This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 23 September 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Removed redirection to general 'research' article, as this article did not deal with the concept of 'pure' reseearch vs 'applied' research .. and this deserved some attention on it's own. Bruceanthro 01:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
By Google hits rates, "Basic research" is unequivocally preferred term, as the following table shows:
Term | Google rate |
---|---|
Basic research | 5 130 000 |
Fundamental research | 755 000 |
Pure research | 121 000 |
-- Dan Polansky ( talk) 17:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I edited this out: "Another kind of research is experimental research, which is mainly carried out by industry. Government, university and industry interact and cooperate, and this forms the triple helix model." The classifications of experimental and theoeretical research are a distinct scheme from basic versus applied research. There is basic research which is experimental (e.g. experimental particle physics) and there is applied research which is experimental. Therefore, the quote in question does not make any sense and is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.37.11 ( talk) 15:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Basic Research is involved with the process of creating enough information about a subject matter that will allow an interested person make decisions about activities related to it with some degree of confidence as to the correctness of his decisions. WFPM ( talk) 14:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The Google survey shows that most people think that the subject matter should have some kind of practical utility. WFPM ( talk) 14:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The term theoretical research (as opposed to applied research) is used by academics in the UK but I can't find it on Wiki. Is it another name for pure research? If so, would it be useful to include it within the Pure Research Wiki page. Thanks.Libby norman 10:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libby norman ( talk • contribs)
How about making a category of some of the findings that has come (directly) from basic researh, to illustrate the importance of it, such as Mendeleys genetics studies, Faradays electrics/magnetism (radios etc), Light Emitting Diodes, Röntgens X-rays etc etc (see ref: http://www.lbl.gov/Education/ELSI/research-main.html , under the link "basic history") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.235.144.166 ( talk) 15:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I moved the article title of this page.
"Basic research" is the more common phrase by an order of magnitude.
Google hits
Google Scholar hits
Google Books hits
Search domain site: nytimes.com
Search domain site: theguardian.com
Redirecting the article "Fundamental science" to article "Basic research" was severely misguided. The term fundamental science has two major meanings: fundamental physics (versus special science) and basic science (versus applied science). Although fundamental science is a fairly infrequent term for basic science, the merged article now elevates that meaning to primary, and, as a step further, effectively deletes even that. The main meaning of fundamental science occurs in philosophy of science, where the term refers to fundamental physics and is part of a vast discussion on the relation of physics to all other sciences: the special sciences.
The "Basic research" article has now appropriated parts of the "Fundamental science" article, but was written in severe unfamiliarity with the topics. Naively simplistic and somewhat confused, the lead cites sources authoritative over opinions of the general public, but not authoritative over the opinions of philosophers of science. Basic research is the process that yields basic science, but the two terms are not synonyms. Basic research is a process and practice, what basic scientists do, often in laboratories. Basic science, rather, is a body of knowledge, published in journals and textbooks. So basic science is infrequently called "fundamental science", but basic research, rather, which is infrequently called "fundamental research", is not even approximately to be called "fundamental science". — Occurring ( talk) 16:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Starting off with a set of brief comments:
My point on the basic/applied distinction is that the article should not assume that (for example) biology is basic or is applied. This is different from saying that distinguishing fields of sciences as entirely basic or applied is not a valid perspective. Thank you for supplying quotes from sources that do this. However, the level of support isn't great: in order, we have a university website describing one of its programs, a 1939 book written for parents discussing choice of college courses (which really only supports a "have been called" statement), the Kuipers source which opens its discussion of the distinctions with "I shall propose the following distinctions" (so that source cannot be used to support the contention that these distinctions are typical) and the final source which is probably useful (though I observe, with reference to a previous point, that you have quoted a section describing medicine as an "admixture of art, craft, and science").
In contrast, we have the sources you cited previously, both of which you commented favorably on: Gonzalez, which makes distinctions primarily based on goals and other characteristics, and the NAS which explicitly makes a distinction between basic and applied within disciplines. We also have the citations currently in the article, e.g. [1] [2], which also describe motivation as being a (perhaps the) defining characteristic of the distinction. Since we have conflicting citations, we can't include content that assumes one position is true - the policy for this is WP:WEIGHT. Only in cases of clear and significant imbalance among the sources can we consider describing one position as factual. I am willing to consider evidence about this, but thus far I think the weight leans towards primarily distinguishing based on goals or motivation.
Again: what specific changes are you proposing? What is your comment on restoring Fundamental science with the section now called Physics? Are there other changes you would make first? These are the most important questions, in my view - they are the ones that will let us move forwards. Sunrise ( talk) 09:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Basic research. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
"Fundamental science", once its own article, now redirects to "Basic science". Although fundamental science is a synonym for basic science—as distinguished from applied science—this usage is simple, fairly uncommon, and covered by mere mention. Due is a link to the article on "Fundamental science" for the term's meaning more important.
The main cultural and historic significance of fundamental science is in the philosophy of science, where the term reflects a conceived unity of science and the associating ambition or rejection of theory reduction, that is, reducing one science to another science that more basic/fundamental ontologically. And in this sense, fundamental science is distinguished from the special sciences.
In this conception, still dominant but often tacit, the various empirical sciences are conceived as networked special sciences, such as biology and economics, that rest upon, and stem from, a shared source and foundation in the theorized fundamental entities of nature, whose purportedly fundamental interactions are modeled in fundamental physics, the fundamental science [Jordi C, "The unity of science", in Zalta EN, ed., SEP, Fall 2017].
Often central, this tenet of Western philosophy fostered the establishment of philosophy of science as an autonomous academic discipline during the 20th century via the logical empiricists, led in America by Carl Hempel. Now all of that history and philosophy is gone, reduced to what could be covered in a brief mention: sometimes fundamental science means simply "basic science". Meanwhile, the Wikipedia article " Unity of science" also lacks the content from the onetime article "Fundamental science". — Occurring ( talk) 01:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 23 September 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Removed redirection to general 'research' article, as this article did not deal with the concept of 'pure' reseearch vs 'applied' research .. and this deserved some attention on it's own. Bruceanthro 01:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
By Google hits rates, "Basic research" is unequivocally preferred term, as the following table shows:
Term | Google rate |
---|---|
Basic research | 5 130 000 |
Fundamental research | 755 000 |
Pure research | 121 000 |
-- Dan Polansky ( talk) 17:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I edited this out: "Another kind of research is experimental research, which is mainly carried out by industry. Government, university and industry interact and cooperate, and this forms the triple helix model." The classifications of experimental and theoeretical research are a distinct scheme from basic versus applied research. There is basic research which is experimental (e.g. experimental particle physics) and there is applied research which is experimental. Therefore, the quote in question does not make any sense and is misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.37.11 ( talk) 15:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Basic Research is involved with the process of creating enough information about a subject matter that will allow an interested person make decisions about activities related to it with some degree of confidence as to the correctness of his decisions. WFPM ( talk) 14:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The Google survey shows that most people think that the subject matter should have some kind of practical utility. WFPM ( talk) 14:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The term theoretical research (as opposed to applied research) is used by academics in the UK but I can't find it on Wiki. Is it another name for pure research? If so, would it be useful to include it within the Pure Research Wiki page. Thanks.Libby norman 10:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libby norman ( talk • contribs)
How about making a category of some of the findings that has come (directly) from basic researh, to illustrate the importance of it, such as Mendeleys genetics studies, Faradays electrics/magnetism (radios etc), Light Emitting Diodes, Röntgens X-rays etc etc (see ref: http://www.lbl.gov/Education/ELSI/research-main.html , under the link "basic history") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.235.144.166 ( talk) 15:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I moved the article title of this page.
"Basic research" is the more common phrase by an order of magnitude.
Google hits
Google Scholar hits
Google Books hits
Search domain site: nytimes.com
Search domain site: theguardian.com
Redirecting the article "Fundamental science" to article "Basic research" was severely misguided. The term fundamental science has two major meanings: fundamental physics (versus special science) and basic science (versus applied science). Although fundamental science is a fairly infrequent term for basic science, the merged article now elevates that meaning to primary, and, as a step further, effectively deletes even that. The main meaning of fundamental science occurs in philosophy of science, where the term refers to fundamental physics and is part of a vast discussion on the relation of physics to all other sciences: the special sciences.
The "Basic research" article has now appropriated parts of the "Fundamental science" article, but was written in severe unfamiliarity with the topics. Naively simplistic and somewhat confused, the lead cites sources authoritative over opinions of the general public, but not authoritative over the opinions of philosophers of science. Basic research is the process that yields basic science, but the two terms are not synonyms. Basic research is a process and practice, what basic scientists do, often in laboratories. Basic science, rather, is a body of knowledge, published in journals and textbooks. So basic science is infrequently called "fundamental science", but basic research, rather, which is infrequently called "fundamental research", is not even approximately to be called "fundamental science". — Occurring ( talk) 16:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Starting off with a set of brief comments:
My point on the basic/applied distinction is that the article should not assume that (for example) biology is basic or is applied. This is different from saying that distinguishing fields of sciences as entirely basic or applied is not a valid perspective. Thank you for supplying quotes from sources that do this. However, the level of support isn't great: in order, we have a university website describing one of its programs, a 1939 book written for parents discussing choice of college courses (which really only supports a "have been called" statement), the Kuipers source which opens its discussion of the distinctions with "I shall propose the following distinctions" (so that source cannot be used to support the contention that these distinctions are typical) and the final source which is probably useful (though I observe, with reference to a previous point, that you have quoted a section describing medicine as an "admixture of art, craft, and science").
In contrast, we have the sources you cited previously, both of which you commented favorably on: Gonzalez, which makes distinctions primarily based on goals and other characteristics, and the NAS which explicitly makes a distinction between basic and applied within disciplines. We also have the citations currently in the article, e.g. [1] [2], which also describe motivation as being a (perhaps the) defining characteristic of the distinction. Since we have conflicting citations, we can't include content that assumes one position is true - the policy for this is WP:WEIGHT. Only in cases of clear and significant imbalance among the sources can we consider describing one position as factual. I am willing to consider evidence about this, but thus far I think the weight leans towards primarily distinguishing based on goals or motivation.
Again: what specific changes are you proposing? What is your comment on restoring Fundamental science with the section now called Physics? Are there other changes you would make first? These are the most important questions, in my view - they are the ones that will let us move forwards. Sunrise ( talk) 09:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Basic research. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
"Fundamental science", once its own article, now redirects to "Basic science". Although fundamental science is a synonym for basic science—as distinguished from applied science—this usage is simple, fairly uncommon, and covered by mere mention. Due is a link to the article on "Fundamental science" for the term's meaning more important.
The main cultural and historic significance of fundamental science is in the philosophy of science, where the term reflects a conceived unity of science and the associating ambition or rejection of theory reduction, that is, reducing one science to another science that more basic/fundamental ontologically. And in this sense, fundamental science is distinguished from the special sciences.
In this conception, still dominant but often tacit, the various empirical sciences are conceived as networked special sciences, such as biology and economics, that rest upon, and stem from, a shared source and foundation in the theorized fundamental entities of nature, whose purportedly fundamental interactions are modeled in fundamental physics, the fundamental science [Jordi C, "The unity of science", in Zalta EN, ed., SEP, Fall 2017].
Often central, this tenet of Western philosophy fostered the establishment of philosophy of science as an autonomous academic discipline during the 20th century via the logical empiricists, led in America by Carl Hempel. Now all of that history and philosophy is gone, reduced to what could be covered in a brief mention: sometimes fundamental science means simply "basic science". Meanwhile, the Wikipedia article " Unity of science" also lacks the content from the onetime article "Fundamental science". — Occurring ( talk) 01:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)