Science belongs to the realm of cognition and is the practical part of knowing. Since human beings are only a part of nature, it is impossible for them to know nature absolutely. Therefore, human understanding is limited and has only relative significance.

However, it is the relativity of human understanding that gives validity to science and gives it unlimited scope for development.

The relativity of human understanding means that scientific theories are different from nature. Scientific theories are only isomorphic systems about nature relative to existing phenomena and experiments.

So, the definition of science is: "Science is the interaction between man and nature." Being the result of an interaction is different from both sides of the interaction. Science is a new creation in nature and is fundamentally different from either man or nature.

According to the above definition of science, science, as a human cognitive activity, has always evolved along with human growth.

The scientific theories of primitive people were mainly totemic theories, and primitive people built up their myths and legends by imitating some natural object closely related to their lives.

This theory of the unity of man and God, the unity of heaven and earth, as well as the unity of all things, contains the living experience and behavioral norms of primitive people, and is the survival guide of primitive people.

For example, the perpetuation of endogamy was prevented by the use of myths and legends to make primitive people who wore the same symbols avoid sexual relations. The change from endogamy to exogamy is a major shift in human society. This shift not only avoids inbreeding, but also facilitates the establishment and maintenance of interpersonal relationships in society and contributes to the healthy development of primitive societies.

During the classical period, mankind produced a metaphysical way of thinking by formulating concepts. Thus, the human beings of that time established a logical system of concepts with the help of logical analysis. The rational world was substituted for the natural world.

Into the twentieth century, human understanding expanded to the high-speed field, the cosmic field and the microscopic field, and discovered that nature is an organic system, and the objects, which were originally independent, were transformed into quantum different states. Thus, the rational mechanical world was transformed into a quantum organic world (isomorphic system).

In short, science and nature are isomorphic, valid but not identical.

Science is a subdisciplinary body of knowledge reflecting the objective laws of nature, society, and thinking, and is divided into two main categories: natural and social sciences.

Science has no end and no boundaries; it always makes discoveries, inventions, creations and advances with the progress of society, with the universal connection and eternal development of the objective material world, and with the deepening of people's understanding of objective things. Arguments for cessation, pessimistic arguments are wrong.

Science is the correct understanding of the objective world. In philosophy, dialectical materialism belongs to the category of science. Society, with its objectivity, is part of the objective world, so the sociological part also attributes science.

Science originally came from the Christian idea that things in the universe can be known and described. Early science represents the truth, theories that can correctly describe the state of things in the universe. Early scientific theories were also born from philosophical theories, and philosophical theories that have been verified to be correct are categorized as science, and the experience and data gained from the application of science in reality are called science and technology.

Modern science no longer represents the truth, but has been forced to add personal subjective consciousness, for example, science says that smoking is harmful to health, but in some reports the actual sampling statistics, the average life expectancy of people who smoke is longer than that of people who do not smoke. Modern science is sometimes pseudo-science, there is the phenomenon of blind men feeling the elephant, see a local phenomenon can put forward a whole set of scientific theories, some modern science and superstition is no difference.

Science allows fantasy, well-founded fantasy, unrealizable science fiction theory and technology is called science fiction. The unattainability of science fiction comes from two aspects: 1. the theories quoted are wrong in themselves, and 2. the level of science and technology is insufficient. The data of science and technology come from actual observation and measurement, and do not change by human subjective consciousness.

Ask me what the nature of science is, and I really don't know; talking about 'the nature of something' is a philosophical 'ontological' question.

Then, "what is the nature of science" is a question of [philosophy of science], which is not a matter of concern to those who are engaged in science.

Although there is no precise definition of science, don't think that you can't tell the difference between what "is science" and "isn't science," and don't say such nonsense as "the end of science is theology.

Philosophical questions, that is, to ask a question exactly, until the pursuit of the road is not proved to be self-evident, no suspicion of doubt until, and then reasoning, and to achieve logical self-consistency.

Therefore, I can only use philosophical thinking to discuss what the 'nature of science' is. A family's opinion may be incorrect or have loopholes, or be ill-conceived, so I welcome critical scrutiny and dissenting opinions.

---------------------------------------------------------

Nature of Science 1: Scientific theories are based on 'hypotheses'.

The equivalent proposition [scientific theories are based on 'hypotheses'] is [scientific theories are falsifiable].

We often say that 'scientific theories are falsifiable'? What does this mean? Why are scientific theories falsifiable?

What we often refer to as 'falsifiability' is in fact a theory put forward by the philosopher Karl Popper that

The wiki has a paragraph explaining 'falsifiability' that I think is OK, quoting it:

• Falsifiability, also known as refutability or falsifiability, is used in science and philosophy of science to denote the property of empirically derived statements that "these conclusions must allow for the existence of logical counterexamples".

• By way of contrast, these include formal or mathematical formulations such as syllogisms (which are always true by virtue of their definitions), mathematical axioms, and theorems-formulations that do not allow for the existence of logical counterexamples.
  

• Some philosophers and scientists (e.g., Karl Popper) have claimed that all empirically derived hypotheses, propositions and theories must logically allow for counterexamples in order to be scientific. Just because a claim is "falsifiable" does not mean that it is "false". Religion and pseudoscience are not falsifiable.
  

• Quote from: Wikipedia entry - falsifiability
  
• https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8F%AF%E8%AF%81%E4%BC%AA%E6%80%A7
  

Briefly, this derivation process:

The "falsifiable theory" actually originates from an epistemological "puzzle" discovered by the Sugarplum philosopher Hume, called "Hume's puzzle":

• 1. Causal conundrum
  

• 2. Summarizing the problem
  
• 3. The real and the due conundrum.
  

The great Kant said that Hume had 'awakened him from the ecstasy of solipsism'. The first time I read 'Hume's Conundrum', I was so shocked that I got goosebumps on my body, more so than the double-slit experiment in quantum mechanics:

So simple, so profound, so many ancient Greek sages, Galileo and Newton failed to discover it, that they had to wait until it was discovered by this fat Scotsman whose appearance was not connected to his intelligence.

Related to science are "causal puzzles" and "inductive puzzles". "Causality" is also obtained by "induction" and can be uniformly called "inductive puzzles":

How do we know "cause and effect"? It's very simple. It's through "Induction" which is an "Observation and Enumeration".

• We first find that the two events are 'correlated', the

• If two 'related events' exhibit temporal sequentiality: if A is followed by event B, then A is followed by event B, then A is followed by event B, then A is followed by event B, then A is followed by event B.
  

• After many observations, there will be no counterexamples.

Of course, it also includes "one fruit and many causes, one cause and many effects"; the principle is the same.

In other words, "causation" is a direct transition from "special judgment" to "full judgment":

• Some events A are followed by event B.
  

• Event B will occur after all events A.

Some typical examples from the"Special Calling Judgement" to"Full Judgment":

-American swans are white, Chinese swans are white, British swans are white 。。。。。

• All the swans in the world are white.
  

The question is, can we go from a "special judgment" to a "full judgment"? How does "some of them are" transition to "all of them are"?

Think about it carefully and you'll realize that you can't at all, there's a huge disconnect, the former doesn't imply the latter, it doesn't logically follow.

Because science is empirical, and we cannot experience all events in space and time. We can only experience a part of the events, and "part is" is not a way to deduce "all must be", and no amount of "special designation" can deduce "full designation".

No amount of white swans you see can rule out the possibility that 'black swans' exist, and in fact black swans have actually been spotted in Australia.

This is the 'induction puzzle':The "inductive method" used for "causality" and "holistic judgment", and the reliability of the "inductive method" is still verified by "induction", which is a "circular argument", a dead end of circling infinitely in place.

It is because of this perceived flaw in one of the scientific methods, induction, that 'inductive conclusions' are always incomplete inductions that are not logically general and universal.The possibility of error, the possibility of finding "white crows and black swans" is "falsifiability".

So.The first principles of science are all allopathic judgments, a kind of 'assumption, axiom, hypothesis', and then logical reasoning is made on the basis of the first principles, which makes it possible to realize prophecies beyond time and space.

For example: [MM experiment] found that there is no difference in the speed of light in different directions on a rotating earth around the earth, and Einstein hypothesized that the speed of light is constant, no matter in which inertial frame of reference, no matter three hundred thousand light years away, or three billion years from now, the speed of light you get on your side is a constant. And on that basis, he derived the theory of special relativity. On the basis of the constant speed of light, we can derive a picture of the universe hundreds of millions of years ago.

-------------------------------------------------

Until today, the 'induction conundrum' has not been well resolved, and if assumptions are not made to bridge this logical disconnect, conclusions will be drawn that clearly defy common sense - the

We know from past experience that jumping from the tenth floor is a sure way to die, but you just don't have the luxury of resorting to rational prediction: you're sure to die if you jump from the tenth floor now.

The only thing that seems to be reliable is pure set logic, e.g.: rehashed repeated nonsense - men are human.

The disconnect of induction can even lead to even the 'axioms' of math not being very reliable - the

For example, the 'parallel axiom': it is almost self-evident that parallel lines never intersect.

But I have to follow up. Have you ever extended parallel lines infinitely? To the point where they don't intersect even 3 billion light-years away?

In fact, it was the questioning of such self-evident axioms as the 'parallel axiom' that led to the discovery of another set of surface geometries.

For example, a straight line on the surface of a sphere is a great circle, and two straight lines on the surface of a sphere must intersect; there are no parallel lines. A straight line on the surface of a sphere is called a "geodesic, short-range line": the shortest line between two points.

If any two people walk in a straight line on the earth, they are bound to meet one day. Walking in a straight line from the North Pole, they will surely reach the South Pole.

Airplanes need to go as geodesic as possible if they don't consider resupply, and the Central American route actually goes across the great circle line on the North Pole:

Seattle to London also takes a great circle route, which looks curved on the plane, but in fact this curved one is a great circle route, which is shorter than the other one, which looks straight:

The Earth's rotational orbit is also the geodesic line that travels the three-dimensional curved space-time, the three-dimensional space-time curved brain can not be imagined, only the math can be understood, or downgraded to two-dimensional membrane bending model to understand:

This was a very remarkable achievement by Einstein, the equivalent of an ant discovering that the Earth is a sphere.

Nature of Science 2: Model-dependent Realism - is the construction of a logically self-consistent system of mathematical axioms based on sensory experience.

I have seen people say: science is 'objective', observation 'factual' 。。。。 And so on and so forth, we can ask what does this 'objective, factual' mean?

• A cow is color blind and it sees the world in black and white? Who sees the world more objectively, us or the cow? More factual?
  
• A bat relies on ultrasound to perceive the world, is the world it sees objective or not? Is it the truth?
  

You may think that of course it is the human who sees the world more 'objectively' and as 'fact', but:

• The colors we see are nothing more than waves of light at different frequencies; colors are the result of brain processing. Colors exist only in the brain, so are they facts? Objective or not?

• Our eyes cannot see invisible light, for example, infrared light. If the world is observed with a red shape night vision device, is it not more objective than observing the world without infrared light?

Is the same "sound, smell, sight, taste" a "fact"? How do you perceive it? Is it the external "light, sound, odor" that comes into your head?

No, it's all bioelectric signals, processed by your brain. Everything you perceive is absolutely subjective.

Just as a cell phone camera processes optical signals into electromagnetic signals for storage, do you consider the electromagnetic signals stored on a cell phone memory card to be 'objective'? The electronic signals of 0s and 1s processed by the CPU of a cell phone are 'facts'?

The word "objective and factual" is something that we seem to understand, but under cross-examination, we seem to be less sure.

The "facts" and "objectivity" actually come from our senses, the picture of the world that has been processed and modified by the brain. We can be very sure of this, and the only thing we can rely on is our senses, which is our "experience".

Stephen Hawking, in his book The Grand Design, gives the example of a goldfish in a round fishbowl who sees a picture of the world distorted by the glass, but it doesn't matter, if the fish is smart enough, he can still make assumptions, construct a set of physical laws, and make prophecies just the same through his own experience.

Only 'God' knows what the picture of a well-informed world looks like. For example: can we step outside the universe and see it in its entirety?

No, we have to look inside the universe, observe it, feel it, and put it together like a jigsaw puzzle: we observe cosmic galaxies receding from each other, the cosmic microwave background radiation, the abundance of helium, and many other "jigsaw puzzles" to construct the Standard Model of the universe and calculate the age of the universe.

Human beings are limited by their senses, and the observed world is just incomplete, and experience is always localized. We can only keep advancing in observation technology, reaching the cognitive limit as much as possible, observing on a larger scale, a smaller scale, and a more precise scale, obtaining more empirical details, expanding our cognitive boundaries continuously, and infinitely approaching the so-called 'objectivity and facts' through piecing together.

We only need to know this: appealing to logic and mathematics to construct a set of laws or called a model based on different slices of experience, and this model can go beyond our experience and can predict certain outcomes that are consistent with our experience, and we can believe in this model of cognition described by mathematical laws.

Stephen Hawking calls it: model-dependent realism((Model‎ -depen‎ dent Reali‎ sm)。

In other words, "objectiveIt doesn't matter what the 'facts' are we don't know, and even if the 'objective facts' are distorted, processed, or untrue by our you senses, we can believe in the model for now as long as the experience is self-consistent with the logic and it can be well predicted.

-----------------------------------------------------

To summarize:

So the underbelly of human rationality is really no smarter than a Pavlovian dog that thinks there's a 'cause and effect' relationship between 'bells' and 'food'.

But here's the difference: we know that we are cognitively deficient, limited by our experience and our senses, so it's possible that we are is wrong and not omniscient, and dogs don't know that.

Science becomes possible only if we make some assumptions, think logically on top of limited information, construct models to make predictions, and keep verifying and revising them.

So, without the scientific assumptions, it's completely reduced to agnosticism. If it is that information is complete, we are God.

Science is sanity.

Science, which includes both natural and social sciences, is a correct method of analyzing and understanding objective things, i.e. 'seeking truth from facts'.

Starting from the theoretical definition of scientific concepts, through the role of theory-guided practice, the objective thing to carry out specific analysis, analysis, analysis and verification and access to empirical testing, and then correctly answer the question of what the thing is.

The process is that the concept of certainty → affirmation → negation → negation of negation → repeated arguments to form a more correct and complete system of knowledge theory, the role of guiding the new practice theory verification, empirical evidence, and ultimately to determine the core of the thing and the essence of science is a gradual systematic refinement of the process, and then to achieve the new quality of the leap and rise.

Branching out and learning! Explore the mysteries and discover the truth!

Science in layman's terms means telling the truth, seeking truth from facts, respecting the laws of development of things, and practical materialism.

I feel that the word science is a very mysterious and unattainable field, but once it is mastered and utilized by people, it will bring endless wealth to the society and human beings; it can not only create the world, but also transform the world.

The 5,000-year history of human development has been characterized by the gradual evolution and development of mankind from a very low level, a very backward human dukkha, to what it is today. This long process has been a process of human beings learning and mastering scientific knowledge, continuously utilizing the scientific knowledge they have acquired, and continuously exploring and progressing in social development.

Science has been able to change and create the world because it is a powerful productive force. Factory machines roaring, robots working silently twenty-four hours a day, rockets launching satellites into the sky, and spaceships traveling through space ...... are the sacred wonders of today's scientific development!

That is why we say that science is a great and endless human treasure, and we, as a citizen, should endeavor to study and master science diligently, so as to contribute to the development of mankind du jour.

The term science personally means that science is the crystallization of the development of human spiritual civilization, a powerful force for creating and transforming the world.