Am 19.01.2014 14:33, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>>> 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. ;-)

Cross-examination, your honor.

Mr. Quantum dynamics, did you, or did you not, as early as 1924-25, lead 
Satyendra Nath Bose and Albert Einstein to the prediction of a 
previously unknown state of matter, now known as Bose-Einstein-concensate?

Mr. Quantum dynamics, has this Bose-Einstein-concensate, or has it not, 
been proposed by Fritz London in 1938 as an explanation for both 
superfluidity in Helium as well as superconductivity?

Mr. Quantum dynamics, has this Bose-Einstein-concensate, or has it not, 
been confirmed experimentally, no sooner than 1995, 70 years after it 
was first predicted?

No further questions, your honor.


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

No, that's what Warp's definition invokes. Prediction is a 
/prerequisite/ for real-world application, but it can well come without.


> 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.

See? You're invoking the "prediction" thing yourself here. And as for 
the "reliable", I think that's pretty much congruent to "testable".

Post a reply to this message