5 Definitions of Science

A few of society’s key components are so often discussed that they begin to take on meanings and connotations apart from the original intentions of the terms. Just like ‘art’ sometimes means works found only in museums that were created by people long dead, ‘science’ is sometimes taken to mean some vague and faraway thing practiced by people in remote ivory towers. Science, in this interpretation, is an institution far removed from the considerations of everyday people. It is seen to be a system of control and subjugation, in the same vein as the State or the plutocratic ruling class. Scientific statements are therefore viewed as decrees, and not as interpretations of the natural world.

This idea, that science is the protected domain of a privileged and isolated elite, is perhaps one of the biggest misconceptions about science. Although science may not be completely free from power plays and political maneuverings, these are manipulations of systems established around scientific research, and not fundamental elements of science itself.

Science is, at its core, a very democratic institution. The Royal Society, the oldest scientific organization in existence, was founded with the motto “Nullius in verba.” On nobody’s word. Such a declaration requires the recognition that every person has inherent powers of reasoning, and that these powers of reasoning are sufficient for the evaluation of facts and discernment of truth.

I have collected definitions of science from a number of different sources, and each of these definitions stresses the fact of science as a methodology, rather than an institution or a collection of facts. Carl Sagan, physicist and science popularizer, offered the following definition:

“Science is an attempt, largely successful, to understand the world, to get a grip on things, to get hold of ourselves, to steer a safe course.”

In this definition ‘science’ is almost a verb, an action that takes a person or society from the darkness of ignorance to the light of comprehension. A little bit lengthier definition is provided by Richard Feynman:

“[Science is] a method of finding things out. This method is based on the principle that observation is the judge of whether something is so or not. All other aspects and characteristics of science can be understood directly when we understand that observation is the ultimate and final judge of the truth of an idea.”

This idea may seem a lot like ‘seeing is believing’, and that no faith can be placed in things we cannot see, but this is not quite true. What it does say is that any ideas that we have about the world should be consistent with the things we see in it. This is related to Karl Popper’s idea that an essential aspect of science is that it is falsifiable. This also stresses again the important idea that science is above anything a method. To quote Carl Sagan again:

“Every time we exercise self-criticism, every time we test our ideas against the outside world, we are practicing science.”

This viewpoint really begins to stress the idea that ‘practicing science’ is simply the adoption of a critical mindset, something that can be done on an individual basis, without the need for fancy equipment or the approval of anyone else. This definition is mirrored in that given by Adam Bly in ‘Science is Culture’, a collection of conversations between scientists and artists:

“Science is a methodology and philosophy rooted in evidence and kept in check by persistent inquiry, and bounded by the constraints of a self-critical and rigorous method.”

Another definition of science comes from William Lowrance in his book ‘Modern Science and Human Values’. This one attempts to outline one aspect of science that is often a point of contention, which is, the determination of what is scientifically accepted to be true or false.

“Rather than being hidden answers “out there” waiting to be found, facts are concepts invented, shaped, and fitted together into conjectural models and maps. Science is eternally provisional, and is a matter of consensus: the scientifically true is what scientists endorse as being true. Scientific knowledge is judged by two overall criteria: analytic and predictive power, and fruitfulness in leading to new conjectures and realizations. Science is accumulative and intellectually progressive, preserving orthodox knowledge and carefully building upon it, all the while striving to supersede it with more powerful knowledge.”

Now even though this statement contains the phrase “the scientifically true is what scientists endorse as being true”, we should not think of scientists as only those with advanced degrees. A scientist is anyone who practices a scientific mindset, who is self-critical and analyzes ideas for their worth. Rather than thinking of science as some hegemonic institution, a ruling class of intellectuals that determine the truth of any statements, it should be thought of as a process in which we are all taking part. Science is not “us versus them.” Scientific truth is established through the careful consideration of facts and a discussion of potential causes and effects. Although there are objective truths about the natural processes that are taking place in the world, scientific truth as a consensus of what people believe is a thing constantly in flux, ebbing and flowing as new facts emerge and new ideas take hold. The formation of this consensus is a process in which we are all taking part.