OT: Definition of science (WAS: Making money from Java)

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:dnscei$kiu$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <5Hhof.166802$yS6.142470@clgrps12>,
> Oliver Wong <owong@castortech.com> wrote: 
>
> Ow... close to tautology there, Mr Wong, that '(a) "science should have
> been... developed via the "scientific process"' (" original);

I should have been more explicit in expressing that my belief does not
make any assumption that "scientific process" has something to do with
"science".

What is, what I meant is, we have a term called "scientific process" and
let's assume for now that we all agree on what that term means, and that the
definition of that term doesn't involve the term "science". Now, I can
define the term "science", and the definition I will provide uses the term
"scientific process".

[snip]
 
>
> That might be because human beings - the objects of study for the 'soft
> sciences - are not electrons.  On the other hand psychologists can say
> 'given a certain set of behaviors it has been found that, in a number of
> instances, they can be changed if...'

Yes, and if another psychologist on the other side of the word tries the
same experiment and gets a completely different set of results, what then?
The results are not typically reproduceable, and hence, not "science" under
my definition.

But so what? There are lots of things that are not "science" which are
"Good" or "Useful" or whatever other positive adjectives you'd like to use.
To me, it's just an issue of mis-using a term. I might ask other people to
refer to me as a "surgeon" because I slice open computer programs, examine
their innards, and make modification to ensure their continued functioning.
Doesn't mean it's the most appropriate term to describe my occupation.

- Oliver

In article <TOkof.1745$lv3.496@clgrps12>,
Oliver Wong <owong@castortech.com> wrote:
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:dnscei$kiu$1@reader1.panix.com..
. 

[snip]
 
>
>    Yes, and if another psychologist on the other side of the word tries th
e
>same experiment and gets a completely different set of results, what then?

Then exactly what I described above - '...in a number of instances ...' -
is seen to happen.

>The results are not typically reproduceable, and hence, not "science" under
>my definition.

Hence the 'soft' adjective; they do their best to apply the discipline
associated in science... it just might be that the subject of study is, by
nature, incapable of producing 'typically reproducible' results.

DD

Oliver Wong wrote:
> <docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:dnscei$kiu$1@reader1.panix.com.
. 
>
>     Yes, and if another psychologist on the other side of the word tries t
he
> same experiment and gets a completely different set of results, what then?
> The results are not typically reproduceable, and hence, not "science" unde
r
> my definition.

In a manner of speaking, there is a multi-regional multi-cultural
experiment under way. Consider the earth. A sphere hanging in space
upon the surface of which a number of different cultures have developed
and in time produced theoories about their origins. Most of these seem
to encompass some deity or other creating the earth from some void.
Most run counter to the evidence available and all are unverifiable.
>
>     But so what? There are lots of things that are not "science" which are
> "Good" or "Useful" or whatever other positive adjectives you'd like to use
.
> To me, it's just an issue of mis-using a term. I might ask other people to
> refer to me as a "surgeon" because I slice open computer programs, examine
> their innards, and make modification to ensure their continued functioning
.
> Doesn't mean it's the most appropriate term to describe my occupation.
>
>     - Oliver