STM-+What+is+Science?

__ What is Science? __ Is science some kind of eternally stable standard? Or is it something completely different? From my readings and prior experiences, I believe that science is just a just a vastly broad category that can encompass virtually anything that’s end goal lies remotely near developing or discovering some new bit of information, no matter how trivial, important, simple, complex, or bizarre it may be. Humanity has conducted “Science” for virtually its entire history, from the first Homo Sapiens to the most highly educated theoretical physicist. In the beginning, “Science” was a simple as testing out what you could bang together to make sparks. That first caveman must have bashed and scraped together sticks, bones, and maybe even dirt until he came to the conclusion that only when he scraped two particular rocks together, today known as flint and probably some natural steel equivalent, he was rewarded with a shower of magical sparks that could light things on fire. This seemingly barbaric act is no less “Science” then a modern man using millions in funds and hundreds of “scientists” to create elaborate machines and chemicals for the sole purpose of trying to manipulate the very fabricate of living cells. Both involve an aspect of trial and error with the purpose that in the end, you will be left with some amount of new “knowledge”. “Knowledge” in this sense is only being applied to any idea of piece of data that exists and is believed to be either true or false. Even when the “knowledge” is believed false, it is still legitimate information because it establishes that we have already explored that option and come to a reasonable, by the standards of the day’s, conclusion. In the end, “Science”, as I define it, is the act of collecting any information and/or data through testing and/or observation. __ What is its relationship to previous "sciences"? __ As I see it, there has only been one “Science” in our history. Although the methods of carrying out “Science” have changed from age to age, at its heart “Science” is still about finding new ideas and discovering new “knowledge”. Because of this, I feel that there is no relationship between today’s “Science” and previous “sciences”, as there have never been previous “Sciences”, only one central idea that can be broke down into an infinity of different techniques, disciplines, and forms. __ What social purposes does it serve? __ “Science” as a whole does not specifically have to be conducted for any reason greater then extinguishing a fleeting question in the mind of an individual, but that does not mean that “Science” cannot be used to improve the lives of billions of people in almost any aspect of their lives. “Science” serves whatever “purpose” that it needs to from situation to situation. For the cavemen, “Science” was necessary to creating new tools that they could use to hunt animals more efficiently. For some renaissance Europeans, “Science” only served the purpose of currying social status with others, putting food on the table, or just passing the time. There can be no definitive social purpose that “Science” serves, for the simple reason that each person is unique and thus will use ideas and act in the world in a manner different than anyone else, meaning that each person will take “Science” and put it to use in their own special way. __ In what institutions is it conducted in? __ I am completely against the idea that “Science” can only be conducted in a high-tech laboratory by overly educated men and women donning white lab coats. From my definition of “Science”, anyone can conduct it by simply testing out an idea or observing an event and remembering the results. This means that while the laboratory is a valid place to carry out “Science”, so is your garage, the middle of a forest, or at the bar with some friends. Science can be carried out by any and all institutions that have the presence of mind to take a look around and think about what they see. __ What is its relationship to technology? __ Technology has usually had a positive effect on the ability of humanity to conduct “Science”. More advanced computers make it thousands, if not millions, of times easier to calculate equations and exact results then the more basic computers only a few decades ago. The wide availability of technology to the general population has also made it possible for the Average Joe to step into the world of “Science” and discover something new or personally learn a new fact that he had never known. The amount of knowledge that we are gaining through “Science” is increasing in an almost exponentially infinite curve. As more advanced machinery becomes available, it opens more and more doors of things to test and objects to observe that could never have been imagined by anyone using the previous generation of technology. This in turn allows us to create new technologies that perpetuate the cycle. This does not mean though that we need the most advanced technology to carry out “Science” in many cases. An old camera or a sketch pad is still valid technologies that can be used to observe and record an undiscovered animal or new plant. All in all, technology makes it possible to develop new forms of “Science” and apply them to expanding human knowledge.

__ Conclusion? __ I personally admit that my current understanding of the world is extremely limited and I only hold these ideas based on what information I have seen and happen to remember. I would most certainly not expect the Spanish Inquisition to break through the door after I post this, nor do I expect everyone to fully agree with me. My ideas are just that, “ideas”, just as “knowledge” can be proven wrong and “facts” changed, my ideas are ever developing and subject to constant fluctuations and tweaking, all the result of the new experiences and ideas that I come in contact with every day. I look forward to revising this assignment in the following months as I am sure to change my mind in response to whatever information I am exposed to in and outside of this class.