Science doesn't exist outside of human beings

[Gonnagle]

Dear Rose,

Science is completely man made

Agree!

What they study is not, the universe.

I agree with Sane, we are all scientists.

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

Scientists have a preference for universes that follow the cosmological principle and for thinking that we do not occupy a special position in the universe. However this is not a provable conclusion or always assumed.

Einsteins general theory of relativity is a set of equations which can have many different solutions, each of which gives a different universe. In some of these various values we think of as constants are variable over space or time. Normally we take the speed of light (in a vacuum) as being constant, but it is possible construct universes where it is not - VSL cosmology.

eg see:

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

Scientists only have a 'preference' for such if that 'pretence' is consistent with observed behaviour. That isn't a preference as we might understand it in other contexts. It the observed behaviour ceases to be consistent with that 'preference' then scientists will necessarily prefer a different flavour which better fits the observed behaviour.

[Udayana]

Of-course. That is how we progress our understanding. Quite often there is a "tug of war" type conflict over whether an existing, preferred, theory can accommodate conflicting observations or whether a new theory is needed.

It is possible, hypothetically at least, that we find more than one theory that explains a set of observations, in which case we decide on which one to use, using a set of rules: Occam's razor, consistency with other theories and so on. Sometimes once school "wins" this battle for political reasons, temporarily, until more observations confirming or finally refuting the theory are found.

In all cases we are dealing with models of what seems to be an underlying reality, actual reality remains too slippery to get a hold of. The model may be perfectly useful and usable even if it is later superseded because of better observations or because a more widely applicable theory turns up.

As NS mentioned, Kuhn is our man here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn

Another, separate, point is that although we describe science as a process, performing this process like an algorithm sometimes just gets us stuck in loops or knots - to make progress and answer intractable problems often a sudden leap or new direction, based on intuition or imagination, must be taken.

[King Oberon]

Science is completely man made

Agree, but then so is the concept of time and religions to name but 2.

[Nearly Sane]

Not sure that time is so much a man-made concept as simply a way we experience.

[Samuel]

There are some interesting things in the background here about the nature of knowledge.

I can't improve on Outrider's definition of modern science. It's essentially about testing our ideas in an effective and repeatable way. What interests me is the unique way our human imagination creates various mental models by which we make sense of the new information science can provide. The ways we visualise conceptual and abstract notions, such as deep time or the structure of an atom, is intensely and instinctively creative. That these things 'exist' in the human mind is itself a fascinating idea - iterations of already existing phenomena reinterpreted and incorporated into our individual perspectives on the universe. Take fossils; most fossils come from ecosystems that are gone. In real terms they no longer exist. The creatures are dead and the habitats are changed. But, our investigations give access to those places once more. Our propensity for creative imagination brings them back to the present in a new from.

[ProfessorDavey]

Of-course. That is how we progress our understanding. Quite often there is a "tug of war" type conflict over whether an existing, preferred, theory can accommodate conflicting observations or whether a new theory is needed.

Which is obvious if you understand what a theory is in scientific terms. This isn't the same as we use it in common parlance, i.e. a sort of vague guess. A scientific theory must be based on a very substantial body of evidence.

As such it will not be replacement by a new theory until that new theory has of itself garnered that requirement of a very substantial body of evidence.

Of course an existing theory may be rejected rather more clearly if compelling evidence arises that evidently demonstrates the theory to be false.

[Nearly Sane]

Ah interesting point, Samuel, and that imagination is the same one that gives rise to gods as explanations, as readons, as answers and why, given the methodology of science, and the lack of an intersubjective method, the phrase god of the gaps appears. That said the god of the gaps was always a 'stopgap' that people used to hang their internal beliefs and experience on. Also the gapgod is difficult to interpret but not impossible, like the internal one. That allows for a priesthood of interpretation, something that the lazy might analogise as the position of scientists today.

[ProfessorDavey]

It is possible, hypothetically at least, that we find more than one theory that explains a set of observations, in which case we decide on which one to use, using a set of rules: Occam's razor, consistency with other theories and so on. Sometimes once school "wins" this battle for political reasons, temporarily, until more observations confirming or finally refuting the theory are found.

Not really, as a commonly accepted definition of a scientific theory is that it represents the best explanation for observations based on the currently available evidence. So if there is a genuine debate as to which explanation best fits, then really neither should be described as a theory. And of course what would be needed would be more study to determine which of the two proposed theories actually fits the observations better and that would then become an actual theory, rather than a proposed one.