/sci/ - Science & Math

What's a non-arbitrary definition?

Rationally codifying empirical observations.

Economics for example does make non-exact predictions, but one could argue that this is due to not having enough variables under consideration.
On the other hand in physics we can't always make exact predictions. uncertainty principle for example so larger systems can behave in unpredictable ways making the whole thing not-exact.
>>5684524
I don't know...that's exactly what I'm asking.
I'm unable to think of a line of sorts that would diferenciate, if precision is a factor than in the future with enough processing power maybe we can have all sciences pass the "exact" threshold.
>>5684525
This applies to humanities too, economists learn to spot naturally occurring patterns and can make predictions using the scientific method, I don't feel like this is an adequate definition.
This can also be applied to almost everything as long as you rationally analyze something, but psychology isn't really "exact" even though it does comply with this rule.

>>5684530
>I don't know...that's exactly what I'm asking.

...........

to understand the nature ("exact" sciences) or the nature of nature ("metaphysical" sciences)

http://www.arachnoid.com/building_science/index.html

> This applies to humanities too, economists learn to spot naturally occurring patterns and can make predictions using the scientific method, I don't feel like this is an adequate definition.
This can also be applied to almost everything as long as you rationally analyze something, but psychology isn't really "exact" even though it does comply with this rule.

You trollin'? They're both sciences. Psychology isn't Freud any more, it's about testable hypotheses.

>>5684551
So is it an exact science?
The question is where do we draw the line between exact science and non-exact science and why?
Can we really objectively measure how exact psychology is compared to chemistry for example?

>>5684551
>it's about testable hypotheses.
Show me an example please. I'm curious about the theories of psychology.

>>5684562
Psychology is a bit tricky but what about Weather forecasting? How precise does it need to be to become an "exact" science?

>>5684677
It needs to have falsifiable hypotheses that become theories.

Falsifiable theory means that it can't explain and predict everything at will. The existence of an omnipotent being for example is unfalsifiable, because there is always a cop out argument that you can tack on. The patriarchy is similar.

>>5684703
"It's gonna rain on Sunday" is quite falsifiable.
So is "The economy is gonna shrink 23% this year" but Economics and Weather Forecasting aren't exact sciences.

I personally think it can be anything that improves our knowledge of the universe through observation.

I dont see why we need to fight over what is/isn't science, or what is better, it's all extremely childish and just ends up coming down to semantics.

>>5684502
the viewed limited probabalistic conjecture of forms==all science or mysticism=same tier
>2013
>modern science is the only thang
>ishygddt

>>5684716
This is a bit paradoxical because categorizing sciences is in fact useful and as such should be considered.
You can claim that art improves our knowledge of the universe because it transmits feelings and maybe even ideas from one person to another and mastering it can enable us to better control our mood which is quite true really, this is why no company makes cars with an interior colored puke-green.

>>5684711
Those are predictions. The theory needs to explain why these things happen.

Newton's theory on gravity explained why objects moved the way they did. This is why psychology is not a science, because it doesn't have theories which explain why people act the way they do, it's all statistics and data collecting.

The economic scientist needs to explain why the economy behaves the way it does, then he needs to make prediction that only his hypothesis can explain. Then he needs to test those prediction to see if the model hold true.

Predicting weather patterns is not a science, it's something that uses scientific theories. Like engineering.

>>5684729
Art isn't science but studying behavior based on perception of art sure is.

I never said categorizing sciences is bad, but saying shit like "biology isn't science" is.

>>5684739
Are you implying by any chane that economists don't have mathematical models to predict how the economy behaves?
The way I see it, it just has large error margins, but then the question is "how precise do we need it to be?" It's not in the interest of economists to know how much pocket change each individual has, so is it okay to say that it's "not precise enough"?

>>5684744
Biology is a science, the social sciences are not.

>>5684744
For the 4th time, the discussion isn't what is science and what isn't
The discussion is what is exact science and what is just "science"

>>5684748
Elaborate

>>5684752
See>>5684739
>>5684545

>>5684739
>This is why QM is not a science, because it doesn't have theories which explain why wavefunctions act the way they do, it's all statistics and data collecting.

>>5684767
QM explains how objects move.
Maybe how is a better word then why.

>>5684778
But Psychology does explain how people behave, it also kinda tries to explain why but is overwhelmed by all the variables.
But is it safe to say that an exact science is one that has "less" variables? how much "less" is good to be "exact"? it just falls down to semantics which makes an arbitrary line between exact and not-exact which was the original question.
Is "exact science" just arbitrary?

>>5684792
An exact science is one that uses maths. Most of Chemistry and Physics are exact sciences. Some parts of Biology are some are not.

>>5684805
So is Economy an exact science? They have math all up in that bitch.

>>5684809
When was the last time an economist predicted anything with as much precision as an analytical chemist or a quantum physicist?

>>5684813
How do you "as much prediction", the bar isn't very clear when dealing with economical predictions. It depends on scale too. You'll be surprised how accurate of a prediction you can make if you consider enough variables and plug them in the model.
And then, if it's just a matter of variables the only difference between exact science and non-exact science is how many supercomputers we have at our disposal?

>>5684821
>How do you "as much prediction"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision

They teach you this stuff in high school lab.

>>5684829
So you quantified it, this doesn't mean there's an obvious line between exact and not-exact.
Can you make a distinction between these different levels without it being arbitrary?
I have no doubt that we can measure how precise and how accurate each discipline is, I'm saying that it doesn't matter because the line between exact and everything else is just made up