What is "science"?

[otseng]

Wikipedia:

Science refers to either:
- the scientific method – a process for evaluating empirical knowledge; or
- the organized body of knowledge gained by this process.

Areas of science may be classified in two major dimensions:
- Pure (the development of theories) versus Applied (the application of theories to human needs); or
- Natural (the study of the naturally occurring world) versus Social (the study of human behaviour and society).

Less formally, the word science often covers any systematic field of study (like the humanities), or the knowledge gained from it.

There are different theories of what "science" is.

According to empiricism, "scientific" theories are objective, empirically verifiable, and "predictive" — they predict empirical results that can be checked and possibly contradicted.

In contrast, scientific realism defines science in terms of ontology: science attempts to identify what "things" in the world, their causal powers, the mechanisms through which they exercise those powers, and the sources of those powers in terms of the thing's structure or internal nature.

Merriam-Webster:

Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; probably akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split.

1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology>
b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena :

Encarta:

study of the physical world: the study of the physical world and its manifestations, especially by using systematic observation and experiment

Infoplease:

1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4. systematized knowledge in general.
5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

Webster 1913:

1. Knowledge; lnowledge of principles and causes; ascertained truth of facts.
2. Accumulated and established knowledge, which has been systematized and formulated with reference to the discovery of general truths or the operation of general laws; knowledge classified and made available in work, life, or the search for truth; comprehensive, profound, or philosophical knowledge.
3. Especially, such knowledge when it relates to the physical world and its phenomena, the nature, constitution, and forces of matter, the qualities and function of living tissues, etc.; -- called also natural science, and physical science.

Cambridge Dictionary:

(knowledge obtained from) the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the natural and physical world, by observation and experiment

Biology-text:

Study of nature, trying to understand how and why things work, using logic and experimentation.

BioTech:

1. The study of the material universe or physical reality in order to understand it. This is done by making observations and collecting data about natural events and conditions, then organizing and explaining them with hypotheses, theories, models, laws, and principles.
2. The organized body of knowledge about the material universe which can be verified or tested.

AllWords:

The systematic observation and classification of natural phenomena in order to learn about them and bring them under general principles and laws.

Skepdic:

Science is first and foremost a set of logical and empirical methods which provide for the systematic observation of empirical phenomena in order to understand them.

More Links:
OneLook
Answers.com
Google

[Dilettante]

According to the school of philosophy in my hometown, by "science" people mean one of four things:

1. Basic «know-how», technological ability, craftmanship or dexterity. as in "he's got it down to a science".
2. A «system made up of propositions derived from principles», as in Euclidean geometry.
3. Positive science in the modern sense (thermodynamics, molecular biology, etc).
4. "Cultural" positive sciences,such as linguistics or anthropology.

They choose science in sense 3 as their reference.

[Amalcas]

A systematic study of [patterns in] physical phenomena based on the principle of Occam's Razor.

Occam's Razor -- The principle that the simpliest logical explanation of an event is the correct explanation.
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
~Einstein

[Wordsmith]

There are different theories of what "science" is.

According to empiricism, "scientific" theories are objective, empirically verifiable, and "predictive" — they predict empirical results that can be checked and possibly contradicted.

In contrast, scientific realism defines science in terms of ontology: science attempts to identify what "things" in the world, their causal powers, the mechanisms through which they exercise those powers, and the sources of those powers in terms of the thing's structure or internal nature.

As a newbie to this forum (my second post overall) I've enjoyed the many prior submissions striving to define what is meant by the word SCIENCE. I find the many (mostly valid) alternative definitions submitted thus far appear to approach the definition from too narrow a point of view. SCIENCE, like most other words, can have many different meanings -- with these being properly distinguished by use available (often hyphenated) modifiers

In its unmodified (generic flavor) form it simply conveys what might be most broadly understood aand intended to convey "as man's best efforts to establish cause-and-effect relationships in all observable phenomena to the highest possible level of compelling certainty.".

Simply calling, or labeling, a statement as being SCIENTIFIC conveys NO indication or assurance of any level of certainty. Such "certainty" can only be established by application of some identified, and accepted, scientificf (proof) method. The two forms of "science" as excerpted in the above quotation, well reflect the two different SCIENTIFIC-METHODS most frequently encountered today.

The first, EMPIRICAL SCIENCE, is the default meaning universally taught in all introductry science textbooks. Here the testing involves physical confirmation as set forth in the Baconian scientific-method. While such verification, particularly by a skeptic in his own laboratory, may not establish 100% certainty, it is a most rigorous testing method and one that provides clear-cut, controversy-free determinations.

The second form of "science" described above as REALISTIC (or Hypothetico-Deductive, Historical-Narrative, etc.) "science" relies upon a little taught, less well defined, non-physical (mental) method of confirmation (Google search provides over 25,000 hits describing various testing methods here applied). Unfortunately, little effort is devoted to establishing the relative (invariably lesser) level of "compelling certainty" such methods establish (compared to physical testing) and results are simply presented as being SCIENTIFIC. Because different conclusions can (and are) derived when different premises are selected by the researchers involved, legitimate questions (controversy) cannot be avoided.

A third, as yet unmentioned, proof method in science is that of MATHEMATICS. It iprovides a valuable further check (where applicable) to both physically and mentally tested scientific explanations.

A great preponderance of all controversy in the creation/evolution dichotomy would quickly be resolved IF all stated "scientific" conclusions were openly identified by which of the above scientific "proof" methods their validity as science was established. Currently an indefensible double-standard is applied. Non-evolutionary explanations are rejected out of hand because of their inability to be physically confirmed -- while pro-evolutionary explanations for the same phenomenon are accepted as "science" based upon the less rigorous criteria unverifiable mental deduction.

Hopefully, this might kick some new life into this seemingly long-dormant subforum.

Wordsmith