Science is a method to validate knowledge. As everyone knows it is based on the observation of the phenomena and the subsequent elaboration, by the observer, of a plausible explanation. Then follows the validation, or rather, the denial of the hypothesis. We must also agree that the only way is deny the hypothesis, because if we could prove the hypothesis, the resulting knowledge (the thesis) would be an absolute truth and not a perfectible truth as it is in reality.

If we follow this method (the scientific method) we obtain scientific knowledge.

However, we are limited by the capacity of our senses (although they will be enhanced by technology, chemistry or physics in the form of telescopes, microscopes of different types, chemical reactions, etc.) and by our ability to understand the cosmos.

Whether we like it or not, our ability to observe and interpret phenomena is biased by our culture and by our brain (made by neurons that are the product of biological evolution). We think what we are capable of thinking and we think with ideas we have learned.

Freeing ourselves from prejudices is not easy, because when we reach the limit, we will get rid of all previous knowledge and create a new building. This one would be imperfect like the actual scientific corpus. But if we follow the scientific method it would be perfectible like today ... we will reach the knowledge that we are capable of understanding and thinking like humans ... The goal is still very far away, fortunately for the scientists.

We filter knowledge with our prejudices (with our knowledge, with our vision). What is rejected tomorrow can be the cornerstone of a new theory. Ask Galileo Galilei

Interesting question! This boundary seems to be a diffuse one, non-rigid indeed. Perhaps it can rarely be shown with utmost certainty. It can only be felt.

Dear Elena,

It would be wonderful if the solution was as simple.

Unfortunately, not all well-grounded scientific observations and experiments connected with no preliminary assumptions have been taken account of.

I know of at least one case inconsistent with SR that has been left unstudied and un-analyzed except by Henri Poincare and Max Abraham more than 100 years ago.

It is the case of the first ever hands-on experiments carried out with electrons moving at relativistic velocity by Walter Kaufman, and the experimental data that he collected.

To this day, these properly carried out and peer-reviewed experiments are still available only in German, left unattended on the wayside, and are never referred to in the community, never were considered in correctly refocusing accordingly any of the currently popular models.

Here is a link to one of his papers:

http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/EP/kaufmann_ngwg_291_03.pdf

Best Regards

André

Dear All,

I think that there are two categories, both are necessary for the community and the affiliation to each of them is honorable and useful, both of them require high intellect, each of them is accessible in full not to everyone, they are close by their content but they are different in their basis and should be differentiated clearly: they are science and engineering. In my understanding, a science is based in its ground on a really discovered phenomenon, law of nature, or regulation and engineering is based on an imagination, model, or inspiration; science - it is permanently, engineering - it is until it is suitable. I consider that imaginations and models are the whips for science in our time when zillions of measurements and observations are available and their generalizations allow, in my opinion, to achieve a realistic understanding if not of each natural phenomena and processes, at least of a very wide or overwhelming majority of them.

Science is capable of solving engineering problems, but engineering is not capable of solving scientific problems; and the cause of difference of these two categories consists, in my opinion, in the fact that imaginations and models are expressed through pseudologics or approximated mathematics while the real phenomena and processes can be approximately described by several approximate mathematics or several pseudologics and the number of such approximate descriptions is never known beforehand and only science is capable of choosing between these descriptions (for example, our works in the fields of catalysis and adsorption prove this last statement).

For the question formulated in this way there was no, there is not and there will be no unambiguous answer. There will always be those who consider scientific study as pseudoscientific one and vice versa. Regards,

I write: "... science - it is permanently, engineering - it is until it is suitable ". I don't write that everybody could believe that any correct scientific solution is right. Of course, the attitude of different persons to right solutions can be different; however, unacceptance of any correct scientific solution is uncapable of making it incorrect.

I answer an interesting question:

To define such boundaries, it is necessary for a given science to define its main formal material, research area, research thesis, research instruments that are universally objective and indisputable in their application in scientific research. And then what is not in this research area, is not objective, is doubtful, can not be a research material considered reliable, it will not fit in science.

There were times when the golden section was used in architecture and art. And how is it today? There were times when the fractals were only complicated drawings. And how is it now. Is a patent a science? The most common answer: it depends. Regards,