In ancient and medieval times, 'science' basically meant 'body of knowledge'. Calling mathematics a body of knowledge is uncontroversial. So is calling religious doctrine a body of knowledge.
A "
body of knowledge" would be identified by what it is you are supposed to know. In the case of the science of nature, you're supposed to know something about nature. In the case of religion, you're supposed to know something about God, whether that's true or not. So, what do you think people meant when they thought of mathematics as a body of knowledge? According to your interpretation, it seems mathematicians wouldn't have anything to know. Yet, people in ancient times thought of mathematics as a body of knowledge. This is the paradox you have to explain.
But identifying these with what people today think of as 'science' is probably misleading.
I'm not identifying. I'm well aware that people think of science as physics and then possibly a few others like chemistry, mathematics being at the far end of the spectrum. What I am saying is the people in the ancient times, and a few individuals since, got it right against the majority, as happens so often.
People today mean something more than merely a 'body of knowledge' when they say 'science'. Understanding what that "something more" involves is one of the places where we should direct our attention. It's the subject of the philosophy of science.
I don't think you would want to search for "
more than merely a body of knowledge", unless you want to look into how God makes sure we get it right.
Physicists see physics as a body of knowledge and are mostly sceptical about everything else.
What people will be looking for are what methods specific to a particular discipline qualifies it in their view as a body of knowledge. This is likely to turn into finding the convenient justification promoting your own discipline to the status of body of knowledge while expressing doubts about other disciplines.
Understanding 'science' to mean nothing more than 'body of knowledge' suggests that there isn't any single answer to your question about the "essential characteristics" of "scientific research". Knowledge of different subject matters might be acquired in totally different ways, ranging from reading and accepting religious scriptures and the teachings of one's religious tradition, through intellectual intuition and logical deduction, to observation and experiment in the physical world. There likely isn't any single common denominator.
You mean that being logical about the inferences you allow is optional?! You mean mean that facts are optional?! Good Grace.
I would say myself that logic and facts are certainly necessary. If you don't have something logical to say, then it certainly isn't science. And then you need to be able to identify the facts you allow. That's definitely a minimum.
Tell me if you see something else.
Sure, the rationalists in particular did that. (Given your avatar, you may be partial to their approach.) Many of them took Euclidean geometry to be the paradigm of an ordered body of knowledge. In their mind, mathematics and its proof structure was indeed the ideal science. So many early modern philosophical/scientific writers adopted the style of trying to deduce all of the propositions of their subjects as theorems from an initial set of axioms. Empiricism and experimental science kind of appeared as a counter-current in opposition to that. Their belief was that we will never know about physical reality unless we look.
Something like that, yes, and I would agree, but that's usually what most people do, even perfect idiots.
I'm not conflicted either. I'm just acknowledging the existence of the philosophy of mathematics. It isn't a matter of paradox so much as simply recognizing that many questions about the nature of mathematics still remain unanswered. And it's exceedingly unlikely that questions about what kind of reality a 'group' or a 'ring' has, or how mathematicians can acquire knowledge of such things, can be answered in the same way that we discover extra-solar planets, describe earthquakes or elucidate the biochemistry of photosynthesis.
Sure, but different sciences all have specific methods.
Physics requires maths and maths requires logic. If you accept those as actual bodies of knowledge, then knowledge of what?
EB