Can We Trust Science (Part 4)

By Merle Hertzler

"Honey" continues with a discussion of the nature of science. I have proposed the following definition of science as found at Wikipedia: "Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research."  Honey proposed a different definition. I respond to her here.

"Honey",

You write:

I respect science and scientific study as it is defined in the first seven instances here. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Science&r=66"

Okay, you turn to dictionary.com as your source? Remember please that this is written for a general audience, and does not necessarily represent the view of the term science as scientists use the word. One of the definitions there refers to skill and proficiency, as in "She has knitting down to a science." Well, yes, I respect good knitting, but that is not what I mean when I say I am defending science.

The definitions you reference also recognize "systematized knowledge in general" as science. Okay so if I know the batting averages and other statistics of most major league baseball players, that would be systemized knowledge. Okay, I respect the knowledge of baseball, but that is not what I mean when I say I am defending science.

Instead, when I use the word science, I refer to that which mainstream scientists refer to as science. The definition at Wikipedia is a good working definition as used by mainstream scientists.

Rather than argue over definitions, in discussions with you I will henthforth use the term "science as defined by mainstream science" (SDBMS) when I refer to science as mainstream scientists use the term. I will use the term "science as defined by dictionary.com" (SDDCOM) to refer to skills, proficiency, systematized knowledge in general, a branch of knowledge, etc.

Now to answer your question. Yes, SDDCOM is generally good, but SDDCOM that does not allow its claims to be reviewed by other scientists is not very reliable.

The scientific method includes as an essential the review, testing and screening of scientific claims by those knowledgeable in the pertinent fields of study. The use of  peer review before an article is published as SDBMS science is one very effective means of doing this. There are other ways to do this. The important thing is not the technique, but that claims that would not pass the scrutiny of people familiar with the facts are somehow kept from being included in later scientific literature as SDBMS science.

Peer review was not considered obligatory for the period of greatest scientific discovery, and I don't believe it should be now. And that is not to say it isn't extremely valuable.

It is true that modern peer review before publishing is a recent enhancement to SDMBS science. Before that the process occurred after the article was published. SDBMS science has found that screening before publishing can save a lot of confusion.

Also, weeds will proliferate when our gardens are planted against nature. The more natural the garden the less weeds will need to be removed. And again, that's not to say there will be no weeds. I hope we understand each other

Huh? The most natural "garden" you can get is to plant a few vegetables in the middle of a wild grass patch without pulling out any weeds. And you are telling me that these gardens will then have the fewest weeds? SDDCOM science may think that this is an effective means of gardening, but SDBMS science disagrees.