# Is measuring and mixing “science”? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [July 16, 2025, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-measuring-and-mixing-science/1020932 "2025-07-16T19:08:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2025, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-measuring-and-mixing-science/1020932/21 "2025-07-17T02:16:13Z")
> [@TheBryan](#): > > Pharmacy is a science based profession. _Modern_ pharmacy is a science based profession. But that is a fairly recent development for the thousands of years pharmacy was around before that there was plenty of measuring and mixing, but no testing of hypothesis with experiment, no science involved. ---
**Author:** ![Beckdawrek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beckdawrek/32/3647_2.png) [@Beckdawrek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beckdawrek)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2025, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-measuring-and-mixing-science/1020932/22 "2025-07-17T02:22:48Z")
I believe lots of modern Pharmacy comes from years of ancient Apothecary and actual early 18-19 century medicinal formularies. And Granny witches who foraged for things their forebearers found that worked. Something must’ve been learned in all that time. Even without the modern way of experimenting, trials and paper writing, the spoken record eventually got written and taught. Then you get many drugs with modern equivalents. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2025, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-measuring-and-mixing-science/1020932/23 "2025-07-17T02:25:51Z")
> [@FlikTheBlue](#): > > IMHO, what is further required to make that science is the willingness to draw a tentative conclusion based on the results of those tests, and then the willingness to reject that tentative conclusion if other tests provide better evidence than the initial testing to support some other conclusion. I’d call that iterating over the same steps, but your point is a great one. Although it’s possible to do science as a one-off experiment, in practice, good science is done over and over again. Which goes along well with good documentation. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2025, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-measuring-and-mixing-science/1020932/24 "2025-07-17T07:46:07Z")
> [@dolphinboy](#): > > I could be wrong, but to me science is understanding how and why our universe works the way it does, not just documenting it. Just documenting things is actually what a lot of science is. Before someone can look at all the data and figure out any underlying principles and patterns, somebody also has to _actually collect_ that data. And they often aren’t the same person. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2025, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-measuring-and-mixing-science/1020932/25 "2025-07-17T13:50:56Z")
Putting it all together I am thinking that the combined process of observation, measurement, documentation (even mental notes), hypothesis, test, reiterated and with data based revisions, done either individually or collectively even between generations, is the minimum for “science.” None alone is. Measurement alone, to decide what portion of the kill goes to the head of the hunting party and which sacrifice to the god of the forest, for example, is not enough to be science. At what point in human cultural development do you think that occurred? Clearly agriculture required that process I think. Did early hunter gatherer groups engage in that process? My initial thought had been that science was not an immediate human cultural feature, but on reflection maybe the process of learning to create tools, experimenting with different knapping techniques, predicting what would happen hit here or there and revising the approach based on the observed results, developing early technology, counts? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2025, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-measuring-and-mixing-science/1020932/26 "2025-07-17T13:59:35Z")
I think that a distinction should be made between using science and doing science. For a simple example, a test kitchen tries out recipes, and does experiments with slightly more or less of various ingredients, or shorter or longer cooking times, or different temperatures, or different method for cooking or mixing, or whatever, always documenting the results of all of these many combinations. They’re doing science. Then, they publish a cookbook. The cookbook does not include all of the data on all of the permutations they tried, just the ones that worked the best (maybe with an occasional note of “If you like yours a little crispier, then set the temperature higher”, or something like that). A home cook buys the book, and uses the recipe, and puts it in the oven at 375º for 23 minutes, because that’s what the book says to do. That home cook is using science, but they’re not doing science. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2025, 2:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-measuring-and-mixing-science/1020932/27 "2025-07-17T14:09:48Z")
My question is about the former and any society that achieves the latter has already achieved the former. But the distinction is important. With our society as an example we have many who use science, often without appreciating that, and relatively fewer who are any part of the process of doing science. And fewer yet who appreciate that what are doing is science. Several science fiction scenarios have a premise of people continuing to use science but no longer doing, being actively stopped from, doing science, or at least very limited in the science they can do. Silo for example. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2025, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-measuring-and-mixing-science/1020932/28 "2025-07-17T14:12:40Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > At what point in human cultural development do you think that occurred? Clearly agriculture required that process I think. Did early hunter gatherer groups engage in that process? I think basic science is unavoidable for a sapient species. Unless basic needs are being met by genetic programming or rote memorization, the species as a whole is making informed decisions based on observations. That is science, even if it’s not formalized. > [@Chronos](#): > > A home cook buys the book, and uses the recipe, and puts it in the oven at 375º for 23 minutes, because that’s what the book says to do. You’re right that the home cook is not doing the science of developing recipes, assuming they are following the recipes precisely. But unless they are doing the recipes in book order, they are doing the science of selecting which recipe to prepare based on what they and their household enjoy cooking and eating. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2025, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-measuring-and-mixing-science/1020932/29 "2025-07-17T14:21:20Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > At what point in human cultural development do you think that occurred? Clearly agriculture required that process I think. Did early hunter gatherer groups engage in that process? You mean the process of measuring?, that is far older than civilization: > **[World's oldest calendar found at 13,000-year-old temple in Turkey](https://www.livescience.com/archaeology/13000-year-old-carvings-in-turkey-may-be-the-worlds-oldest-lunisolar-calendar)** > > The 13,000-year-old carvings found in Turkey track the phases of the sun, moon and constellations, making it the earliest known lunisolar calendar. If you mean expanding that into actual science, by hypothesis and experiment. Then you have to wait until the scientific revolution: > **[Scientific Revolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Revolution)** > > The Scientific Revolution was a series of events that marked the emergence of modern science during the early modern period, when developments in mathematics, physics, astronomy, biology (including human anatomy) and chemistry transformed the views of society about nature. > Great advances in science have been termed "revolutions" since the 18th century. For example, in 1747, the French mathematician Alexis Clairaut wrote that "Newton was said in his own life to have created a revolution". The ... And it was long time after that before it made its way into areas like medicine in a way that made it more likely to heal you than kill you. ---
**Author:** ![jnglmassiv](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f07891/32.png) [@jnglmassiv](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jnglmassiv)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2025, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-measuring-and-mixing-science/1020932/30 "2025-07-17T15:33:52Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > I think that a distinction should be made between using science and doing science. Agree, a distinction between advancing understanding, that is: learning, and applying or benefiting from those new advanvements. Edit: for example, my routine screening MRI is full of science, some quite recent, but it’s unlikely my results will advance the state of the art of MRI or other medical tech. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2025, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-measuring-and-mixing-science/1020932/31 "2025-07-17T15:36:47Z")
> [@griffin1977](#): > > If you mean expanding that into actual science, by hypothesis and experiment. Yes. Why would you exclude the hypothesis that hitting one rock with another might produce a cutting edge, and by experimentation determine which rocks hit with which rocks where to produce best results, from being “science”? ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2025, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-measuring-and-mixing-science/1020932/32 "2025-07-17T16:10:35Z")
I think of “mixing and measuring” as a _ **tool** _ of science, but it is not itself science. Just because you are mixing and measuring doesn’t mean you are doing science. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2025, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-measuring-and-mixing-science/1020932/33 "2025-07-17T17:38:17Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Why would you exclude the hypothesis that hitting one rock with another might produce a cutting edge, and by experimentation determine which rocks hit with which rocks where to produce best results, from being “science”? IMO no because that not how artisans work. They work on traditions, not innovation. The idea that innovating is a good thing for artesans (or anyone else) is recent thing. In the millennia before that an artisan was considered a good one if they can make a hand axe, or pot, or sword in exactly the same way their father and grandfather did. Its anachronistic to think of innovation as a good thing in past eras. ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2025, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-measuring-and-mixing-science/1020932/34 "2025-07-17T18:07:45Z")
IMHO, science consists of three parts. 1. Collect data either through experiment or observation, preferably the former, although not if you are an astronomer. 2. Try to find a hypothesis that explains all those data. 3. Use the hypothesis to extrapolate beyond the given data. Rinse and repeat until you are successful in step 3. Consider Newton. He sees an apple fall (at least pretend he did) and begins to wonder why. He knows that everything falls unless something, like wings flapping exert a counter-force to prevent it. Eventually he realized that the same force would keep the moon going around the earth or the earth around the sun and announces his inverse square law of gravity. Incidentally, the inverse square law is the only one that allows elliptical orbits and Newton knew that fact. By contrast, consider Aristotle. He also observed things falling and he noticed that a feather falls slower than a rock and concluded that the rate lf falling is a function of the weight of the body. Did he ever go to step 3? Obviously not. It is his failure to go to step 3 that makes it not science, not the wrong conclusion. To answer the OP, measuring and mixing is not science unless it is not used for one of the steps above, usually 1, but it might be 3. Making a recipe is not science; it is the application of science. Suppose you are a baker. You make bread every day. One day you happened to use boiled water in mixing your bread and it doesn’t rise. Hmm. Maybe there is something in the unboiled water that helps the bread to rise. So you try to test this. One thing you might try is saving some of the old dough and find it rises even faster (and tastes better, but that is another question). So you conjecture that something is growing in the rising dough, Since this was before microscopes, you can’t really test this easily. Regardless, this is science. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [July 17, 2025, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-measuring-and-mixing-science/1020932/35 "2025-07-17T18:10:52Z")
But _someone_ did the innovation, the experimentation, the _science,_ to create that axe. Yes many generations then just _used_ the science, rigidly adhering to the recipe, no additional experiments done, at least on purpose. The science may have not been a regular thing, not a cultural fixture, but wasn’t it still there, at least intermittently? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2025, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-measuring-and-mixing-science/1020932/36 "2025-07-18T05:02:09Z")
> [@dolphinboy](#): > > The fact that the earth is round(ish) is an observation, explaining why it is round(ish) is science. So when Eratosthenes demonstrated that the earth was round, by careful measurements, he wasn’t doing science? ---
**Author:** ![dolphinboy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dolphinboy/32/330_2.png) [@dolphinboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dolphinboy)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2025, 11:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-measuring-and-mixing-science/1020932/37 "2025-07-18T11:06:52Z")
Yes, that’s science, since it’s a calculation, not just an observation. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2025, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-measuring-and-mixing-science/1020932/38 "2025-07-18T11:21:14Z")
So a measurement that doesn’t answer “why” is science? ---
**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2025, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-measuring-and-mixing-science/1020932/39 "2025-07-19T00:44:58Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > So when Eratosthenes demonstrated that the earth was round, by careful measurements, he wasn’t doing science? Of course it was science. Observations (e.g. the fact that the sun hit different maximum altitude) led him to conjecture that the earth was round and then he predicted that he could calculate the diameter by taking measurements proved accurate. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2025, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-measuring-and-mixing-science/1020932/40 "2025-07-19T00:49:03Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Is having learned to avoid a certain berry because last you ate it you got the runs, science? Is having learned that a particular root tastes better mixed up with a certain bit of a certain leaf mixed in science? I feel what you’re describing is a form of engineering not science. Engineering is when you learn that if you follow this process you will get these results. > [@DSeid](#): > > What is the minimum that you would require to declare that a group was engaged in science? Science asks why this process produces these results and attempts to find the answers via testable experimentation. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-measuring-and-mixing-science/1020932.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-measuring-and-mixing-science/1020932.md?page=3)