[EN/ES] What is science and what is not?/¿Qué es ciencia y qué no lo es?

in STEMGeeks8 months ago

science Tomado de la colección de geralt en:
Taken from the collection of geralt in:


Dear #Hiver, on social networks and in almost all communication fields there is a tendency to call things science that inescapably is not. Knowledge and experience are useful tools for the purpose of science, but by themselves, they are not. There is a fine line between art and science, even for some science is the art of knowledge.

There is a marked tendency in social networks, #Hive one of them, to brand criteria or trends as science. Let's refer to some of the most complete concepts that I have found on the web about science[1]:

Science: Generation of knowledge based on scientific research (application of the scientific method). More objective and systematic process. It is critical, rational, methodical, verifiable, provisional, systematic, objective, orderly, and communicable knowledge that explains and predicts facts by means of laws. The systematization of scientific knowledge is carried out through the elaboration of theories.

Personally, I believe that science tells a story, which at least statistically is reproducible, represented by Law, which can have various forms of expression. This aspect is essential, if a Scientific Law does not reflect a reproducible relationship or behavior in the defined conditions, it simply is not.

Brainfacesfuctions OpenClipart-Vectors in

Finally, as a physicist, I dare to go further, scientific laws, in addition to being reproducible, are independent of our being aware of them, or more clearly: They do not depend on opinions, an aspect that can be controversial and hurtful for professionals in science like social sciences[2], where the criteria of people and groups are the source of study.

There are several topics clearly classified as pseudosciences[3][4], such as Astrology, Pyramidal Energy, and Homeopathy. I believe that we must be careful, never go by appearances and evaluate what they propose to us without assuming it to be true just because someone knowledgeable or prestigious tells us, doubting is part of the process of creating science. Sometimes it is impossible to verify the postulates of our collaborators, and we may not even have the time for them in this troubled world we live in. If the knowledge that comes to you is attractive to you, it is always gratifying to confirm it and/or contrast it with reliable sources. This is another topic, which sources are reliable, which we will leave for a later post.

Without further ado, I say goodbye for today in the hope that our content has been useful to you. Bye!


Estimado #Hiver, en las redes sociales y en casi todos los ámbitos comunicativos hay una tendencia a llamarle ciencia a cosas que ineludiblemente no lo son[5]. El conocimiento y la experiencia sobre herramientas útiles al propósito de la ciencia pero por sí solos no lo son. Existe una línea bastante fina entre el arte y la ciencia, hasta para algunos la ciencia es el arte del conocimiento.

Hay una tendencia marcada en las redes sociales, #Hive una de ellas, a tildar de ciencia a criterios o tendencias. Referenciemos unos de los conceptos más completos que he encontrado en la red sobre la ciencia[1]:

Ciencia: Generación de conocimiento basado en la investigación científica (aplicación del método científico). Proceso más objetivo y sistemático. Es un saber crítico, racional, metódico, verificable, provisional, sistemático, objetivo, ordenado, comunicable y que explica y predice hechos por medio de leyes. La sistematización del conocimiento científico se realiza a través de la elaboración de teorías.

En lo personal considero que la ciencia cuenta una historia, que al menos estadísticamente es reproducible, representado por Ley, la cual puede tener diversas formas de expresión. Este aspecto es escencial, si una Ley Científica no refleja una relación o comportamiento reproducible en las condiciones definidas, simplemente no lo es.

Brainfacesfuctions OpenClipart-Vectors en

Como físico al fin, me atrevo a ir más allá, las leyes científicas además de ser preproducibles son independientes de que tengamos conciencia de ellas, o dicho más claramente: No dependen de opiniones, aspecto que puede ser controversial e hiriente para los profesionales de las ciencias sociales[2], donde el criterio de las personas y colectivos es la fuente de estudio.

Hay varias temáticas claramente clasificadas como pseudociencias[3][4], como la Astrología, la Energía Piramidal y la Homeopatía. Considero que debemos ser cuidadoso, nunca irnos por las apariencias y evaluar lo que nos proponen sin asumirlo cierto solo porque alguien entendido o prestigioso nos los dice, dudar forma parte del proceso de creación de la ciencia. Es imposible a veces verificar los postulados de nuestros intercolutores, y puede que tampoco tengamos el tiempo para ellos en este mundo convulso que vivimos. Si el conocimiento que le llega le resulta atractivo siempre es gratificante confirmarlo y/o contrastarlo con fuentes confiables. Este es otro tema, cuáles fuentes son confiables, lo cuál dejaremos para un post posterior.

Sin más me despido por hoy con la esperanza que nuestro contenido le haya resultado útil. ¡Chao!



  1. https://psicocode.com/psicologia/la-investigacion-cientifica-en-psicologia/

  2. @zamanhuri05, Difference Between Natural Sciences and Social Sciences, https://steemit.com/indonesia/@zamanhuri05/difference-between-natural-sciences-and-social-sciences-b79a2e17d5279

  3. Marcos Villavicencio, Four Examples of Pseudoscience, http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/16777/1/Four%20Examples%20of%20Pseudoscience.pdf

  4. https://www.softschools.com/examples/science/pseudoscience_examples/485/

  5. Alexandre Schiele, Pseudoscience as media effect, https://jcom.sissa.it/archive/19/02/JCOM_1902_2020_L01


I studied logic and math before studying science. I was especially fond of Euclidean Geometry, Descartes Analytic Geometry and Newton's calculus. In other words, I take an old school approach to science.

I expect science to involve rigorous logical models with reproducible results.

Unfortunately, in public and political discourse, people are interested in the effects achieved by the arguments and not by the underlining structure. This means widespread misuse of the term.

This confusion of definitions happen with most terms. I am only perturbed when I encounter people who believe that a piece of propaganda is actually scientific.



When one studies mathematical logic, even at an amateur level, internal light is turned on in the way of seeing and analyzing the world. As you say, there is a tendency to accept propaganda and not verify or reproduce what it proposes, the world lives very quickly and many, including those in the field of science, do not stop to analyze and spend time on it. As one of my university professors said "Thinking hurts and when you avoid pain you don't recognize the disease". Thanks for your comment.

The rewards earned on this comment will go directly to the person sharing the post on Twitter as long as they are registered with @poshtoken. Sign up at https://hiveposh.com.

Congratulations @ertytux! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain and have been rewarded with new badge(s):

You distributed more than 600 upvotes.
Your next target is to reach 700 upvotes.

You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word STOP

To support your work, I also upvoted your post!

Check out the last post from @hivebuzz:

Hive Power Up Month - Feedback from May - Day 15
Support the HiveBuzz project. Vote for our proposal!