I'm an engineer and I have a very narrow view on what science is.

Science is defined as: systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

I get into a lot of arguments about how many things simply are not science.

#1 social sciences are obviously not science.
#2 evolution is not a science because its not testable in our time frame (I mean parts are testable in species that reproduce at high rates)
#3 certain parts of physics (string theory) are not science because they are not testable
#4 climatology is not science because, again, its not testable by the scientific method.

Obviously many areas of engineering are not science, such as what I do, but a lot of areas are. I am just saying this for intellectual honesty.

theories formed by observation are certainly scientific but without experimentation and verification of results its not science.

Am I just a stickler?

I think you just don't really know what science is.

a tickler stickler?

why define it as only the study of the "physical or material" world?

#1 = wrong: behaviour is a science

#2 = WRONG: it produces testable predictions

#3 = they are IN principle testable...and if they're not, then they're metaphysics

#4 = ...lol wut?

You may be an engineer, but you're very very bad at science especially because of your view of #4.

Something need not BE tested for it to be science (qua testable).

It's nice that you've given an honest pre-theoretic attempt...but it's very naive.

seriously for it to be a science you have to be able to experiment which requires a control group

well then tell me what science is

philosophy professors watch Family Guy too.

and south park (including ones in their 60s lol)

I think you have a point here. But the meaning/definitions of words, including "science" differ.

Yours views on what constitutes science are too narrow to be taken seriously.

The inputs and outputs of scientific reasoning are expressible in terms of measurement.

This one just popped into my head so it maybe be naive, but how about describing the world without contradiction.

why?

Because much of what is standardly considered central to science would be ruled out by your understanding of your criteria (e.g. evolution(?!?), climatology, large amounts of cosmology, social sciences, etc.).

There are two issues relevant to definitions of science. One is the historical/descriptive issue of defining the concept of science. Your view obviously fails to accurately describe how people understand or use this concept as (according to you) much of what is standardly considered science is not actually science, and for descriptive purposes it is the standard views that you are trying to capture.

The other issue is the normative criteria for what counts as science. For example, many scientists claim, not just that creation science is wrong, but that it is not science at all but a form of pseudoscience. This distinction relies on a set of normative criteria for distinguishing between science and non-science. This seems to be more what you are interested in as it is certainly possible to come up with a set of normative criteria that would end up showing that much of what is standardly considered science is not actually such.

However, we usually judge the correctness of our normative criteria at least in part by whether its results are at least generally congruent with our considered judgements about the subject. And since your criteria deviate so far from our considered judgements, we need either strong independent reasons to revise those judgements, or a strong argument in favor of your criteria. You provide neither of these and so your criteria don't seem serious.

Luckily for you, this subject has been studied by many philosophers of science (where it is known as the "demarcation" problem). You can read up some attempts at differentiating science from its competitors here.

Maybe for the future you want to avoid loading your question with opinions before the discussion is even underway. When you do pose your opinions you may want to avoid saying things like "X is obviously not Y", and instead pose credible arguments. It might also be clever to ask for the purpose of deduction, and not asking for the purpose of convincing.

But what do I know, I'm educated in the social...erm...we will have to find a new name for it now.

Isn't it possible science will redefine itself in the future?

I was unaware that was is considered central to science (mathematics and the scientific method) would be ruled out by my definition of science since I based my definition of science as anything that fits within the definition of the scientific method. here is a little picture for you:



the normative criteria for what is science dictates experimentation and a testable hypothesis which certain fields are unable to present in any viable way.

from the website regarding demarcation: "More importantly, the natural and social sciences and the humanities are all part of the same human endeavour, namely systematic and critical investigations aimed at acquiring the best possible understanding of the workings of nature, man, and human society" which is not something i will try to refute; however (again) according to my definition (that for it to be science it must follow the scientific method which requires experimentation which requires a control group) a lot of specific fields are unable to produce testable hypothesis. this does not force these fields into the "non-science" category but into some sub-parallel category.

let me be clear about this: my conjecture isn't solely based on my specific definition of what science is; its more of stating what science is (as in it must follow the scientific method) and then asking if certain fields, due to their lack of testable hypothesis, is science. this isn't out of some ignorant religion baiting or a hate of sociology but a legitimate question.

so for something to be considered a science does it need to follow the scientific method?

if social sciences follow the scientific method and have testable hypothesis then i would not say they are "obviously not science" however i, possibly in my ignorance, am not aware of this.

i mean certain branches, such as psychology, but those are more in the medical field.

i would say critical social analyst is a more accurate term than social scientist

Okay. We can solve your confusion. Social scientists and people studying evolution make testable hypotheses. Thus, according to your definition, they are part of science.

But can gathering material to test the hypothesis be equalled to experimenting? These are clearly different groups. Both can be science imo.

Shot through the heart
And you're to blame
Darlin'
You give engineering a bad name

You can't confirm a hypothesis, ducy?

(Probably not...but I'm getting my popcorn)

+1

It used to. A bit of social engineering has been done recently whereby a postmodern substitute definition of "science" is used in which strict adherence to the scientific method is considered uptight and passe.

Induction. Under the same set of criterea the same thing will always happen. Pretty crude but basically does the job.

However in modern day science Bayesian induction tends to be required. Which does not compute to well with the scientific method.

For example Quantum mechanics is based on uncertainity.


What is science is a good question in modern times IMO

gather information = do background research

as in you gather information and from the given information you form a hypothesis

so physicists have never confirmed a hypothesis?

i would prefer to avoid a "can anything truly be known" discussion