"Science": What Are Its Boundaries

 When asked to give the definition of "science", most people are likely to reply with a type of science or a specific field of science. For example, one may say "Biology is science" or "Chemistry is science" or maybe that "Electrodynamic Astrophysics is science." While all of these answers are right in a way, I feel they do not capture the meaning of the term science nor the complexity of it.

The current paradigm we all face is the notion that there are different types of science and these types of science differ from one another profusely and fundamentally. A paradigm is basically a fundamental, supporting theory. For example, a past paradigm held by many was that the Earth was flat or that the Earth was the center of the universe (For a more in-depth understanding of the concept of paradigms, see Thomas Kuhn's work: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). An archeologist differs from a chemist based on looks, styles of study, and approches to research and a psychologist differs from an anthropologist in the same fashion and so on and so forth. Archeologists may wear denim jeans and an old, worn-out t-shirt during an experimental dig whereas chemists are more likely to wear a lab coat, goggles, and chemically-resistant gloves during their experimental studies. This I most certainly agree with. The paradigm I wish to dig out of us all is the notion that these types of science differ from one another fundamentally. Or in other words, that their paradigms are fundamentally different and irrelevant from one another.

 To make this simple and for the sake of a ridicuously long essay, let's skip to the point. Take for example the most commonly known fact in the field of chemistry. This fact is, in my eyes, mistakenly attributed to chemistry and is held different and out of reach to other fields. This fact is the development and use of the Periodic Table. The Periodic Table appears, in our current paradigm, to belong to the field of chemistry and if it is ever used in a different discipline, then that individual is doing chemistry rather than biology, astrology, etc. I believe this to be incorrect.

All of the fields of science are directly (and indirectly) related and intertwined within one another. The Periodic Table has not only brought forth achievements and progress in chemistry, but has also played a helping role in the fields of neurology, astronomy, physiology, biology, pharmacology, psychology, philosophy, etc. Also, notice how we deem progress in any field of study as "scientific progress" versus the language of "chemical progress" or "astronomical progress."

 Science, if one subscribes to this view, can be defined as "the searching of knowledgable, empirically-based evidence through the instruments of experimentation and falsification." All scientific progress, whether it be the discovery of a new, mysterious fossil in the Andes Mountains or the futuristic discovery of life on other planets in other solar systems, is directly related to all of the pre-thought up disciplines of science, namely the individual fields of science. Although different fields of science may dress differently, study different topics, and study the same topics differently, all of the progress within science could not have been accomplished without ALL of the disciplines. I propose that the boundaries between the "sciences" be torn away and that we finally clearly see the power and demystification of how science works and what the point of it all is: TO GAIN KNOWLEDGABLE, EMPIRICALLY-BASED EVIDENCE which can be used and applied to better our lives and the lives of others, namely non-human animals and the environment in which we live.