Fenrir wrote:

jamest wrote:

Fenrir wrote:"What is science?" is about as useful as "what is art?"

Not really, as we're supposedly crossing the threshold of subjectivity to objectivity when doing science [as opposed to art].

Driving a car does not make you a car.

surreptitious57 wrote:The answer to the OP is no Russells turkey is not doing science because it is a single turkey perspective. And so there
is no way to identify and subsequently minimise or eliminate bias through intersubjectivity. And it is a very Pavlovian
turkey assuming just one possibility when there might be others. So in order for this to qualify as science there would
have to be multiple turkeys exploring all possibilities with a minimum of bias

tuco wrote:Whether or not the turkey comes to conclusions close to reality does not necessarily have bearing on the question asked: Is turkey doing science? So its not a good point. If the turkey was alone in the universe it could still be doing science.

jamest wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:The answer to the OP is no Russells turkey is not doing science because it is a single turkey perspective. And so there
is no way to identify and subsequently minimise or eliminate bias through intersubjectivity. And it is a very Pavlovian
turkey assuming just one possibility when there might be others. So in order for this to qualify as science there would
have to be multiple turkeys exploring all possibilities with a minimum of bias

You've surprised me, as I was impressed by this post. Good points.

tuco wrote: If the turkey was alone in the universe it could still be doing science.

tuco wrote:@Pebble: I agree. In today's world its pretty much clear who is doing science and who's not. In this sense, I do not quite get the point of this thread, but I do not need to know everything.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

tuco wrote: If the turkey was alone in the universe it could still be doing science.

I think I agree with that.

jamest wrote:

Fenrir wrote:

jamest wrote:

Fenrir wrote:"What is science?" is about as useful as "what is art?"

Not really, as we're supposedly crossing the threshold of subjectivity to objectivity when doing science [as opposed to art].

Driving a car does not make you a car.

What's your point? That science is an object in its own right?

The_Metatron wrote:Sure it is. An intangible thing. A process.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

tuco wrote:@Pebble: I agree. In today's world its pretty much clear who is doing science and who's not. In this sense, I do not quite get the point of this thread, but I do not need to know everything.

There is no point to the thread apart from to explore the question. I'm exploring the question because I am currently writing about this sort of thing, and I'm interested in getting some other perspectives than my own.

1.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws:
the mathematical sciences.
2.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
3.
any of the branches of natural or physical science.
4.
systematized knowledge in general.
5.
knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
6.
a particular branch of knowledge.
7.
skill, especially reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.

Scientific methodology includes the following:

Objective observation: Measurement and data (possibly although not necessarily using mathematics as a tool)
Evidence
Experiment and/or observation as benchmarks for testing hypotheses
Induction: reasoning to establish general rules or conclusions drawn from facts or examples
Repetition
Critical analysis
Verification and testing: critical exposure to scrutiny, peer review and assessment

Bertrand Russell wrote:And this kind of association is not confined to men; in animals also it is very strong. A horse which has been often driven along a certain road resists the attempt to drive him in a different direction. Domestic animals expect food when they see the person who feeds them. We know that all these rather crude expectations of uniformity are liable to be misleading. The man who has fed the chicken every day throughout its life at last wrings its neck instead, showing that more refined views as to the uniformity of nature would have been useful to the chicken.

..........

The general principles of science, such as the belief in the reign of law, and the belief that every event must have a cause, are as completely dependent upon the inductive principle as are the beliefs of daily life All such general principles are believed because mankind have found innumerable instances of their truth and no instances of their falsehood. But this affords no evidence for their truth in the future, unless the inductive principle is assumed.

Thus all knowledge which, on a basis of experience tells us something about what is not experienced, is based upon a belief which experience can neither confirm nor confute, yet which, at least in its more concrete applications, appears to be as firmly rooted in us as many of the facts of experience.