Beneficial discussion.

To brief it, a scientist is a person whom does not follow anyone. the person who is trying to think out the box, and to create or present newer thinking of something. This is the fact, text book are the bridge to new discovery, not to follow.

Scientist: one who tries to understand (by search, observation, and examination) the formal, material, efficient, and final causes of natural phenomena: a natural philosopher.

The hallmark of science is causal prediction. Today, for example, both psychoanalysis and the current neurosciences claim to be predictive and basically reductivist. Thus materialism, mechanism, determinism, empiricism, phenomenalism, behaviorism are regarded as scientifically oriented.

In earlier days, “philosophy” was the term used to refer all types of knowledge including science. The present-day scientists were referred to as “natural philosophers”; that is, philosophers who study nature, and the more common term for science was “natural philosophy”. During the 18th century, the word ‘science’ began to be used in the sense of any systematic field of study distancing itself from philosophy. The word “science” is from Scientia, a Latin term, meaning knowledge; and it was originally used to mean simply knowledge. However, science as we understand today is much more than simply knowledge.

Scientific knowledge is dynamic, which is constantly revised or expanded through the processes of observation and experimentation. Therefore, one can say that science includes a ‘content’ part and a ‘process’ part of acquiring or improving this content. Scientific knowledge hitherto known to us developed as the content of science. This ‘content’ is what we usually read and learn from science textbooks comprising of descriptions, facts, principles, theories, laws, and their relationships. The ‘content’ of science develops through the ‘process’ of science involving repeated observation and experimentation. This ‘process’ is nothing but research using scientific method.

A scientist does not have an opinion but forwards hypotheses which are supported by significant evidence. Those backed up arguments may support other theories, contradict, or expand them. They may equally introduce an entirely novel theory. Additionally, science encompasses all major disciplines, which can be referred to in a intra-, inter-, and transdisciplinary manner.

science is the explanation of all process, inventions and discoveries

scientist are to explain the above and bringing new inventions and discoveries

@Nagalakshmi Radhakrishnan - Thank you; however, is science really concerned with explaining "inventions"? If so, could you please give some examples?

Beneficial discussion.

Thanks for the most worthy answers in this discussion.

Hi, I write articles and books on theories of consciousness in relation to human loneliness (google scholar). Science is committed to materialism (Democritus), mechanism, determinism, empiricism, phenomenalism, behaviorism and the current neuroscience. Science is committed to a brain paradigm and to universal causality. By contrast, idealism (Parmenides), dualism (Plato), rationalism, phenomenology, and existentialism promote the immateriality and activity of both reflexive self-consciousness and transcendent intentionality as well as freedom and spontaneity. Plato, in the Sophist (245e) calls this the Battle between the Gods and the Giants; it pits Democritus against Plato; Epicurus against Plotinus; Atheists and Skeptics against Augustine and Aquinas; Valla against Ficino; Bacon against Boehme; Hobbes against Descartes; Locke against Leibniz; Hume against Kant; Marx against Hegel; Wittgenstein and Russell against Husserl and Sartre.

In 1920, Max Weber, famous author of The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, wrote two pamphlets, called The Vocation Lectures, which included "Science as a Vocation" and "Politics as a Vocation," in which he criticized bothe as constitutionally incapable of addressing ethical issues and values, i.e., the meaning of human existence. Hume, in his way pointed out that the Is and the Ought, that Fact and Value, that Science and Morality are antithetical. And so did Kant on a different principle.

According to the following link:

https://sciencecouncil.org/about-science/our-definition-of-science/

The Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.

Science is not something like a religion to believe. science is generalizing a complex to simplicity, i.e. all the water is H2O. thus this is science. simple & every layman person knows it. A esoteric and complex is not science, I.e. General Relativity or E=mc^2 is not science, because it is too complex and even the founder of it could not understand it. Even a theory must be easy to understand, I.e. If we are smart, our DNA is smart, it makes even this virus is smart.

Javad Fardaei, (1) science is bidirectional: from universals to particulars and from particulars to universals; (2) scientific research is a process of acquiring knowledge, which necessitates something being unknown (not understood) at the beginning, in the middle, and at the end (which is just another beginning); (3) science cannot be properly judged by the uninitiated multitude (imagine an extreme situation: a person who cannot read or write is the editor-in-chief of a peer-reviewed scientific journal); (4) of course the Intellect pervades the entire cosmos, and virus is certainly more intelligent than a grain of dust, but that does not mean that scientists must make their theories comprehensible to the dumbest phenomenal entity, now imagine a wooden stick replacing the person who cannot read or write as the editor-in-chief of the peer-reviewed scientific journal.