Karina+Week+3,+Part+2

What is //this// science? Before I attempt to define what //this// science is, in today’s context, I will try to define what //science// is, or rather, how one uses science. Firstly, science is a means to understanding the universe. This means understanding why things are the way they are and how they work. Science focuses on observable, physical evidence, and uses repeatable experimentation as the way to increase this understanding. From that, predictions can be made based on what is presently known to try to explain what is not known. When new ideas are presented, tests are done that either validate a proposed hypothesis or refute it, and even when one test validates a hypothesis, more are conducted to make sure that the explanation can hold up to scrutiny. So, scientific knowledge progresses towards greater understanding of the world. Secondly, why do we do science? I guess the most general answer would be to gain knowledge, but knowledge about what? There are many different kinds of knowledge, which is why we have different names for different specialties that are studied in detail because the vast quantity of material to be looked at is much too vast for any one person to handle. We do science to learn more about environmental issues and how we are affecting the planet on which we live. We study genetic inheritance to learn more about how diseases are passed on and the relationship to human health. Earth scientists predict weather patterns, earthquakes and tsunamis while biologists improve plants to increase food output. There are almost endless possibilities or fields of study in science. We do science to be able to modify the world and most often this benefits society as a whole, but even when the discoveries are how to make nuclear bombs, for example, that could potentially destroy the entire world, knowledge about the world is still increased – we know what happens when atoms are split and can use that knowledge to our advantage. So, it can be stated that science’s main, essential goal is to increase knowledge. The methods used in science however, are not particularity unique to science. For example, the logical experimental process and critical thinking aspects are used, and used quite frequently, by people who are not scientists. Skepticism is another good example of something that is not universally unique to science; however this mindset is often referred to as “scientific” because of its use by scientists by not accepting (ideally) a proposal unless there is sufficient evidence to believe it. To do science, one must be rational and critical and //skeptical// of all information. People already have the quality of skepticism, so scientists (or anyone for that matter) just use what they already have at their disposal (a brain and curiosity) and apply those qualities to something they have questions about. For example, a biologist studying how entire communities of organisms live entirely in the canopies of rainforests is just a normal person with some background knowledge about rainforests pursuing a question and looking for a good explanation. Even if the scientific //process// is not unique to science, //science// is still very special and unique in other ways, the biggest of them being that scientific theories can //change//, and very frequently do. Science is not an absolute, meaning that it’s a fluid base of knowledge that depends on the knowledge that is available at a certain time for answers. The very fact that new discoveries prompt change in theories and not the rejection of them all together sets science apart from institutions who claim to know the “one true” truth. New evidence increases knowledge and causes modifications to an original theory, which is not a downside, as some critics claim, but an open mindset that accepts “I don’t know” instead of “I am absolutely sure and you can’t change my mind”. All the clues and information does not just magically appear all at once in science, but comes in flashes or partial sparks, meaning that everything comes in pieces or maybe parts of pieces, so the first or second or even third conclusion may very well be wrong. But would it then be wrong to not change a conclusion when new, more accurate information is revealed? Do we cling to an old idea out of fear or do we accept “I don’t know” and that we were wrong, so let’s move on with the discovery process? However, this idealized vision of science is not always possible - scientists are human and can sometimes cling to a hypothesis that has been proven wrong in the face of new evidence, but that behavior is only detrimental to the progression of knowledge. Science does not present concrete, absolute truth, only the best theory for which there is enough evidence for them to be considered, for all intended purposes, “true”, but only in the sense that they have not yet been disproven so far. Questions and questioning are an essential aspect to science. This is not the case for religions in which there is no room for improvement of ideas and where questioning existing doctrines are not acceptable. Religions offers certainty at the expense of understanding the world – religion offers, no //needs//, perpetual ignorance. Scientific progress has been occurring since the first humans existed, even before documentation. Even when religions ruled the world with their top-down dogmatic beliefs, there had to have been those who wanted a better explanation for the way things worked than “because God said so”. Science builds off previous discoveries, compiling more and more information about the world and improving on the theories of older generations. There have been arguments about who was the first “scientist” or the first person who came up with the methodical experimentation and standards of evidence that are used in today’s world and scientific fields, but I believe that it is more productive to acknowledge that humans came up with the idea. Yes, there are many people whom we acknowledge as invaluable to scientific progress, but notice the plural “//people//”. It might have been something like an evolution of theories, where they kept getting better and better as people decided that there had to be special standards of proof or really universal methods of obtaining information, and making arguments for why something was some way. Just as information cannot be solely the province of one person, neither can the scientific process is due to a single person. Modern science (and by this I mean //this// science) employs a “bottoms-up” method, meaning that by studying the micro universe, one can understand and apply those concepts on a larger scale. The only real difference between science today and science 200 years ago is the existence of better technology which allows scientists to study these micro organisms down to intercellular levels. But let it be clear that science is not technology. Science may use technology, but one can build a telephone without understanding the specifics (and the physics) of the phone. In conclusion//, science can be defined as a methodical, repeatable, falsifiable hypothesis about the way the world works//. It is the best explanation //at that time// that a critical observation and/or experiment can give using the technologies that are available. It is constantly gaining more information and expanding its knowledge base as more discoveries are made, and discarding or modifying theories as new evidence surfaces. Science is not absolute – and it should never claim to be. Even if knowledge is the ultimate goal of science, it is an intangible one because there are limits on the human mind and the best hypothesis that science can give us is that the universe is infinite. Why can’t we know? Why is the universe infinite? Well why don’t we find out?