Expert: Daniel Mazur - 8/19/2009

Question
Hi Daniel,

This is regarding the definition of "SCIENCE".
The most widely availible definition out there is that
"SCIENCE is the knowledge gained through observation and experimentation."

And science really does not answer bigger questions that, as of now, cannot be tested experimentally.

But why do we have such a rigid aapproach?
Obviously, things or facts that are "observed" cannot be questioned by anybody because we can see them happening that way and so experimentally showing or observing something is the best way to know the actual "truth".

But then is science all about just carrying out a few experiments and those too, the ones withing our reach, to find out a few rules or laws so that they can be used by applied scientists  all over the planet to develop and improve human life and create cool technologies??

Is it then just about finding laws and "knowing" them and knowing how to use them in practical situations and not caring much about those laws themeselves....not giving them a thought....

Yes, presently we can't carry out an experiment to tell us "why force equals mass times acceleration" and perhaps there is no "answer" or "reason" to it in the usual sense or even if there is, it's not "observable" by us. But then does that mean that  these questions don't lie even in the science of the future???

Is it that science will always try to dismiss the questiosn of "why" by saying that it does not belong to the realms of science?
Isn't that the ultimate  aim ?? or questions even bigger than that, that we haven't even thought about??
Isn't it about reaching the "ultimate truth", if there is any meaning to that word and if it is there??

And even I don't know how those questions can be answered by plain thought.....but can they be???
We can't claim something to be happening without actually observing it. So in that sense the experimentation approach of science is the right path. But then we miss out on the deeper questions.

The experimentation approach, though seems to be the most logical way, but then that limits our power to answer many questions.

Does that mean that those deeper questions will never be answered since they can't be experimentally tested??

Do you see these questions being a part of science ever in the future???
 
Is there any way out??


Cheers!!
Shikhin

Answer
Hi Shikhin,

people, scientists do try and find the answers to deeper questions, but the most they can do is to build a hypothesis or a theory and then wait, if experiments can verify all its observable aspects correct. Until this happens (at least for majority of aspects), the theory is not a scientific knowledge, it is a speculation, how things COULD be. Only after careful testing of all observables a theory can become an established fact. Ideally, of course... In reality there will be always people that question the proofs of some aspects, but all in all if a theory does the job, then it's accepted as "a good-enough fact". The strong tie to observables defines the boundaries of science, but at the same time, it is its greatest strength.

If a theory is in at least one aspect contradictory to experiments, it may still be used, but it is known not to be the right one. It may be used, become "established", but one must never forget that it is not the whole truth. Even imperfect models and theories are useful.

It is more honest to admit that anything beyond observable universe is a speculation than to try to stretch science into those realms. I am quite happy to "extrapolate" some laws of nature from the observable universe to the "space beyond" and NOT call it science - to me it is simply a form of natural philosophy. Philosophy is allowed to be just a theory without factual backing. There is no need - in my opinion - to redefine boundaries of science and, in a way, it would be dangerous. If you admit anything into science that is not based on observables, you cast doubt on everything else as well. I'd rather not.

So, this is my opinion about the boundaries of science.

Cheers,
Daniel