Science?
To “do science” is to follow a prescribed method to arrive at knowledge. The “scientific method” is not a belief system or religious dogma, but rather a manner of thinking and working towards more complete knowledge of the world. It has been proven to be extremely successful in:
Science is not prescriptive – it can not say what “ought” to be done. It can, however, point out the probable consequences of certain actions, as objectively as possible.
Characteristics of scientific knowledge
Science attempts to reach conclusions from premises and observations, using some form of rational argument. The general term for making new statements on the basis of previous statements is inference.
To “explain” is to say “why” something happens or is observed – but this is very difficult, if not impossible, to establish. In applied science and engineering we are mostly content with a more limited view of “why”: a coherent statement that allows prediction of the phenomenon in the future, in other situations or at other locations besides the ones already observed.
Process of explanation: “Making an unexpected outcome an expected outcome, of making a curious event seem natural or normal” [1]; it becomes ‘natural’ once the processes which gives rise to the outcome (given similar conditions) are clear.
The concept of “causality” is also tricky. What appears at first to be the cause must itself have a cause, and so forth. The proximate (immediate) cause may be fairly easy to establish, but the deeper causes requires either more evidence or more speculation. It is probably meaningless to speak of an “ultimate” (last, final) cause.
Ockham’s Razor
“Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate”
“Complexity should never be added to an explanation unless necessary”
This means that if several theories equally explain the observed facts, the simplest should be used.
References
hkilter.com by H. K. Ilter is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
© 2020 H. K. Ilter