What is Science? Research & Exceptions

[LightningInAJar]

Does research require repeatable experiments with repeated results in order to call what one is doing "science?" Or are there exceptions?

 

[Jarvis323]

Does research require repeatable experiments with repeated results in order to call what one is doing "science?" Or are there exceptions?

Usually people mean natural science when they say science. But there is also formal science, where experiments are not very relevant.

Formal science is a branch of science studying formal language disciplines concerned with formal systems, such as logic, mathematics, statistics, theoretical computer science, artificial intelligence, information theory, game theory, systems theory, decision theory, and theoretical linguistics.[1] Whereas the natural sciences and social sciences seek to characterize physical systems and social systems, respectively, using empirical methods, the formal sciences are language tools concerned with characterizing abstract structures described by symbolic systems. The formal sciences aid the natural science, social science and actuarial science all through providing information about the structures used to describe the physical and the contemporary world, and what inferences may be made about them.[citation needed]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branches_of_science

This is why we get to use the term computer scientist I guess.

 

[fresh_42]

Does research require repeatable experiments with repeated results in order to call what one is doing "science?" Or are there exceptions?

You cannot prove anything in natural sciences as you do in mathematics. So second best is an experiment that gives the same result when repeated. I like to say that you cannot prove that Newton's famous apple will always fall to the ground, but we haven't observed any other outcome, yet.

 

[LCSphysicist]

You cannot prove anything in natural sciences as you do in mathematics. So second best is an experiment that gives the same result when repeated. I like to say that you cannot prove that Newton's famous apple will always fall to the ground, but we haven't observed any other outcome, yet.

 

[Rive]

Or are there exceptions?

One exception in natural science when it's about events not in our control. Like ball lightnings - or supernovas

 

[collinsmark]

Does research require repeatable experiments with repeated results in order to call what one is doing "science?" Or are there exceptions?

Laboratory experiments are great if you can do it. But sometimes it's not practical or even possible to use experimentation. And still other times it may not be ethical, even if it is possible.

Much of cosmology and astrophysics are done using observation.* One can't very well make a black hole in the basement laboratory. But one can make a telescope and observe the effects of black holes that already exist. Some experimentation can be done using mathematical models and computer simulations, but not with real black holes, is my point.

Epidemiology is a field of science that studies what can hurt or kill you, and by how much, without actually experimenting. Instead, epidemiology relies on data gathering and statistics. Then, like before, experimentation can be done using mathematical models and computer simulations, but in such a way that nobody gets hurt as part of the research.

*(Some experimentation can be done in astrophysics and cosmology. Just not all of it.)

 

[Astronuc]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branches_of_science

In the statement, "using empirical methods, the formal sciences are language tools concerned with characterizing abstract structures described by symbolic systems." I would add characterizing abstract structures, their components and the relationships among the components.

But there is also formal science, where experiments are not very relevant.

Well, using experiments generically, one can often to 'tests' on one's hypothesis or theory, or model, in order to see if one's understanding is correct. One can makes predictions about behavior of a system or subsystem to see if an input or influence forces an output ore response as predicted, or an exception that requires an adjustment to one's hypothesis or theory.

Much of cosmology and astrophysics are done using observation.*

With the expectation that the physics is the same way out there as it is locally.

One can test one's theory of what is observed by observing other areas of the galaxy or universe in order to tests one understanding of was is observed, i.e., is it unique or representative of some class of structures/features. For example, we establish models with sets of equations that describe systems, e.g., stars. Some models are simple, which while others are elaborate.

 

[LightningInAJar]

I ask the question because people that study parapsychology and more accult things are heavily criticized because their results to my knowledge haven't been repeatable even once. Granted if ghosts exist you can't force them to talk to you, or if someone had a near death experience it would be unethical to give them another one. Lol. And even than there hasn't been a way to show it isn't a brain event. Past life memories are trick because most lives are well documented these days and I've heard these people seek the researchers and not the other way around. Some people are quite convinced we go on after death, but it seems super slippery.

 

[Tom.G]

or if someone had a near death experience it would be unethical to give them another one.

Several years ago I saw a report that some doctors tried to test that in a rather obvious/clever way.

They took advantage of reports by people claiming an out-of-body experience; often as "floating" above their location.

Attempting to verify the claims, the doctors put an object on the top of a tall cabinet in the hospital Operating Room to see if anyone could identify it.

I never did see a progress report of the experiment! Perhaps others here have run across some results, positive or negative.

Cheers,
Tom

 

[LightningInAJar]

Several years ago I saw a report that some doctors tried to test that in a rather obvious/clever way.

They took advantage of reports by people claiming an out-of-body experience; often as "floating" above their location.

Attempting to verify the claims, the doctors put an object on the top of a tall cabinet in the hospital Operating Room to see if anyone could identify it.

I never did see a progress report of the experiment! Perhaps others here have run across some results, positive or negative.

Cheers,
Tom

I have heard of that type of thing with an upward facing image. Not aware of a positive result. So someone actually tried a "Flatliners" in real life?

 

[Rive]

people that study parapsychology and more accult things are heavily criticized because their results

In general there are two kind of people who study parapsychology: one is the believers, other is the scientists. Maybe it'll came as a surprise that parapsychology units/groups still exists in some universities, scientific organizations. And they do a good job, both with experiments where they try to reproduce the effect of some claimed abilities in controlled environment and with gathering (detailed) facts and information about events (observations).
Actually, these kind of hazy, undefined things are good whetstones for the scientific method, so there are heated discussions too.

When believers try to play science (baseless but confident claims about 'results') without knowing the ways is, when there are critics.

Oh, and when things goes harmful. Which is so often happens.

 

[berkeman]

Thread closed for Moderation...

 

[Evo]

Thread closed, the OP's original question has been adequately answered (Thankyou to all). The thread has now gone on to another subject which PF no longer handles. See the rules if you have questions.