Every view is almost equally welcome.

For me it's making sense of the world, eliminating bias.

My easy answer is a collection of approximations of observable reality.

"Eliminating bias" is too broad a term for me. Which bias? Who's bias? The How and Why of the bias?

Questions seem to just sprout when my approximation of bias meets that phrase.

To me the main bias is people being wrong. Or let's say not spot on. Like thinking thunder comes from a god hammering up in the skies. Modern examples are as disturbing.

We need science for sorting out our fantasies.


Another reason for science is technological progress and increased standard of living.

What about bias towards close, accurate approximations of bias?

Bias about bias are a priority to understand in the interest of pursuing close approximations of reality having bias or not having bias.

A bias against having choice concerning your own bias. That sounds like a collection of difficult symbols.

From the Latin "sciere", to know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvOcjzQ32Fw

Science is the rigorous pursuit of knowledge.

A reason for something isn't the same as a definition of something.

Science is a progression of testable explanations and predictions.

Science is something that gives us technological progress and increased standard of living.

Still not a definition. Other things can give us an increased standard of living, which doesn't tell us anything about them until they are defined.

I may give you a new definition of the word definition.

And why are you assuming the word "is" only means "definition"?

Also, my own contributions are almost equally welcome

Science is...fill in here.

I still think science primarily or secondarily is something that gives us technological progress and increased standard of living. If you cut away all the noble and idealistic talk. I'm not necessarily very happy with this, but you have to know the main factors. Why do you think science has that strong a position? We have to get real here in SMP. We are playing games, and need to know it.

Let's continue the playing, I like it. But let us also know the harsh reality enabling us.

I'm assuming you are asking what science is, and not asking what the goals of science are.
They are different questions in fairness.

I think they are tightly interconnected, interwoven. I agree the scientific process has to have integrity though. But without the payouts there wouldn't be much science.

Science can be a lot of things for a lot of people. Relax.

If the host of Jeopardy had asked Watson, "Something that enhances lives?" I wonder how long it would take him to ask the right answer?

(Asking statements and asking answers?)

If the host stated 'something that helps advance technology.' I think the contestant would ask 'What is science?' quickly, though.

It's just, that it's not an accurate enough definition to explain what is to anyone who hasn't already a clue.

I would agree the goals of science are subjective (while science itself is obviously objective.)

Science is the obvious answer.

Love may be another.

Exercise, music, travelling, socialising etc.

Theories to describe observations derived from repeatable experiments.

USA # 1

AAAS

UK # 2

The Royal Society

Russia # 3

Russian Academy of Science

I will change to the metric system as soon as the Ruskies stop using silly letters.

plaaynde's approach ITT is very sloppy. One might say quite unscientific. Even unphilosophic.

Without Govt funding, there would be a lot less science too. But science isn't Congressional appropriations.

Science is publishing.

Publish or perish.

Unmathematical?

Maybe you meant science can do a lot of things for a lot of people, but science has a restrictive definition and that it what distinguishes it from philosophy, art, religion, politics, etc.

I meant it can mean a lot of things for a lot of people.

It's maybe not "just" the primary scientific process.