Biology is not a science

[Jesse2504]

Life is an entity which can self replicate

all you are saying is what life can do ie replicate
but
not what life is

Biology is defining a set of rules to govern observed phenomena which we characterize as living.

and it rules of classification ie species phylum
are meaningless as they cant tell you what species

Gamila I think you will find that there is a lot of redundancy and confusing terminology in biology but we do know what a living entity is, just like what a molecule is.

What is energy?
What is matter?
What is the universe?

They are all definitions which fit our current level of understanding of the phenomena observed by human characteristic senses in the environment at this point in time.

We can define what ANYTHING is since it is we who observe it, nothing is the same to any entity as it is to the other, only the senses which relate to that entity and the structures which can be built from the correlation of multiple similar observing entities such as a human population. eg. a dog views the universe differently to us.

You want to use the lack of ability of prehistoric understanding to properly classify their science, in terms of todays perspective. They did not know everything we know today when they classified their terminology, therefore there will be variations to the popular accepted definition which causes this ambiguity.
But to say that Biology is not a science is only an argument based on a lack of concise definition in some parts, not because it is undefinable and is not absolute.

EDIT

I think what you are trying to say is that life is based on the laws of chemistry and physics therefore it is not a real science.

[alextemplet]

I think what you are trying to say is that life is based on the laws of chemistry and physics therefore it is not a real science.

Well obviously, since chemistry and physics aren't real sciences, either!

Gamila, what exactly do you consider to be a real science?

[mcar]

You know we'll be going to start at number one again here. I just read some such as "physics, chemistry, etc. --are not sciences either. He/She (gamila) always believe that they are not sciences either. Where could we go from here if for him/her all the sciences we know are not sciences for him/her.

Okay, what makes science a science? if science is a systematized body of knowledge, based on facts, observations and experimentation, what makes it to be called as *science* then? Therefore if anything is not systematized and based on different facts etc., should we still consider it as science?

Maybe gamila wanted to point out the limitations of science and its branches. That's what I think here .

[gamila]

but we do know what a living entity is

i have shown scientists dont know what life is at the begining post

Where could we go from here if for him/her all the sciences we know are not sciences for him/her.

a rose by any other name still smells the same

the term "science" has become a lable of authority-just like "the churh" once was
to call something a science is to give it the stamp of authority
"science " has become no more that an ideological and political tool used now in a totalitarian way to define what is to be considered "TRUTH"

[AstusAleator]

"science " has become no more that an ideological and political tool used now in a totalitarian way to define what is to be considered "TRUTH"

If I were to accept your definition, then I'd be happy to admit that Biology is not science.

[alextemplet]

"science " has become no more that an ideological and political tool used now in a totalitarian way to define what is to be considered "TRUTH"

Quid est veritas?

[canalon]

the term "science" has become a lable of authority-just like "the churh" once was
to call something a science is to give it the stamp of authority
"science " has become no more that an ideological and political tool used now in a totalitarian way to define what is to be considered "TRUTH"

Yes and No... The truth as it is often the case is much more complicated than that. And as always nice catch-phrases are wrong.

so NO, because, the scientific method has been established to provide a way to evaluate the confidence, the degree of truth that a proposition carry. But it is a dynamic process that can and should be constantly evaluated in the face of the available evidence. And by that I mean reliable fact based evidence whose collection method is also available so that the degree of confidence can be evaluated. So science do not try to say what is the truth, but strive to provide the best fit of a model to the available evidence.

However, and that is the sad part of it, a general lack of understanding and of science literacy combined with generally poor science reporting has the consequence (plus the increasing complexity of the matter at hand) that many people takes bits of science without understanding them and do not or cannot evaluate the degree of certainty attached to said result. In this respect you could be right that in many cases there is a wrong use of science.

And to finish on a more personal note: But to show flaws in a scientific theory, it is required that the whistle blower understand what (s)he is talking about. We can see, particularly in this forum, a lot of people who have no clue about what they are talking about trying to destroy scientific theory that are well established and that are laying on solid foundations using hypotheses that they pulled out of their asses and fact that they do not understand. If it wasn't so exhaustingly repetitive, it would be funny. I remind everyone that in the Kuhnian theory of the paradigm shifts, the shift are usually not caused by an outsider, but by someone who after understanding the current paradigm is able to test its limits and challenge it on those bases.

[Jesse2504]

but we do know what a living entity is

i have shown scientists dont know what life is at the begining post

I'm sorry gamila, but when I see the exact phrasing of scientific definitions being picked apart, when they originated from wikipedia, I can't help but be skeptical of your claims.

[Jesse2504]

all this is is a list of what an organism with life does but this list does not tell us what life is
to make it clearer some religions would say what makes us alive ie have life is our soul

take this definition from wiki

Life is a characteristic that distinguishes objects that have self-sustaining biological processes ("alive," "living"), from those which do not

this is a blantaly circular definition all it says is life is a characteristic of things that are alive ie have life and as such totally meaningless

now even apart from not telling us what it is that gives life to an organism scientist cant even agree on their definition of life

Tell me what is tennis, without describing what actions the sport entails? or any activity?
You want an answer such that describes life without verbs or actions. Life is a name given to entities which follow certain characteristic actions. You are saying because they "do" instead of "are" means that it is not defined.
If you think about it every single piece of existence that we know of is characteristic of its actions. We know that electrons like to move towards positive charges, but why they do it is unanswerable other than they just do.
Even if everything came down to energy we would still describe energy as "something which does this or that", that really is our limit of understanding with our senses.

Science is testing this understanding of our environment, "what happens when I do this?" and when we find a pattern occurring we describe the pattern in another language, mathematics or english, and use that logic to construct theories.
The science is not wrong, it may need a bit of terminology polish up soon, which is expected but it is by no means redundant.

[gamila]

the scientific method

there is no scientific method
go read
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn'
go read
Paul Feyerabend's Against Method
n

[alextemplet]

You're exactly right, gamila. There is no scientific method. The earth is flat.

[futurezoologist]

g stands for goat.



Has more relevance than some arguments that i have heard on this topic so-far. Shame on us all.