Reply to comment

 

 

        Aicha’s answer appears to be somewhat on par with our conclusions, however I do object to a few things she proposes. First of all, I am not convinced that science is systematic. “Systematic” suggests objectivity, unidirectionality, and known purpose. As someone (I’m sorry, I forget who) mentioned on Wednesday, science cannot be truly objective. The “Crack” in the scientific process prohibits it. But is this a good thing? I think yes. As science is aimed at furthering human understanding, perhaps it is necessary that it be “tainted” with a human element at its core.

        I agree that humans are naturally curious. Check out this article from the Reasons to Believe Science-Faith Think Tank. While I do not agree with the author that humans are innately curious because God intends us to discover Him, I do agree that humans have a higher level of curiosity than animals or other creatures. Perhaps scientific observation is of little use in their universe. (This suggests the question "Does science only apply to the observer's universe?"...which is a whole can of worms in itself!) But does science provide us with “logical answers?” I would also disagree with this point and instead suggest that it provides us with empirically-supported answers. Sometimes the answers are not logical, or at least not at onset. I would suggest that the evidence comes first and the logic second. When we drop a rock, we observe that it falls. From this experiment, we then search for logic to justify our observations. Only once we have dropped a rock can we then identify the force of gravity and further test it under varying conditions. (What happens if we drop a leaf? How come it does not fall like the rock?). 

        Furthermore, the answers science provides us are not always immediately logical. Remember the science student we talked about- they are rewarded for getting the correct answer. But if all scientific answers were perfectly logical, would there be a purpose to experiment at all? Perhaps it would be called “Demonstration of Known Logic” rather than “Experimentation.”

        Obviously the task of defining science is a difficult one. I will attempt to provide my own definition based on what we have been discussing, and maybe Aicha (and the others at Google Answers) will find it here: