of probing questions he forced successive further clarification of thought.” This Socratic Method was the first steps into the fabricated subject of science. Later, Plato would create an Academy focused on education in these fields. Students who attended were required to have some type of background in mathematics, and display some type of general understanding of the basic theorems proposed in that time. Aristotle had the greatest effect of these three scientists. Aristotle’s method of scientific inquiry was the first that at least pointed on an observation, and attempted to derive meaning from the consequences of said observation. But the question here is not what these famous historical figures did; it is why they did it. What made them think past the present barriers of their time? Reasoning would point to another “scientist” to help explain. While sailing on the HMS Beagle, Charles Darwin would collect evidence that changed the future forever. To this day, people in our modern-day society cannot agree that his observations were accurate. Darwin’s theory of natural selection (although not perfect) points us in the right direction. As the human species developed, they became more aware of their surroundings, and started to realize patterns and regular occurrences in nature. As their societies evolved, so did their frames of mind. These early settlers slowly began to question //why// things were instead of merely accepting them. For example, Newton questioned //why// the fabled apple fell from the tree. Galileo questioned the fabled apple fell from the tree. Galileo questioned //why// the sun orbited the earth but Venus still had phases, or //why// the tides rose and fell at different times during the day. Heisenberg questioned certainty (his uncertainty principle), and Bohr’s model of the atom. Schrodinger questioned the state of objects, and discovered super position. It is because they had no previous knowledge of these thoughts. These were new surroundings that they did not yet understand and they questioned them because their survival had already been stabilized and they no longer need to place security among their top priorities. When you level the playing field and you don’t need to be “fit” to survive, then the model is broken and no longer applies to society. Because of this, our curiosity is enabled to take over (the same curiosity that may or may not have killed Schrodinger’s cat).

Many people decide to ignore obvious philosophical elements of science and instead define it as a systematic regime to answer questions presented in a regulated format with a hypothesis, an experiment, and some type of reflection using the hypothesis and outcome of the experiment; many people refer to this as the “scientific method”. But, how can we define this as a “scientific” method, when we have not defined science? This type of precise exploration into the physical world that we know and understand (however small that may truly be) has been created over time by history and our constant need for more knowledge. The original place that knowledge was gathered (all subjects, not just science) was the early catholic church. They were the first organization to categorize, catalogue, and archive all of this information. They were also the first organization to explore this topic (“science”) in said organized manner. While they were later proven wrong by brilliant astronomers and physicists such as Galileo, there was a shift in balance. The major learning centers became universities founded by early philosophers, and other “societies of higher learning”. Throughout history these universities have been funded and/or persuaded to work and develop for another large organized body: Government. As technology increases and becomes more and more advanced, science is able to continue. If one were to look at a graph of science in terms of technology, they would soon realize that it is actually a parabolic function in which the most basic technological discoveries enable science to progress faster until we are so advanced that technology slows down. Even after slowing down and nearly coming to a halt, each small little piece will greatly progress this so called “science”. With this in mind, it only makes sense that governments would fund projects to develop greater weapons. For example, some of the smartest men the world has ever seen were hired and teamed together to work on the Manhattan Project. Oppenheimer, Neils Bohr, and Enrico Fermi are among the great scientists that helped develop this new technology that enabled the United Stated to become the most feared enemy in the entire world (notice that technology and science, again, are hand in hand).

Using these two ideas, philosophical and empirical, of what science truly is, I am able to postulate a unique idea of an unclear definition. It is within this //act// of defining science that I can truly express a definition appropriate. I define “science” as the //act// of taking information and deriving a meaning that was previously unrelated from it. People do it every day. For example, take all of the above mentioned information and process it, add from your personal knowledge, or test things to find out more. From all this information that you now have, create a definition for “science” that was not mentioned in the above article. You have just managed to do in minutes what has taken me hours. Because it is based on fact, and some type of valid information source, it will be right. Science is not wrong or right, science is the //act// of finding something that was unclear before.