Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist
Relativists believe that
Science is about
predicting and falsifying

    1.0   The consequences of poor definitions

    The word science comes from the Latin scire meaning to know, and most dictionaries define it as:

    “ the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and
       theoretical explanation of phenomena.” [1]

    However, some people fell uncomfortable with this definition because it restricts science to the physical
    sciences (astronomy, geology) or the biological sciences (zoology, botany), [2] [3] sometimes called
    ‘empirical sciences.’ (In contrast, the ‘formal sciences’ encompass Mathematics and formal logic.)
    Siepmann  [4] complains that experimentation summarily excludes certain fields of study such as the
    social sciences, history, psychology, archeology, and environmental studies. He asks, “aren't these still
    Science?” On the other hand, there is also concern that this definition of science is perhaps too broad
    and incorporates astrology, creationism, UFO-logy, or out-of-body/after life phenomena, subjects which
    scientists typically dismiss as superstition or religion. So how do we define science in such a selective
    way as to include the humanities and social sciences while leaving out phenomena and activities usually
    associated with the supernatural?

    Endless debates between religionists and scientists also suggest that this definition of science is
    inadequate. Certainly, the ultimate reason we are still debating whether Evolution and Creationism qualify
    as science is because we have not defined the word science unambiguously. For instance, Gould [5]  
    declares Evolution to be among the best-documented concepts in all of science. He suggests that
    Evolution is not just as theory, but should be accepted as a universally recognized fact. Thompson and
    Harrub [6]  accuse Gould of stealthily promoting Evolution from theory to fact to gain the high ground in
    the discussion. Demar, [7]  a determined opponent of Evolution, argues that the alleged ‘fact’ Gould talks
    about does not even meet the minimum standards of the scientific method. Evolution has never been
    observed and cannot be reproduced experimentally; therefore, it is unconscionable to sell Evolution as
    science in the classroom.

    Rennie admits that evolution is largely based on inference, but clarifies that:

    “ hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical
       evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future disco-
       veries.” [8]

    “ In science 'theory' is reserved for a general explanation of phenomena that have
       been extensively tested and corroborated by observation and experimentation
       and has a high probability of being correct.” [9]

    Siepmann argues that whenever experimentation is involved it is not archeology or history or evolution
    that we are testing, but physics:

    “ Some may say that in archeology, we use carbon-14 dating (or similar process)
       which does follow the scientific method. Though archeology does utilize some
       aspects of other sciences that do follow the scientific method, this is archeo-
       logy's use of physics. It is the physics that is following the scientific method in
       this case, not archeology.” [4]

    So who is right? The Darwinists, the Creationists, the devil’s advocates…?

    These exchanges show that unless we define the key words science, hypothesis, and fact precisely and
    settle whether hypotheses, facts, and experiments are necessary ingredients of the scientific method we
    will be talking in circles until God comes to Earth again. The reason these arguments are still around has
    to do solely with poor communication.


    2.0   Is science a process that enables us to explain or predict nature?

    Feynman and Cline argue that the word science has more to do with the mechanism by which we obtain
    knowledge and not so much with the knowledge we have accumulated over the years. In their view,
    Science is a synonym of the inductive method: an eternal process of revisionism. If we follow the proper
    procedure, we will debunk or modify what others have allegedly discovered and attain or improve our
    knowledge:

    “ science: the result of the discovery that it is worthwhile rechecking by new
       direct experience, and not necessarily trusting the [human] race['s] experience
       from the past.”[10]

    “ Distinguishing modern science from other endeavors requires focusing in
       particular on its methodology — the means by which it achieves results…
       knowledge includes both descriptions of what happens and explanations
       of why it happens”  [11]

    Bohr disagrees with the 'why' part of Cline’s argument. In his opinion, scientists will never be able to
    explain. The purpose of Science is either to describe or to predict:

    “ There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think
       that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what
       we can say about nature.” [12]

    “ a scientific theory is just a mathematical model we make to describe our
       observations” (p. 139) [13]

    “ Niels Bohr emphasized that science is concerned with predictions of the
       outcomes of experiments, and that any additional propositions offered are
       not scientific but rather meta-physical.” [14]

    “ A layman might ask a physicist What is charge? or What is Time?. He will be
       disappointed when the physicist replies that his theories do not even try to
        explain what these things are. Theories are just mathematical models which
        make predictions about how they will behave in experiments. ” [15]

    We must determine, then, whether a description alone constitutes Science.

    Like Bohr, other experts also identify Science with the scientific method – a process or technique for
    evaluating empirical knowledge. [16]  And, like Cline, they believe that only through knowing why events
    occur is it that we can predict what is going to happen next.  Popper  proposed that Science progresses
    by a process of elimination. Theories that are empirically  falsified  get dumped in the ash heap of history.
    Others continue and form the body of current knowledge until they suffer the same fate. We have to
    decide, then, whether the terms Science and the scientific method are synonyms and whether predictions
    and falsification have anything to do with either.


    3.0   Is science democratic?

    Science is also often used to refer to the Establishment, an elite group of ‘peers’ that decide whether you
    know or not:

    “ science is often used to refer to the community of scientists and researchers
       who do scientific work. It is this group of people who, through practicing
       science, effectively define what science is and how science is done.” [17]

    “ Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” R. Feynman

    In other words, if you discover a genuine secret of nature and the scholars massively vote against it, your
    stuff does not qualify as Science. Indeed, most researchers have this notion in the back of their minds
    that quantity somehow plays a roll in Science. Schwartz [18] attempts to convince his audience by
    preponderance of the evidence and claims to follow the scientific method when he invokes the spirits of
    the dead in a series of controlled experiments. Hyman [19]  accuses him of focusing on quantity rather
    than on quality. He dismisses Schwartz’s methods on grounds that they contain flaws in the conduct of
    the experiments and in the gathering, interpretation, and presentation of the data. Braude [20]  sides with
    Schwartz and insists that skeptics blatantly ignore the mounting evidence. In his view, countless such
    ‘spiritual’ incidents constitute scientific proof that life-after-death and out-of-body phenomena are real.

    These heated exchanges make it imperative to decide whether witnesses and juries play any role in
    Science. Is a show of hands, quantity of evidence, or testimony relevant to Science? If so, should the
    Court apply the ‘preponderance of the evidence’ standard applicable in civil cases or go with Rennie’s
    ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ criterion used in criminal cases?

    In a world where the number of opinions seems to rise in proportion to population, if we are to talk
    consistently about a particular subject (let alone reach a decision), it would be in the interest of all parties
    to begin by rigorously defining the words that serve as currency in the discussion. The more accurate our
    definitions, the better we communicate and understand each other. Specifically, we should develop a
    definition of science that:

    •        distinguishes between ordinary speech and scientific language
    •        accounts for the humanities while distancing science from pseudo or patently
    non-science.

    So? What then is Science? How do we define this mysterious word? Should we accept the two
    inconsistent definitions synthesized in one sentence by the experts?

    “ In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge
       based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism, as
       well as to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such
       research.”  [21]

    The former is a mechanism for learning about nature and the latter has to do with storing this information.
    They have nothing in common. So which is it?

    I argue that the first half of this definition has nothing to do with Science or with the scientific method. The
    idiots of the establishment have confused one with the other because of their fanatic and irrational
    insistence on experimentation and falsifiability. So let me say it bluntly: There are no experiments in
    Science! Whether you ran an experiment to prove your theory is irrelevant in Science. Science has to do
    with communication; not with experimentation.

    ________________________________________________________________________________________


     Home                    Book WGDE                    Glossary                    Extinction   

    Last modified 01/20/08


        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008
Science is about making
predictions. Whenever I want to
do a little bit of science, I just look
into my crystal ball to see what the
future brings. You'd be surprised
how accurate it can foretell the
results of experiments, Bill.