What defines something to be Scientific?
First of all, it's a little difficult to talk about science without thinking about who does science. If we were to ask random people on the street, "how does she imagine being a scientist?", they would probably say things that are within common sense, for example:
-
A person in a white coat, disheveled hair and thick glasses in a laboratory doing experiments.
-
Extremely cognitively gifted people to create very important and complex theories.
-
The scientist is usually someone antisocial, with difficulties in relating to other people, almost a lone wolf.
Things similar to these quotes are common sense and definitely do not match the reality of a scientist. Just as the definition of science still does not have a general and well-defined consensus, but we have already managed to define today what science is not. Other misconceptions related to knowledge or scientific production in common sense could be categorized as:
-
Fully empirical view🇧🇷 Science is completely experimental, if it has not been discovered in the laboratory, it is not science.
-
Methodological chronological overview: Science works with scientific methodology specifically in this order, eg (Observation, data collection, data analysis, and theorizing).
-
Vision of scientific infallibility: Science is something precise. Once proven, it's proven. There is no way change it.
Within these misconceptions about what science is and who does science, let's try to refine these concepts more succinctly, as the topic is extremely broad.
Science in general is indeed an area of knowledge that requires observation, data collection and analysis. In observation, for example, I observe, for example, that every object I throw upwards eventually falls. Data collection is finding a way to measure, if all turn that you throw something up will it always fall? how many times? Is it valid for all body types? how many? etc... find means that allow you to quantify or classify the phenomena to later analyze your data and be able to explain them. And the "final" step (since it's not necessarily done in that order) is to do the analysis of this data and somehow usually using mathematics to create a general model that explains such a phenomenon. And if I need to run the experiments and measurements again to see if your theory actually explains the phenomenon. (if the data match).
Within these misconceptions about what science is and who does science, let's demystify the following concepts explained quickly above:
-
Is science always done this way? NO🇧🇷 The theories that we know today did not always come from the observation of a phenomenon, most of them came from the mathematical theory first, from the result of calculations present in the theory, such as the Black Holes, predicted in the calculations of Albert Einstein, allowing and predicting that such celestial bodies were possible in the universe. From that, astronomers and astrophysicists began to look at the skies more carefully in order to prove whether Einstein's theory is in fact valid or not and years later, with the advancement of technology and telescopes of extremely high resolution for the time, we were able to observe not only a black hole, but many others throughout the universe. Something that fascinates everyone today in science fiction films in the film industry.
-
The scientist is a lone wolf! Definitely not!Science would never have reached the level we have today in the 21st century if it weren't for the vast collaboration of scientists from all over the world. No wonder there is a Scientific community🇧🇷 Where scientists from all areas possible, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Geophysics, etc; get together andestablish together ideas and theories that we enjoy every day, from waking up to going to sleep.
Making it clear that even if there is a scientific community, does not necessarily mean that it has to agree on everything, but like any community, democracy of ideas is worth it, what is most respected in it is the common sense of the community, that is, what is actually "validated", is what the majority of the community accepts.
And the last and if not the most absurd idea in common sense is the infallibility of science.
-
Once scientifically proven, it is impossible to disapprove, or at least to be reviewed. NO! DEFINITELY NOT!Scientific knowledge is extremely dynamic, the way we do science changes over the years and centuries drastically or not, whether due to the sociocultural, socioeconomic context or due to what advances or limits us equally to the previous ones, the technological advance. Treating science as something infallible, like a religion or some kind of cult, is as foolish as believing that there is some perfect human being. Science can make mistakes, and it should! It is from mistakes that we learn and improve. the concepts and theories on which we build the entire universe around us, and make logical sense of it.
So, better understanding these concepts, what makes an area of knowledge have scientific value or not. Or rather what allows a do areaknowledge to say that it has a validated scientific proof?
As we have already argued in the text above and in some of the previous topics, for an area of knowledge to have at least a scientific content, there must be a scientific process or methodology in obtaining this knowledge!_cc781905-5cde -3194-bb3b-136bad5cf58d_