What Is Science?

[scameter]

I love science. But, I have grown to question what it is I love, and if I truly love what it is I say I love, or something else. I believe that science is, ultimately, the human attempt to describe and find logic within nature, and to form logical models based on what is observed and experimentally proven regarding nature; that it's goal is to understand nature, not to disect it and lable it's parts simply to conquer it. But, I question if my hope is truly what science is. From things I have read, and how some scientists act, it would appear that science is simply the act of using the absolute belief in evidence and what is physical, and in the possible existence of absolute fact as long as it corresponds to the physical, as well as the field of mathematics, to lable nature, and to overlook it's beauty, magnificence and uncertainty. From my readings of science directly, my relatively contemporary and social interactions with science and it's practitioners leads me to disbelieve their validity as being simple assumption and narrow-mindedness. But, I am not sure. So many seem as they are, how could science not be as they are? This is one of my largest questions, as it will essentially determine my true interest in science, and if it is my wish to be a scientist, or to be a philosopher who studies science from the viewpoint of a philosopher instead of within the position of science, or the lack of it, as I said above. I hope you, my friends, can help me here. :)

[Smurf]

Ohh this is a big question Scam, one that you could only answer I think? :unsure:

[scameter]

Well, actually I can't answer it. Which is why I posted it here. I have tried answering it myself, and to answer it through research, but I cannot find my answer.

[Winfried]

This is a rather pressing question. To me it is a question with as vague an answer as "What is philosophy", and yet slightly not as vague as "Why are we here". The great thing with these question is that everyone has a very plausable answer, and none of them can be proven by 'scientific experiment'. No evidence or statistics to help you out here. Very hard indeed. <_<

I remember viewing a rather amusing, though not very enlighting, toon on this subject. If anyone's interested (though you all seem not as immature as I am): http://weebls-stuff.com/toons/science/
Knock yourselfs out. Not with a sledgehammer though, that hurts. Badly.

[scameter]

Indeed it is a large question. In the book I am reading currently, A History of Knowledge by Charles Van Doren, he is describing science as being although not termed during the period as such, as being the way the Greeks thought and operated; I believe he called it the "Greek way". I think this is quite appropriate, but I am not sure on it's definitude, mainly because however many Greeks were focused on scientific matters, such as Democritus and Aristotle, it would appear that they focused even moreso on morality and politics, especially Socrates and Plato, and exemplified to Aristotle in his Ethics. I see truly only a modern definition of science as being the only one truly appicable to say that the entire society (the one of modern times) is ruled by science; and thus such a society's definition of it would seem more appropriate. I am not entirely sure on their definition, but I believe it is the observation of nature and the forming of a hypothesis to be tested for validity via experiment, then retested to affirm the validity, and then applied technologically; hence, the scientific method. But, the scientific method is not new. I look forward to reading Charles's explanation of the societal causes and conditions upon the arising of the scientific method in later chapters of his book. :)