Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[unbeliever]

Er, it is. SCIO, SCIRE, SCIVI, SCITUM: Latin third-conjugation verb meaning 'to know'.

Hence 'science' should be what is known, facts.

 

Nice to be debating such an educated man, but surely you would concede that the etymology of a word is not the same thing as its current meaning.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

Go on, then. You try and define 'science' for us.

[unbeliever]

Go on, then. You try and define 'science' for us.

 

I assume you're talking to me?

Modern science is the application of the scientific method.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

[retep]

Go on, then. You try and define 'science' for us.

 

A never ending quest?

[Jeffrey Shaw]

I assume you're talking to me?

Modern science is the application of the scientific method.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

So it's self-referential, is it, and indefinable otherwise?

[unbeliever]

So it's self-referential, is it, and indefinable otherwise?

 

No. The scientific method defines science. Not the other way around.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

No. The scientific method defines science. Not the other way around.

But your Wikipaedia source says this:

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

 

It's therefore clear that science in those terms means no more than what is currently thought- subject to constant amendment.

[unbeliever]

But your Wikipaedia source says this:

The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

 

It's therefore clear that science in those terms means no more than what is currently thought- subject to constant amendment.

 

It is indeed subject to amendment.

But it may be amended only using the scientific method.

 

If we take for example the introduction of Einsteinian gravity replacing Newtonian gravity, it was because Einstein's hypothesis made falsifiable predictions different from Newton's and when tested through experiment, it was found that Einstein's model was correct.

Newtonian gravity is an accurate approximation to Einsteinian under most real world conditions.

 

Take also the recent Higgs boson discovery. The results of the LHC experiments were accepted because there was a 0.0006% chance of getting the results they did if it didn't exist. A falsifiable prediction was made, different from the non-Higgs prediction which turned out to be correct.

[El Cid]

The new analysis of buoy and satellite data shows that ocean temperatures have increased steadily since the 1990s.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38513740

[Jeffrey Shaw]

The new analysis of buoy and satellite data shows that ocean temperatures have increased steadily since the 1990s.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38513740

Yes, that what it claims- until it in turn is proven incorrect.