View Full Version : The Most Important Part of Science
putongren
Aug3-10, 08:16 PM
What is the most important part of science? Math, Theories, Experiment, Etc...?
I'll paraphrase what a friend's answer.
"Process ... the rest of what you said changes -but the process above it all (which comes from how to think about things) is what determines the quality of reiteration and refinement."
I thought about this question and I thought that a scientist's interpretation of experiment is the crux of science.
Any thoughts? Comments?
Academic
Aug3-10, 08:18 PM
Doubt
Dr Lots-o'watts
Aug3-10, 11:59 PM
Objectivity.
Trexman89
Aug4-10, 12:18 AM
Not getting mad when your stuff breaks or you screw up your computations.
Thinking.
We wouldn't go far without it.
Pythagorean
Aug9-10, 04:11 AM
Important to who? Mankind or particular scientists?
Klockan3
Aug9-10, 04:20 AM
The most important is reproducibility. The notion is that if a result can't be reproduced it is worthless. If someone gives you a bit of scientific information you can go and test it yourself, this is the most important aspect of science.
Then I have faith in those who do experiments and prefer theory myself, but that do not mean that I don't recognize how important they are for the whole structure. I love reading about experiments done but actually doing them is a snooze fest.
I'm very tempted to say ***s. After all, biology is dependent upon them, if only to make interesting posters. Were it not for them, all of the pioneers of science would have starved to death as infants. I bet that a lot of early scientists made it through school by the grace of a sheep and dreams of Marie Curie.
Hell, I think of her now and then myself. Of course, she can evoke only "dry dreams", but at least she isn't forgotten.
:uhh: Oh, crap... I hope that Pierre's hearing hasn't improved since he died...
Char. Limit
Aug9-10, 04:19 PM
Unbiased experimentation.
Proton Soup
Aug9-10, 04:50 PM
the most important thing is a stability of culture that allows you to pass down info from one generation to the next.
the most important thing is a stability of culture that allows you to pass down info from one generation to the next.
Very good point. In a way, it's ridiculously obvious, but it never crossed my mind as an element of the process rather than merely a circumstance of it. It needn't even be a "constant stability" (if that makes any sense), nor need every generation be involved, as long as some thread of continuity exists.
Pengwuino
Aug9-10, 05:33 PM
Fixing your experiment to match your theory.
oops did I just say that...
Ivan Seeking
Aug9-10, 05:49 PM
Fixing your experiment to match your theory.
oops did I just say that...
damn birds! Where is my slingshot?
As for the op: What is most important for survival; food, or water?
billiards
Aug9-10, 05:53 PM
Asking poignant questions
theJorge551
Aug9-10, 06:27 PM
I think you'd need to address which facet of science is to be analyzed.
The most important part to mankind as a whole, or the most important aspect of how science inherently "works"?
Based on how the rest of the responders have already replied, I'd have to agree. The way we humans interpret the experiments we set up is in my opinion the most fundamental part.
damn birds! Where is my slingshot?
Feel free to herd him in my direction with your slingshot. I have a 10-gauge lying in wait.
for the op: What is most important for survival; food, or water?
Although that is supposed to be a trick question, I'm going to say "water". Having water allows you more time to find food than having food provides for finding water. (I didn't quite say that properly. What I mean is that you can survive longer without food.)
Jimmy Snyder
Aug9-10, 07:23 PM
The waste paper basket. It's the difference between science and philosophy.
Astronuc
Aug9-10, 07:23 PM
Grant money. or paycheck. Other than compensation - curiosity and education.
Char. Limit
Aug9-10, 07:28 PM
A paraphrasing of a defoliation slogan:
YOU! Because only you can prevent scientists!
disregardthat
Aug9-10, 08:24 PM
The waste paper basket. It's the difference between science and philosophy.
What?
What?
I might be misinterpreting it myself, but my take is that scientists throw out anything that proves erroneous; philosophers keep everything.
disregardthat
Aug10-10, 02:50 PM
I might be misinterpreting it myself, but my take is that scientists throw out anything that proves erroneous; philosophers keep everything.
That's how I understood it as well. But do they?
That's how I understood it as well. But do they?
I don't know; I am neither.
damn birds! Where is my slingshot?
As for the op: What is most important for survival; food, or water?
Water :P
Pythagorean
Aug10-10, 04:34 PM
damn birds! Where is my slingshot?
As for the op: What is most important for survival; food, or water?
Shelter is more important than either (in a survival situation, anyway).
What?It's a joke meaning scientists only care about what is meaningful, philosophers don't care if it's meaningful. And that's the nicer interpretation.
Logical reasoning, the only way to prove she is a witch.
Pythagorean
Aug10-10, 05:35 PM
It's a joke meaning scientists only care about what is meaningful, philosophers don't care if it's meaningful. And that's the nicer interpretation.
Yeh. I think that's hogwash though. Scientists are interested in a certain way of looking at things; it's by coincidence that most of a scientist's work is meaningful.
Scientific method is hogwash too (I'm speaking from the perspective of a single scientist, not the whole science community). We fiddle with systems and phenomena because we're interested in it. Meaningfulness and accuracy are byproducts of genuine interest, but so are misconceptions and grandiose ideology. It is at the community level that the scientific method becomes important, because in helps to wash away those misconceptions and grandiose ideology.
A single scientist has little understand of the whole reality in terms of direct personal exploration. Instead, it's the scientific community, like a partition of gases, that nudges each individual scientist's works into a uniform perspective of reality. We keep each other in check.
Shelter is more important than either (in a survival situation, anyway).
Protection - Location - Acquisition - Navigation ( PLAN ). I think those are the most important things they teach in an army of this world for outdoor survival.
Pythagorean
Aug10-10, 06:33 PM
Protection - Location - Acquisition - Navigation ( PLAN ). I think those are the most important things they teach in an army of this world for outdoor survival.
The Coast Guard in Alaska, in conjuction with the Alaska Marine Safety Education Association teaches the "Seven Steps of Survival" in order of importance:
Recognition
Inventory
Shelter
Signals
Water
Food
Play
RISSWFP... rolls right of the tongue...
diazona
Aug10-10, 08:03 PM
...most of a scientist's work is meaningful.
Ah, if only...
The Coast Guard in Alaska, in conjuction with the Alaska Marine Safety Education Association teaches the "Seven Steps of Survival" in order of importance:
Recognition
Inventory
Shelter
Signals
Water
Food
Play
RISSWFP... rolls right of the tongue...
What's "Play" standing for ?
Pythagorean
Aug11-10, 04:49 AM
What's "Play" standing for ?
It doesn't. Quite literally, the seventh step is play: have fun. Do things you enjoy, reduce stress levels, get good sleep. Essential to keeping your wits about you.
disregardthat
Aug11-10, 06:57 AM
It's a joke meaning scientists only care about what is meaningful, philosophers don't care if it's meaningful. And that's the nicer interpretation.
Can you give an example of something meaningless that philosophers care about?
Pythagorean
Aug11-10, 07:38 AM
Can you give an example of something meaningless that philosophers care about?
Meaning is subjective. Somebody could just as easily come up with something that physicists care about that is meaningless... to someone.
Can you give an example of something meaningless that philosophers care about?
Just about everything they do ? :devil:
The most important part of science, to stick to it. Science only, no guts feeling, no ideals, no politics, No relaxation of standards when dealing with the attractiveness versus the correctness of any conclusion, no decisions about what 'the right balance is between being effective and being honest'.
The most important part of survival is health, get out of threatening situations and treath injuries first, seems not to play in RISSWFP
It may be hard to harmonize the most important part of science with the most important part of survival.
disregardthat
Aug11-10, 09:51 AM
Meaning is subjective. Somebody could just as easily come up with something that physicists care about that is meaningless... to someone.
Meaningless can be interpreted in many ways. Some more operational interpretations are; useless, impossible to understand, or genuine nonsense.
Either way, the fact that a group of people care about something, write about it and think about it automatically makes it meaningful. These same things might be meaningless to others, but surely; higher mathematics is meaningless to a 3-year-old, but that's not the point.
What I find is that many consider some or all philosophical problems and topics to be genuine nonsense or erroneous thinking, rather than only meaningless to their view (thus not granting it respect as a meaningful subject at all); a perspective which I think the joke portrays.
...
Can you give an example of something meaningless that philosophers care about?
Just about everything they do ? :devil:
...
The most important part of science, to stick to it. Science only, no guts feeling,
I think you will find that that "gut-feeling" is an important part of being a research scientist. The same might go with attractiveness. To search for attractive simplicity and elegance is not irrational and anti-scientific just because it has it's roots in aesthetics (and it might have practical advantages). Of course these feelings only serve as inclinations, and not as reasoning.
Jimmy Snyder
Aug11-10, 12:09 PM
It's a joke meaning scientists only care about what is meaningful, philosophers don't care if it's meaningful. And that's the nicer interpretation.
That may be so, but it's not what I meant. I suppose scientists are no less prone to lousy ideas than philosophers are. But I perceive a difference in the way they react to those bad ideas. Scientists will toss them out.
(...)The most important part of science, to stick to it. Science only, no guts feeling....
I think you will find that that "gut-feeling" is an important part of being a research scientist. The same might go with attractiveness. To search for attractive simplicity and elegance is not irrational and anti-scientific just because it has it's roots in aesthetics (and it might have practical advantages). Of course these feelings only serve as inclinations, and not as reasoning.
Right, the last sentence that's it. I think we agree. There is no doubt that "gut-feeling" (experience) can play an important part in processing and problem solving, but is that the science as intended?
What I intended to say is if science is the process of finding out how things work then it's conclusion should be about how those things work and nothing else. If it is found out that there are more ways that things could work, a selection/decision should not be made based on gut-feelings, aesthetics, occam razor, desirability of a pet-solution or we would still be dealing with a flat earth, phlogiston, aether and things like that. There has been a lot of gut-feeling going on trying to cling on to those erring concepts.
dreiter
Aug12-10, 02:55 AM
Grant money.
Hah!
My answer: logic. Try and do science without it. ;)
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.