Foundations: What IS Science?

So, let's jump to the heart of the matter - the whole point of the blog.

 Question 1: What IS Science?

Sounds like a simple question.  Although we all have an intuitive sense of what Science is, allow me to refer to the Oxford Companion's definition:

"Modern Science is a discovery as well as an invention.  It was a discovery that nature generally acts regularly enough to be described by laws and even by mathematics; and required invention to devise the techniques, abstractions, apparatus, and organization for exhibiting the regularities and securing their law-like descriptions."

Or to put it more plainly, Science is a systematic enterprise to investigate the natural world and form testable explanations and predictions about that world.  Usually this results in the creation of technologies and techniques that allow us to shape our environment - for better or worse.

But our definition of modern science, whether it refers to the accumulated body of knowledge or the methodology used, was not a timeless axiom.   Science as we understand it today, was an outcome of a centuries long process that involved continual shifts of mankind's perception and relationship with the natural world.

This presents a problem for those interested in either:

1.) History of Science and its development in Western Civilization.

2.) Comparison of Modern Science toward alternative understandings of the world from other Cultures.

Think about it this way - if we only label past historical practices (whether coming out of the West or another region), as "scientific" insofar as they reflect our modern understanding then all we're going to get is a distorted caricature of the beliefs of people in previous times.

To quote the historian David C. Lindbergh:

"Distortion would be inevitable because science has changed in content, form, method, and function.   We would not be responding to the past as it existed, but looking at the past filtered through a grid."

What Mr. Lindbergh is describing is "Whiggism," a type of historical lens which only concerns itself with developments in the past that lead directly to the current outcome.

Question 2:  Ok I get all that.  But, how does the point you raise feed into the other stated goal of comparing non-Western practices whose concerns overlaps with modern Science's focus on Nature?

Too often there are attempts to either conflate or disavow these different systems of thought or practices.

My approach is "simple" - let's just deconstruct the assumptions built into each viewpoint and see where they contrast.  

To do that in a comprehensive way, I've decided to adopt a historical view so we can see where those critical foundational differences popped up and why they did so in the first place.

However, I also know some of you could care less about why things turned out the way they did and you want to know how a concept like say Yin-Yang "works" or functions.  All I can tell those folks for now is to sit tight, as there will be future blogs that focus on the practical or applied portions of these concepts.   

Question 3: So, what now?

Many of you who have started to read my China blogposts are beginning to see how the ancient Chinese looked upon the world and humanity's place in it.  You are starting to see the pre-philosophical axioms and a priori cultural beliefs that held together the Chinese world order.

And next your going to see that intricate order crash into a brick wall.   From that wreckage, in the midst of that crisis will come what we know today as Chinese philosophy, a branch of which investigates the area we are interested - namely Nature.

But before we go any further with that, let's cover some important concepts that are necessary to understand before we attempt to do a comparison between Modern Science and the various metaphysical systems which it is often compared to.