Please answer these questions in paragraph form using my included article, and outside sources. Please paraphrase instead of quotation marks. Please make it about 800

what’s science ?
The opinion that there was no science in the two thousand years covered by this

book continues to be stated with considerable regularity and dogmatic fervor. If the claim is
true, I have written a book about a nonexistent subject—no mean feat, but not my goal. This
book proclaims in its title that it will portray the beginnings of Western science over the
approximately three millennia ending about the year a.d. 1450. Was there truly such a thing
as science in those times? And if the answer is affirmative, was there enough of it to merit
book-length coverage?

Before we can answer these questions, we need a definition of “science”—something
that turns out to be surprisingly difficult to come by. There is, of course, the dictionary
definition, according to which “science” is organized, systematic knowledge of the material
world. But this proves to be so gen-eral as to be of little help. For example, do craft traditions
and technology count for science, or are science and technology to be distinguished from
one another—the former dedicated to theoretical knowledge, the latter to its application? If
only theoretical knowledge counts as genuine science, we then need to decide which
theories (or which kinds of theory) pass the test. Do astrology and parapsychology, both of
which are chock full of theories, count as sciences?

Perceiving that the “theoretical knowledge” criterion is heading toward a dead end,
some participants in the debate argue that true science can be recognized by its
methodology—specifically, the experimental method, according to which a theory, if it is to be
truly scientific, must be built on and tested against the results of observation and experiment.
(In the minds of many of its advocates, a series of rigorously defined steps must be
employed.) Theories that meet this test are often credited with superior epistemological
status or warrant and thus are representative of a privileged way of knowing.

Finally, for many people—scientists and general public alike—true science is defined
simply by its content—the current teachings of physics, chemistry, biology, geology,
anthropology, psychology, and so forth.

This brief foray into lexicography ought to remind us that many words, especially the
most interesting ones, have multiple meanings that shift with the contexts of usage or the
practices of specific linguistic communities. Every meaning of the term “science” discussed
above is a convention accepted by a sizable group of people, who are unlikely to relinquish
their favored usage without a fight. From which it follows that we have no choice but to
accept a diverse set of meanings as legitimate and do our best to determine from the context
of usage what the term “science” means on any specific occasion.

But where does that leave us? Was there anything in Europe or the Near East in the
twenty centuries covered by this book that