What+is+this+Science?+(Final+Draft)

What is this Science?

Science: a seemingly insignificant term taken for granted by many of us and yet it is so prominent and influential. Science can be described in many ways but in its basic form it is knowledge that explains the nature and phenomena of our world. This encompasses both physical objects (living and inanimate) and abstract concepts. If you take a look at Merriam-Webster’s definition of science you will find definitions such as “the state of knowing” or “a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study.” Those are just the typical definitions but there is so much more to science than just that. If I asked you to think about science what topics would come to mind, in particular which people? Of course the great scientists: Newton, Einstein, Bohr, Darwin and Galileo (to name a few) are part of this science because they are what gave way to its evolution. However, what science truly entails is often misunderstood or construed.

You can find science amongst us in our everyday lives. The evaluation of common meaningless observations you experience every day is your inner scientist at work. Science is an explanation. When the professionally trained researcher examines more significant phenomena, we consider this “scientific” research. One part involves observation while the other is deriving conclusions from those observations. Humans are curious in nature and this is what drives us in investigation. We want to know, so we study and observe our surroundings. From what findings we make, we can conclude knowledge or “science” (in the classical sense). Naturally, we are always in search of a better explanation to the world in which we live. This is what “science” tries to obtain.

Let’s take a look at another one of Merriam-Webster’s “classical” definitions: “knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method, such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with physical world and its phenomena.” It says that it covers “general” truths or laws of our world. That is to say science is not necessarily true. However, this “knowledge” does not have to be true or correct; this “knowledge” must be probable. Science uses what we know to figure out what we don’t know. Much of science already exists as predefined/-established theory. As each generation moves on, they add to this knowledge base. If we accept the newly defined knowledge, it allows science to progress. However, not all of what science says today is true but not knowing the truth is not always a bad thing. In fact if you look at Ptolemy’s geocentric view of the universe, it was incorrect (Copernicus’s heliocentric view was better) but it was still able to describe when and where the moon and stars would be on a given night. This scenario is applicable to many scientific models. Although the theories may be wrong, the models they create are still accurate because they describe the same phenomena.

Some say science is an art, and indeed it is. It revolves around discovery as well as the techniques it uses for understanding the unknown. The “scientific method” is the famous practice that most associate to the process. In my eyes it describes any systematic approach used towards reaching science or knowledge if you will. The system is logical but is not the same concrete procedure. Therefore, it is unique and sometimes almost non-existent. The discovery of science is not/cannot always be planned for. Many times spontaneous events can lead to observation or systematic approach. No matter what the method, it is still an investigation of science and allows for progress. The “scientific method” is often described as logical and orderly because of the way it can approach and help explain phenomenon. If phenomena can’t be proved false than there is uncertainty, but when you can prove something wrong it gives you certainty that it is false. This systematic process is able to verify various phenomena quite well. Not surprisingly this system has worked effectively considering the advances to which it has made for science.

One way to approach the question of science is to examine the scientific revolutions that it encompasses. The way in which science changes is well explained by the essay, “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” written by Thomas Kuhn. In a nutshell, we can now see science progressing due to scientific revolutions; revolutions that involve constructing and deconstructing schools of thought. Those schools of thought are brought about by the paradigm: an extremely influential work of science that provides the scientific community with the key concepts of a new or modified field while also allowing for further exploration. One such example is Charles Darwin’s “On the Origin of Species.” The paradigm essentially provides a new direction for scientists and researchers to follow. What results is what Kuhn refers to as “normal science.” This is where that empirical “scientific method” comes into play. No matter how you think of the “scientific method,” it provides the evidence or defense of the paradigm. This is where much of science’s progress lies. However, when this evidence shows that nature or phenomena don’t fit its designated paradigm, then these anomalies result in what Kuhn refers to as crisis. This requires a new paradigm to emerge to redefine or abolish its predecessor; a process known as paradigm shift. This requires the scientific community to convert over to their newly defined field. Looking again at Darwin’s paradigm, it requires a paradigm shift from creation to evolution (although this is still mid process). If we take a look at an older topic, science has evolved from the fundamentals of physics to quantum mechanics and beyond (eg. string theory). These would not have been without the scientific revolutions that the paradigm provides. The importance of Kuhn’s explanation is what occurs during these “scientific revolutions,” for it is science itself (or at least after pre-paradigm periods). They suggest ideas and concepts to the way in which phenomena occur.

To further examine science, we can take a look at the scientific community. This is a professional group that consists of researchers, scientists, and theorists alike. One way to look at the scientific community is to think of it as an ecosystem. The members belong to certain fields to which they are certain communities among the ecosystem with their subspecialties representing the different species. This ecosystem is dynamic in the same way the scientific community is. Where the heart lies in science is among the peoples’ experiences. When scientists, such as Darwin, toil with new theories, it can be painstakingly difficult. It requires “blood, sweat, & tears” and in the case of Darwin it resulted in “a tormented evolutionist.” The relationships between members of the scientific community often conflict not just with their beliefs but with their motives (such as those of Bohr and Heisenberg). To extend our understanding of what these scientists go through, we can observe the intricately intertwined science and religion. Some say that these two areas should not mix but it is absolutely apparent that religion has a major role to science. Looking at the most influential scientists of all times, they follow religions such as Judaism, Catholicism, and Calvinism. I like what Kenneth Miller says about the topic: “If faith and reason are both gifts from God, then they should play complementary, not conflicting, roles in our struggle to understand the world around us. As a scientist and as a Christian, that is exactly what I believe. True knowledge comes only from a combination of faith and reason.” Both faith and reason should coexist in harmony and so should science and religion. Of course not all people agree with this. When Galileo started to publicly support heliocentric views, it led to trouble with the Roman Inquisition. Eventually, he was condemned a heretic. When Darwin first proposed the theory of evolution, it was also not supported by the creationist community. Despite some conflicts, it is important to understand that science is not devoid of its religious counterparts.

Today, much of science and technology are interdependent. This is especially true when the precision of scientific measurement relies on technology. The improvement of tools, machinery, and computers to do the calculations can all make measuring more accurate. This fusion of technology and science did not occur until recent centuries. Particularly after the paradigm, the necessity of technology is not apparent. As time passes the paradigm requires more specific apparatuses for experiments and thus the involvement of technology. However, the association has also developed the thought among society that advances in technology truly mean advances in science. This can be true but in most cases it is not because science is not entirely dependent on technology. It becomes interesting when technology spurs new science. Take a look at the invention of computers. This technology has brought about computer science. Now here science describes an abstract idea. Science can describe both tangible and intangible objects. Not all phenomena can be explained by physical thought. This becomes apparent when you look at the topic of gravity. The abstract idea can be perceived through physical movement but cannot be directly observed without utilizing additional objects.

The relationship between humans and science is quite significant. We did not create science but have found a way to study it. We are constantly learning from science but we can never fully understand it because there is no way to prove that what we say is true is actually true. You might be thinking why study something that we can never fully comprehend. Science leaves the human race with something to always strive for, and because of our curious nature, we always will. Still, it cannot be overlooked that science has made enormous improvements towards our way of life and understanding of the cosmos. Although “science” has no concrete definition, its unforgiving depth of knowledge provides a platform to better understand our universe.