>> Perhaps people misunderstand what science is. Science isn't the study of
>> what is true, it is the study of what we can *prove* to be true.
>
> Erm... no, not really.
>
> I'd say, science it is the study of how we can describe the world in a
> manner that allows for reliable predictions.

Exhibit A: Quantum dynamics. ;-)

> There is only one branch of science that deals with stuff that can be
> proven, and that's mathematics. Even that one relies on axioms that may,
> or may not, be actually true.
>
> In all other branches, proof can never be achieved. Disproof may, however.

It is the study of things which can be objectively determined to be true 
or false (as opposed to whoever shouts the loudest in an argument).

I would say "things which can be experimentally verified or refuted", 
except... how the **** do you do an experiment to verify the negative 
curvature of intergalactic space?

Your definition makes it sound like knowledge is only science if it has 
immediate real-world applications. Which isn't the case.

A useful example is String Theory. It's very sciency, it has lots of 
impressive-looking equations, it's a highly active area of research... 
but it's not science. It hasn't made a single *testable* prediction yet. 
Until that happens, it is no more scientific than Creationism.

The difference, of course, is that String Theory has the potential that 
some day it *may* make such a prediction. And if that day comes, it will 
be science. Creationism is unlikely to ever make such a prediction.

Post a reply to this message