Science: reality and philosophy
Look around the world, explain what you see using a logic progression of steps.
steps need not be reached through any logical order, but such an order must exist when
they are used to create a casual, explanatory, predictive, or classifying statement.
If there is anything that could possibly be agreed upon among philosophers of
science, this is probably as far as they could get.
Science involves so much more than
this, but there is virtually nothing else than can be agreed upon (and I hesitate to say that
my general and meagre definition would even go unquestioned).
Science is essentially a human construct, created by humanity’s need to explain,
understand, predict, and classify.
We feel encumbered by ignorance and science is one
way to combat that (the other major remedy being religion).
Over the past millennia,
science has (dare I say) surpassed religion as the “better” explanation of almost
Though this essay won’t touch on the subject, it seems that although religion
and science were created for the same reasons (to answer the question “why?”), science
has progressed and adapted its answer, while religion remains steadfast with the answer
Even still, science is as much a human construct as religion, only differing in
subject matter and applicability to (relative) reality.
Science requires explanations.
The definition of a proper explanation is no more
apparent than the definition of science itself.
But it is generally agreed upon that an
explanation must explain why and how some event occurred, and it must explain it
correctly and consistently, not simply accidentally.
These explanations must follow a
logical order as stated above.
In essence, if the entirety of the subject matter and the
terms is understood, the explanation
Explanations, obviously, require a
Explanation requires understanding, therefore so does science.
To explain why ice melts,
you need to understand the changing of matter-states and the transfer of thermal energy (I
won’t even pretend to understand the details, but suffice to say anyone in university can
explain it roughly).
Thus, the explanation is dependent upon some level of
understanding, and in turn, the explanation creates a further level of understanding.
understanding must be true for the explanation to be proper, but as I will discuss later, an
accidentally correct understanding (as with an accidentally correct explanation) can be
just as useful in the short run as a consistent and completely correct one.
Science also strives to be predictive.