In many research projects, phenomena are briefly observed, for instance to minimise impacts of human presence following observation or monitoring. For instance, phenology of nest construction in small box breeding passerines consist of several building stages, of which one is described as a 'pile of moss' expressed before the nest foundation is finished. The definition of this nest building stage is most often based on an individual impression without counting or measuring moss fibres. A 'pile of moss' therefore represents a human-invented class potentially reflecting numerous physical expressions of what observers name 'a pile of moss'. Does empirically measurable science terminology result from trade-offs between costs and benefits related to detail of measurement? Perhaps there is an 'optimal' science terminology that takes costs and benefits of measurement procedures into account. For instance, scientists might take the time to measure every detail of 'a pile of moss'. However, more detailed studies can substantially increase time or energy-expenditure devoted to measurement, and may have consequences for life-history stages following monitoring of a pile of moss (e.g. final nest structure, onset of egg laying, clutch size, ...).
'Optimal' terminology taking costs and benefits of science measurement procedures into account would obviously express spatiotemporal variation. It also can explain why methods differ across publications dealing with the same scientific topic (e.g. avian nest building).
Science terminology and science practice
If science terminology should express what has been done, is a terminology like 'body temperature' undefinable or unrepeatable from a practical point of view given that each study claiming to investigate 'body temperature' has unique characteristics in practice?
Are the practical definitions of 'body temperature' unlimited? For instance, science theory might present one sentence for 'body temperature', whereas science practice will present an unlimited number of sentences defining measured 'body temperature'. Perhaps science terminology is represented by a class of phenomena grouped together under the same heading in empirical research, as reflected in the numerous fashions 'body temperature' has been described in methods sections of publications.
Is 'body temperature' a relative concept? The value is perceiver-dependent.
Under-determination, reduction and subjectivity are always part of the science. If one has to make observation to what extent one must do. If one's few observations are sufficient to validate hypothesis or make a gadget then if that hypothesis leads to fruitful results or gadget works what was intended to do, few observations are enough. Otherwise, there is no clear definitions of "optimal". Even, in statistics, data are few, there exist other methods to derive satisfactory conclusion from these few data.
But different practical measures are classified under the same theory-based terminology.
Example
A study that measured skin temperature as a proxy of body temperature will (often) high-light or mention in the title or abstract of a publication body temperature, not skin temperature, or not?
There is no optimal term except for very basic quantities. There are other terms that are intensive or extensive. Temperature is intensive when we speak of a uniform system at equilibrium. All parts are at the same temperature. A biological system at equilibrium is not at a uniform system. Different temperatures exist in the system. A failure to differentiate temperature in a biological system can have important consequences. Optimal may have a meaning only for parts of the system.
Publications have limitations imposed by time or publishing constraints. Once a journal is issued in a printed form, it exists as that form. Retraction or correction does not alter the printed form, unless all the printed forms are retrieved, destroyed, and replaced.
Open publishing as a living document on the internet allows altering the text with notations of changes. Any reference to the text should be for the date of the reference. A living document allows someone to continually add to and correct work, incorporating suggested changes by others. Abstracts, by their nature, cannot contain all the information, but a misleading abstract can be corrected. Over the years, emphasis may change, so the abstract should change. Optimal may also change.
I think there is nothing called the best or the optimal theory in Science, because always new theories found that obsolete the old one. Science in practice is not absolute but it is relative.
Optimal" science terminology depends on the circumstances that is usually not fixed.
Turning to the philosophy of “Optimal” science terminology depends on the circumstances that are usually not fixed; it was clear by the end of the 1980s that the centre ground was now occupied by a new realism, general philosophy of language and a belief in the possibility of objective knowledge and justification. There is some irony in the fact that it was the demise of logical positivism/empiricism that led to the rebirth of “Optimal” science terminology.
In computer science particularly AI and algorithms, sometimes it is hard to get the optimal solution, because it needs ages to be found. However, we normally opt for approximate algorithms to get near optimal and feasible solutions.
As far as I know, there is no 100% machine learning system, nevertheless, AI is called science.
Why would/should optimal measurement procedures that maximize differences between environment-dependent benefits and costs of measurements, and that result in optimal science terminology, be of short-term nature? For instance, many so-called 'old' publications from several decades ago that used optimality approaches in science practice are still cited today, or not?
Environmental scanning is the acquisition and use of information about events, trends, and relationships in an organization's external environment, the knowledge of which would assist management in optimizing the organization's future course of action in terms of cost of measurement and other benefits.
You have a Kuhnian problem: when the paradigm shifts, and it will, any language from the old paradigm will quickly become irrelevant according to The Nature of Scientific Revolutions.
Dear Scott/All,
Do you know science language/terminology that went extinct?
The application of science terminology in science practice will never be exact/precise from a philosophical point of view, e.g. because of constraints! However, the application of science terminology in science practice might be exact/precise enough to get an acceptable answer from a human-science point of view?!
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Methodology
- Research Methodology