Another God said:
...science IS NOT the modus operandi of epistemology...epistemology works through pure reflection/thought/philosophy. Epistemology was discussed long before science was, and is still quite separate from it. I don't think that that is what you mean though. (or do u?)
What I mean, is that epistemology is defined from the Gr.
episteme = knowledge,
logy = study of; thus epistemology has always been a branch of thinking (philosophy) that deals with the "study of knowledge". Now, clearly, as you state, science as a word comes along much latter in history, but "science as a method of thinking" has been around exactly the same length of time as epistemology (what I called in my proposed definition)
the repetitive and redundant aspects of given phenomenon by application of the laws of nature. Thus, I hold that science is the only way for humans to think that allows them to "study knowledge", to do epistemology--(to gain facts of phenomemon preceived via the senses). Why ? for the very simple reason that the concept "science" comes from the Latin "
scire" = to know !, that is SCIENCE = TO KNOW ! ...and as Webster tells us, to "know" something is opposed to have intuition, belief, etc. of some "thing". In other words, if you hold something to be true by belief (1) you are not engaged in epistemology (e.g., you are not seeking to study the facts of phenomenon) and (2) you are not doing science. Look up the definition for "belief"--no mention that you "seek" knowledge of facts--only that you assume, suppose, hope, pray--but no knowledge. However, when a scientists states that something is a scientific fact, they are saying they "know" it is a fact because they have used a very specific method to gain such knowledge, what I called "the repetitive and redundant aspects of given phenomenon by application of the laws of nature". A scientist never holds any fact to be true by "belief" or "intuition"--such "methods of observation of given phenomenon" are outside science, outside fact, outside knowledge, thus outside the branch of philosophy called epistomology. When a person uses a system of "belief" to determine what is true, they do not study epistemology, they study the branch of philosophy called "religion". Study of religion has nothing to do with study of knowledge--by definition. Let me put it bluntly, if all you hold to be true is 100% by belief, then, by definition, you have 0.0% "knowledge" of what is in fact true.
Thus I hold as logically valid and true that..
Science is the modus operandi of epistemology
Another God said:
...The obvious problem I have here is that you have assumed that we already know what science is: You place it there as a tool to be used like a hammer or something. I'll stop there so u can correct me if I am way off track.
It can only be the "definition" of the "concept" called science that let's us "know" what science is. I do not "assume" (have belief of) what science is--I defined science--thus by definition, that's what I know it is--my knowledge derives from its definition. Now, of course, definitions can change over time, but new definitions can never remove essential factors of a concept, only refine them. Until you define a concept you cannot know what it is--and this is why I agree with you that this thread is important for anyone that claims they "do science", for without a simple definition of what science is, how is anyone to know what scientists do.
Still, even at this stage of this thread, we only have two proposed definitions of "science", which I find strange. This is a physics forum that includes biology, chemistry--surely we can get a few more definitions of what it is many of us do for a living--SCIENCE. Or do we think that we do biology, chemistry, physics and thus no need to define SCIENCE ?--I hope this is not the case. If so, it helps explain why the Intelligent Design movement is making a serious attempt at this time in history to re-define SCIENCE to include application of laws of god via inference as being what it is we scientists do.
