There's no such thing as Science, all there is, is Scientists and...

[Tetro Kornbluth]

... to believe anything else is to believe in an illusory metaphysics.

Discuss.

(One can, if they wish, replace "science" with "religion" or other vast thought systems. There is no such thing Christianity after all, only Christians).

[bgwah]

[Earth]

I'd argue the opposite; science exists (as a cohesive methodology) but what is a scientist?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I'd argue the opposite; science exists (as a cohesive methodology) but what is a scientist?

I would define a scientist as:

1) Someone who does 'science' which is a practice and not an existing thing (methodologies don't exist the way people or inaminate objects exist)
2) A particular social role

I don't buy the argument that Science is a cohesive methodology not when you look at what scientists actually do. Recently it has become more a mark of quality or identification ("hey! we must be correct because we're scientists") than anything intellectually serious and alot of people buy into this. See: Evolutionary Psychology and New Atheism.

I think to understand any practice we must look at what those practioners do and science especially.

[Earth]

I'd argue the opposite; science exists (as a cohesive methodology) but what is a scientist?

I would define a scientist as:

1) Someone who does 'science' which is a practice and not an existing thing (methodologies don't exist the way people or inaminate objects exist)

2) A particular social role

I agree that science is a practice, but it exists cohesively as a conceptual framework. It's effuse, though, considering the way science changes, and has changed according to the times. It's easy to delineate what is and what isn't science if we're taking into account the 'normative' practices. This is why I'd rather focus on the 'character' or role of the scientist, rather than the work they create, but the role is inseparable from the tool of science.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I'd argue the opposite; science exists (as a cohesive methodology) but what is a scientist?

I would define a scientist as:

1) Someone who does 'science' which is a practice and not an existing thing (methodologies don't exist the way people or inaminate objects exist)

2) A particular social role

I agree that science is a practice, but it exists cohesively as a conceptual framework. It's effuse, though, considering the way science changes, and has changed according to the times. It's easy to delineate what is and what isn't science if we're taking into account the 'normative' practices. This is why I'd rather focus on the 'character' or role of the scientist, rather than the work they create, but the role is inseparable from the tool of science.

Yes but for a conceptual framework to exist it needs 'actors' to act into existence. The Actors though then get that to define what is or isn't 'science'. This is how things actually work in practice which o/c does not correspond to the 'normative' ideal of science. The ideal is very useful though in backing up one's arguments (and destroying them for that matter if they go too far beyond that ideal).