I’m not being sarcastic here either, for once. Richard Dawkins aside, I can’t think of anyone better suited to provide us all with a conclusive definition of science from which to subsequently work. And I’ve read through several of Dawkins’ works, including his love letter to science, “Unweaving the Rainbow”, without finding one.
Dear Prof. PZ Myers,
I should very much appreciate it if you would be so kind as to send me your definition of the word “science”. I find myself in need of a definition that one could consider reasonably conclusive, and as you are one of science’s more outspoken defenders and advocates, I thought that you might be willing to provide me with one despite our obvious differences. While I am perfectly capable of perusing dictionaries and Wikipedia, and have in fact done so, I should not like my own biases to influence my selection from among the wide variety of definitions on offer.
Please be assured that this has nothing to do with any defense of ID, creationism or any of the presumably anti-scientific bete noirs that offend your professional sensibilities as a biologist.
Thank you,
Vox Day