Izawwlgood wrote:Lets try this again;
You recently linked wikipedia's definition of science. I'll quote back to you the pertinent part, the part that I raised in my first post, the part that you have yet to address.
I have addressed it multiple times.
Please attribute the quote to the right source for those not closely following the discussion.
Cherry picking parts of a definition to suit your ends is not only unreasonable it is also rude and causes harm to the discussion and yourself. Confirmation bias is a weakness of our nature, we should strive to overcome it.
Finally, if you must cherry pick parts of a definition to maintain your bias at least pick ones that actually make your point for you.
wikipedia wrote:is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.
This is not a definition of the scientific method, this is a definition of scientific theory. Something that certainly lies outside of your definition.
This is one of the the parts you left out of the above paragraph you quoted:
A practitioner of science is known as a scientist.
This paragraph defines scientist as someone who builds theories on how existence behaves, or applies the knowledge gained from it. It makes no mention at all of the scientific method until half way through the 3rd paragraph talking various things the word means.
Here are the other definitions.
In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied
In modern usage, "science" most often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, not only the knowledge itself.
And over the course of the 19th century, the word "science" became increasingly associated with the scientific method itself
The first quote of science on wikipedia is formulation of theory. Something squarely in the realm of Reason, one of the definitions I mentioned.
The second quote recognized - which is actually the second sentence - states that science is knowledge, one if the definitions I mentioned.
The third quote means philosophy of science. Something again squarely in the realm of Reason.
The fourth quote of science is the Method, one if the definitions I mentioned.
There is no way to read this article and apply reason to it and not come away with an understanding that science is:
Seeking to understand and pursue knowledge, formulation of theory, knowledge about a field of study or the method itself.
The article then defines a practitioner of one of these things as a 'scientists.' To be extremely nit picky it more specifically describes someone who utilizes knowledge of a field or that formulates theory in a field as a scientist.
You can choose to disagree with this definition, but for any reasonable person you need to put forth an actual logical argument with evidence for why we should accept your definition.
I've given you many on why the above definition is pretty accurate. All I'm asking you to do is make an actual argument.
Izawwlgood wrote:Myself and others have repeatedly pointed out that those three concepts are not in and of themselves sufficient to define science or scientists.
You have made statements that they you believe they are insufficient, you have not yet made a single logical argument as to why. So I'll ask again, please make an argument as to why.
Don't you think it is important to define science before we can define what a scientist is?
Myself and others have repeatedly given examples that disagree with your initial example of 'philosophy is to science as rectangles are to squares'. You have repeatedly ignored/dismissed the notion of philosophy merely proceeded science with respect to addressing the natural world, while simultaneously repeating your assertions that science is a subset of philosophy.
I have not ignored it or dismissed it. In fact I directly addressed it in my response two previous to this one.
"What does a philosopher do?
Tries to answer fundamental questions about existence.
What does an Astronomer do?
Studies celestial objects.
If I scientifically study celestial objects to answer fundamental questions about existence, I am a philosopher, a scientist and an astronomer. "
So. Againagain. I am not interested in circling this point with you, because;
Zcorp wrote:Yet you refuse to accept history's, common culture's and academic definitions of the word. There can be no reasonable answer to your question if you can not accept reasonable definitions.
despite what you may think, you have not proven the above to be true. It is all, at this point, merely discussion of one's opinions. The difference is you are claiming some kind of argumentative high ground based on your superior position or tactics, while others are attempting to continue a discourse.
What more proof would you like?
I've asked you to think about how the word science is used, I can give you the answers if you like, but I assume you know them.
I've given you definition from various sources that agree with mine.
I've given you examples of how these definitions came about in history.
I've done all of this, and you've only expressed an opinion and not even an argument to back up that opinion.
I'm not claiming an argumentative high ground, I'm asking you to make an argument on why your opinion it is what is. That you can't do that and that I can, while maintaining logical consistently and reasonibility, is why I have a 'high ground', although that's a terrible thing to call it. I have an observed current reality, history and logic to form a reasonable understanding of what the word science means. This shouldn't be a 'high ground' this is really the lowest ground there is any reasonable discourse.
Zcorp wrote:Please express your argument on how and science is not a sub-set of philosophy.
I will do so again; science is falsifiable based on experimentation to test the validity of hypotheses. Philosophy is not.
This is not an argument, it is an opinion. Why do you believe this should be or is sole definition of the word science?
If you wish to express why you think science is a sub-set of philosophy, please address the issue of reproducibility and falsifiability.
Reproducibility and Falsifiability are the realm of Philosophy, specifically philosophy of science - AFAIK Popper didn't even make a discovery utilizing the method. They are questions pertaining to "Am I doing good science?" or "Am I creating an accurate understanding of what I'm studying?" This is something you even just agreed to.
gmalivuk wrote:Scientists may not be trying to answer questions like, 'Is gmalivuk a good person?', but many of them are trying to answer questions like, 'Is this thing I'm doing good science?' And the latter is no less a philosophical question than the former.
Naturally, and Philosophers of Science may contribute towards assisting in defining the best ways for science to address these issues. But typically, I feel, only at the most fundamental level. "Do we agree that experimentation is the best way to address this query?" is a fairly broad question that philosophers may weigh in on. "Do we agree that a Western Blot is the best experimental technique to answer that question?" is a fairly specific question that most philosophers cannot/should not.
I'm not sure if this is unintentional, but you just settled the issue. You just agreed that philosophers of science are scientists.
You also just agreed that scientists routinely engage in philosophy, how science is a subset of philosophy.