There is question as to what the actual definition of science is.
When asked what science is* I usually point to the OED and grunt, but actual definitions aren’t enough for some people seeking to define terms.
Look no further, people, Wikipedia has shown us the way! Wikipedia has settled the question with a definitive answer, in the form of a tiny .jpg.
Science is a galaxy-looking thing that shoots fire and is currently being impaled by a pillar of smoke. All hail Wikipedia!
* Creationist: “You have faith in evolution.”
Me: “I do not. It’s scientific fact that evolution has occurred, which is part of the greater evolutionary scientific theory, and before you say anything, scientific theory is not the same as what most people mean by the word theory.”
C: “So you have faith in science.”
M: “That’s an oxymoron, moron.”
C: “It is not. We both use the same thing to reach our conclusions. You call it science, I call it God.” [Preaches about God being science or something.]
M: “That’s not Science.”
C: “Then what is Science.”
M: “We learned that in pre-school.”
The “galaxy thing” is a black hole, or rather the blue stuff around it is matter being ripped apart while it orbits the black hole. The fire isn’t shooting out of it is really coming into it, it’s matter. The pillar of smoke is a relativistic jet, it’s a huge jet of plasma. Here’s the larger image of that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Accretion_disk.jpg
It’s weird that an artist’s rendering of a black hole was chosen to be called “science” though.
Comment by Patrick — 30 August 2008 @ 1:19 am
This totally messes with my head as I ALWAYS thought science looked like a test tube 1/3 full of blue liguid. Now what am I going to do? I hope to God they don’t change the math picture.
Comment by Matt — 30 August 2008 @ 9:31 am
I always wondered why people felt it necessary to apply arbitrary definitions to complex concepts. What is science? All kinds of things. There’s another question that I find just as vexing, though…
What is religion?
Comment by The Necromancer — 30 August 2008 @ 2:24 pm
Patrick, I know what the picture is. I have a few dozen astronomy printouts stapled to my wall and that picture is one of them. Black holes are a subject that have fascinated me for a long time. I was being facetious.
Matt, if you would watch the Weebl’s Stuff cartoon I linked, you would see that science is actually a blue atom in a box wearing a bowler hat and smoking a cigarette.
Necromancer, science is all kinds of things, yes, but there is a unified definition that defines what is and is not science. All words have definitions. Words, by definition, have definitions, no matter how complex the concepts they describe are. If there is no definition of a word, there is no reason to have the word.
And religion is a type of paranoid/self-inflated mass delusion that takes advantage of primitive emotions and stifles reason by sectioning off the mind between faith and reality through cognitive dissonance.
Comment by Rev. Reed Braden — 31 August 2008 @ 11:13 am
RRB: I think the point I was making was that there ISN’T a clearly unified definition of science. A short foray into the philosophy of science (Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend, etc…) reveals this to be the case. Like words, science has nuance, and single arbitrary definitions of what is or isn’t science fly against the give and take spirit of inquiry that is so essential to the process of figuring out how nature and our universe works.
The definition of religion you offer is also too convenient, I think. Words like “paranoid” and “primitive” are polemical in this case. Religion, like science, can simply be seen as a series of practices and beliefs.
And finally, the word “reason” is one that demands the greatest reflection as to its definition. What is and isn’t rational is not objective, per se. In fact it may be one of the most subjective and inaccurate words in modern use. Not so reasonable, all in all. :)
Comment by The Necromancer — 31 August 2008 @ 1:23 pm
Necro, sometimes people like you make me feel that philosophy ruins everything: Not everything is as complicated as philosophers try to make it seem. Science has a clear definition that discriminates between “science” and “not science.” It’s there. It’s long and complicated, but it’s a definition. Once again, I shall point at the OED and grunt.
You also didn’t notice the sarcasm in my definition of religion. But if you are truly looking for a definition of religion too, I shall again point at the OED and grunt.
As for the definition of reason, this is the last time I’m going to point at the OED and grunt for you. Next time, I’m throwing the entire shelf of volumes at your head.
All words have definitions, else they are not words. Words that stand for complicated concepts have complicated definitions, but they have definitions. Philosophy majors don’t seem to ever understand this simple rule of language.
Comment by Rev. Reed Braden — 1 September 2008 @ 1:12 pm
RRB: Philosophy majors point at the OED and grunt. Philosophers, in contrast, may actually influence what ends up in the OED. I consider myself the latter.
Getting ready to duck now. :)
Comment by The Necromancer — 1 September 2008 @ 1:42 pm
[...] seeing yet another sample of the countless arguments coming from creationists versus evolutionists, I feel I have to [...]
Pingback by Evolution? « Peet Brits — 7 September 2008 @ 5:52 pm
Science looks cool!
Comment by Diaphanus — 27 September 2008 @ 2:02 am