Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Do we have to use the word "truth?" That seems to give the definition a religious flavor...

Regarding "truth" having a religious flavor. Science is the empirical pursuit of truth. To not include the word truth would be an inproper definition of science.

Can we make a large science category for scientific words? And then subcategories for different branches of science? I don't know how to make subcategories, so I can't.  :( - anon 27/4/05

To make a sub-category, you first make the sub-category as a new category (by including articles in that category, by adding something like [[category:MySubCategory]].) Then you go to that new category, edit the category page, and somewhere in it you add [[category:Science]], or whatever you want it to be a sub-category of. There is a long-winded debate that may be relevant over at Category talk:English words affected by prescriptivism. --Connel MacKenzie 02:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Now only, theology"?? What?[edit]

(now only, theology) The fact of knowing something; knowledge or understanding of a truth.

   * 1611, King James Version of the Bible, I Timothy 6:20-21
         O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding vain and profane babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen

___"Only theology"? What's that supposed to mean? Detract from it?

The translators were better educated than almost anybody who posts to wiktionary, and the difference between the words "knowledge" and "science" was very well understood in 1611 in the same way we understand it today. 

Try substituting "knowledge" in that sentence. Using today's English it doesn't make any sense.

"If any man think he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know". - I Corinthians 8:2

What is sorely missing in the entry is the term "evidence-based." 'Truth,' and 'knowledge,' while always the goals of science, are ephemeral... particles give way to strings, which give way to waves and 'branes, etc. But "science" is, first and foremost, evidence-based. Unlike theology, religion, "Creationism" and all of the other euphemisms for faith-based belief systems positing one or more supernatural entities or phenomena. Quibbling over 'knowledge' vs. 'truth' misses the point, and the main distinction between 'science' and non-evidence-based belief systems, IMHO. HoggyDog, too much trouble to log in


None of this is true. You guys are like the clueless school children who try to guess at the deffinition of "science" on the first day of every year from 7th grade and up. It is simply "the study of patterns". No more no less. —This comment was unsigned.

That's an oversimplification. Patterns in what? If I say that a poem has a particular rhyme scheme, am I being scientific? Furthermore, I might study patterns in a way that is pseudoscientific, and it would therefore not qualify as science.
Are the definitions wrong as they are? —Internoob (DiscCont) 03:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, rhyme schemes too are a subject of scientific investigation.
This reminds me that "science" is often used in the overly narrow sense of "natural science" ... which drives not least empirical linguists crazy, whose field is no less scientific than biology, for example. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Moreover, in the phrase "blind someone with science", "science" is essentially synonymous with (impenetrable) jargon or technobabble. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)