What is science? How do we define a field of study that advances and evolves so rapidly? It is easily agreed upon that science is indeed a field of study, it is an endless quest for knowledge and advancement, but it is the how and why of the field that distinguishes science from other intellectual pursuits such as literature and history.
The primary methods used in the study of science are observation and experimentation. Regardless of Bauer’s theory vs. credible results debate, every scientific discovery must begin with an observation, more specifically, an observation that peaks one’s curiosity. After this observation has been made, experiments can be designed to put the question to the test, to produce figures and data that can either support or refute one’s hypothesis.
This leads to another definitive facet of science; experiments, and the results they yield are not able to entirely prove a hypothesis. Scientific theories can only be supported or refuted by consistent results. Unlike history, math, or even literature, wherein the facts are irrefutable, science relies upon the constant influx of new information and discoveries to shape the field.
So Science is a field of study that relies upon observation and experimentation, but what exactly is science a study of? Herein lies a challenge in defining science. Not but fifteen or so years ago science would easily be defined as the study of our natural universe. Biology, chemistry, physics, geology, astronomy, etc., all study the world that we inhabit in its different levels, be it molecules, cells, organisms, earth, or space. This common interest bound all of the concentrations together. However, since the invention of the computer in the 1980’s, the field of science has rapidly expanded to include computer science, technology, and inorganic life.
These new concentrations certainly help to simplify daily life for hundreds of thousands of billions of people around the world, but do these new fields study our natural world? No. The dawn of the computer single handedly redefined what science is, not just through rapid technological advancements, but also in its very essence. Furthermore, computer science has quickly become the fastest growing field of study in the past two years alone. According to the Bureau of labor statistics, computer science is expected to see a employment growth of up to fifteen percent between 2012 and 2022, more than any other scientific field. (http://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/computer-and-information-research-scientists.htm) Its presence in the field of scientific study is irrefutable and irreversible.
Another sub-field of scientific study is also emerging that presents a middle ground between science as a study of life and science as a study of technology; inorganic life. According to Science Daily, Scientists in Glasgow have begun research into the possibility of using our copious technological resources to create artificial cells. In essence, chemically engineered forms that take on the function of natural cells. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110915091625.htm)
The research has been promising, but the burgeoning study makes defining science only that much more difficult. Science is no longer simply the study of life, nor is it the study of technology, nor even of artificial life. In fact, the unifying factor among all the sub-fields of scientific study isn’t the subject of interest at all, but rather, the ultimate goal. Isn’t the goal of scientific study, regardless of concentration or methods used, to create a simpler, healthier, more understandable universe for the world and it’s many inhabitants? Perhaps science is, to wax poetically, merely the pursuit of a better world through observation and experimentation.
By: Brett Branco on September 9, 2014 at 2:25 am
Sara, this is a really interesting spin on our discussion of what science is. I take issue with your sentence that starts with “Science is no longer simply the study of life…”. Earlier, you were discussing science as being about the natural world (which of course includes life). I don’t think that it’s settled that computer science is a true science in the conventional sense. This computer scientist argues against it in fact… http://bit.ly/1xAWG1s. Though it’s not necessarily relevant to the discussion, my favorite paragrpah from the linked article is this…
“Notice that this is the first time I’ve mentioned computers at all. That’s because there’s nothing fundamental about procedures that requires the use of computers. Computers aren’t the only tools that can be used to execute programs. For instance, elementary school students are perfectly capable of executing the long division algorithm. We use computers instead of small children because computers are fast and reliable (after all, that’s why we built them), while small children are adorably uncoordinated and prone to unexpected naps.
By: Nicole Turturro on September 10, 2014 at 10:51 pm
Hey Sara,
I actually find the task of defining science to be quite interesting. Not only is there difficulty in saying exactly what science is, scientists also have disputes about what is considered a “hard” and a “soft” science. There is also conflict concerning whether or not the so called “soft” sciences are actually science. For example, many people consider psychology a soft science and some argue that it is not a science at all. In fact, I found an article in the Los Angeles Times that explains, rather cruelly, why the writer doesn’t consider psychology a science http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/13/news/la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-20120713. Other people argue that the field of sociology is a “soft” science” while others simply put it into the liberal arts category. With all of this uncertainty, it seems kind of funny that not only can things not be proven in the field of science, it seems that we can’t prove what science is either!