Re: [asa] POLL: How do you define 'Science'?

Hi Collin,

My perception on such things is that one probably shouldn't try to
impose one model of theory structure across the board for the simple
reason that individual scientists are often motivated by quite different
concerns. And it doesn't seem to me that one can easily plonk all such
concerns into a single box.

To give a very basic example, which I introduce with the caveat that it
involves DELIBERATE distortions introduced primarily to win arguments in
pubs(!); back in my engineering student days we used to engage in a
friendly (?) rivalry with applied science students about who was doing
the "real" science. To we engineers it was obvious that applied science
was all about vacuous abstraction based on poorly conducted experiments
in which one ignores any results not agreeing with the vaguely defined
theory that one had already dreamed up on the basis of a complete lack
of understanding of the phenomena which one had in the first place.
Contrast this with the unsullied purity of engineering - in which
theoretical error is immediately apparent by virtue of the fact that the
bridge falls down.

Such student witticisms were based on the simple observation that there
are different agendas within different disciplines. And whilst it's too
simplistic to say that ALL applied scientists are interested in theory
construction, and ALL engineers are interested in pragmatic application,
it does seem that this is generally close enough to the truth to lend
some credence to the caricature of the disciplines mentioned in the
paragraph above. After all, caricatures only work if they have at least
some relation to the actual state of affairs.

For this reason, my response to your poll is to suggest that at various
times and in various places and to various extents science displays all
(or none!) of the various aspects listed. Often this is a result of the
fact that research programs tend to move through stages - none of which
are really as clearly defined as textbooks suggest - and one's primary
focus at various stages tends to shift. But sometimes its because an
entire discipline has different interests and one largely concerns
oneself ONLY with data collection or pragmatic application or whatever
else. The science vs engineering caricature introduced above works
precisely because it was understood that the process of theory
construction ("science") vs. that of theory application ("engineering")
are related but distinct processes which employ different goals and
methods.

At the end of the day, I think that one would want to be careful not to
construct a philosophy of science based upon a particular discipline as
somehow paradigmatic of all sciences. And my worry with some
philosophers of science is that they do exactly this. The unfortunate
consequence is that in order to maintain a philosophy of science which
might very well describe the practices of a particular group of
scientists very well, one might end up either having to distort what
other groups of scientists are doing, or to dismiss them as not really
engaged in science at all, or perhaps even to assert that whilst they
are engaged in science they have somehow deceived themselves as to what
it is they are really attempting to do.

In closing, it occurs to me that it would be interesting if one could
conduct a poll such as yours whilst also obtaining some indication of
the respondents particular discipline. It would be interesting to see
how an understanding of the the methods and aims of science vary
depending upon whether one is engaged in science "in the real world, and
in what particular capacity, or whether one is a "theorist" attempting
to describe science from the "outside" and is this with reference to any
particular scientific discipline. The results of such a poll might, I
think, prove interesting - particularly if one was to discern between
experienced practitioners and novices in the various fields.

Blessings,
Pastor, East Camberwell Baptist Church, Victoria, Australia
Post-Grad Student (MTh), Australian College of Theology

Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
>
> I'm wondering if the theory structures that I read in Suppe,
> Newton-Smith, etc.,
> are followed seriously, or if there is more in the mind of the scientist
> than just the testing.
> That's why I asked about pragmatism and the other possible goals.
> Because he real world where people work is often different from the
> orthodoxy of the theorists.--

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu May 29 15:30:39 2008