Saturday, August 25, 2012

First 2012-13 Assignment

Bios,

Welcome to the first blog assignment of the 2012-13 school year. We will begin our study of biology by examining the nature of science. Science is a rich field of philosophical study and you will be introduced to two influential essays written on the subject.

Experiments are part of science but science is not simply experiments, otherwise science would be like a cook book. Discovered knowledge is part of science but science is not simply facts, otherwise stamp collecting would also be science. Science includes experiments and collected knowledge but it is much more. For example, how do we know? Reading these essays will help you begin to understand science and I hope cause a conversation to discuss it further.

Your assignment:
Read Dr. Ziman's essay then respond to the question below by commenting to the post.

Dr. Ziman's goal was to define science. He presented four familiar definitions for science and concludes by presenting his definition. Explain why Ziman finds the four familiar definitions lacking and how his definition addresses what he sees as the true nature of science.

Feel free to ask questions before you answer the question. To do this, simply comment to this entry. When you wish to answer the question, again simply add a comment to this entry but be sure to state that this is your answer. Your response will be your first grade.

Have fun with this and let AP Biology begin!

Mr. Baker

PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE An essay concerning the social dimension of science


J. M. ZIMAN, F.R.S. Professor of Theoretical Physics, University of Bristol
Cambridge Univ. Press, 1968.


In this essay a practicing scientist and gifted expositor sets forth a new point of view on the nature of science and how it works. Professor Ziman argues that the true goal of all scientific research is to contribute to the consensus of universally accepted knowledge. He explores the philosophical, psychological and sociological consequences of this principle, and explains how, in practice, the consensus is established and how the work of the individual scientist becomes a part of it. The intellectual form of scientific, knowledge is determined by the absolute need for the scientist to communicate his findings and to make them acceptable to other people. The internal social relations of the scientific community are. therefore all-important; the author has much to say, from his own experience, of the-'way scientists teach, communicate with, promote, criticize, honor, give ear to, and give patronage to, one another.

Professor Ziman's essay, being written in plain English, and requiring only the slenderest technical knowledge of science, can (and should) be read by any educated person; as he says "all genuine scientific procedures of thought and argument are essentially the same as those of everyday life".

WHAT IS SCIENCE?

Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind: ROM xiv- 5

To answer the question "What is Science?" is almost as presumptuous as to try to state the meaning of Life itself. Science has become a major part of the stock of our minds; its products are the furniture of our surroundings. We must accept it, as the good lady of the fable is said to have agreed to accept the Universe.

Yet the question is puzzling rather than mysterious. Science is very clearly a conscious artifact of mankind, with well-documented historical origins, with a definable scope and content, and with recognizable professional practitioners and exponents. The task of defining Poetry, say, whose subject matter is by common consent ineffable, must be self-defeating. Poetry has no rules, no method, no graduate schools, no logic: the bards are self-anointed and their spirit bloweth where it listeth. Science, by contrast, is rigorous, methodical, academic, logical and practical. The very facility that it gives us, of clear understanding, of seeing things sharply in focus, makes us feel that the instrument itself is very real and hard and definite. Surely we can state, in a few words, it’s essential nature.

It is not difficult to state the order of being to which Science belongs. It is' one of the categories of the intellectual commentary that Man makes on his World. Amongst its kith and kin we would put Religion, Art, Poetry, Law, Philosophy, Technology, etc - the familiar divisions or 'Faculties' of the Academy or the Multiversity.

At this stage I do not mean to analyze the precise relationship that exists between Science and each of these cognate modes of thought; I am merely asserting that they are on all fours with one another. It makes some sort of sense (though it may not always be stating a truth) to substitute these words for one another, in phrases like "Science teaches us. . . “or "The Spirit of Law is. . ." or "Technology benefits mankind by..."or "He is a student of Philosophy". The famous "conflict between Science and Religion" was truly a battle between combatants of the same species between David and Goliath if you will - and not, say, between the Philistine army and a Dryad, or between a point of order and a postage stamp.

Science is obviously like Religion, Law, Philosophy, etc. in being a more or less coherent set of ideas. In its own technical language, Science is information; it does not act directly on the body; it speaks to the mind. Religion and Poetry, we may concede, speak also to the emotions, and the statements of Art can seldom be written or expressed verbally-but, they all belong in the non- material realm.

But in what ways are these, forms of knowledge unlike one another? What are the special attributes of Science? What is the criterion for drawing lines of demarcation about it, to distinguish it from Philosophy, or from Technology, or from Poetry?

This question has long been debated. Famous books have been devoted to it. It has been the theme of whole schools of philosophy. To give an account of all the answers, with all their variations, would require a history of Western thought. It is a daunting subject. Nevertheless, the types of definition with which we are familiar can be stated crudely.

Science is the Mastery of Man's Environment. This is, I think, the vulgar conception. It identifies Science with its products; it points to penicillin or to an artificial satellite and tells us of all the wonderful further powers that man will soon acquire by the, same agency.

This definition enshrines two separate errors. In the first place it confounds Science, with Technology. It puts all its emphasis on the applications of scientific knowledge and gives no hint as to the intellectual procedures by which that knowledge may be successfully obtained. It does not really discriminate between Science and Magic, and gives us no reason for studies such as Cosmology and Pure Mathematics, which seem entirely remote from practical use.

It also confuses ideas with things. Penicillin is not Science, any more than a cathedral is Religion or a witness box is Law. The material manifestations and powers of Science, however beneficial, awe-inspiring, monstrous, or beautiful, are not even symbolic; they belong in a different logical realm, just as a building is not equivalent to or symbolic of the architect's blueprints. A meal is not the same thing as a recipe.

Science is the Study of the Material World. This sort of definition is also very familiar in popular thought. It derives, I guess, from the great debate between Science and Religion, whose outcome was a treaty of partition in which Religion was left with the realm of the Spirit whilst Science was allowed full sway in the territory of Matter.

Now it is true that one of the aims of Science is to provide us with a Philosophy of Nature, and it is also true that many questions of a moral or spiritual kind cannot be answered at all within a scientific framework. But the dichotomy between Matter and Spirit is an obsolete philosophical notion which does not stand up very well to careful critical analysis. If we stick to this definition we may end up in a circular argument in which Matter is only recognizable as the subject matter of Science. Even then, we shall have stretched the meaning of words a long way in order to accommodate Psychology, or Sociology, within the scientific stable.

This definition would also exclude Pure Mathematics. Surely this is wrong. Mathematical thinking is so deeply entangled with the physical sciences that one cannot draw a line between them. Modern mathematicians think of themselves as exploring the logical consequences (the 'theorems') of different sets of hypotheses or 'axioms', and do not claim absolute truth, in a material sense, for their results. Theoretical physicists and applied mathematicians try to confine their explorations to systems of hypotheses that they believe to reflect properties of the 'real' world, but they often have no license for this belief it would be absurd to have to say that Newton's Principia, and all the work that was built upon it, was not now Science, just because we now suppose that the inverse square law of gravitation is not perfectly true in an Einsteinian universe. I suspect that the exclusion of the 'Queen of the Sciences' from her throne is a relic of some ancient academic arrangement, such as the combination of classical literary studies with mathematics in the Cambridge Tripos, and has no better justification than that Euclid and Archimedes wrote in Greek.

Science is the Experimental Method. The recognition of the importance of experiment was the key event in the history of Science. The Baconian thesis was sound; we can often do no better today than to follow it.

Yet this definition is incomplete in several respects. It arbitrarily excludes pure mathematics, and needs to be supplemented to take cognizance of those perfectly respectable sciences such as Astronomy or Geology where we can only observe the consequences of events and circumstances over which we have no control. It also fails to give due credit to the strong theoretical and logical sinews that are needed to hold the results of experiments and observations together and give them force. Scientists do not in fact work in the way that operationalists suggest; they tend to look for, and find, in Nature little more than they believe to be there, and yet they construct airier theoretical systems than their actual observations warrant. Experiment distinguishes Science from the older, more speculative ways to knowledge but it does not fully characterize the scientific method.

Science arrives at Truth by logical inferences from empirical observations. This is the standard type of definition favored by most serious philosophers. It is usually based upon the principle of induction-that what has been seen to happen a great many times is almost sure to happen invariably and may be treated as a basic fact or Law upon which a firm structure of theory can be erected.

There is no doubt that this is the official philosophy by which most practical scientists work. From it one can deduce a number of practical procedures, such as the testing of theory by 'predictions' of the results of future observations, and their subsequent confirmation. The importance of speculative thinking is recognized, provided that it is curbed by conformity to facts. There is no restriction of a metaphysical kind upon the subject matter of Science, except that it must be amenable to observations and inference.

But the attempt to make these principles logically watertight does not seem to have succeeded. What may be called the positivist program, which would assign the label 'True' to statements that satisfy these criteria, is plausible but not finally compelling. Many philosophers have now sadly come to the conclusion that there is no ultimate procedure which will wring the last drops of uncertainty from what scientists call their knowledge.

And although working scientists would probably state that this is the Rule of their Order, and the only safe principle upon which their discoveries may be based, they do not always obey it in practice. We often find complex theories-quite good theories that really depend on very few observations. It is, extraordinary, for example, how long and complicated the chains of inference are in the physics of elementary particles; a few clicks per month in an enormous assembly of glass tubes, magnetic fields, scintillator fluids and electronic circuits becomes a new 'particle', which in its turn provokes a flurry of theoretical papers and ingenious interpretations. I do not mean to say that the physicists are not correct; but no one can say that all the possible alternative schemes of explanation are carefully checked by innumerable experiments before the discovery is acclaimed and becomes part of the scientific canon. There is far more faith, and reliance upon personal experience and intellectual authority, than the official doctrine will allow.

A simple way of putting it is that the logico-inductive scheme does not leave enough room for genuine scientific error. It is too black and white. Our experience, both as individual scientists and historically, is that we only arrive at partial and incomplete truths; we never achieve the precision and finality that seem required by the definition. Thus, nothing we do in the laboratory or study is "really" scientific, however honestly we may aspire to the ideal. Surely, it is going too far to have to say, for example, that it was "unscientific" to continue to believe in Newtonian dynamics as soon as it had been observed and calculated that the rotation of the perihelion of Mercury did not conform to its predictions.

This summary of the various conceptions of science obviously fails to do justice to the vast and subtle literature on the subject. If I have emphasized the objections to each point of view, this is merely to indicate that none of the definitions is entirely satisfactory. Most practicing scientists and most people generally, take up one or other of the attitudes that I have sketched, according to the degree of their intellectual sophistication-but without fervor. One can be zealous, for Science, and a splendidly successful research worker, without pretending to a clear and certain notion of what Science really is. In practice it does not seem to matter.

Perhaps this is healthy. A deep interest in theology is not welcome in the average churchgoer, and the ordinary taxpayer should not really concern himself about the nature of sovereignty or the merits of bicameral legislatures. Even though Church and State depend, in the end, upon such abstract matters, we may reasonably leave them to the experts if all goes smoothly. The average scientist will say that he knows from experience - and common sense what he is doing, and so long as he is not striking too deeply into the foundations of knowledge he is content to leave the highly technical discussion of the nature of Science to those self-appointed authorities the Philosophers of Science. A rough and ready conventional wisdom will see him through.

Yet in a way this neglect of - even scorn for - the Philosophy of Science by professional scientists is strange. They are, after all, engaged in a very difficult, rather abstract, highly intellectual activity and need all the guidance they can from general theory. We may agree that the general principles may not in practice be very helpful, but we might have thought that at least they would be taught to young scientists in training just as medical students are taught Physiology and budding administrators were once encouraged to acquaint themselves with Plato's Republic. When the student graduates and goes into a laboratory, how will he know what to do to make scientific discoveries if he has not been taught the distinction between a scientific theory and a non-scientific one? Making all allowances for the initial prejudice of scientists against speculative philosophy, and for the outmoded assumption that certain general ideas would communicate themselves to the educated and cultured man without specific instruction, I find this an odd and significant phenomenon.

The fact is that scientific investigation, as distinct from the theoretical content of any given branch of science, is a practical art. It is not learnt out of books, but by imitation and experience. Research workers are trained by apprenticeship, by working for their PhDs under the supervision of more experienced scholars, not by attending courses in the metaphysics of physics. The graduate student is given his "problem": "You might have a look at the effect of pressure on the band structure of the III-V compounds; I don't think it has been done yet, and it would be interesting to see whether it fits into the pseudopotential theory." Then, with considerable help, encouragement and criticism, he sets up his apparatus, makes his measurements, performs his calculations, etc. and in due course writes a thesis and is accounted a qualified professional. But notice that he will not at any time have been made to study formal logic, nor will he be expected to defend his thesis in a step b step deductive procedure. His examiners may ask him, why he had made some particular assertion in the course of his argument, or they may enquire as to the reliability of some particular measurement. They may even ask him to assess the value of the "contribution" he has made to the subject as a whole. But they will not ask him to give, any opinion as to whether Physics is ultimately true, or whether he is justified now in believing in an external world, or in what sense a theory is verified by the observation of favorable instances. The examiners will assume that the candidate shares with them the common language and principles of their discipline. No scientist really doubts that theories are verified by observation, any more than a Common Law judge hesitates to rule that hearsay evidence is inadmissible.

What one finds in practice is that scientific argument, written or spoken, is not very complex or logically precise. The terms and concepts that are used may be extremely subtle and technical, but they are put "together in quite simple logical forms, with expressed or implied relations as the machinery of deduction. It is very seldom that one uses the more sophisticated types of proof used in Mathematics, such as asserting a proposition by proving that its negation implies a contradiction. Of course actual mathematical or numerical analysis of data may carry the deduction through many steps, but the symbolic machinery of algebra and the electronic circuits of the computer are then relied on to keep the argument straight. (This point I owe to Professor Korner.) In my own experience, one more often detects elementary non sequiturs in the verbal reasoning than actual mathematical mistakes in the calculations that accompany them. This is not said to disparage the intellectual powers of scientists; I mean simply that the reasoning used in scientific papers is not very different from what we should use in an everyday careful discussion of an everyday problem.

This is a point to which we shall return in a later chapter. It is made here to emphasize the inadequacy of the 'logico-inductive' metaphysic of Science. How can this be correct ' when few scientists are interested in or understand it, and none ever uses it explicitly in his work? But then if Science is distinguished from other intellectual disciplines neither by a particular style or argument nor by a definable subject matter, what is it?

The answer proposed in this essay is suggested by its title: Science is Public Knowledge. This is, of course, a very cryptic definition, with almost the suggestion of a play upon words. (There is also, unfortunately, the hint of an antithesis to Personal Knowledge, the title of Polanyi's book to which I have already referred. No antagonism is meant. Polanyi goes a long way along the path I follow, and is one of the few writers on Science who have seen the social relations between scientists as a key factor in its nature.) What I mean is something along the following lines. Science is not merely published knowledge or information. Anyone may make an observation, or conceive a hypothesis, and, if he has the financial means, get it printed and distributed for other persons to read. Scientific knowledge is more than this. Its facts and theories, must survive a period of critical study and testing by other competent and disinterested individuals, and must have been found so persuasive that they are almost universally accepted. The objective of Science is not just to acquire information nor to utter all non-contradictory notions; its goal is a consensus of rational opinion over the widest possible field.

In a sense, this is so obvious and well-known that it scarcely needs, saying. Most educated and informed people agree that Science is true, and therefore impossible to gainsay. But I assert my definition much more positively; this is the basic principle upon which Science is founded. It is not a subsidiary consequence of the "Scientific Method"; it is the scientific method itself.

The defect of the conventional philosophical approach to Science is that it considers only two terms in the equation. The scientist is seen as an individual, pursuing a somewhat one-sided dialogue with taciturn Nature. He observes phenomena, notices regularities, arrives at generalizations, deduces consequences, etc., and eventually, Hey Presto! A Law of Nature springs into being. But it is not like that at all. The scientific enterprise is corporate. It is not merely, in Newton's incomparable phrase that one stands on the shoulders of giants, and hence can see a little farther. Every scientist sees through his own eyes - and also through the eyes of his predecessors and colleagues. It is never one individual that goes through all the steps in the logico-inductive chain; it is a group of individuals, dividing their labor but continuously and jealously checking each other's contributions. The cliché of scientific prose betrays itself "Hence we arrive at the, conclusion that..." 'The audience to which scientific publications are addressed
is not passive; by its cheering or booing, its bouquets or brickbats, it actively controls the substance of the communications that it receives.

In other words, scientific research is a social activity. Technology, Art and Religion are perhaps possible for Robinson Crusoe, but Law and Science are not. To understand the nature of Science, we must look at the way in which scientists behave towards one another, how they are organized and how information passes between them. The young scientist does not study formal logic, but he learns by imitation and experience a number of conventions that embody strong social relationships. In the language of Sociology, he learns to play his role in a system by which knowledge is acquired, sifted and eventually made public property.

It has, of course, long been recognized that Science is peculiar in its origins to the civilization of Western Europe. The question of the social basis of Science, and its relations to other organizations and institutions of our way of life is much debated. Is it a consequence of the 'Bourgeois Revolution', or of Protestantism - or what? Does it exist despite the Church and the Universities, or because of them? Why did China, with its immense technological and intellectual resources, not develop the same system? What should be the status of the scientific worker in an advanced society; should he be a paid employee, with a prescribed field of study, or an aristocratic dilettante? How should decisions be taken about expenditure on research? And so on.

These problems, profoundly sociological, historical and political though they may be, are not quite what I have in mind. Only too often -the element in the argument that gets the least analysis is the actual institution about which the whole discussion hinges scientific activity itself. To give a contemporary example, there is much talk nowadays about the importance of creating more effective systems for storing and indexing scientific literature, so that every scientist can very quickly become aware of the relevant work of every other scientist in his field. This recognizes that publication is important, but the discussion usually betrays an absence of careful thought about the part that conventional systems of scientific communication play in sifting and sorting the material that they handle. Or again, the problem of why Greek Science never finally took off from its brilliant taxiing runs is discussed in terms of, say, the aristocratic citizen despising the servile labor of practical experiment, when it might have been due to the absence of just such a communications system between scholars as was provided in the Renaissance by alphabetic printing. The internal sociological analysis of Science itself is a necessary preliminary to the study of the Sociology of Knowledge in the secular world.

The present essay cannot pretend to deal with all such questions. The 'Science of Science' is a vast topic, with many aspects. The very core of so many difficulties is suggested by my present argument-which Science stands in the region where the intellectual, the psychological and the sociological coordinate axes intersect. It is knowledge, therefore intellectual, conceptual and abstract. It is inevitably created by individual men and women, and therefore has a strong psychological aspect. It is public, and therefore molded and determined by the social relations between individuals. To keep all these aspects in view simultaneously, and to appreciate their hidden connections, is not at all easy. It has been put to me that one should in fact distinguish carefully between Science as a body of knowledge, Science as what scientists do and Science as a social institution. This is precisely the sort of distinction that one must not make; in the
language of geometry, a solid object cannot be reconstructed from its projections upon the separate Cartesian planes. By assigning the intellectual aspects of Science to the professional philosophers we make of it an and exercise in logic; by allowing the psychologists to take possession of the personal dimension we overemphasize the mysteries of "creativity" at the expense of rationality and the critical power of well-ordered argument; if the social aspects are handed over to the sociologists, we get a description of research as an N-person game, with prestige points for stakes and priority claims as trumps. The problem has been to discover a unifying principle for Science in all its aspects. The recognition that scientific knowledge must be public and consensible (to coin a necessary word) allows one to trace out the complex inner relationships between its various facets. Before one can distinguish and discuss separately the philosophical, psychological or sociological dimension of Science, one must somehow have succeeded in characterizing it as a whole. ("Hence a true philosophy of science must be a philosophy of scientists and laboratories as well as one of waves, particles and symbols." Patrick Meredith in Instruments of Communication, P. 40.)

In an ordinary work of Science one does well not to dwell too long on the hypothesis that is being tested, trying to define and describe it in advance of reporting the results of the experiments or calculations that are supposed to verify or negate it. The results themselves indicate the nature of the hypothesis, its scope and limitations. The present essay is organized in the same manner. Having sketched a point of view in this chapter, I propose to turn the discussion to a number of particular topics that I think can be better understood when seen from this new angle. To give a semblance of order to the argument, the various subjects have been arranged according to whether they are primarily intellectual, for example, some attempt to discriminate between scientific and non-scientific disciplines; psychological - e.g. the role of education, the significance of scientific creativity; sociological - the structure of the scientific community and the institutions by which it maintains scientific standards and procedures. Beyond this classification, the succession of topics is likely to be pretty haphazard; or, as the good lady said, "How do I know what I think until I have heard what I have to say?"

The subject is indeed endless. As pointed out in the Preface, the present brief essay is meant only as an exposition of a general theory, which will be applied to a variety of more specific instances in a larger work. The topics discussed here are chosen, therefore, solely to exemplify the main argument, and are not meant to comprehend the whole field. In many cases, also, the discussion has been kept abstract and schematic, to avoid great marshlands of detail. The reader is begged, once more, to forgive the inaccuracies and imprecisions inevitable in such an account, and to concentrate his critical attention upon the validity of the general principle and its power of explaining how things really are.

45 comments:

Delsey Sabu said...

Quick question, how long can the answer be?

Delsey Sabu said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shade Hendricks said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shade Hendricks said...

This is my answer…..


To somehow organize my thoughts on what Dr. Zinman defines the word science as; I feel that he asserts the idea of science never holding a correctness that might be otherwise viewed through our expectance as humans for answers. That it is because of the incorrectness of science that enables people the liberty to make one claim and then by practice, prove another.
By introducing this concept, Dr. Zinman defines this incorrectness of science through two modes, one having social importance and the other an intellectual importance. However the difference between these two modes, both are obviously dealing more with the will of a person’s mind over the actions of a person’s body; the body representing the desire for a logical answer and the mind representing the curiosity that craves a better answer.
Alike what Dr. Zinman says about how people mistake the “building” for being the “architects blueprints” it is because of the desire for answers alongside peoples curiosity that drives science to be mistaken for technology or math which allows people to misstep the idea of science actually being a form of poetry. Throughout time as Dr. Zinman puts it, poetry and philosophy have always contrasted amongst each other beautifully and people accept the liberty in it. But when it comes to this notion of science, people are misguided in believing that a philosophy is an answer because people view science as a more serious, logical term rather than a liberal, free term such as literature or poetry. It’s almost as if people believe that logic is philosophy when what Dr. Zinman is trying to say is that philosophy comes before logic. By asserting the following, Dr. Zinman is asking people to accept the true non-existence of science because of its lack in perfection. That perhaps alike magic, everything just happens with no true explanation. But by acknowledging this possible truth, to expand in search for answers, people have chosen to create science just as they’ve done with art, poetry, literature, and because of this, science should be given that same equality of imperfection as it hover’s its own philosophies.

Delsey Sabu said...

This is my answer;


Ziman states in his essay, "science stands in the region where the intellectual, the psychological and the sociological coordinate axes intersect." Ziman's definition of science is that it is public knowledge. By saying that science is public knowledge Ziman is stating that Scientific knowledge are the facts and theories that are so persuasive "they are universally accepted." Science is not done by one person only, as many thinks, but it is a social activity, with many people contributing, knowingly and unknowingly. Ziman points out the four commonly used definition of science and states that they are unsatisfactory, because these definitions believe that a scientific inquiry is done privately, by one person. The first definition - Science is the Mastery of Man's Environment is commonly used in today's world, but Ziman states that this definition directs science as something only physical and material. It excludes the intellectual steps and also the Mastery of Man's Environment seems more like the product of science than being science itself. The second definition - Science is the Study of the Material World is very narrow, for it also directs science as something physical and leaves out the mathematics, logical theories and hypotheses. The third definition - Science is the Experimental Method, in Ziman's perspective is incomplete, for he points out that there are sciences that humans have no control over and experiment with, like the sciences of Astronomy and Geology. It also leaves out the "theoretical and logical sinews" that strengthens and organizes the results of the observation and experiments. The forth definition - Science arrives at Truth by logical inferences from empirical observations, is favored by many, for it explains that if something happens many times, it is bound to happen again with the same results and from that experiences a law or theory arises. Ziman states that humans have not reached a point in which the "truth" or precision this definition demands. Humans rely on personal experience and authority to make a conclusion for a problem. There is a similarity to all these definitions, which is that they all are lacking the theories, mathematics, logical steps laid out by other people coming to affect a scientific inquiry and also the intellectual part. Ziman's perspective on what science is that it is public knowledge, you have to consider that there are many people contributing to a scientific inquiry, not just the one that does the experiments and seek the answer, there are hypotheses, logical steps, and theories from others that are used to answer one question searched by one person, that is the nature of science in Ziman's perspective.

Tram Ho said...

Science is too broad of a topic to be labeled as one thing which is why Ziman finds the four concepts of science insufficient. Ziman thinks that labeling Science as "the Mastery of Man's Environment" is not correct because it makes people confuse science with what it produces such as technology or medicine. Those products are not "science" they are rather a contrivance of science. Science as "the Study of the Material World " is also an incomplete statement because science isn't just a study of matter. It excludes mathematics, such as theorems, that is very much related to physical sciences. Although many scientist do experiments to test their hypothesis, dubbing science as "the Experimental Method" is a little lacking because there are many things that scientists can not test but only observe such as astronomy and geology. It also excludes pure mathematics and theories that scientist propose. Experiments do not define science. Furthermore, stating that "Science arrives at Truth by logical inferences from empirical observations" is also an incomplete statement because science is not just built upon observations otherwise science would be too adamant. Theories are always changed because there will always be uncertainty. What Ziman believes is that the true scientific goal is to get the majority of people to adopt a concept that one may propose. The more validation and experiments the more people will come to accept that concept as their own.

Philip Fortygin said...

this is my answer:


Ziman believes that the current definitions of science are incomplete, and though "in practice" it is irrelevent he decides to delve into it, and try to deduce a correct definition.ziman explains that the term science is all to often belittled, narrowed or skewed. that in actuality the term encompasses so much more. it is the study of everything that can be observed, how and why things happen, and is broad in every aspect.and our attempts at science are imperfect or not completely or correctly explaining of things. while science is more of facts, already established in nature with or without our action or observation.It is physical and theoretical,matter and ideas.He takes the hitherto recognized parameters of the meaning of science and brings to the surface certain, and apparently crucial flaws.the first: Science is the Mastery of Man's Environment.to this he critiques that it is too insistent on the products of science, and the applications of scientific knowledge. it might as well be assesed with it that "penicillin is science", while penicillin is included in science in some ways. Also it is leaning to much on that science is the ways we humans can use nature, while the apllication is technically a part of science it is not so looming.the secound definition:Science is the Study of the Material World, his beef with this one is that it excludes types of science such as mathematics and theorems which are so intertwined with der science that they are both deserved of the title" sciences". the third definition: Science is the Experimental Method, is not a befitting definition, because science is delved into via experiments,the experiment doesnt define the science. also it does not acount for areas that cannot really be experimented on such as geology and astronomy. the fourth definition: Science arrives at Truth by logical inferences from empirical observations, is an inappropriate title becuase we cannot arrive to certainty when trying to deduct some truth,this is supported by the chaos theory.for perfection is veritably impossible. so as it turns out the concept of, what science is exactly is more mysterios, and ellusive than ever. maybe partially that is what Ziman tried to unveil.the end.

Irina Fomina said...

This is my answer:

Ziman believes that there are four major definitions of science, yet he finds each definition incomplete. The definition that "Science is the Mastery of Man's Environment" is incomplete because it mainly focuses on the product produced through the use of science rather than science itself. It leads to the idea that the application or product is science and does not recognize the thinking involved as science. The second definition, "Science is the Study of the Material World," is also lacking because it's main focus is on the "matter." This definition rejects to recognize pure mathematics as science and the definition is inconsistent because it recognizes psychology and sociology as science yet both areas have nothing to do with the material world. The third definition, "Science is the Experimental Method," lacks to incorporate pure mathematics as well as excludes fields of science, such as astronomy and geology, because both fields cannot be experimented with, but are based on observation of events we have no control over. Lastly, "Science arrives at Truth by logical inferences from empirical observations," is an incomplete definition because there is no certain way to arrive at the "truth." Scientists can merely try to uncover the truth but there is no certainty of the truth, which is what the last definition fails to recognize. Zinman's definition, "Science is Public Knowledge," is most accurate because it recognizes the need to communicate one's findings and leaves room for error. This definition does not exclude fields of science, such as pure mathematics or geology. This definition allows anyone to study and experiment with science. With many contributions, science can be more accurately understood, which is what Zinman is trying to reveal.

Jomardee Perkins said...

Ziman finds the four definitions of science irrelevant due to false information that is supported by it. By comparing science to a “practical art”, Ziman believes that science is not just a study from logic, but is also learned from limitations and experiments. Ziman thinks that the first definition of science; “Science is the Mastery of Man’s Environment” is morally incorrect due to the fact that science is nearly labeled with technology, ergo, confusing people with the term science, since science and technology are beyond different comprehensions. Also, Penicillin and science are two very different terms where Penicillin is rooted in the term of science. Just like how Ziman exemplifies that a “meal is not the same thing as a recipe”, thus displaying that science, technology and Penicillin are diverse information. The second definition of science, “Science is the Study of the Material World” also carries much extraneous information because “Pure Mathematics” is excluded in physical science, such as; “theorems” or “axioms” due to the lack of truth provided behind their results. It is said, that mathematics embedded in a hypothesis would believe to “reflect properties of the ‘real’ world”. Thus, saying that all the work established in it is neither science nor any knowledge of it. The third definition that Ziman found to be also incomplete is “Science is the Experimental Method” because it excludes more mathematics and is less dependent on experimenting. Where Astronomy or Geology can only be observed and not experimented. Overall, Ziman declares that experiments introduced in science do not fully characterize science itself. The last definition that ought to be the most popular towards philosophers, however contains incorrect information is “Science Arrives at Truth by Logical Inferences from Empirical Observations” because science is more than writing hypothesizes and making observations. Scientific knowledge must be proven with facts, theories and must be tested by proper individuals, thus being almost “universally accepted”. Science is not a book of facts and information, but a realistic opinion about the possibilities in the universe; I believe that’s Ziman’s perspective of the four definition of science.

Giancarlo Gelicame Jr said...

This is my answer:
Science is a very large and difficult concept to define and to clearly grasp. Professor Ziman stated that “Science is very clearly a conscious artifact of mankind, with well-documented historical origins, with a definable scope and content, and with recognizable professional practitioners and exponents.” But then Ziman goes on to say that science is similar to Religion, philosophy, law, mathematics, and other categories of knowledge and then asks how these subjects differ from one another and what’s so special about science that distinguishes it from the rest. Ziman then defines science by analyzing four different definitions of science that compares and contrasts science to these other concepts.
The first definition that Ziman comments on is Science is the Mastery of Man's Environment. Ziman describes this definition of science as a “vulgar conception” due to the fact that it characterizes science with its products, or the technology, and not the process of actually obtaining the knowledge that led to the product. Ziman also criticizes that this definition “confuses ideas with things”, that penicillin is equivalent to science, which is like saying a “cathedral is religion” which shows the error of this definition.
The next definition that Ziman analyzes is Science is the Study of the Material World. Ziman’s concluded that this definition was derived from the quarrel between religion and science, in which “Religion was left with the realm of the Spirit whilst Science was allowed full sway in the territory of Matter.” And if we were to follow this definition of science it would be a “circular argument” in which matter could only be defined in science. Another error with this definition is that it “excludes Pure Mathematics” which is just silly considering how much mathematics is used in different fields of science, especially physical science. Just like Ziman states “…it would be absurd to have to say that Newton's Principia, and all the work that was built upon it, was not now Science…”.
The third definition of science that Ziman analyzes is Science is the Experimental Method. This definition provided a major part of science which is the experimental portion of science. But Ziman analyzes that this definition is lacking just like the other definitions. This definition excludes mathematics and also refrains from giving any attention to fields of science like “Astronomy or Geology where we can only observe the consequences of events and circumstances over which we have no control.” It also needs to give credit to the theoretical and logical bonds that hold experiment and observation together and give them credibility. Ziman concludes that experiments help define science, but does not fully characterize it as a whole.
The Final Definition that Ziman reviews is Science arrives at Truth by logical inferences from empirical observations. Ziman comments that this definition is most favored by more serious philosophers that if something happens many times can be a basic fact where a structured theory can be made from. In this definition there is recognition of subsequent thinking as long as there are facts to support it. Ziman concludes that “There is no restriction of a metaphysical kind upon the subject matter of Science…” except from observation and inference.
Ziman summarizes that none of the definitions are enough to completely define science. And that Ziman defines science as “Public Knowledge” which doesn’t define science in a specific area but in a more broad way, which maybe is the best way to define science. Ziman makes sure that science is distinguished between science as knowledge, science the action of scientists, and science a social institution. Ziman’s definition makes it so he doesn’t leave out any other forms of knowledge, his definition encompasses every form of knowledge from mathematics to the social and also to the theological aspect of science, and he makes it so this definition isn’t just a wave of details after another for science is, as Ziman states, “indeed endless”.

Bianca Llorico said...

As Dr. Ziman states that science is “intellectual, conceptual and abstract”, it testifies the fact that science is a broad subject known to man. With four definition of science provided in his essay, he is able to analyze the falsity of each and conclude his own answer to the unknown realm of what science truly is.
Ziman begins by defining science as “the Mastery of Man's Environment.” Science is basically the know-it-all of what goes on in the world and how it works as well as to identify its products and properties. However, this definition is ineffective when it applies the intellectual properties. An example of this is when it comes to technology as stated in his essay. Although you may be able to find the application for scientific knowledge of how it works but the intellectual and logistical procedures behind it are absent since many people cannot seem to provide enough adequate information.
He also defines science as “the Study of the Material World.” This derives from the connection of science and religion. As religious ideas are off based spirits and morality, science is applied to figure out the root of where these ideas began throughout history and the aid of scientific knowledge. However many people begin to believe that science should only be known as the study of matter’s nature and it is questioned to why it is even applied beyond to emotional and spiritual idea of life. There needs to be a scientific stability if applied to morality, spirituality and human behavior. This definition is incomplete as it is difficult to distinguish the fine line of where and when to apply science to certain subjects.
Science also is defined in Ziman’s essay as “the experimental method.” Science that you observe and have no control over is often to be in the hands nature. The history of how things became the way they are over a period of time without alteration of results by human is considered to be scientific. Experiment is one of the older methods that is used for science as it shows how the process of things being the way they are, are being created. Astronomy is a good example of this since us humans have no control over the alignment of the stars and planets. Considering nature is the catalyst for science, this definition would not be fit to define science since we have no control over how experiments will result if given a stated hypothesis or theory.
The last definition Ziman came up with is that science is “logical inferences from empirical observations.” Basically this definition states that science is from the basic principle of deriving general principles from particular facts and even a basic structure of theory. However this definition is inaccurate as these scientific facts just based off general principles from scientific theories with a sprinkle of logical reasoning that surrounds the result. Because there are no true facts, people find scientist’s ideas or reasoning unreliable just because it is based off general principles.
That being said, within all these 4 definitions he has stated and be carefully looking at the logistics of each error, Ziman concludes to a definition of science that it is “public knowledge.” Science allows scientists to be liberal with their ideas due to the fact that changes in nature and other factors will constantly alter results that sometimes don’t match up to the stated hypothesis. There will always be more than one idea for the same scientific principle. For example, when doing a lab experiment in class, they provide a general idea of what it is and for the person to apply the same knowledge and concepts as intended. Yet, different results can occur and that’s what causes science to become abstract. Hence, scientists will constantly correct scientific theories over a course of trials and years. In conclusion, Ziman’s perspective of science is that it is a broad concept that can be captured in many angles while revolving around the idea of matter and nature’s principles.

Rachel Do said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rachel Do said...

This is my answer:
In Dr. Ziman’s pursuit to define science, he explains how four common definitions of science are actually inadequate to define science.
Ziman states that the definition “science is the mastery of man’s environment” is an inadequate definition because it only addresses how to apply scientific knowledge, such as in technology and creating products. This definition fails to include the intellectual steps needed in order to obtain scientific knowledge. Also, this definition confuses products with the idea of science. For example, “penicillin is not Science”; it is only a product created through the use of scientific knowledge. Because this definition does not emphasize the thinking involved in science, this definition does not fully define science.
Another familiar definition is “science is the study of the material world”. Because of the debate between religion and science, this definition states that religion involves the “realm of the Spirit” and science involves everything in the “territory of matter”. However, this definition is not sufficient because science is not only matter. Studies such as psychology and sociology are considered as science, yet they are not matter. Also, mathematics is considered science because mathematicians explore theorems and create hypotheses. Even though mathematics is not something physical, it is still considered science. Thus, this definition is flawed because it does not clearly distinguish which subjects are considered science even if it is not matter.
Another definition found in Ziman’s essay is how “science is the experimental method.” This definition of science is incomplete because there are subjects of science that cannot be experimented with, such as Astronomy and Geology. Because humans are only able to observe Astronomy and Geology, conducting experiments would not be possible. Also, this definition is not correct because science is not only experiments; science involves more than experiments, such as the results from experiments. By the definition of “science is the experimental method”, the results from experiments are excluded, making this definition not sufficient to define science.
The final definition stated is that “science arrives at truth by logical inferences from empirical observations.” According to Ziman, this definition is most favored by philosophers because it explains what has been seen happen many times is likely to happen again, turning it into a fact or law. However, this definition is also flawed because humans have not reached the point where they can find truth. In other words, humans are only capable of arriving at partial truths because there will always be uncertainty in theories, causing them to change and become revised. Therefore, this definition is not sufficient to be the actual definition of science.
Taking all of these definitions into consideration, Ziman concludes that his definition of science is how “science is public knowledge.” His definition of science addresses what he sees as the true nature of science because the goal of science is “a consensus of rational opinion over the widest possible field.” His definition of science shows that everyone is able to contribute their own ideas, creating theories and facts that are examined by people all over the world. Because everyone is allowed to contribute to science, “public knowledge” is what creates universally accepted theories and laws. Ziman distinguishes between science as knowledge, science as what scientists do, and science as a social institution. By doing so, he covers the different aspects of science, such as psychology, sociology, and mathematics. Because the “public knowledge” of psychologists, sociologists, and mathematicians creates a more unified view on science, Ziman’s definition of science is sufficient. Although science is very broad, Ziman believes that as more people contribute to the study of science, the definition of science can become more accurately understood.

Karyn Ferreira said...

This is my answer:

Ziman sees the nature of science to be a broad and universal concept. None of the popular definitions can properly define the term for science, for it is to be universal and as Ziman states, "Science is not merely published knowledge or information."
The first definition "Science is the Mastery of Man's Environment" is an incorrect definition of science because it mixes with the fact that science does only stop at the technological level. The definition that is commonly at practice throws away the procedure and just focuses on how the technological can advance more without giving credit to how it came to be. The definition forgets about pure mathematics and cosmology, concepts we can't grasp physically, but is set on the world around.
In the second definition, a quite popular thought, "Science is the Study of the Material World". The definition "derives from the great debate between science and religion." How anything that is not seen nor can be touched is not under science. Within the scientific framework built by this definition the philosophy of nature is excluded which is a goal of science. Matter, and the physical world, is the only concept that is fully approached in this definition of Science leaving spiritual and mathematics left out, although mathematics is used in many branches of what is universally considered science, therefore proving this definition to be incorrect.
The third definition, "Science is the Experimental Method", excludes mathematics even more. It is true that the "importance of experiment was the key event in the history of Science.", but stating that science is an experimental method instead of a broad field would be incorrect as Ziman would lead us to believe. For under this definition astrology and geology are fairly excluded even though they are respectable sciences "where we can only observe the consequences of events and circumstances over which we have no control." The definition excludes all but what can be seen happening and can be provoled, or how Ziman states,"Experiment distinguishes Science from the older, more speculative ways to knowledge but it does not fully characterize the scientific method."
The final popular definition of science is, "Science Arrives at Truth by Logical Inferences from Empirical Observations." This, according to Ziman, is a philosopher's favorite definition because it is based on the principle that "what has been seen to happen a great many times is almost sure to happen invariably and may be treated as a basic fact or Law". Ziman's observations of this definition comes to the conclusion that this definition is not as foolproof as people may come to believe. As the definition deems that the procedure of predicting, experimenting, and coming to a conclusion is part of science, it fails to leave room for scientific error. As there is no exact way to acquire the perfect precision for truth. The definition is too black or white, having few experiments come to a conclusion fast without checking possible errors. Therefore, nothing that happens in a lab would be scientific under the definition.
Finally, Ziman stated his own well rounded definition "Science is Public Knowledge." Although the other definitions were right in many perspectives, they were mostly lacking a more broad outline, but deeming that science is public knowledge we can deduce that in the ever changing world around us in nature and in the world of man, a person can be correct in their results but have a drastic gap between another scientist's information. With that being said, Ziman's definition gives a better look at the nature of science and how science does not focus on one area, but enveloping the idea in a more common sense.

Kaella Bravo said...

Here's my answer:

As Ziman states, "Science stands in the region where the intellectual, the psychological, and the sociological coordinate axes intersect," meaning that it is unlikely to give a full and complete, single definition for science because it deals with many aspects that we may or may not see.
In his first definition, he stated that "science is the mastery with the Man's environment." Here he talks about how others see science based on the things we see; "it identifies science with its products." The problem with this definition is that it puts all the attention on the outcome, the result, and none on the process of getting to that outcome. He believes that there is no emphasis on the intellectual knowledge and reasoning of how the product is made.
His second definition states, "Science is the study of the Material world." Ziman finds this definition lacking because it refers back to the debate between Science and Religion. He fears that if we stick to this definition, "...we may end up in a circular argument in which Matter is only recognizable as the subject matter of science", meaning that this definition has no further direction.
Ziman's third definition of science states that, "science is the experimental method." The problem with this definition is that it fails to include other fields of science(astronomy and geology) where it is impossible to experiment with. This definition is simply saying that science can only be seen through experimental trials, therefore it lacks information and is too precise to define science.
His fourth definition states that, "science arrives at Truth by logical inferences from empirical observations." The problem with this definition is that scientists sometimes consider complex theories as quite-good theories based on very few observations. In order to acquire the answer for any theory, multiple trials must be performed without or little error. He included how many scientist refer their work back to this definition because it is the best explanation we could possibly give based on the available data we have. Ziman also includes that this definition is "too black and white," meaning that it is too simple for science itself. Science is a complex subject and therefore we must consider all types of definitions and observations.
Ziman believes that the true nature of science "...is public, and therefore molded and determined by the social relations of individuals." He believes that the definition of science is endless and can never be exact because it deals with many topics and aspects in the modern world. And because of this, the definition of science will be constantly changing due to new observations, errors, and the relationship among us. The other four definitions of science are fairly too exact to science itself. Science comes with many branches and aspects, and therefore it is unlikely to give a single definition of science.

Nefertari Granados said...

Nefertari Granados
This is my answer to the first question.

Ziman comes to state that science is too braod to label but many popular definitions don't bring justice to certain parts of science. The definitions always lack a very important piece of science within. Ziman discusses four of these popular definitions before announcing his definition of science.
Ziman discusses one of science’s definitions. “Science is the Mastery of Man’s Environment” This definition confuses the materials we have achieved because of science with the actual scientific knowledge gained through the procedure. It takes away the science involved in the procedure and just takes account of the ending product. It also doesn’t take in account of certain sciences such as pure mathematics because this certain branch of science isn’t put into use as much as would chemistry with its elaborate findings to create materialistic objects.
Ziman discusses another definition of science. “Science is the study of the material world.” This definition pretty much means that science is the study of any object. There are branches of science that specifically study living or nonliving matter but this definition lacks to cover certain sciences such as psychology. Psychology is the study of the brain’s interaction with the outside world but it doesn’t necessarily refer to the brain. It refers more to our behaviors which aren’t matter which would cause psychology to be excluded from science because of this definition.
Ziman also discusses another popular definition of science. “Science is the experimental method. This definition means that science is all experiments. The experimental method requires variables to be controlled in the procedure so the results are reliable. Yet Ziman explains how the sciences of astronomy and geology aren’t able to be controlled. These sciences are observed in their very nature without being experimented. Through this definition, these sciences would be excluded. Ziman also explains how scientists make theoretical systems on which they base other theories even though their observations may not exactly be precise. This definition wouldn’t consider those theoretical systems therefore the mounting theories of science on those systems would collapse.
Ziman discusses yet another definition of science. “Science arrives at truth by logical inferences from empirical observations.” This definition means that because something occurs over and over with the same result, a person could reasonably argue that this reoccurrence will always be the same. Ziman explains how many scientists believe this definition to be true yet they don’t precisely follow it. Ziman argues that this definition doesn’t work because many theories have been argued as true without much observation and that no person can check all of the possible alternatives creating doubt in the logical inferences.
Ziman discusses his definition of science. “Science is public knowledge.” His definition means that science are facts and theories that have been tested by various individuals and still hold itself up to be accepted not by one but by all. Ziman explains how science isn’t contradiction but a gathering of “rational opinion” over a subject. Ziman explains how scientists work together through strong social relationships to communicate then organize their series of thoughts onto paper so the public eye may see. Science is molded by the relationships of the individuals and the criticism coming from each individual. Therefore, he states that every science is covered by his definition because all theories rising from each science are put together because of the communication between the scientists and the criticism molding the theory.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Urooj said...

In his essay Ziman finds that the science is far to broad of a topic to be defined as one thing, he says that science seems like it would be a very linear subject being that "science is very clearly a conscious artifact of mankind, with well-documented historical origins, with a definable scope and content, and with recognizable professional practitioners and exponents", but finds that even with all that, science is still to ample of a subject to define. Ziman finds that in the four definitions of science he analyzed in his essay to be insufficient in labeling science. In his essay Ziman says that the first definition "the Mastery of Man's Environment" is incorrect as it causes individuals to assume the product is the science rather than focus on the science used to produce that product. The second definition of "Science is the Study of the Material World" is also incomplete as it focuses on science being the study of "matter". It also fails to include "pure mathematics", even though mathematics are used quite often in many different forms of science. The next definition states that "Science is the Experimental Method", this is also a lacking definition because it like the previous definitions fails to include "pure mathematics". also cannot be applied to all sciences, geology and astronomy are two of those sciences. Not everything can be tested by scientist and can only be observed, in astronomy and geology "we can only observe the consequences of events and circumstances over which we have no control". The final and fourth definition says that "Science arrives at Truth by logical inferences from empirical observations". Ziman states that this is the most accepted definition by most "serious philosophers", but the definition is still lacking. The definition is lacking because as Ziman points out "we only arrive at partial and incomplete truths", their is no way to find the truth in science. Scientist can never be certain that they arrived at a complete truth even it they conduct experiments, this makes the definition incomplete. Ziman sees that "Science is public knowledge", he sees that the true goal of science is to propose one concept that majority of the public will adopt to create a consensus.

tony cisneros said...

This is my answer
Ziman gave four familiar definitions of what he feels are lacking and incomplete for the lack of understanding of the scientific method and true science. Science has become a major part of the stock of our minds as said Ziman. The definition seem to be explaining one side and leaving the other part to broad for no understanding. Most definitions have to be a great debate between two subjects, gives no hints of how "knowledge" can be obtained from it. While to others, science has a different method that does not involve the old scientific method. Ziman feels that science should leave room for errors, scientific errors, that few scientist have more faith about personal experience that seem to follow their "Rule of Order" skipping steps. Science is not only published knowledge or information but the true nature of science to Ziman. Science is public knowledge, leaving room for errors, taking the full steps of the scientific method. That science can just belong with one subject, scientist behave with one another, to anylze and pass information. Having good understanding of the body of knowledge, science. Ziman's perspective is for scientist to have theories, hypotheses, observing each step not only with their own eyes but with other colleagues and predecessous,that is Ziman's definition of true nature of science.

arnela.grebovic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Arnela Grebovic said...

This is my answer:

Ziman finds the four familiar definitions of science lacking because they are not broad enough to encompass the full capacity and uses of science.
The definition that "Science is the Mastery of Man's Environment" lacks in including the intellectual aspect of science. It "identifies science with its products", and does not give a "hint as to the intellectual procedures by which that knowledge may be successfully obtained". Although the products of science are important, they are not the only thing science is used for. Some parts of science do not create products, but theories, and that is not being accounted for in this definition.
To say that science is the "Study of the Material World" is once again very narrow since it excludes many forms of science, such as pure mathematics and the "philosophy of nature". Since religion is left to be with the "realm of the Spirit", science is left only to the "territory of matter". But then sciences such as psychology and sociology would not be included.
The next definition lacks in its ability to "fully characterize the scientific method". If "science [was] the experimental method" it would not include the "strong theoretical and logical sinews that are needed to hold the results of experiments and observations together". It would also exclude pure mathematics and sciences such as geology and astronomy, where only observations and hypotheses can be made.
The final definition is "Science arrives at Truth by logical inferences from empirical observation". While this definition "is the standard type of definition favored by most serious philosophers" it is too "black and white". There is no room for error, which is common within science. Science achieves theories and "partial and incomplete truths", but will never be perfect enough to achieve the whole truth like this definition defines it as. While scientists do aspire for the ideal, it is very difficult, almost impossible, and if science was perfect and ideal and always had a black and white, this would be the definition.
So by seeing the flaws in these four definitions, Zinman is able to come to a definition that somewhat does science justice. He states that "science is public knowledge". This is broad enough so that it can include the whole scientific method, the observations, experiments, theories, inferences and conclusions, but avoid giving science an exactness. It is what the public knows or thinks to be true at that time, unless otherwise is discovered. Which allows for mistakes like when "Newtonian dynamics... had been observed and calculated that the rotation of the perihelion of Mercury did not conform to its predictions." This definition also includes the "meal... [and] the recipe" of science. It gives science room to breath and a spectrum of uses.

Karlie Shoemaker said...

Dr. Ziman seems to believe that the first idea “Science is the Mastery of Man's Environment” is wrong in the fact that this idea connects science to technology and that the idea of one example of a topic representing an entire subject as whole isn’t a broad enough scope for the subject. Basically the subject of Science is built up of some much material and information and he seems to see this man’s definition as incomplete. Now in “Science is the Study of the Material World” Ziman says that to use the word “material” excludes many topics that don’t truly fall under that category such as Psychology and Sociology. “Science is the Experimental Method” is immediately called wrong for leaving out mathematics as a whole and “Science arrives at Truth by logical inferences from empirical observations” is seen as just as wrong to Ziman because there aren’t any true procedures in science and that all information found is partial and left open for more exploration. Dr. Ziman touches on the fact that in each of these definitions he believe they weren’t left to a broad enough topic. That each of these definitions would in theory leave topics considered scientific to fall out of that category, calling one definition after another “incomplete”. By him saying this it gives me the idea that his definition is that there almost isn’t one. It’s each scientist to him-self, making up his own mind about what science is, like an art form, each person discovers need things that make the topic even harder to define. There is a definition that is final, and there won’t be science is changing and no title can cover everything that science is about. Science is observations and information that each man may see and record in a different way, but it can't truly be defined.

Elijah Turner said...

Dr. Ziman claimed that the four most common definitions we have of science are incorrect. Science in itself is a very difficult term to describe for just about anyone, considering science is just about everywhere, literally. It is like trying to explain what it is like to be a man to a woman, or vice versa. No one really knows technically, because no one has ever experienced both directly. Science is near impossible to define also, because no scientist has seen it all.
Dr. Ziman’s first definition of science used by part of the public is “Science is the mastery of man’s environment”. He claims that this definition is lacking in the procedural part. To master man’s environment is not “Science”. It merely means to say that science is the results of our procedures. And as Dr. Ziman says, this definition could almost describe magic too, considering we see the results of magic, but never the procedure.
The second definition I strongly disagree with. Dr. Ziman’s second definition is “Science is the study of the material world.” Matter, space, air, etc. are not material at all, but because of science they exist, Dr. Ziman claims. In his opinion this definition is lacking because it does not explain that science also has to do with procedure. There has to be an explanation as to how a person sees or creates an object, because that is science; The result and how that individual got it.
The third definition he explains the opposite of the last two. “Science is the experimental method,” only goes over the experimental/procedural part. As Dr. Ziman claims, Astronomy is only studied from the results, considering you cannot experiment with the universe. With these three definitions, they lack either the experimental or result portion.
This last definition is definitely the most reasonable, it being “Science arrives at truth by logical inferences from empirical observations”. It makes sense because it describes science as experiment, and the results derived from observation and procedure. But as Dr. Ziman claims, it is still not a correct definition because it does not consider the fact that scientists can never know indefinitely whether or not the truth, is in fact the truth.
With all this said, in Dr. Ziman’s opinion, “Science is public knowledge” because truth in science does not become truth until over time, and it has been tested and retested a thousand times. The only way to know a theory to be true is to wait until it has undergone several trials from several people that have come up with the same results. And by then it will have become “Public knowledge”. If no one can defy it, then it must be true is what Dr. Ziman’s argument is.

Hanh Nguyen said...

This is my response:

Dr. Ziman's essay elaborates and states that science is way too broad to label or have a clear definition for the term science. As Ziman stated in his paper, "Science is not merely published knowledge or information."
The four familiar definitions that he finds lacking has become "a major part of the stock of our minds" that it explains one side of science and leaves too big of a chunk aside that is too broad for our understandment.
The first definition that Ziman discusses about is "Science is the Mastery of a Man's Environment." This definition makes two different thing combine into one. The materials which we achieved have science attatched to it since we use science for everything, but the problem with this is, it is being mixed with the idea of the scientific procedure which we are to go through to achieve our outcome. Or in other words according to Dr. Ziman, "it gives us no hint as to the intellectual prodcures by which that knowledge may be successfully obtained."
Dr. Ziman's second definition that he sees to be lacking would be, "Science is the Study of the Material World." This thought "derives from the great debate between Science and Religion, whose outcome was a treaty of partition in which Religion was left with the realm of the Spirit whilst science was allowed full sway in the territory of matter." This is a definition that lacks understandment because there are mathemations out there that are still considered under the definition of science because they explire theorems and also create hypotheses, but mathematics does not involve matter, nor is it a physical. Science is not only matter because there are tons of doctors out there that are considered doctors under a certificate that certifies them for a major in the medical field. In other words, this definition does not clearly distinguish which subjects are considered science.
The third definition, "Science is the Expiermental Method" is incomplete in several ways. There are many subjects in science which we have no control over, such as Astronomy or Geology. We are only to observe these subjects and cannot make any expierements. In other words it is saying that science can only be seen through expieremental trials. This definition lacks information and is too precise to define science.
Dr. Ziman's last definition would be, "Science arrives at Truth by logicial inferences from empirical observations." In other words, based upon a principle or what has been seen to happen multiple times is in other words now called a basic fact, or Law in wich a "firm structure of theory can be erected." Many scientist refer their outcome of their expierment back to the one that has the best explanation and data which does not seem accurate because every new expierement will always come with a different outcome. Making this definition lacking because "we only arrive at partial and incomplete truths; we never achieve the precision and finality that seem required by the definition."
With all four of Ziman's definitions he has stated and carefully exmaining the errors in which Ziman conluded "that none of the definitions is entirely satisfactory." Science is not wrapped around Laws or Principles because change sin nature and other factors will change the results of the expierement possibly altering the outcome. With an altered outcome this indeed will not match up with the hypothese that was made before the expierement. Science simply cannot be defined with one strong definition, science is simply just "public knowledge."

Kelly Bounxayavong said...

This is my response:
Ziman finds the four definitions of science (Science is: the mastery of man’s elements, the study of the material world, the experimental method, arrives at truth by logical inferences from empirical observations) to be lacking. Although each individual definition is the key concept most people get from what science is, people are missing the truth of science. The four definitions exclude the use of pure mathematics. Pure mathematics is in turn, like a religion therefore sociological (or psychological?). We can’t prove math to be math, we believe it to be true. Also, the conception of science is of facts and truths: people believe scientists base their theories around facts and experiments whereas in truth, most scientist may not. Science involves making hypothesis, not facts, therefore making scientists believe or hope or guess how their experiment or what they’re studying will turn out. It’s spiritual, against what popular belief may be. Also, science being made by experiments and logical inferences from observations is lacking. Scientists have no control over stars and what not that nature has already created, so science being from experiments is lacking. They may base it on observation creating it to be a sort of spiritual take. As Ziman had said, “there is far more faith and reliance upon personal experience and intellectual authority than the official doctrine will allow. They don’t need to perform test after test to come to a truth, but rather from personal knowledge. Scientists are smart from experience and not necessarily from taking courses at Duke University. For centuries people have believed that the Earth was the center of the universe BECAUSE of how persuasive and compelling Ptolemy and Aristotle made it to be. We found it not to be true later, but the fact that people listened to these philosophers shows how much faith and how the spiritual world and science are intertwined. Science is not just based on facts; science includes sociological, psychological, and spiritual aspects again other from popular belief. However compelling Ziman’s take on science may be, it is still one man’s take on the definition of science. Science may never really be defined with all the factors of social, psychological, spiritual, and maybe even more factors that it needs, thus making the enigma of science truly the definition of science.

Peter Chang said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Peter Chang said...

Dr. Ziman finds that as each definition of science has a explanation of what science is, "the problem has been to discover a unifying principle for Science in all its aspects.” So, Ziman comes up with his own proper definition of science.
Ziman begins his essay by implying the first definition is that "Science is the Mastery of Man's Environment." This definition "identifies Science with its products," which means that technology and innovations are the focus of science. What this definition lacks is that it fails to mention the steps involved in acquiring scientific knowledge. Applying scientific knowledge is not possible when one hasn’t gone through the steps to achieve it first. In addition, Ziman states that this definition creates confusion as scientific ideas are known as "things," such as a meal not being the same as a recipe.
The second definition that Ziman disproves is that "Science is the Study of the Material World." This definition involves Religion being the "realm of the Spirit" while Science is "territory of Matter." The problem is that sciences like psychology and sociology are not matter. Mathematics is also excluded from this definition, something very important to the physical sciences. This definition fails to generate a solid classification of science, as there are many sciences that are not matter.
The third definition is that "Science is the Experimental Method." This definition discusses how experiments are a pivotal tool to scientists. However, it is out of a human's control to experiment in fields such as astronomy and geology. Scientists may only observe the sky for star alignments such as in astronomy. This definition also lacks the importance of mathematics, which defines many fields of science.
The final definition is that "Science arrives at Truth by logical inferences from empirical observations." The basic fact is that if something works on a consistent basis, then it should be treated as a law or fact. This definition is the most popular and is what most scientists go by. However this definition is not adequate because as humans, perfection is nearly impossible to achieve, such as pitching a perfect game in baseball where there are extremely small margins for error. So in an experiment, sources of error are very difficult to avoid; as Ziman states "we never achieve the precision and finality that seem required by the definition."
With all of these four definitions being inadequate, Ziman unveils that "Science is Public Knowledge." Ziman says that "every scientist sees through his own eyes," meaning that everyone is entitled to their own opinions. This definition is broader, which eliminates any specificity, allowing no exclusion of any sciences as Ziman states that scienctific research is also a "social activity," which includes social sciences with the other fields. This definition is also sufficient to define science because there is room for error, leaving much needed room to breathe in experiments. Ziman emphasizes the fact that in order for this definition to work, one must be able to distinguish between "Science as a body of knowledge, Science as what scientists do, and Science as a social institution." Ziman says that science is "indeed endless" and that more contributions to the world of science from mankind will ultimately lead to a more sound understanding of what he believes to be the true definition of science, public knowledge.

richard forrester said...

This is my answer!
All theories rejected in Ziman’s statements where due to them only encompassing so little of the broad subject we have created, because to judge something based on one aspect it poses would be like claiming to fully understand someone based on one statement given . The same goes for comparing it to another such as Religion, philosophy, law, mathematics, and other categories of knowledge when no two things are exactly the same so only a dim light is shade on the subject. However there were four definitions that came close to uncovering the mystery.

The first definition presented states that “Science is the mastery of man environment” and is seen by Zimar as a ‘vulgar’ conception. This definition focuses too much on the application of science and completely neglects the processes, effort and thoughts incorporated into arriving at a meaningful conclusion. This definition was also chastised by Zimar for “confusing ideas with things”. There is a multitude of paths that could be followed to lead to a specific results and only one route we can deem as scientific.
Furthermore the definition that states “Science is the study of the material world” is absurd in the fact that it places so many restrictions on the application of the subject. It completely disregards the employment of mathematics in the field s scientific research and the study of invisible forces. As stated by Ziman this theory was devised as a means to quell the debate between religion and science which puts its validity into question.
The third definition states that Science is the Experimental Method and while this is true it is not the whole truth. Experimentation is a vital part of science but we have to take into account “pure mathematics, and needs to be supplemented to take cognizance of those perfectly respectable sciences such as Astronomy or Geology where we can only observe the consequences of events and circumstances over which we have no control. It also fails to give due credit to the strong theoretical and logical sinews that are needed to hold the results of experiments and observations together and give them force.” This is more an aspect rather than a definition of such a vast subject.
The final definition which he sees as invalid characterises science as “Truth by logical inferences from empirical observations”. This is rejected in the essence that it simplifies the practice. We cannot be certain of the validity of our results just by following certain guidelines or rules. If it where that easy then we would have uncovered the secrets of the universe by now. The matter of which approach is right and the development of new methods to be tested have made the topic more and more elusive and complex.
Ziman’s true definition which he sees as the truth states that “Science is public knowledge” proposes neither the idea of right or wrong but of acceptance and organization. It suggests that the truth is defined by the accumulation of rational opinions broken down and condensed into a format acknowledged by the majority. For regardless of what the truth really holds the majority outweighs the facts. So in a sense it is about what we chose to believe and not what it really is regardless of how we arrived at this end. This definition proved to be the most accurate for it does not address anything specific and is as vague as its topic. Because when all is said and done, everything we have fabricated that does not take physical form will remain a figment of our imagination.

Tatiana Perkins said...

This is my answer:

Ziman believes that science takes a lot of logical thinking and reasoning, the origins of science come from that exact root. Science would be difficult to define because it isn’t free-formed like the arts of the world, but instead is very calculated. Much like the other coherent ideas, science does take information to be sustained. But unlike other ideas, science needs to be tested and proven as a fact. Hypotheses exist so that we can confirm that our accusations of the universe are correct rather than dreamt of like religion, law or philosophy. The only one of those that has sustainable evidence is science, and cannot be placed in a category of the other forms of knowledge.
Science cannot be "the mastery of man’s environment" because it only includes the product, and lacks the origin and procedure of science. This is to say that it is neglecting a majority of what sets science apart from any other form of knowledge.
Science cannot be "the study of the material world", because that would be subjective to only matter, meaning other realms of knowledge would be needed to support a scientific hypothesis. Also, math is very much involved with science to fill in gaps in tests.
Science cannot be "the experimental method". Without the use of mathematics, the speed of light, or the speed of sound may have never been calculated. Although it is not something you can watch and observe, it can be scientifically tested, and the definition does not account for that.
Science does "arrive at truth by logical inferences from empirical observations", but that does not encompass that not all conclusions and initial ideas may be logical. Many inferences chain off of each other to form a very questionable possibility, even if it cannot be proven. Atoms are a theory, and scientists rely heavily on the idea of them. Although they are not proven to exist, and cannot be proven, they are still a part of a scientific belief even if it does take faith to believe in. Because this idea only suggests that everything has to be proven, a lot of scientific ideas couldn’t even be considered because they are constantly being tested on without any surefire conclusion.
Ziman believes that a missing element that science is in fact an art, it must be practiced repeatedly. Nobody will ever reach perfection, but will become more knowledgeable with every test procedure. To Ziman, science is "public knowledge", for anyone can make an observation or an inference. It does not disclose any of the mechanics behind science such as the procedure and the products, but provides an open definition that isn’t subjective to one part of science.
Considering the four commonly accepted definitions in relation to Ziman’s definition, they all exclude the fact that science is open to anyone who is capable of making observation. His definition is broad enough that it does not neglect that fact that mathematics may be used, tests may be conducted or inferences may be the only basis of the hypothesis. Science being a "public knowledge" allows an open realm of interpretation, much like science itself.

Anna Kovalevich said...

This is my answer:

Ziman believes that the four major definitions of science that he describes are true, but incomplete. He believes science to be “intellectual, conceptual and abstract”, such as life itself, and is very hard to grasp and clearly define.
The definition that "Science is the Mastery of Man's Environment" is incomplete because it focuses on the product as being the science rather than focusing on the science used to make the product. It doesn’t focus enough on the procedure, as the final product, even though the procedure is very important in getting the right product.
The second definition of "Science is the Study of the Material World,” "derives from the great debate between science and religion.” It basically means that anything not seen or touched is not science. This definition only covers matter and the physical, touchable world. It leaves out mathematics and the spiritual world. Mathematics is used constantly in proving and disproving theories and in research and in every single scientific experiment. This alone disproves this definition in Ziman’s eyes.
The third definition, "Science is the Experimental Method", excludes mathematics even more. This covers the experimental portion of science which is very large considering many things we know are still only theories and are being tested all the time. Ziman doesn’t like this definition because it excludes “Astronomy or Geology where we can only observe the consequences of events and circumstances over which we have no control.” This definition fails to give credit to theory and logic, something that many experiments are based on. Experiments are important, but cannot be relied on to fully characterize Science.
The final definition that “Science Arrives at Truth by Logical Inferences from Empirical Observations” is very popular, but also incomplete according to Ziman. There is not actual way to find “truth” in science, there is only theory and constantly repeating occurrences. The last definition fails to recognize this, and is therefore, disproved.
Ziman's definition, "Science is Public Knowledge," is most accurate because it recognizes that there is room for error and that nothing is for sure in science. His definition is not too specific, and not too broad. His definition includes all things that were mentioned before as excluded from other definitions. It also recognizes that anyone and everyone can study science and contribute to discoveries, which Ziman is trying to communicate as being very important in the world of science.

james34 said...

This is my answer:
Ziman finds the four familiar definitions of science lacking because while they are all true, they are still incomplete. The first definition Ziman addresses is "Science is the mastery of man's environment. Ziman finds this definition "the vulgar conception," for it only identifies science with the benefits and products that come with it. This definition is partly true, for science has brought about many products, such as medicines, satellites, and even many edible products. This definition is flawed for it "confounds science with technology." With this definition, the only driving force behind science would be material gain, which is absolutely false. According to this definition, there would be no point in the study of scientific fields such as "cosmology and pure mathematics," for they would bring no practical use. The second definition Ziman addresses is "Science is the study of the material world." Again, this definition is partly correct, but it is leaving space for great debates down the road. Ziman believes this definition could result in a "circular argument," for the term material world can be taken in different ways. Ziman believes that the meaning of words would eventually "be stretched to accommodate" scientific fields such as psychology and sociology, studys that, arguably, may not include the "material world." The third definition Ziman mentions is "Science is the experimental method." This definition does have one great aspect; it addresses the key factor of experimentation. Experimentation is not, however, the defining aspect of science. This definition excludes many scientific studies where experimentation is impossible. In order to perform experiments, one must be able to control variables. The studies of pure mathematics, astronomy, and geology are excluded from this definition, for one "can only observe the consequences of events and circumstances over which we have no control." So by this definition's standards, the studies of pure mathematics, astronomy, and geology would no longer be considered science. The final definition Ziman talks about is "Science arrives at Truth by logical inferences from empirical observations." According to Ziman, this definition is "favored by most philosophers." This definition is based on induction, or the idea that if something is seen to happen many times, it will keep happening. This is a very CLOSE way to determine scientific fact or law, but according to Ziman, it is simply "plausible but not finally compelling." Basically, Ziman believes that just because something has happened many times, that doesn't make it scientific fact or law. Sure, if something happens many times, it is "plausible" that it will continue to happen. That isnt enough to Ziman. In order to make something a scientific fact or law, one must base their research on factual evidence, not "plausible" hunches according to Ziman. The only true definition of science that "covers all ends" would be Ziman's; "Science is public knowledge." Science is not just based on the fine print of published journals that claim one man proved this or that. It is based on the individuals consensus on what is logical. Ziman challenges the conception that scientific law is based on a handfull of opinions that all must believe. For example, many believed Earth to be round in the past. It was "published scientific law." However, some individuals followed their own personal "rational opinion" and were able to challenge the public knowledge at the time. It became more "rational" that the world was round, even though scientific law stated it was flat. That is the key element Ziman's definition includes; The role of the individual's rational opinion in what the world conceives as scientific law.
-James Darby

Puneet Dhaliwal said...

This is my answer:
Ziman finds the four familiar definitions lacking because they’re incomplete in the sense that even though each definition addresses a part of science, each definition fails to define science as a whole.
The first definition, “Science is the Mastery of Man’s Environment” defines science by its products, not what science is itself; for there is more to science than its results. With this definition we understand how scientific knowledge is used, but not how it is obtained. Therefore, this definition is incomplete because it is too vague, and fails to include math, which is a big part of science (explained below).
The second definition, “Science is the Study of the Material World” is lacking by it is limited to matter, and matter is only one of the subjects in science. Psychology or sociology are dedicated to things like understanding the way human beings/ society functions, making it a scientific subject, yet this definition fails to address that. This definition, like the first one above, also fails to include mathematics. Math “explores logical consequences of sets of hypotheses” but doesn’t “claim absolute truth for their results”, mean that just like the scientists, mathematicians come up with hypotheses and use the scientific method, but they don’t claim that their results are the truth for in math and science, no hypothesis can be proven right or wrong, it can only be supported or not supported by data.
The third definition, “Science is the Experimental Method” describes something that is important in science; it does not define science itself for it excludes pure mathematics and sciences like astronomy and geology, where we “observe the consequences of events and circumstances where we have no control”. This definition doesn’t mention the importance of theoretic and logic that is needed so that we can understand the results of observations made in sciences like Astronomy and Geology. Also, Ziman feels that this definition doesn’t fully characterize the scientific method for there is more to it than just the experimental method, there are sciences out there where we can’t control what happens.
Finally, the fourth definition that “Science arrives at Truth by logical inferences from empirical observations” is one that Ziman finds it to be lacking. It is “too black and white” since it involves doing multiple trials of an experiments in order for it to be “treated as a fact or law”, the observing process and making inferences. It doesn’t mention things like “personal experience and intellectual authority” and “scientific error”. Making mistakes is a part of life as well as a part of science, therefore it is important to acknowledge that when defining science. Ziman also mentions that “we only arrive at partial and incomplete truths” which is important when defining science because science is a never ending field of discovering; while we may believe something to be true now, years from now somebody will discover something that we have missed, making our discovery only partially true.
Ziman’s definition, that “Science is Public Knowledge” addresses what he sees as the true nature of science by how it is able to define science as a whole instead of parts. With this definition, Ziman describes how making observations or coming up with hypothesis can be done by anyone and how science isn’t just what is published or done by scientists. This definition also involves facts and theories and how they must go through multiple trails in order to be almost accepted universally. Hence this definition includes the scientific method without defining science to be just that. This definition also isn’t vague; it is broad for it is able to capture the many aspects of science that includes mathematics, other fields of science, and mistakes. And finally, Ziman mentions how the goal of science is “a consensus of rational opinion over the widest possible filed” and that is shown through his definition, along with completing what was lacking in the other four definitions.

Marissa Grover said...

This is my response.
Ziman believes that the four definitions are insufficient to properly define science. According to Ziman, the first definition Science is the Mastery of Man’s Environment is inaccurate because it confuses science with technology; it puts emphasis on how it is used or made rather than focusing on the scientific information acquired. Ziman finds this definition lacking because it “confuses ideas with things”, penicillin does not become science; it is merely the result of science. Science is the Study of the Material World was deprived “from the debate between Science and Religion” leaving Science “in the territory of Matter” and Religion in “the realm of the Spirit”. This definition is incorrect because it would exclude subjects such as Psychology or Sociology since they are not matter. This definition would also exclude “Pure Mathematics”, which is deeply rooted with the physical sciences. Because this definition fails to apply to the several different categories under science, it proves to be false. Ziman find the third definition Science is the Experimental Method “incomplete in several respects” it fails to support Mathematics and other sciences such as Astronomy and Geology. The two sciences, have “consequences of events and circumstances” in which can only be observed; they cannot be controlled. “It also fails to give due credit to the strong theoretical and logical sinews that are needed to hold the results of experiments and observations together…” meaning the scientific evidence gathered fall short of supporting the outcome of the experiments. The favored definition Science arrives at Truth by logical inferences from empirical observations is believed to be erroneous due to the misconception of accepting a theory because of its “sure to happen” result. Ziman states that because the “truth” is “partial and incomplete” we will “never achieve precision and finality that seem required by the definition”. Ziman’s definition of Science states that science is knowledge that is to be shared, tested, and altered until it becomes “universally accepted”. Ziman’s definition is the most correct because it’s not “too black and white” nor is it too vague in defining science. It also does not fail to support the other sciences (Mathematics, Psychology, Geology, etc.) which the other definitions fall short of doing.

Isabelle Abarro said...

This is my answer.

The first definition of science that "Science is the Mastery of Man's Environment" is lacking because it is only including the products of science. Science is not all about the results and the products. Science is also about how you get the end product and the end results. Science is about experimenting and testing hypotheses in order to get to the end product and end results.
The second definition of science that "Science is the Study of the Material World" is lacking because it is only talking about the things that we can touch and feel. But science is also astronomy and we cannot feel those planets or even be sure that the planets are really out there. Or like how the earth really came to be. The big bang theory is just a theory and we cannot actually physically touch it but it is still science and this definition does not include that.
The third definition of science that "Science is the Experimental Method" is lacking because science is not only about the experimenting process. Science is also about observing and taking notes about the things that you see. Science is also about the end product or result that you get from experimenting so it is not only about experimenting.
The fourth definition of science that "Science Arrives at Truth by Logical Inferences from Empirical Observations” is lacking because no product or result coming from science can never actually be truthful. Some things in science are just theories and we do not know if they are right or not. Anything coming from science can never be scientifically proven because science is about experimenting and observing and different scientists may come up with different answers about a certain question and they all could be right in their own way.
Ziman believes that all of these definitions are too narrow and don't include everything that science is. Ziman's definition of science is that "science is public knowledge" so this definition is broad enough where it includes the scientific method, experimenting, observing, and the end results which is everything that science is. So Ziman's definition includes everything that science is.

ohhaney ! said...

This is my answer:
Ziman rejects all four definitions based on the fact that they all do not address certain parts that are critical to science or they are too broad in their explanation of science. The first definition, “Science is the Mastery of Man’s Environment”, only encompasses the "products" that come from science, such as the medical phenomena that is found or the new technology that is spawned. Therefore, it does not explain where these byproducts came from thus completely misses a vital part of science, which is the process. Not only does this definition leave out a essential part of science, it almost muddles up the relation between the process and the product. Maybe them seem interchangeable or the same, which Ziman rejects as false. The second definition, “Science is the Study of the Material World”, is also faulty in that it lumps science into a category of only materialistic objects and ideas. Ziman argues however that science, although very logical and orthodox in its way, does not only explain and deal with things that are physical such as matter. This definition does not address the subcategories of science such as psychology and sociology which deal with matters that are very much mental and non physical. Ziman also disagrees with this definition, due to the fact that much of science and math, while very factual, is built on theory and hypotheses. These theories are in order to explore all possible dimensions of science, yet it would be ridiculous to disregard them as not part of science just because they are not based off of pure material fact. These conjectures are very much apart of science, just as the physical world of science. The third definition, “Science is the Experimental Method”, does not take in account other environmental aspects that determine much of certain sciences, such as geology and astronomy. For example, experiments are thought to be those that are taken with extreme methodical processes in controlled environments with repeated experiments to collect reliable outcomes. However, these types of experiments are not possible with certain branches of science, such as astronomy. Scientists can only observe and make notions from the observations of certain phenomena such as the death of a star but they cannot control the death of the star nor can they replicate exactly that same occurrence. Therefore, the definition fails to account for all branches of science. Ziman also dislikes this definition based on the fact that it assumes that theoretical experiments are the best way to gather knowledge on certain events. This however is not always true because in experiments, one cannot fully replicate what happens in nature. Also, this definition gives little justice as to the amount of work and "logical sinews" that are needed in order to give a theory credibility. The fourth and last definition, “Science arrives at Truth by logical inferences from empirical observations”, is satisfactory for coming up with plausible theories however Ziman does not believe that pure observation of repeated results constitues grounds for theories to become laws. This is because observations rely too much of individual experience and credibility. It leaves little room for human error to be separate from the results, meaning that there is little room to discern from products and products that are made unwillingly by human error. Ziman believes that the ultimate goal of science is for it to become a "social activity" where individuals are actively making observations and deductions he calls refers to this as the idea that “Science is Public Knowledge” . And therefore his definition is one of collaborative effort, in that in order to define science, you must define it as a whole before breaking the subject into its wholly parts. He believes that science is something that has to be accepted and proved by intellectuals and the common man alike.

Phuong Van said...

Ziman found the four familiar definitions lacking because those definition was not able to fully cover all of what science really is. The first definition states that “Science is the Mastery of Man’s Environment”. This was not satisfactory for Ziman because it does at all give hint to all the thinking and “the intellectual procedures” that accompany gaining scientific knowledge. Instead, it focuses on the instruments that one would uses in science. Science is not based on objects but ideas. Therefore, this definition was not sufficient for Ziman.
The second definition states that “Science is the Study of the Material World”. The reason this definition came together was because of the science versus religion debate. However, this is now an “obsolete philosophical notion”. This definition would easily be torn apart by analysis. Since, matter is a part of science and would not have been discovered without it, it cannot be used to define science. Also, this definition does not cover all parts of science like Sociology, or Psychology. It also does include mathematics. Science and math work deeply together, so much that one cannot simply forget about math when defining science. Therefore, another definition that Ziman does not agree with.
The third definition states that “Science is the Experimental Method”. The experimental method is a part of science, but does not fully define the scientific method. There are sciences that do not use the experimental method. For example, in Geology and Astronomy, one can “only observe the consequences of events and circumstances”. Therefore, this definition would be completely excluding these sciences. It also excludes mathematics and one’s explanation of the results and observation that brings together the whole experimental method. By only focusing on experimental method in its definition, Ziman felt that this definition was lacking.
The fourth definition states that “Science arrives at Truth by logical inferences from empirical observations”. Though, this is the most widely favored definition, it is also lacking to Ziman. Nothing in science is for certain yet therefore, one cannot gain truth. One can gain part of a truth but never fully because one is constantly revising or changing a theory, which is where this definition is flawed. This definition requires that one’s theory to be without a doubt. ¬¬¬¬¬For that reason this definition is not to Ziman’s liking.
Ziman believed in another definition, which was “Science is Public Knowledge”. He believes that this is the true nature of science because science is “a consensus of rational opinion over the widest of possible field”. Science is not one person doing all the experiments but rather a whole community of people communicating and sharing ideas and their scientific knowledge with one another, which is why public knowledge is a better definition. It includes science as knowledge, actions of scientists, and science as a social institution. This definition is able to cover the broadness of what science is.

Cindy Mach said...

Ziman rejects all four definitions of Science due to the fact that they all do not fully state certain ideas that are important to science.
The first definition, “Science is the mastery of Man’s Environment” is faulty because it is saying Science only focuses on the products that are created from medical discoveries or technological advances. Science should veer more towards emphasizing how you collect this “Scientific Knowledge” instead of how to use it once found. It does not explain the procedure or process and only focuses on the outcome which is why Ziman views this first definition as questionable.
The second definition, “Science is the study of the Material World” doesn’t account for the fact that this doesn’t apply to cognitive ideas such as Psychology and would only apply to studies of physical and material beings like matter. If Science only applied to the study of the material world then these would exclude mathematics and it’s universally accepted theories and hypotheses although seen as factual evidence. If the definition stands true then math would be seen as all fallacies.
The third definition, “Science is the Experimental Method” fails to take into reason out of world subjects such as Astronomy. Geology would also be seen as inconsistent if the definition were true. We cannot recreate the Earth’s physical structure or control how it moves and how they interact with the world. These subjects cannot be proven through experimental trails because you can’t control the environment or repeat natural out of world occurrences. Scientists can only make observations and notions of subjects like Astronomy and Geology rather than controlled experimentations.
The fourth definition, “Science arrives at the truth by logical inferences from empirical observations” believes that if a trial is repeated enough times with the same outcome then it should constitute as a law or theory. Ziman doesn’t see processes of procedure such as observations and trials as a valid way to determine a conclusion when they don’t account for human errors. An experiment that can manifest itself again and again doesn’t determine whether or not it is factual enough to be a law or theory.
Ziman believes Science is a “Social Activity” and how it is a public knowledge and scientists need to be actively validating observations and evidence for it to become acceptable in the public’s eye. He sees these four definitions as wrong because they are too specific and need to be clarified and include more of a wider ranged approach.

Sherwin said...

All four of the definitions were slightly correct but had a few flaws that made them incorrect. The definitions were too broad in and were focusing on just the general sense of a science. Ziman’s first definition of science that is lacking is “Science is the Mastery of Man’s Environment”. This definition explains that science is a way of controlling the biosphere for humans. The definition is switching the actual procedures of how to obtain the products and the products to continue the mastery of the environment as a science. “It also confuses ideas with things. Penicillin is not Science, any more than a cathedral is Religion or a witness box is Law.” Ziman is stating that to call the by-product of science, “science” is wrong in comparison to “A meal is not the same thing as a recipe.” The second definition, “Science is the Study of the Material World” is partly correct only due to the fact that it ties together certain ideas like religion with products of science which can leave a debate with a “circular argument”. Science provides an explanation for a product but “many questions of a moral or spiritual kind cannot be answered at all within a scientific framework”. Ziman talks about “Pure Mathematics” and how mathematical thinking is so intertwined with physical science. “Theoretical physicists and applied mathematicians try to confine their explorations to systems of hypotheses that they believe to reflect properties of the 'real' world”. “Science is the Experimental Method” the third definition for science. This definition has a big part of the definition of science correct which is the experimental method but which also makes it wrong. “Be supplemented to take cognizance of those perfectly respectable sciences such as Astronomy or Geology where we can only observe the consequences of events and circumstances over which we have no control”. Some sciences cannot have an experiment that can be done several times but the often reoccurrence of a product is taken, such as Astrology. The last definition that has a flaw to Dr. Ziman is “Science arrives at Truth by logical inferences from empirical observations”. This definition is said to be the “standard type of definition favored by most serious philosophers”. The definition is stating that “the principle of induction-which what has been seen to occur many times is almost sure to happen invariably and may be treated as a basic fact or Law”. Observations have research and factual evidence for something to be science. With that Ziman isn’t satisfied and states “plausible but not finally compelling”. Dr. Ziman’s choice of the definition of science is “Science is Public Knowledge”. Ziman states that “science is not merely published knowledge or information”. Science is “knowledge, therefore intellectual, conceptual and abstract”. It is molded by many different views from multiple individuals and is accepted by all.

han nguyen said...

Zimer find the four familiar definitions of science lacking in information. Each one of those definition show a general ideal on what science is but none can define science. Zimmer stated "Science stands in the region where the intellectual, the psychological, and the sociological coordinate axes intersect," This is due to Science being bigger than idea. It is a universal concept that cannot be define.
In Science is the Mastery of Man's Environment Zimer felt that Science should not be based on it products. He feel that its not the same to called a recipe and the meal the same thing. Zimer also felt that it doesn't show how science can be obtained, only the application of it.
For Science is the Study of the Material World, Zimer thought it was wrong to think that “Religion was left with the realm of the Spirit whilst Science was allowed full sway in the territory of Matter.” He doesn't want people to think that science and religion can't exist together and that science should only be used for the material world. This of course isn't true since scientific field such as psychology exist
The third definition in Science is the Experimental Method basically said that science cannot be pure math. Scientists used math all the time at the field such as astronomy and geometry. Stuff like the speed of light and sound can never be calculated. Only the stuff we can see with our own eyes can be consider science.
The last definition can be shown in Science arrives at Truth by logical inferences from empirical observations. This is a favorite by a lot of philosophers since the rules are simple, "what has been seen to happen a great many times is almost sure to happen invariably and may be treated as a basic fact or Law" This is based on an idea which lead to some experimenting which lead to a conclusion. However this is too simple and does not reflect what science is at all. There is no checking for errors so an idea could be wrong an no one will even question it.
Zimer came up with a different conclusion. That's basically the title of his essay, "Public Knowledge" By viewing science as a public knowledge, it allow other people to access to it and help improve it by experimenting on it and coming up with a different conclusion. This will allow science to evolve and a theory to grow. " it is a group of individuals, dividing their labor but continuously and jealously checking each other's contributions." by doing so, everyone is helping contribute knowledge for the public to learn and grow.


Cynthia Vo said...

Ziman scrutinizes four familiar definitions of science (Science is the Mastery of Man’s Environment, Science is the Study of the Material World, Science is the Experimental Method, and Science arrives at the Truth by logical inferences from empirical observations) and finds that each of them were lacking in providing all of the aspects of science.
In the Science is the Mastery of Man’s Environment definition, which Ziman considers to be the most “vulgar” definition out of the four, it wrongly associates science with technology in that it does not represent the experiments and the procedures necessary in order to come to a conclusion. As a result, confusion between the two arises.
In the second definition, Science is the Study of the Material World, it causes confusion between science and religion. People might think that universal matter as a subject of scientific matter. Also, this definition does not include “pure mathematics”. Mathematics is so tightly knitted with science that there is no separation between them. This definition has left out a big part of science.
In Science is the Experimental Method, the third definition that Ziman analyzes, it excludes “pure mathematics”, like the second definition, and it does not represent the sciences such as Astronomy and Geology, in which people can only observe events in which they cannot manipulate themselves as other sciences do in through man-made experiments.
In the last definition, Science arrives at Truth by logical inferences from empirical observations, although it includes the principle of induction and is the most favored definition among people, it does not reflect the probability of scientific errors. Scientists, through experiments and observations, only achieve partial truths and do not automatically come to a definite truth. There may be errors in their results, in which scientists will have to undergo multiple experiments to get a step closer to finding the truth.
After analyzing the four familiar definitions of science, Ziman concluded that the most accurate definition of science, in which he made himself, is Science is Public Knowledge. He explains that scientific knowledge has to undergo a period of “critical study” in which the theories made are tested through different experiments and observations. Science is not subjected to gaining knowledge; it is gaining a consensus through a wide variety opinions, after it has been critically studied.

Kamilla Othman said...

Answer

Like religion, philosophy and law, science, according to Zimon belongs to the category of "intellectual commentary that Man makes on this world." Many individuals coming from various fields profession-wise, generally see science in four either broad or narrow perspectives. Although Zimon does not strive to provide the reader with a one sided information, nor an exact conclusion, he does expose the topics of general misconceptions, hence narrowing the subject down to the sociological relationships and its impact on scientific studies. The first "crudely" stated definition that science is the mastery of man's environment is lacking because it conveys science and technology as one in the same aspect. Zimon states that industrial are acquired by the public appearing as though a magician has just waved his hand and pulled out a satellite dish out of his little hat. Although technological products show "the powers of science," nevertheless buyers are light years away as to how the certain product was made, and based on what scientific background. Zimon goes on to explain the second popular definition of science. According to him it derives from a debate between religion and science. Although in fact Scientology may have become the way of life for many persons, to Zimon matter and spirit when seen through the same perspective become a subject of philosophy, which does not lead to or go with critical analysis as a base for the entire scientific method. Furthermore the definition lacks pure mathematics that are vital and are the biggest factor the scientific works and theorems. The third definition: Science is the Experimental Method. This definition likewise excludes pure mathematics, but more so does not take into account other majors of science including Geology and Astronomy. There the experimental method cannot be done as scientists may only observe the consequences of events of uncontrollable circumstances. Experiments, as Zimon suggests, are not the part of the scientific method; theoretical and logical tendons are even more so significant. Lastly Zimon forsakes the fourth definition that science arrives at truth by logical inferences from empirical observations. That is because ultimate truth is never fully and accurately stated at a level of enough depth to fit in as a base within any experiment or situation related to it. An observation or an outcome from an experiment is treated by many philosophers as a standard fact or law, however although metaphysics may use it as long as their inference or experiment is agreeable to the standard, there is nevertheless no logic. Innumerable experiments only acclaim to be part of the "scientific canon." Hence scientists come simply to "partial incomplete truths." AS for the answer to the authors proposed question, he states it is simply public knowledge. Science is not just information for persons in its field, it largely depends on humans and their environment over a period of time. Galileo Galilei for example was at firs arrested for his then absurd observations. Because matter and spirit then became a philosophical/religious way of seeing his work, the heliocentric system was not established. This was so because as Zimon would agree, the public and the overall society was at one point of view, from a religious phase. Essentially the purpose of science is to establish a "consensus," based on the agreement of "rational opinion over the widest possible field." To obtain this goal, social activity amongst researchers is required, to then also inform the public at a level of depth. Current works depend on the works of the past scientists and their colleagues.

Joseph Spath said...

This is my answer:
Ziman states that science cannot be any of the "familiar" definitions which are used today, which are; "the Study of the Material World," "the Mastery of Man's Environment," "the Experimental Method," and "Science arrives at truth by logical inferences from empirical observations." These cannot be used for various reasons such as "the Study of the Material World" only includes the end result, but it excludes how one got to that result. For it to truly be science it must include how one reached the conclusion of their experiment. Also in "the Study of the Material World" it fails to "accommodate Psychology, or Sociology" as Ziman states. In the third definition, "Science is the Experimental Method," it is lacking because science is not only experimenting. Science is also observing and recording behaviors of anything. In the final definition Ziman mentions, "Science arrives at truth by logical inferences from empirical observations," it also fails because science cannot tell us the truth, there cannot be something that is "right." Science can only determine probable outcomes. If several scientists did the same experiment but each of them did it separately, each of them could draw a different conclusion and all of them could be correct according to their data, this just shows that we must work together to achieve the best results. Ziman believes his definition, "Science is Public Knowledge," is the true nature of science because it is broad enough to include all of the things all other definitions cannot. Ziman's definition suggests that science is the acquirement of information on any subject, whether it be sociology, astronomy, geology, or anything else.

Samer Alekaili said...

My answer is:
Science is really complicated to define, especially after it becomes around us every where, as Ziman says “Science is almost as presumptuous as to try to state the meaning of Life itself. Science has become a major part of the stock of our minds; its products are the furniture of our surroundings.”, therefore Ziman things that all the definitions for science are incomplete and here are some definitions from his essay and why there not complete description for science: “Science is the Mastery of Man's Environment” it is, most of the things surround us is science, so it does I identify it’s products but it doesn’t tell us how did we get these products such as technology, so it appears like magic, it also Include thing that is not science but it is in the environment, for example the plants are not science, neither it’s products such as fruiting , medicine… etc. the second definition is “Science is the Study of the Material World” this definition is the most complete and most popular in the people’s mind because it does study the things and does some experiments with it to discover new things, but If we stick to this definition we may end up in a circular argument in which Matter is only recognizable as the subject matter of Science, it also exclude the pure mathematics in which is not going to be science any more due to the excluding of the deep thinking that mathematics offer which is basically what all science is about . Anther definition was included in Ziman’s essay is “Science is the Experimental Method” regardless of that is true, yet it is incomplete because we cannot experiment every theory any time due to the consequences of events and circumstances over which we have no control, It also fails to give due credit to the strong theoretical and logical sinews that are needed to hold the results of experiments and observations together and give them force. The final definition is “Science arrives at Truth by logical inferences from empirical observations” and this is the standard type of definition favored by most serious philosophers and there is no doubt that this is the official philosophy by which most practical scientists work, but this definition based on the absolute truth which it can’t be questionable and science has to be questionable and arguable and sometimes could be proven wrong too, therefore this is incomplete definition. Now by seeing all the mistakes of these four definitions, Ziman came up with a new detention that has the less possible mistakes “science is public knowledge”, notice that it’s too broad, thus it has less mistakes than the other four.
-by Samer/A

Brenda Carbajal said...

This is my answer:
Dr.Zimans finds the four familiar definitions lacking because even though they are following the same idea they do not look into the definitions further the way Ziman has. Ziman believes that answering the question "what is science? is almost as presumptuous as to try to state the meaning of life" meaning that it would be very arrogant to try and define this since no one really knows. just like he had addressed as the conclusion of how he sees the true nature of science being "science is public knowledge" meaning open opinions around the whole universe. Anyone can honestly come up with a definition or information about science all is needed is money and well known people to publish something so strong, yet it doesnt take only to publish information or for the whole universe to believe this information to be true but also for this information to be ran through multiple tests and still withhold its position as being true.To go from opinions to being facts and theories to eventually become universally accepted. Ziman believes that science is not just to gain a lot of information in different ways and teach you nothing new but touch the same basics that other people have but it is to all fall into an agreement over a "widest possible field."
The first definition that he has mentioned is "science is the mastery of mans environment" this definition is science identified with products which is totally irrelevant because it states how it confuses ideas with things like Ziman also mentioned "a meal is not the same thing as a recipe." which is very true because it takes many steps for a meal to come out of a recipe, to its final product and tasteful creation et they are to very different things. The next explanation that Ziman has mentioned is that "science is the study of the material world" which is related to religion. Religion is about morals,beliefs and how i see it related to science is that whole issue with evolution, many people are convinced that this is to be true while others are set straight that god has created us human beings. In analyzation it is mentioned in this passage that "dichotomy between matter and spirit is an obsolete philosophical notion." The third definition is "science is the experimental method."Ziman mentions how this definition is incomplete because it lacks astronomy and geology information where those two things can observe the consequences of events that are beyond our control. The last definition that comes up in this essay is "science arrives at truth by logical inferences from empirical observations." Its mentioned how this is most favored by most philosophizers because something that has been seen to be proven multiple times is most likely to not fail another try so therefore they consider this as things such as a law without taking the time and running a test based on the past history. Ziman mentions how philosophers have came to a conclusion that "there is no ultimate procedure which will ring the last drops of uncertainty from what scientists call their knowledge." due to fear and being wrong. Yet Ziman leaves me pondering this interesting quote "there is far more faith, and reliance upon personal experience and intellectual authority, than the official doctrine will allow." Meaning that there is no space for errors therefore scientists will be leaving their work as "incomplete truths."

Gynette Schweitzer said...

Ziman finds the four familiar definitions lacking in pure mathematics, procedures in which the knowledge was obtained, theory and logic. Science is the mastery of Man’s Environment excludes he procedures and experiments of which has helped us get the things we have. It also leaves out math which science is almost impossible without. Science is the study of the material world entirely leaves out math. Scientist use pure mathematics to form and explain hypotheses. Science is the experimental method excludes mathematics completely. It states that science is completely based off of experiments. This is false. Yes, experiments are a big part of science but math is as well and has been forgotten in this definition of science. It also leaves out theory and logic. Science arrives at truth by logical inferences from empirical observations is only about making predictions based off of future observations. None of these definitions leave room for trial and error. Ziman sees that the true nature of science is not very complex and can be argued about like an everyday issue. When it comes to addressing what the true nature of science is, he believes it is an endless argument. He states that science is in the region where intellectual, psychological, and the sociological interest. Science is public to everyone and different people continually mold the definition of science by the social relations between individuals.