What is science?

Science has
no standard definition…

…so here are three definitions, all of which are good definitions, but each emphasizes a different aspect of it.

Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are restricted to those that can be inferred from the confirmable data – the results obtained through observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists.

Science is the search for natural explanations for natural phenomena. Natural means existing in nature or the observable world; neither supernatural nor magical.

The word “science” comes from the Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge”
or “to know.”

Knowledge in science is gained through research.

Science is the process of asking questions about the natural world and testing answers to those questions. An answer is scientific only if you get that answer every time you do the test, no matter who does the test. Good science requires observations that can be reliably reproduced.

For a question to be considered a valid scientific question, it must be possible for the answer—found through real experience—to be either “True” or “False.” Also, scientific findings must be

objective,
measurable, and
repeatable.

Questions that do not meet these requirements fall outside the realm of science. Such questions are left to philosophy and religion.

Science at work: an example

If a researcher wants to know if a new drug stops peanut allergies in children, the researcher looks for reduced allergic reactions in kids who take the new drug. The drug must work and it must do so consistently to be considered a success. For example, if the drug works in one scientist’s study, but not in another’s, then the results are not reproducible, indicating that we do not have a scientific answer yet. This is how science works.

“Why does the caged bird sing?” Or “How to tell the difference between a scientific question and an unscientific question.”

A scientist's perspective

Science cannot answer the question “Is a singing bird happy?” because it would be impossible for us to ever read a bird's mind.

But science can answer a question like, “Does the caged bird sing more frequently when it is hungry?”

We can experiment with feeding routines and record singing frequency.
When we do this experiment, we can be objective—the bird either sings or it doesn’t.
There is a good possibility that different feeding routines will not influence singing frequency. That is, we could discover that our hunch about feeding routines having an effect on singing, is false. Our hunch, called a hypothesis, is falsifiable.
The results are measurable. We can measure when the bird sings, how often it sings, the song’s volume, etc.
The experiment is repeatable. Anyone should be able to replicate the same feeding routines and song recording protocol that was in the original experiment.

Methods of Understanding

How does science differ from other methods of understanding? The following table [Huitt(1)] presents an overview of some of the ways we acquire knowledge.

	Primary Focus	Methods of Acquiring Knowledge	Criteria for Validation
Experience	The study of reality beginning with personal experience as known through the senses	Personal interaction with the material, human and spiritual aspects of self and environment • Reflection on life experiences	Personal, subjective • Consistent with prior experiences, reflections and interpretations
Religion	The study of reality beginning with the metaphysical or spiritual aspect of the universe	Prayer • Meditation • Reading/listening to scriptures • Discipline of material self/ego • Association with other believers	Personal, subjective • Interpretation of revealed word or scriptures • Consistent with prior interpretations and reflections
Philosophy	The study of reality as viewed through the human mind • The study of the essence of reality	Observation • Reflection • Discourse • Other methods used in science and religion • Left-brain thinking techniques	Public, objective • Logically consistent • Appropriate to issue or topic under investigation
Science	The study of reality beginning with the material aspect of the universe	Careful description/data collection • Correlational/predictive • Experimental/causal • Association/ literature	Public, objective • Verifiable • Replicable, cumulative • Concise, systematic

Is there a place for inspiration or intuition in science? Absolutely! Eureka moments have moved science forward by leaps and bounds on many occasions. But, such discoveries must be subjected to reason and scientific verification before they are accepted.

Religious tenets, on the other hand, are not generally open to objective analysis. Religion seeks to provide a much more personal type of knowledge.

Stephen Jay Gould, among the best known and widely read scientists of the late 20th century, proposed that science and religion should be considered two distinct fields, or “magisteria,” whose authority does not overlap. He wrote the following about the relationship of science and religion…

The net of science covers the empirical universe: what is it made of (fact) and why does it work this way (theory). The net of religion extends over questions of moral meaning and value. These two magisteria do not overlap, nor do they encompass all inquiry (consider, for starters, the magisterium of art and the meaning of beauty). To cite the arch cliches, we get the age of rocks, and religion retains the rock of ages; we study how the heavens go, and they determine how to go to heaven.

More Information

Nonoverlapping Magisteria by Stephen Jay Gould
Understanding Science how science really works

1. Huitt, W. (1998, April). Measurement, evaluation, and research: Ways of knowing. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved 12/17/08, from http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/intro/wayknow.html