This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
83.100.179.221 (
talk)
13:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Please change the obsolete definition. It sounds arcane and does not resonate with the larger audience.
The following - taken from The Cambridge Dictionaries online - could be useful
Science
Definition • [U] (knowledge from) the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical world, especially by watching, measuring and doing experiments, and the development of theories to describe the results of these activities — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.214.202.248 ( talk) 05:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
The article on science is very historical. With texts offering 'Intelligent Design' and similar pretenses at science, the public needs a good definition of science: how strict it must be (predictions) and how flexible it can be (methods).
Geologist ( talk) 10:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
? -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 13:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Did Feyerabend really say there are no "*useful*" methods, or simply that there is no single, universal method? I don't think Feyerabends point was that science has no use, just that it is not necessarily special compared to other methods of finding things out. It seems there needs to be some kind of citation in this section! 81.103.237.86 ( talk) 21:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Could you please help me to explain the meaning of this word, consensibility and perceptual consensibility, thanks.-- Tranletuhan ( talk) 09:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Does this article not give undue weight to criticism of science? 99.9% of sources aren't critical of science and this leads a lot of undue weight to these ideas by Jung (who was an advocate of pseudoscience like astrology) etc. IRWolfie- ( talk) 20:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
While I agree that measurement and SI units are very important, especially to natural scientists and engineers, the section on
measurement seems to be a little overkill for an article that attempts to provide broad overview of science. Except for textbooks on physics, chemistry, engineering, and to a lesser extent, biology, you won't find an exhaustive discussion of measurements and SI units in many other areas of science (e.g., psychology, economics, philosophy of science). It just seems to be a little out of proportion here. I would like to suggest condensing this section down to one paragraph or less and moving the rest to the
Natural Science
measurement article instead where it fits better. Thoughts?
danielkueh (
talk)
00:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I think I figured out an accessible approach to 'unit of measure'. My example illustration is Leonardo da Vinci's Vitruvian man. His rule applies to the proportions of grown people. In the drawing, the head of the average adult human being is the unit of measure, the body being roughly 6 heads high, with the navel at the center of the body. For infants, the body is smaller, say 4 heads high. For heroic figures, the body is even larger, say 7 or 8 heads high. This style of drawing is taught in classes for sketching. -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 19:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Keeping in mind the human being's natural tendency to bias, whether or not he or she wishes to avoid, learn from, and correct his or her mistakes, I would like to bring our attention to the theme of "European Scientists" in this article. The History of Science, as written here, appears to elaborate on the theme of European Scientists to the point where the article itself appears to be no more than an explanation of the various European ideas which have influenced Science as a whole. There appears to be a touch of Arabian influence in the entry, at most. Aside from retitling this page "A History of European Science", one may consider summarizing the history of Science in each respective category: race, civilization, continent, and time period (any or every one). Regrettably, on many timelines the dates arrogantly leap from the Ancient Chinese and Greek/Roman Scientists to the Early European (Renaissance and beyond) Scientists, often minimizing or otherwise entirely leaving out thousands of years of significant contributions from Africans to American Indians to Muslims to Hindus to Australians. Sadly enough, the Scientific discussion and coverage in this article appears centered in the European scientific contribution to the Great Conversation of Ideas which has spanned the history of mankind. I hope this article, and many others like it, will expand their range of historical, racial, and religious figures, ideas, and inventions to not only European scientists but people of all civilizations, cultures, races, religions who have and have not contributed to European scientific authority.
Your thoughts are greatly appreciated,
Abdullah H. Mirza ( talk) 23:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
PLEASE take Freud out of there. Please. Freud killed science. 50.8.125.134 ( talk) 01:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
The person depicted on the top left of the image is Archidamus III King of Sparta and not Archimedes the engineer, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archidamus_III . I am not sure how to edit the picture to correct it, nor I have an image of Archimedes. 132.206.126.18 ( talk) 20:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
The collage depicts only western scientists. Glurpingfrog ( talk) 01:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Why should the page on science have a montage of scientists? Wouldn't the montage better fit on the page of "scientist"? Also having the "influential" scientists reinforces the questionable view that science is mainly done by influential scientists. I suggest instead having a graphic of a large questionmark. Here is a possible picture to use:
-- Khaydock ( talk) 07:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I also don't like the idea of a question mark at all. "Science" means "knowledge." The entire purpose of the discipline is to answer questions (though never fully or with perfect certainty). Still it answers questions well enough to do various types of engineering and other tech, which is well enough!
Let me add my vote of using the nice collage of scientists to illustrate the scientist article, which (now) has a lede photo that isn't nearly so good as this one. I think I'll be WP:BOLD and copy this one over there, at least.
And while on the collage, I might as well comment on the idea of political correctness. Under women in science there was a photo that was ostensibly of a woman scientist doing science. Wrong. It was a female chemistry student in the Dominican Republic being incompetently trained (Where's her eye protection? As a chemist it made me cringe). I fixed it with a photo of Vera Rubin, who couldn't get into Palomar Observatory due to their being only one bathroom (when she finally did, they opened a small door and said: "And here.. is the famous toilet!"). In the collage, at the end, you have token Neil de Grasse Tyson who is a great explainer and I'm glad he exists, but he does not pretend to be a noted scientist who changed the field. If you need somebody in that spot, put in Percy Julian, who did influence the whole field of plant natural product chemistry and deserves to be better known.
What photo do we have for science? It's hard to illustrate an intangible. Photos of big science are impressive, and you can put in the Large Hadron Collider detector. 3-D positron emission (PET) scans also epitomize to me the application and power of science, and look cool. Article illustrations need to to be esthetic. Find something that is. S B H arris 23:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under "Scientific method" the article at the moment uses the phrase "causational relationships", which links to the article Causality. The article Causality itself does not use the word "causational". It is an odd seldom-used word. I think it was a simple mistake on the part of an editor, and should be replaced by the common and in that location logical wording "causal relationships".
SamLinscho ( talk) 21:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC) SamLinscho ( talk) 21:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The Science Council has worked out a definition of science in collaboration with A. C. Grayling. [1] According to The Guardian, it took them one year to develop it. [2] The definition is as follows, wikilinks added by me:
Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.
In my opinion, this is clearly superior to the definition in the article as it stands. Of course, scientific methodologies are not ultimately created through systematic methodologies based on evidence and such processes are thus by definition outside the definition of science, but, I guess, whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. Narssarssuaq ( talk) 15:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm still not getting the difference. WP's definition talks about a [human] "systematic enterprise" that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the "universe." "Human" is implied, as nobody things this is an animal enterprise like a bird nest, and machines don't have enterprises. The English Science Council definition talks about a "pursuit" and application of knowledge and understanding of "the natural and social world" (= "universe") following a "systematic methodology based on evidence." But our "systematic enterprise" is certainly more or less a "pursuit following a systematic methodology." Same thing. In fact the "systematic methodology" of the Science Council definition involves generating "testable explanations and predictions" which is what our WP one says. That fact that it's a human enterprise is not really left out, and the effort involved in doing all this is not explicitly mentioned in either definition, but is implied in both (enterprises require effort-- they are human endevours).
All I can see that is different really between the definitions is that the WP definition leaves out the "application" (applied sciences, like engineering) and the English definition mentions it in that one sentence. We can put in "application" in the first sentence Instead of "builds and organizes" knowledge, we could say "generates, organizes, and applies" knowledge. I don't like "builds" anyway. However, the second sentence of the WP article is the one that really addresses applied sciences and reliable demonstrable knowledge, since (historically) that is where sciences originated in both meaning and practice-- from engineering and application (technology). So all that is necessary to mention anyway to get into the history of the term. The knowledge (scientia) historically was APPLIED knowledge. One sentence isn't going to really do this distinction justice. But we have two. So it's okay. We're better. S B H arris 02:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I get the objection to "gather" as it sounds like collecting rocks. Science at its most difficult is like "gathering" a victory in a chess match against an opponent that is often better than you. Which is to say gather is the wrong word. Gathering gold in Dungeons and Dragons where you can be toasted has the same idea, but not really the same sense of confusion followed by the same public dunce cap if you put out your best explanation and it turns out wrong. Only people who publish know this feeling of high wire act with no net. Gather does not describe it. Enterprise is okay. S B H arris 15:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to note that I just did a simplifying edit of the first paragraph. Here are the important things I did: (1) remove some parenthetical statements -- these hinder the reader and should be used sparingly; (2) unlink a bunch of common terms -- there was way too much blue there; (3) remove a reference to Aristotle. Since "science" is a Latin word, Aristotle could not possibly have defined it. Relationships to Greek terminology should be dealt with elsewhere in the article. The main thing is that there is an unfortunate tendency for cumulative editing to steadily complicate the prose of an article, and for vital articles like this it is essential to fight that tendency, even if it hurts a bit. Looie496 ( talk) 15:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
In a WP:BOLD move I've replaced the montage of scientists, which now serves a better function as the opening illustration of scientist. What to put in place of it? My best thought was to be Carl Saganish and go from astronomy to atoms. We need illustration, and I thought the space telescope in orbit would illustrate the doing of science better than any number of astronomical objects, which are just things we see. At the other end, one can go down to diagrams of quarks but they aren't very visually/graphically interesting. DNA is as small as you can get and still have something visually complex-- and it is the code of life itself. And this is not a photograph, but a molecular structural diagram, so again it represents something artificial, like the space telescope. One is an artifact/instrument for gathering data, the other is the picture we have of our genetic heretage at the atomic and molecular level. So, those are my two choices, yielding data describable by general relativity and quantum mechanics.
May I ask one favor, and that is, if you don't like these and decide to modify or replace them with somethign else, replace them with something you think is better. Don't just revert to the montage of scientists. I think most people would agree that THAT serves better someplace else. No? S B H arris 02:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I like it! S B H arris 06:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment: In terms of ecstatics and concepts, I really like the newly proposed figure by Efbrazil. My only complaint is that the current figure gives the impression that the subject matter of biology and ecology is restricted to the cellular level, which is very misleading. Biology spans over many levels (see Hierarchical_organization) and I am not sure if the distinction between biology and the social sciences is just a matter of different levels of analysis (see biopsychology or biological anthropology). Plus, these fields tend to overlap with each other quite a bit. danielkueh ( talk) 17:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment : By covering many but not all sciences, the diagram may lead to objections from those not included such as the Earth Sciences (I'm a geologist so naturally it was the first thing that I noticed), but I quite like the concept. Mikenorton ( talk) 22:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment: ( edit conflict) I like the idea a lot, but here's a few thoughts:
These are only vague ideas though, nothing thought through, hope it helps anyway. — HHHIPPO 22:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for the response! I had to take time on replying so I could digest the feedback and attempt to incorporate it.-- Efbrazil ( talk) 18:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Most of the feedback has been positive so I pulled the trigger and went live with this. I hope the image is not too controversial and can stay. If you want changes to the image, please let me know here and I will try to incorporate them.-- Efbrazil ( talk) 17:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Shameless plug- I submitted the Cosmic Calendar graphic I came up with previously as a "Featured Picture Candidate" and need people to review it. I'd be very appreciative if you voted for or against the graphic here: Featured_picture_candidates#Cosmic_Calendar_v3. Thanks!-- Efbrazil ( talk) 02:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC) On page 3 in the philosophical turn to human things section, the word "deducing" in the last sentence should be changed into "inducing" Universal rules are induced, not deduced from data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bas Defize ( talk • contribs) 11:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I found a paper with the title Relative Positions of Countries in the World of Science. But I failed to find an article in Wikipedia which relates to comparison of countries from the science progress point of view :) -- Andrew Krizhanovsky ( talk) 11:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"In the 17th and 18th centuries scientists increasingly sought to be formulate knowledge"
Does no one proof read this? Remove the "be"
68.111.76.93 ( talk) 11:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Specifically, science is a sphere of knowledge within the sphere of philosophy. The two topics are not part of a dichotomy as it is often thought. Rather, philosophy plays a dominant role in reshaping what is termed science and consequently, the scientific method. This point can be demonstrated by considering how modern theories regarding what is typically thought to be a scientific discipline, is radically reshaped by philosophical revelations. An example of this can be demonstrated with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is the dominant school of thought concerning quantum mechanics. In this instance, what is typically though of as a strictly scientific discipline, has been radically altered due to philosophical findings. Specifically, it is the Schrödinger's Cat thought-experiment that explains that, defying what is traditionally believes to be scientifically impossible, a cat is both dead and non-dead at the same time. 90.206.142.34 ( talk) 23:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
This section list the research on The Germ Theory (1700), and refers to Vaccination as one of its practical impact.
Even though I don't doubt the importance of The Germ Theory in further development of vaccines (especially in the 19th century), the relationship between early (smallpox) vaccine development as described in the Wikipedia article on Edward Jenner and Vaccination and The Germ Theory (1700) seems to be nonexistent. It appears to only be an evolution of the long standing practice of inoculation.
"Who invented vaccination?". Malta Medical Journal 23 (02). 2011. Retrieved 8 August 2012.
Quote from wikipedia article on Artificial Induction of immunity:
"In 1796, Edward Jenner, a doctor and scientist who had practiced variolation, performed an experiment based on the folk-knowledge that infection with cowpox, a disease with minor symptoms which was never fatal, also conferred immunity to smallpox.[10] Jenner induced cowpox infection by transferring material from a lesion on one patient to another, thus infecting the second patient with cowpox. He then demonstrated that the latter was immune by exposing him to smallpox. The principle had been demonstrated some years earlier by Benjamin Jesty, who had not publicized his discovery. Jenner described and generalised the process and then arranged to propagate cowpox for therapeutic use and he is credited with the discovery.[11] Vaccination took over from variolation. Jenner, like all members of the Royal Society in those days, was an empiricist.[12][13][14] The theory to support further advances in vaccination came later."
Quote from wikipedia article on Germ Theory of disease:
"Building on Leeuwenhoek's work, physician Nicolas Andry argued in 1700 that microorganisms he called "worms" were responsible for smallpox and other diseases.[2]"
Quote from wikipedia article on Vaccination:
"The smallpox vaccine was designed in 1796 by the British physician Edward Jenner, although at least six people had used the same principles several years earlier.[8]"
"The breakthrough came when a scientific description of the inoculation operation was submitted to the Royal Society in 1724 by Dr Emmanual Timoni, who had been the Montagu's family physician in Istanbul. Inoculation was adopted both in England and in France nearly half a century before Jenner's famous smallpox vaccine of 1796.[25]"
"Inoculation was already a standard practice, but involved serious risks. In 1721, Lady Mary Wortley Montagu had imported variolation to Britain after having observed it in Istanbul, where her husband was the British ambassador"
Quote from wikipedia article on Edward Jenner:
"Noting the common observation that milkmaids were generally immune to smallpox, Jenner postulated that the pus in the blisters that milkmaids received from cowpox (a disease similar to smallpox, but much less virulent) protected them from smallpox."
Ddumou ( talk) 07:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I turned to Wikipedia to explore the older and wider meanings of "science" in hopes of getting an ostensively "objective" and "historical" as well as a "theoretical" and "ideal" understanding of the broadest and most general use of the word/concept "science"... And so I searched for "Sciences", knowing full well that the word simply meant an organized regular body of human knowledge.
I find my research stymied by the biases of Scientism when the broader concept of "Sciences" is reduced and redirected to "Science"...That was disappointing... The disappointment is somewhat mitigated by the traces of the broader humanistic conception of "science" evidenced in some of the text and in the graphics, where partial references to non-Natural Science sciences are included.
However, an encyclopedia is expected to be "unbiased", "exhaustive", "comprehensive" and non-partisan with regards to social and disciplinary struggle. To find this article informed by the reductionistic propaganda of Scientism reduces the credibility and usefulness of our Wikipedia project.
I have neither the time, energy, expertise or wherewithal to do the work myself... But I thought I'd share, to the best of my ability, my experience of trying to use Wikipedia in a scholarly pursuit, only to end in failure and disappointment. That's part of the process of refinement... I hope that it is remedied some day. All the best, Emyth ( talk) 13:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the interwiki link to de:Wissenschaft because the correct term in German would be Naturwissenschaft, which is already linked to natural science. -- Hokanomono ✉ 06:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I've nominated Portal:Technology for featured candidacy. Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Technology. — Cirt ( talk) 17:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
This section needs a lot of work, not only with NPOV, but also with clarification and sentence structure. It reads terribly, it makes a lot of vague assertions (gendered metaphors?), it jumps around randomly, and it just generally feels incoherent. Going to try and poke at it for a bit, but I'll probably need help. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 12:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Heh. At least the photo of Vera Rubin is still there. When she finally got up to Palomar in 1965 after being denied access to the telescope for years on the pretext that it had no separate "female restroom" (what it did have was a little unisex room), they took her down to the thing and opened it up with a flourish, and said: "And HERE... is the famous toilet!" I don't want this article to be a rant, but discrimination against women in the sciences has happened. Example: the first scientist to suggest nuclear fission in 1934, was Ida Noddack. She was ignored. Which you wouldn't think would be the case, since she was at the time one of the few living people who had discovered a chemical element (another was Marie Curie, of course). So the NEXT scientist to come up with the idea of neutron induced fission, in 1939, was Lisa Meitner. She wasn't ignored, but also she didn't get a share of the Nobel prize that was given for fission. Which I think she deserved more than Rosalind Franklin, especially considering Meitner's role vs. that of Frisch. S B H arris 03:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
There is an (imho) overcategorization on subcategory Category:Peer review of Category:Science, as you can see there is some prior discussion over Talk:scientific method. Peer review *can be* a rhetoric of science, a rhetoric of science is not science itself, that is, not a defining characteristic of science. Peer review can be applied on usual non-scientific literature/product/system..etc. too. -- 14.198.220.253 ( talk) 07:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Your unusual and confusing habit of repeating (with indention) parts of what you are responding to continues to make it more difficult to respond to you, but that aside, your link to WP:OVERCAT remains inapplicable: "One of the central goals of the categorization system is to categorize articles by their defining characteristics." (bold added by me). We are not discussing the categorization for an article, but the form of a category hierarchy, for which the link I provided applies. 63.251.123.2 ( talk) 22:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
The graphic is a thesis about the interconnection of various sciences, and implies relationships that are dubious at best and obviously false at worst. This is especially true of the right-hand column of the diagram "hierarchy of science". The arrows "building-up" from logic to mathematics and then to physics are absurd. Does mathematics 'emerge' from logic? NO! The two domains of inquiry are intertwined and no consensus exists as to the relationship between logic, mathematics, predicate calculus, and physical reality. It would be just as deceptive to show mathematics emerging from neuroscience; after all, humans practice mathematics and build machines that can compute mathematical truths.
And to have "physics" constrained to the 'physics of the very-small' (particle physics, QFT, etc.) is really objectionable. Is not "physical cosmology" still physics? What about general relativity? Was Einstein not a physicist? The problems do not end there. Having a size scale on the left of the diagram makes a very controversial point about physical reality, namely that local reductionism is a correct description of the material universe. Quantum non-locality, Bohmian mechanics, universal wave-function interpretations of QM all go in opposition of this thesis.
I thought the collage of scientists was a pretty good lead image, but I wasn't attached to it. Replacing that image with one that is entrenched in very dogmatic conceptions of space, time, emergence, etc. is a huge disservice to readers. By far the most glaring problem, IMO, is that micro-scale physics looks like it emerges from mathematics. Yes, it's very interesting that transistor circuits implementing Boolean algebra can compute numerical solutions to algebraic problems, giving rise to the rich field of computer science, but the relationship between mathematics and the rest of nature is profoundly mysterious. An uninformed reader might see that graphic and conclude that nature is, at its most fundamental, logic of the variety practiced by humans- talk about original research. - 140.160.233.152 ( talk) 23:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I can't and fail to read all of the text which I hardly understand, but the editors SHOULD NOT overlook that there is WP:FLAT and we show exactly what scientists think about science. That is our blind-spot, scientists look for laws of nature and we only write things that is correct, but Wikipedia is different, the bleeding-edge facts come next and the lead section should be the conventional wisdom(or consensus..) of scientists. There are controversy, philosophy or technical difference, but to say even mathematics and social science being a branch of science (on the lead section) is way too far. The text is fairly accurate, the graph should be removed. -- 14.198.220.253 ( talk) 21:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The note at the top of the main page says that this article "refers to experimental sciences", so the definition of science given in the article should be consistent with this.
The current definition of science given in this article, namely, "a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe" is so broad that it includes the whole of philosophy, which definitely isn't an experimental science. Neither are philosophers called "scientists".
Science is completely different to philosophy, and needs to be clearly distinguished - for the sake of both philosophy and science. Philosophy created the scientific method, but philosophy is not itself science (insofar as we use the word "science" today).
For this reason the opening sentence should specify "empirically testable" rather than just "testable". Mathematical theories, such as string theory, are not science unless they may at some time be empirically testable.
Ksolway ( talk) 09:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC) Ksolway
I realize this image (at the start of the article) is probably only supposed to be a rough conceptualization of the sciences, but still it is ridiculous that Law and Economics are basically listed as subdivisions of Sociology. Looking at the right column of the image that is clearly what it is implying, if you look at any of the other boxes they list a Science in bold and clear specializations underneath it (eg. Functional Biology has physiology, medicine and ecology as specializations). The Sociology box lists Law and Economics underneath it. However the implication that Law and Economics are specializations of sociology is highly dubious even in lofty conceptual terms, in actual practice it is ridiculous. The "Science of Institutions" as Durkheim defined it may study Law and Economics but it does not contain them. The Sociology textbook won't tell you the first thing about Law or Economics 101 and uses a different array of methods and completely different models. Economics and Law are both much older than Sociology as organized fields of study. They have their own professional associations, the American Sociological Association does not have an Economics subsection (merely an "Economic Sociology" subsection, which underlines my point that the relationship between the subjects is one of overlap rather than overarching subject and subcategory), the Economists have their own professional association (indeed the Economics one precedes its Sociological counterpart by two decades). By contrast, the American Psychological Association does have a subsection dedicated to Social Psychology, because that is a genuine specialization of Psychology.
Law and Economics are also more applied than Sociology, many organizations have positions specifically for Economists such as "Chief Economist", and obviously Law is studied in large part to be of use to practicing lawyers. I am not pointing this out to try to imply that Sociology is somehow inferior, just to note that Law and Economics are completely different subjects to Sociology. I realize correcting this would require completely remaking the image, which is otherwise very good, so don't expect a change overnight. But I just thought it should be noted on the talk page that portraying Law and Economics as specializations of Sociology in the same way as particle physics and thermodynamics are specializations of Physics is a completely misleading categorization. Ultimately it might make more sense to simply have "Social Science" as both a category in the middle "Branches of Science" column and a box in the right "Hierarchy of Science" column (and then include Psychology in it). Not as neat and consistent but definitely more accurate.-- 146.90.245.55 ( talk) 23:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
In this section sonar is listed as an example of the practical use of radio waves. This is incorrect. Sonar uses sound waves. 92.69.195.162 ( talk) 15:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
The Philosophy of science section of this article is supposed to summarize the content of the Philosophy of science article, but it currently does not. For instance, the section here contains an entire subsection on "Certainty and science," but the actual Philosophy of science article does not even contain the word "certainty" (or related words featured prominently in the subsection here such as "fallibilism").
I suppose this reflects the disconnect that exists between science practitioners or enthusiasts and practitioners of philosophy, but it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.
Instead of harmonizing the section with the article, one alternative would be to no longer refer to the Philosophy of science article as a sub-article of this one, but instead to change the "Main" template underneath the section header to a "See also" template. My preference, however, would be an overhaul of the section here. - Hugetim ( talk) 22:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
202.45.119.56 posted this comment on 21 October 2013 ( view all feedback).
dont understand
I think this article can improve only if there is a clear decision on what the article is meant to be about. (See also Science (disambiguation)) Some paragraphs refer to science as a very broad term (from the Latin word scientia), the disambiguation hint lets the reader expect experimental science and the illustration draws yet another view of science. This article is not the disambiguation page, so this page should describe one meaning of the word science. If there is enough material for more than one of the meanings of "science", there should be distinct pages. -- Hokanomono ✉ 10:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
As for the idea that this article expands a dab page, it doesn't. There exists of course a science (disambiguation) page that includes many other meanings besides the "discipline" meanings covered in science. The idea that this page should be reduced to a dab because it covers different types of science that have their own pages, is akin to suggesting that the article on animals should be reduced to a dab, because all the different type of animals described have their own pages already. Dab'ing and deleting and redirecting pages about different members of a category (kinds of animals, kinds of science) is not the WP:SS style.
Now, having said that, I think the present science article is overbalanced in favor of natural science material that should be moved to the natural science article, and summarized here. Once the present article explains the divisions and history, the discussions of the separate disciplines (starting with natural science) should be summaries, each with appropriate main articles, and no more. S B H arris 20:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
One of the users has a very interesting way of putting science into various orders. I came across this while I was researching some of the users here on Wikipedia. Does anyone have any suggestions as to if this would be a viable way to study science? Refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NormaGehring — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.198.51 ( talk) 20:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I request that the first sentence of this article: "Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe." be removed. And instead be replaced with "Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[1]) is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge by systematically testing logical explanations and predictions about the universe."
My reasoning: While the current wording is not incorrect, it can be misinterpreted by the reader as meaning to convey the idea that "only explanations which hold up in the face testing are considered to be part of the scientific enterprise", which is clearly not the intended meaning, as explanations and predictions made during the process of science are continually tested, and refined based on the outcomes of those tests, but subsequent, more accurate predictions do not exclude prior iterations or precursory predictions from the overall enterprise of "science", and indeed logical hypothesis subjected to the scientific method which turn out to lack evidence-based support should not be designated an "unscientific", but rather as hypothesis disproved by science. The currently listed references for this sentence should sufficiently support this change in wording. Morahed18 ( talk) 16:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Sam Sailor
Sing
11:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)@ User:Teaksmitty, it does not suffice to use 'Author year' as the citation, without the citation information. There are a number of examples of the Harvard reference style in the article already which you can use to guide the form of your references. Search for 'harvnb', for example. -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 15:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I would like to restore John Locke's picture to the section on philosophy of science, as an adherent of the philosophy behind science. It should be easy enough to add text to show his relationship to the spirit of his time, and the Enlightenment which followed. OK?
For example,
shows his viewpoint, which does not require centralized authority for a law of nature. All one has to do is discover it. -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 06:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
While searching for citation needed tags, I found a weaselly sentence which I tagged 'discuss', and propose to strike. Additionally, there is a claim about Lakatos which I also propose striking. -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 14:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
What Scientists Really Do, New York Review of Books
This external link is not inappropriate. It is not a promotion. It satisfies WP:EL.
Regards, IjonTichy ( talk) 03:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
History of Science and this article leave out formal sciences and humanities. Formal sciences are not natural science at all, but a third kind. The lede refers to a elder meaning of "science", the body of knowledge hedged and produced at mainstream universities and reasearch institutes. This elder meaning is as well the current one, it is in line the mainstream of studies in actual STS, science sociology and history of science papers and with "Wissenschaft", the current German interwiki. The article tries to purport a part of science as the only one, it is based on a popular interpretation of 19th century positivism, confined to "hard" natural sciences. It doesnt get the difference between natural history and the important differenes between e.g. physics or live or earth sciences. The claim of islam being the foundation of science as of today is based on a BBC article, sorry thats a no-go. I strongly doubt it, better read the source. Islam helped to conserve a variety of ancient writings, which were of use in the Renaissance, but never had the chance to develope the academic freedom needed for science. Ibn al-Haytham lived in the wrong world, so he couldnt contribute anything to modern physics. Try the Merton thesis instead or check Humboldtian science for the actual background of science. Serten II ( talk) 12:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Domn Ihde is quite interesting as he does no accept the Diltheyan divide between science and humanities, but sees them as being part of the same way of thinking. That sounds like a sort of 21th century perspective, science is a part of philosophy and works of art. The current lede is parroting 19th century posititivism. Serten II ( talk) 20:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Right now there are a slew of references which are intended to back up statements in the lede. The fifth sentence has eight references; the first sentence has four. I propose to use the model illustrated in Buffalo_Soldier#Notes to lessen the visual impact of this information, while retaining the existing citations. There are citations from the history of optics and vision which could be added in the Notes of the article this way. Right now I am awaiting access to JSTOR, but would this change be acceptable to the editors of this article? -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 14:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Moorrests ( talk) 19:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I also agree. In fact, I would say that most of the references in the lede could be removed. LadyLeodia ( talk) 00:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I added those five important reference in the article so they can be removed from lead. Moorrests ( talk) 19:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Smith finds that Alhacen (965-1040 CE) was firmly grounded in the latest thinking for his time, ranging from those of the natural philosophers ( Aristotle 384–322 BCE), physiologists and physicians ( Galen 129-216 CE), mathematicians ( Euclid fl. 300 BCE and Ptolemy 90 – c. 168 CE), to hands-on practical experimenters (Alhacen and his assistants). Alhacen synthesized these views into a work on optics of his own, which was carried forward centuries later by al-Farisi (1276-1319 CE), and the Perspectivists: Roger Bacon (1214-1292), Witelo (1230-c.1300), and John Pecham (1230-1292), each of whom were influenced by his work on optics. (Bacon freely cited Alhacen.)
Alhacen (11th c.), Smith, A. Mark, ed. and trans. De Aspectibus. Critical editions of 7 books, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society New Series, Vols 91, 95, 98, and 100. via JSTOR:
Books 1-3 are Alhacen's Visual perception; books 4-6 are on Reflection from mirrors, plane, curved, and at the edges of mirrors. Book 7 on Refraction is the most surprising; upon reading book 7 like a story, Alhacen moves from table-top physics to inferences about the stars, to the Moon illusion. I was personally surprised that Alhacen did not include Ibn Sahl's formulation of refraction (which was covered by Claudius Ptolemy), only giving the experimental setup to measure refraction.
The next chapter in the history of optics was Kepler (1604), who, in Smith's estimation, pivoted off of Alhacen's work to reformulate Visual perception, in the Scientific revolution. The chief reason is that light from a scene, when passing through an aperture (as in Alhacen's camera obscura) is inverted. Yet we do not see scenes inverted. Kepler closely examined our visual system and could find no second aperture. He concluded that the light from the scene ends on the retina only, and does not pass little forms through tubes to our brain's ventricles. This is in direct contradiction to Aristotle, on down to Alhacen, and the ontology of the Middle ages.
Finally, of course, in Newton's Opticks (1704), light can be diffracted into colors, which contradicts the ontology of the Middle ages. Thus Alhacen is rightly honored for his exhaustive examination of optics, which still can be used for personal study, to this day. OK, but what about his ontology? I suggest that we not throw rocks too freely if we critically examine our own unfounded assumptions of today. Optics gives us instructive analogs for points ( the blur circle, lines ( Ray (optics)), and waves ( electromagnetic waves). Optics is used in computing, lasers, and materials science.
A. Mark Smith is Curator's Professor of History, University of Missouri, Columbia. His field is Medieval History and History of Science. His newest book is coming out in 2015. Smith (2015) From Sight to Light Chicago
A. Mark Smith's view on Alhacen's use of a hypothetico-deductive method can be found in 91,vol.1,p.cxv and in 100,vol.1,p.c.
Now back to the article edits. To all editors: you are welcome to contribute to the article. -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 16:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
To all editors: I have added the Alhacen citations to De Aspectibus, and could use some advice: Alhacen was welcomed in the West by 1200-1250, after his Latin translation. The Perspectivists recast his work on vision into Aristotle's categories, ala the Four causes, On the Soul etc. I quote Smith 1988, "Getting the Big Picture in Medieval Optics": "The perspectivist theory is remarkably reasonable economical and coherent". BUT after Kepler demolished Alhacen's theory of vision, this Aristotelean view went into steep decline. We don't even think about these things anymore. So why should we even mention this? Because maybe the current scientific theories are just as vulnerable? -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 02:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
The current version uses e.g. a BBC source for sorta dubious claims. Neither the lede nor the main text treats various crucial topics, namely
That said, the current version is far from being complete. I would refer to improve the article instead of defending the status quo. If you have an issue with my sources, comment them under the reference entry. Serten II ( talk) 12:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Science (from
Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"
[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes
knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about nature and the
universe.
[nb 1] In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied. A practitioner of science is known as a
scientist.
In modern usage, "science" may refer as well to a way of pursuing or producing knowledge, not only the knowledge itself. [2] Especially in the anglophone world "science" is often restricted to those branches of study that seek to explain the phenomena of the material universe. [3] The German approach of "Wissenschaften" in the tradition of Humboldtian science and Humboldtian education ideal is more generic and includes all sort of scholarly endeavours with philosophy still as a common denominator. The The Two Cultures [4] the German Positivism dispute and the US science wars refer to ongoing controversies about the role of natural sciences and the humanities. The controversies refered as well to the longstanding dominance of male White Anglo-Saxon Protestant scholars in e.g. US universities and the use of " Dead white European men" as role models. It has lead to various attempts, as in gender studies to involve e.g. female or minority perspectives in science and as well a backslash defending the important role of the classics. [5] [6] Science practices include a scientific ethos - and the breach of it, scientific misconduct, has lead to various scandals. Modern Science has lead to the developement of various scientific institutions and large scale scientific research programs and various interaction of private and state funded research. The use of large scale teams has lead to a new field describing the mechanisms of Science of team science as part of Science, technology and society studies. While some traditional fields of research have been deemed Pseudo or fringe science in the meanwhile, e.g. Physiognomy or parts of Eugenics. Science is undergoing fashions and trends as for Chaos theory, or Nanotechnology studies. Former popular fringe science topics as Animal magnetism have contributed to actual science, as it forced scholarly medicine to accept the Anesthesia methods. [7]
Classical antiquity saw science as a type of knowledge closely linked to philosophy, the approach was mirrored in the 19th century Humboldtian university, which used philosophy as connecting link of all sorts science, including the humnanities. The Islamic Golden Age [9] has provided important impulses for the foundation of the scientific method. Alhazen (or Al-Haytham; 965–1039 C.E.) has been described as (Bradley Steffens 2006) "first scientist" senso stricto. [nb 2] During the Islamic Renaissance (7th–13th centuries), Alhazen made significant contributions to anatomy, astronomy, engineering, mathematics, medicine, ophthalmology, philosophy, physics, psychology, and visual perception. He emphasized experimental data and reproducibility of its results. While the Islamic Renaissance did not continue after the Siege of Baghdad (1258), translations of Alhacen and other Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe found a continued interest in scholasticism and the early Western medieval universities at Paris and Oxford. Important Scholars include William of Auvergne, Henry of Ghent, Albert Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scotus, and William of Ockham. [10]
In the West during the early modern period the words "science" and "philosophy of nature" were sometimes used interchangeably. [11]: p.3 Until the 17th century natural philosophy (which is today called " natural science") was considered a separate branch of philosophy in the West. [12] The emancipation of natural history as a separate topic is closely connected to Humboldtian science, the work and writings of German naturalist and explorer Alexander von Humboldt who combined scientific field work with the age of Romanticism sensitivity and aestetic ideals [13] and made Romanticism in science rather popular. [14] [15]
The Merton Thesis sees a close link between early experimental science and Christian theology, especially Protestant pietism, similar to Max Weber's famous claim on the link between Protestant ethic and the capitalist economy. [16]. Merton's 1936 doctoral dissertation Science, Technology and Society in 17th-Century England raised important issues on the connections between religion and the rise of modern science and is still significant in sociology of science. [17]
In the 17th and 18th centuries scientists increasingly sought to formulate knowledge in terms of laws of nature such as Newton's laws of motion. Over the course of the 19th century, the word "science" became increasingly associated with the scientific method itself, as a disciplined way to study the natural world, including physics, chemistry, geology and biology. It is in the 19th century also that the term scientist began to be applied to those who sought knowledge and understanding of nature. [18] However, "science" has also continued to be used in a broad sense to denote reliable and teachable knowledge about a topic, as reflected in modern terms like library science or computer science. This is also reflected in the names of some areas of academic study such as " social science" or " political science".
German philosopher Wilhelm Dilthey (1833 – 1911) strongly rejected the exclusive role of natural sciences (Naturwissenschaften), and asked to develope a separate model for the human sciences ( Geisteswissenschaften). His argument centered around the idea that in the natural sciences we seek to explain phenomena in terms of cause and effect, or the general and the particular; in contrast, in the human sciences, we seek to understand in terms of the relations of the part and the whole. C.P Snow's The Two Cultures and the US Science Wars and the German Positivism dispute show a continued interest in the divide. There have been various attempts to bridge the gap. E.g. Bruno Latour suggest that modernity (and modern science) is based by producing new hybrids between nature and culture (translation) and by dividing them (purification). [2] The Camera obscura is a powerful example for such an epistemic machinery: While Alhazen developed a useable theory of the refraction of light, he was not at all interested (or even hostile, compare Aniconism in Islam) to producing images with it. [19] The Western use of the Arab knowledge however allowed a mass production of perspectival images and contributed to subjectivity and personality of artists and the persons depicted. [2] The use of perspective in paintings, maps, theatre setups and architectural and later photographic images and movies provided a major leap with important side effects for science. [19] Don Ihde goes so far to claim that "Art Precedes Science" and the Camera Obscura was crucial for the invention of Modern Science. [2] [20]
Perhaps I might offer a note in support of Max Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism on the link between Protestant ethic and the capitalist economy. If you were to come to Los Angeles, you will observe the healthy effect of certain Protestant immigrant groups on its economy. They are quite visible, as they are not ethnically Europeans, but they have boosted the economy (investments, businesses, cars, houses, clothes, support for tutoring of their children, etc.). not only in LA, but also, e.g., New York City, Vancouver BC. You are welcome to ask me on my talk page for details. Or, perhaps via e-mail. -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 10:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the following text:
"Science in a broad sense existed before the modern era, and in many historical civilizations,[9] but modern science is so distinct in its approach and successful in its results that it now defines what science is in the strictest sense of the term.[10] Much earlier than the modern era, another important turning point was the development of classical natural philosophy in the ancient Greek-speaking world."
1. I'm finding first sentence the following short paragraph to be very hard to read. 2. I'm puzzled by the second sentence, which might just be deleted. 3. Maybe all of this paragraph can just be deleted.
Sincerely, Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 00:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Hey, why is there no table of contents in this talk section? It would be helpful.
Now, onto the matter of the sea urchin photograph. I find this kind of distracting. I mean, this is an article about the very broad subject of "science". And, yes, the study of sea urchins in interesting. I even find them lovely. But I also find the presence and placement of this photograph to be distracting. Can we either delete it or move it down into the deep interior of the article? Thanks, Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 18:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 07:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/basics/factorysmoke.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isambard Kingdom ( talk • contribs) 14:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay, Ancheta Wis, here is a possible (compromise) list of images to keep, followed by images to delete.
Outline of science picture: (already being used). Beach picture: for physics and math, Sand Reckoner and, also, oceanography! Galileo: Astronomy, scientific method (already being used) Darwin: Natural history, evolution. Candle: Chemical reactions, Faraday. Maize: Agricultural science, food, genetics. Social science picture. Brain picture: for medicine and biology. Plate tectonic picture: (already being used). DNA picture: (already being used). Newton: Gravity, mathematics. CERN Higgs Boson event: (already being used). Smoke stack: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/basics/factorysmoke.jpg which touches on environment, global climate, social relevance, etc.
Images I'm in favor of deleting:
Pretty picture of bottles. Popper. Ibn al-Haytham. Astronomical sextant (or what ever that thing is) Lab book (low information content). Distinguished men of science. Johannes Hevelius and wife. Vera Rubin. Bill Clinton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isambard Kingdom ( talk • contribs) 15:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
@ Isambard Kingdom, thank you for refreshing the article. I hope that you will continue to contribute here. I added an image which leads to fMRI, as a potential continuation point for this collaboration. -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 14:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=nb>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=nb}}
template (see the
help page).
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
83.100.179.221 (
talk)
13:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Please change the obsolete definition. It sounds arcane and does not resonate with the larger audience.
The following - taken from The Cambridge Dictionaries online - could be useful
Science
Definition • [U] (knowledge from) the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical world, especially by watching, measuring and doing experiments, and the development of theories to describe the results of these activities — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.214.202.248 ( talk) 05:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
The article on science is very historical. With texts offering 'Intelligent Design' and similar pretenses at science, the public needs a good definition of science: how strict it must be (predictions) and how flexible it can be (methods).
Geologist ( talk) 10:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
? -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 13:09, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Did Feyerabend really say there are no "*useful*" methods, or simply that there is no single, universal method? I don't think Feyerabends point was that science has no use, just that it is not necessarily special compared to other methods of finding things out. It seems there needs to be some kind of citation in this section! 81.103.237.86 ( talk) 21:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Could you please help me to explain the meaning of this word, consensibility and perceptual consensibility, thanks.-- Tranletuhan ( talk) 09:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Does this article not give undue weight to criticism of science? 99.9% of sources aren't critical of science and this leads a lot of undue weight to these ideas by Jung (who was an advocate of pseudoscience like astrology) etc. IRWolfie- ( talk) 20:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
While I agree that measurement and SI units are very important, especially to natural scientists and engineers, the section on
measurement seems to be a little overkill for an article that attempts to provide broad overview of science. Except for textbooks on physics, chemistry, engineering, and to a lesser extent, biology, you won't find an exhaustive discussion of measurements and SI units in many other areas of science (e.g., psychology, economics, philosophy of science). It just seems to be a little out of proportion here. I would like to suggest condensing this section down to one paragraph or less and moving the rest to the
Natural Science
measurement article instead where it fits better. Thoughts?
danielkueh (
talk)
00:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I think I figured out an accessible approach to 'unit of measure'. My example illustration is Leonardo da Vinci's Vitruvian man. His rule applies to the proportions of grown people. In the drawing, the head of the average adult human being is the unit of measure, the body being roughly 6 heads high, with the navel at the center of the body. For infants, the body is smaller, say 4 heads high. For heroic figures, the body is even larger, say 7 or 8 heads high. This style of drawing is taught in classes for sketching. -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 19:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Keeping in mind the human being's natural tendency to bias, whether or not he or she wishes to avoid, learn from, and correct his or her mistakes, I would like to bring our attention to the theme of "European Scientists" in this article. The History of Science, as written here, appears to elaborate on the theme of European Scientists to the point where the article itself appears to be no more than an explanation of the various European ideas which have influenced Science as a whole. There appears to be a touch of Arabian influence in the entry, at most. Aside from retitling this page "A History of European Science", one may consider summarizing the history of Science in each respective category: race, civilization, continent, and time period (any or every one). Regrettably, on many timelines the dates arrogantly leap from the Ancient Chinese and Greek/Roman Scientists to the Early European (Renaissance and beyond) Scientists, often minimizing or otherwise entirely leaving out thousands of years of significant contributions from Africans to American Indians to Muslims to Hindus to Australians. Sadly enough, the Scientific discussion and coverage in this article appears centered in the European scientific contribution to the Great Conversation of Ideas which has spanned the history of mankind. I hope this article, and many others like it, will expand their range of historical, racial, and religious figures, ideas, and inventions to not only European scientists but people of all civilizations, cultures, races, religions who have and have not contributed to European scientific authority.
Your thoughts are greatly appreciated,
Abdullah H. Mirza ( talk) 23:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
PLEASE take Freud out of there. Please. Freud killed science. 50.8.125.134 ( talk) 01:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
The person depicted on the top left of the image is Archidamus III King of Sparta and not Archimedes the engineer, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archidamus_III . I am not sure how to edit the picture to correct it, nor I have an image of Archimedes. 132.206.126.18 ( talk) 20:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
The collage depicts only western scientists. Glurpingfrog ( talk) 01:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Why should the page on science have a montage of scientists? Wouldn't the montage better fit on the page of "scientist"? Also having the "influential" scientists reinforces the questionable view that science is mainly done by influential scientists. I suggest instead having a graphic of a large questionmark. Here is a possible picture to use:
-- Khaydock ( talk) 07:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I also don't like the idea of a question mark at all. "Science" means "knowledge." The entire purpose of the discipline is to answer questions (though never fully or with perfect certainty). Still it answers questions well enough to do various types of engineering and other tech, which is well enough!
Let me add my vote of using the nice collage of scientists to illustrate the scientist article, which (now) has a lede photo that isn't nearly so good as this one. I think I'll be WP:BOLD and copy this one over there, at least.
And while on the collage, I might as well comment on the idea of political correctness. Under women in science there was a photo that was ostensibly of a woman scientist doing science. Wrong. It was a female chemistry student in the Dominican Republic being incompetently trained (Where's her eye protection? As a chemist it made me cringe). I fixed it with a photo of Vera Rubin, who couldn't get into Palomar Observatory due to their being only one bathroom (when she finally did, they opened a small door and said: "And here.. is the famous toilet!"). In the collage, at the end, you have token Neil de Grasse Tyson who is a great explainer and I'm glad he exists, but he does not pretend to be a noted scientist who changed the field. If you need somebody in that spot, put in Percy Julian, who did influence the whole field of plant natural product chemistry and deserves to be better known.
What photo do we have for science? It's hard to illustrate an intangible. Photos of big science are impressive, and you can put in the Large Hadron Collider detector. 3-D positron emission (PET) scans also epitomize to me the application and power of science, and look cool. Article illustrations need to to be esthetic. Find something that is. S B H arris 23:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under "Scientific method" the article at the moment uses the phrase "causational relationships", which links to the article Causality. The article Causality itself does not use the word "causational". It is an odd seldom-used word. I think it was a simple mistake on the part of an editor, and should be replaced by the common and in that location logical wording "causal relationships".
SamLinscho ( talk) 21:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC) SamLinscho ( talk) 21:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The Science Council has worked out a definition of science in collaboration with A. C. Grayling. [1] According to The Guardian, it took them one year to develop it. [2] The definition is as follows, wikilinks added by me:
Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.
In my opinion, this is clearly superior to the definition in the article as it stands. Of course, scientific methodologies are not ultimately created through systematic methodologies based on evidence and such processes are thus by definition outside the definition of science, but, I guess, whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. Narssarssuaq ( talk) 15:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm still not getting the difference. WP's definition talks about a [human] "systematic enterprise" that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the "universe." "Human" is implied, as nobody things this is an animal enterprise like a bird nest, and machines don't have enterprises. The English Science Council definition talks about a "pursuit" and application of knowledge and understanding of "the natural and social world" (= "universe") following a "systematic methodology based on evidence." But our "systematic enterprise" is certainly more or less a "pursuit following a systematic methodology." Same thing. In fact the "systematic methodology" of the Science Council definition involves generating "testable explanations and predictions" which is what our WP one says. That fact that it's a human enterprise is not really left out, and the effort involved in doing all this is not explicitly mentioned in either definition, but is implied in both (enterprises require effort-- they are human endevours).
All I can see that is different really between the definitions is that the WP definition leaves out the "application" (applied sciences, like engineering) and the English definition mentions it in that one sentence. We can put in "application" in the first sentence Instead of "builds and organizes" knowledge, we could say "generates, organizes, and applies" knowledge. I don't like "builds" anyway. However, the second sentence of the WP article is the one that really addresses applied sciences and reliable demonstrable knowledge, since (historically) that is where sciences originated in both meaning and practice-- from engineering and application (technology). So all that is necessary to mention anyway to get into the history of the term. The knowledge (scientia) historically was APPLIED knowledge. One sentence isn't going to really do this distinction justice. But we have two. So it's okay. We're better. S B H arris 02:05, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I get the objection to "gather" as it sounds like collecting rocks. Science at its most difficult is like "gathering" a victory in a chess match against an opponent that is often better than you. Which is to say gather is the wrong word. Gathering gold in Dungeons and Dragons where you can be toasted has the same idea, but not really the same sense of confusion followed by the same public dunce cap if you put out your best explanation and it turns out wrong. Only people who publish know this feeling of high wire act with no net. Gather does not describe it. Enterprise is okay. S B H arris 15:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to note that I just did a simplifying edit of the first paragraph. Here are the important things I did: (1) remove some parenthetical statements -- these hinder the reader and should be used sparingly; (2) unlink a bunch of common terms -- there was way too much blue there; (3) remove a reference to Aristotle. Since "science" is a Latin word, Aristotle could not possibly have defined it. Relationships to Greek terminology should be dealt with elsewhere in the article. The main thing is that there is an unfortunate tendency for cumulative editing to steadily complicate the prose of an article, and for vital articles like this it is essential to fight that tendency, even if it hurts a bit. Looie496 ( talk) 15:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
In a WP:BOLD move I've replaced the montage of scientists, which now serves a better function as the opening illustration of scientist. What to put in place of it? My best thought was to be Carl Saganish and go from astronomy to atoms. We need illustration, and I thought the space telescope in orbit would illustrate the doing of science better than any number of astronomical objects, which are just things we see. At the other end, one can go down to diagrams of quarks but they aren't very visually/graphically interesting. DNA is as small as you can get and still have something visually complex-- and it is the code of life itself. And this is not a photograph, but a molecular structural diagram, so again it represents something artificial, like the space telescope. One is an artifact/instrument for gathering data, the other is the picture we have of our genetic heretage at the atomic and molecular level. So, those are my two choices, yielding data describable by general relativity and quantum mechanics.
May I ask one favor, and that is, if you don't like these and decide to modify or replace them with somethign else, replace them with something you think is better. Don't just revert to the montage of scientists. I think most people would agree that THAT serves better someplace else. No? S B H arris 02:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I like it! S B H arris 06:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment: In terms of ecstatics and concepts, I really like the newly proposed figure by Efbrazil. My only complaint is that the current figure gives the impression that the subject matter of biology and ecology is restricted to the cellular level, which is very misleading. Biology spans over many levels (see Hierarchical_organization) and I am not sure if the distinction between biology and the social sciences is just a matter of different levels of analysis (see biopsychology or biological anthropology). Plus, these fields tend to overlap with each other quite a bit. danielkueh ( talk) 17:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment : By covering many but not all sciences, the diagram may lead to objections from those not included such as the Earth Sciences (I'm a geologist so naturally it was the first thing that I noticed), but I quite like the concept. Mikenorton ( talk) 22:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Comment: ( edit conflict) I like the idea a lot, but here's a few thoughts:
These are only vague ideas though, nothing thought through, hope it helps anyway. — HHHIPPO 22:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for the response! I had to take time on replying so I could digest the feedback and attempt to incorporate it.-- Efbrazil ( talk) 18:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Most of the feedback has been positive so I pulled the trigger and went live with this. I hope the image is not too controversial and can stay. If you want changes to the image, please let me know here and I will try to incorporate them.-- Efbrazil ( talk) 17:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Shameless plug- I submitted the Cosmic Calendar graphic I came up with previously as a "Featured Picture Candidate" and need people to review it. I'd be very appreciative if you voted for or against the graphic here: Featured_picture_candidates#Cosmic_Calendar_v3. Thanks!-- Efbrazil ( talk) 02:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC) On page 3 in the philosophical turn to human things section, the word "deducing" in the last sentence should be changed into "inducing" Universal rules are induced, not deduced from data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bas Defize ( talk • contribs) 11:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I found a paper with the title Relative Positions of Countries in the World of Science. But I failed to find an article in Wikipedia which relates to comparison of countries from the science progress point of view :) -- Andrew Krizhanovsky ( talk) 11:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"In the 17th and 18th centuries scientists increasingly sought to be formulate knowledge"
Does no one proof read this? Remove the "be"
68.111.76.93 ( talk) 11:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Specifically, science is a sphere of knowledge within the sphere of philosophy. The two topics are not part of a dichotomy as it is often thought. Rather, philosophy plays a dominant role in reshaping what is termed science and consequently, the scientific method. This point can be demonstrated by considering how modern theories regarding what is typically thought to be a scientific discipline, is radically reshaped by philosophical revelations. An example of this can be demonstrated with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which is the dominant school of thought concerning quantum mechanics. In this instance, what is typically though of as a strictly scientific discipline, has been radically altered due to philosophical findings. Specifically, it is the Schrödinger's Cat thought-experiment that explains that, defying what is traditionally believes to be scientifically impossible, a cat is both dead and non-dead at the same time. 90.206.142.34 ( talk) 23:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
This section list the research on The Germ Theory (1700), and refers to Vaccination as one of its practical impact.
Even though I don't doubt the importance of The Germ Theory in further development of vaccines (especially in the 19th century), the relationship between early (smallpox) vaccine development as described in the Wikipedia article on Edward Jenner and Vaccination and The Germ Theory (1700) seems to be nonexistent. It appears to only be an evolution of the long standing practice of inoculation.
"Who invented vaccination?". Malta Medical Journal 23 (02). 2011. Retrieved 8 August 2012.
Quote from wikipedia article on Artificial Induction of immunity:
"In 1796, Edward Jenner, a doctor and scientist who had practiced variolation, performed an experiment based on the folk-knowledge that infection with cowpox, a disease with minor symptoms which was never fatal, also conferred immunity to smallpox.[10] Jenner induced cowpox infection by transferring material from a lesion on one patient to another, thus infecting the second patient with cowpox. He then demonstrated that the latter was immune by exposing him to smallpox. The principle had been demonstrated some years earlier by Benjamin Jesty, who had not publicized his discovery. Jenner described and generalised the process and then arranged to propagate cowpox for therapeutic use and he is credited with the discovery.[11] Vaccination took over from variolation. Jenner, like all members of the Royal Society in those days, was an empiricist.[12][13][14] The theory to support further advances in vaccination came later."
Quote from wikipedia article on Germ Theory of disease:
"Building on Leeuwenhoek's work, physician Nicolas Andry argued in 1700 that microorganisms he called "worms" were responsible for smallpox and other diseases.[2]"
Quote from wikipedia article on Vaccination:
"The smallpox vaccine was designed in 1796 by the British physician Edward Jenner, although at least six people had used the same principles several years earlier.[8]"
"The breakthrough came when a scientific description of the inoculation operation was submitted to the Royal Society in 1724 by Dr Emmanual Timoni, who had been the Montagu's family physician in Istanbul. Inoculation was adopted both in England and in France nearly half a century before Jenner's famous smallpox vaccine of 1796.[25]"
"Inoculation was already a standard practice, but involved serious risks. In 1721, Lady Mary Wortley Montagu had imported variolation to Britain after having observed it in Istanbul, where her husband was the British ambassador"
Quote from wikipedia article on Edward Jenner:
"Noting the common observation that milkmaids were generally immune to smallpox, Jenner postulated that the pus in the blisters that milkmaids received from cowpox (a disease similar to smallpox, but much less virulent) protected them from smallpox."
Ddumou ( talk) 07:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I turned to Wikipedia to explore the older and wider meanings of "science" in hopes of getting an ostensively "objective" and "historical" as well as a "theoretical" and "ideal" understanding of the broadest and most general use of the word/concept "science"... And so I searched for "Sciences", knowing full well that the word simply meant an organized regular body of human knowledge.
I find my research stymied by the biases of Scientism when the broader concept of "Sciences" is reduced and redirected to "Science"...That was disappointing... The disappointment is somewhat mitigated by the traces of the broader humanistic conception of "science" evidenced in some of the text and in the graphics, where partial references to non-Natural Science sciences are included.
However, an encyclopedia is expected to be "unbiased", "exhaustive", "comprehensive" and non-partisan with regards to social and disciplinary struggle. To find this article informed by the reductionistic propaganda of Scientism reduces the credibility and usefulness of our Wikipedia project.
I have neither the time, energy, expertise or wherewithal to do the work myself... But I thought I'd share, to the best of my ability, my experience of trying to use Wikipedia in a scholarly pursuit, only to end in failure and disappointment. That's part of the process of refinement... I hope that it is remedied some day. All the best, Emyth ( talk) 13:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the interwiki link to de:Wissenschaft because the correct term in German would be Naturwissenschaft, which is already linked to natural science. -- Hokanomono ✉ 06:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I've nominated Portal:Technology for featured candidacy. Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Technology. — Cirt ( talk) 17:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
This section needs a lot of work, not only with NPOV, but also with clarification and sentence structure. It reads terribly, it makes a lot of vague assertions (gendered metaphors?), it jumps around randomly, and it just generally feels incoherent. Going to try and poke at it for a bit, but I'll probably need help. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 12:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Heh. At least the photo of Vera Rubin is still there. When she finally got up to Palomar in 1965 after being denied access to the telescope for years on the pretext that it had no separate "female restroom" (what it did have was a little unisex room), they took her down to the thing and opened it up with a flourish, and said: "And HERE... is the famous toilet!" I don't want this article to be a rant, but discrimination against women in the sciences has happened. Example: the first scientist to suggest nuclear fission in 1934, was Ida Noddack. She was ignored. Which you wouldn't think would be the case, since she was at the time one of the few living people who had discovered a chemical element (another was Marie Curie, of course). So the NEXT scientist to come up with the idea of neutron induced fission, in 1939, was Lisa Meitner. She wasn't ignored, but also she didn't get a share of the Nobel prize that was given for fission. Which I think she deserved more than Rosalind Franklin, especially considering Meitner's role vs. that of Frisch. S B H arris 03:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
There is an (imho) overcategorization on subcategory Category:Peer review of Category:Science, as you can see there is some prior discussion over Talk:scientific method. Peer review *can be* a rhetoric of science, a rhetoric of science is not science itself, that is, not a defining characteristic of science. Peer review can be applied on usual non-scientific literature/product/system..etc. too. -- 14.198.220.253 ( talk) 07:14, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Your unusual and confusing habit of repeating (with indention) parts of what you are responding to continues to make it more difficult to respond to you, but that aside, your link to WP:OVERCAT remains inapplicable: "One of the central goals of the categorization system is to categorize articles by their defining characteristics." (bold added by me). We are not discussing the categorization for an article, but the form of a category hierarchy, for which the link I provided applies. 63.251.123.2 ( talk) 22:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
The graphic is a thesis about the interconnection of various sciences, and implies relationships that are dubious at best and obviously false at worst. This is especially true of the right-hand column of the diagram "hierarchy of science". The arrows "building-up" from logic to mathematics and then to physics are absurd. Does mathematics 'emerge' from logic? NO! The two domains of inquiry are intertwined and no consensus exists as to the relationship between logic, mathematics, predicate calculus, and physical reality. It would be just as deceptive to show mathematics emerging from neuroscience; after all, humans practice mathematics and build machines that can compute mathematical truths.
And to have "physics" constrained to the 'physics of the very-small' (particle physics, QFT, etc.) is really objectionable. Is not "physical cosmology" still physics? What about general relativity? Was Einstein not a physicist? The problems do not end there. Having a size scale on the left of the diagram makes a very controversial point about physical reality, namely that local reductionism is a correct description of the material universe. Quantum non-locality, Bohmian mechanics, universal wave-function interpretations of QM all go in opposition of this thesis.
I thought the collage of scientists was a pretty good lead image, but I wasn't attached to it. Replacing that image with one that is entrenched in very dogmatic conceptions of space, time, emergence, etc. is a huge disservice to readers. By far the most glaring problem, IMO, is that micro-scale physics looks like it emerges from mathematics. Yes, it's very interesting that transistor circuits implementing Boolean algebra can compute numerical solutions to algebraic problems, giving rise to the rich field of computer science, but the relationship between mathematics and the rest of nature is profoundly mysterious. An uninformed reader might see that graphic and conclude that nature is, at its most fundamental, logic of the variety practiced by humans- talk about original research. - 140.160.233.152 ( talk) 23:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I can't and fail to read all of the text which I hardly understand, but the editors SHOULD NOT overlook that there is WP:FLAT and we show exactly what scientists think about science. That is our blind-spot, scientists look for laws of nature and we only write things that is correct, but Wikipedia is different, the bleeding-edge facts come next and the lead section should be the conventional wisdom(or consensus..) of scientists. There are controversy, philosophy or technical difference, but to say even mathematics and social science being a branch of science (on the lead section) is way too far. The text is fairly accurate, the graph should be removed. -- 14.198.220.253 ( talk) 21:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The note at the top of the main page says that this article "refers to experimental sciences", so the definition of science given in the article should be consistent with this.
The current definition of science given in this article, namely, "a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe" is so broad that it includes the whole of philosophy, which definitely isn't an experimental science. Neither are philosophers called "scientists".
Science is completely different to philosophy, and needs to be clearly distinguished - for the sake of both philosophy and science. Philosophy created the scientific method, but philosophy is not itself science (insofar as we use the word "science" today).
For this reason the opening sentence should specify "empirically testable" rather than just "testable". Mathematical theories, such as string theory, are not science unless they may at some time be empirically testable.
Ksolway ( talk) 09:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC) Ksolway
I realize this image (at the start of the article) is probably only supposed to be a rough conceptualization of the sciences, but still it is ridiculous that Law and Economics are basically listed as subdivisions of Sociology. Looking at the right column of the image that is clearly what it is implying, if you look at any of the other boxes they list a Science in bold and clear specializations underneath it (eg. Functional Biology has physiology, medicine and ecology as specializations). The Sociology box lists Law and Economics underneath it. However the implication that Law and Economics are specializations of sociology is highly dubious even in lofty conceptual terms, in actual practice it is ridiculous. The "Science of Institutions" as Durkheim defined it may study Law and Economics but it does not contain them. The Sociology textbook won't tell you the first thing about Law or Economics 101 and uses a different array of methods and completely different models. Economics and Law are both much older than Sociology as organized fields of study. They have their own professional associations, the American Sociological Association does not have an Economics subsection (merely an "Economic Sociology" subsection, which underlines my point that the relationship between the subjects is one of overlap rather than overarching subject and subcategory), the Economists have their own professional association (indeed the Economics one precedes its Sociological counterpart by two decades). By contrast, the American Psychological Association does have a subsection dedicated to Social Psychology, because that is a genuine specialization of Psychology.
Law and Economics are also more applied than Sociology, many organizations have positions specifically for Economists such as "Chief Economist", and obviously Law is studied in large part to be of use to practicing lawyers. I am not pointing this out to try to imply that Sociology is somehow inferior, just to note that Law and Economics are completely different subjects to Sociology. I realize correcting this would require completely remaking the image, which is otherwise very good, so don't expect a change overnight. But I just thought it should be noted on the talk page that portraying Law and Economics as specializations of Sociology in the same way as particle physics and thermodynamics are specializations of Physics is a completely misleading categorization. Ultimately it might make more sense to simply have "Social Science" as both a category in the middle "Branches of Science" column and a box in the right "Hierarchy of Science" column (and then include Psychology in it). Not as neat and consistent but definitely more accurate.-- 146.90.245.55 ( talk) 23:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
In this section sonar is listed as an example of the practical use of radio waves. This is incorrect. Sonar uses sound waves. 92.69.195.162 ( talk) 15:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
The Philosophy of science section of this article is supposed to summarize the content of the Philosophy of science article, but it currently does not. For instance, the section here contains an entire subsection on "Certainty and science," but the actual Philosophy of science article does not even contain the word "certainty" (or related words featured prominently in the subsection here such as "fallibilism").
I suppose this reflects the disconnect that exists between science practitioners or enthusiasts and practitioners of philosophy, but it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.
Instead of harmonizing the section with the article, one alternative would be to no longer refer to the Philosophy of science article as a sub-article of this one, but instead to change the "Main" template underneath the section header to a "See also" template. My preference, however, would be an overhaul of the section here. - Hugetim ( talk) 22:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
202.45.119.56 posted this comment on 21 October 2013 ( view all feedback).
dont understand
I think this article can improve only if there is a clear decision on what the article is meant to be about. (See also Science (disambiguation)) Some paragraphs refer to science as a very broad term (from the Latin word scientia), the disambiguation hint lets the reader expect experimental science and the illustration draws yet another view of science. This article is not the disambiguation page, so this page should describe one meaning of the word science. If there is enough material for more than one of the meanings of "science", there should be distinct pages. -- Hokanomono ✉ 10:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
As for the idea that this article expands a dab page, it doesn't. There exists of course a science (disambiguation) page that includes many other meanings besides the "discipline" meanings covered in science. The idea that this page should be reduced to a dab because it covers different types of science that have their own pages, is akin to suggesting that the article on animals should be reduced to a dab, because all the different type of animals described have their own pages already. Dab'ing and deleting and redirecting pages about different members of a category (kinds of animals, kinds of science) is not the WP:SS style.
Now, having said that, I think the present science article is overbalanced in favor of natural science material that should be moved to the natural science article, and summarized here. Once the present article explains the divisions and history, the discussions of the separate disciplines (starting with natural science) should be summaries, each with appropriate main articles, and no more. S B H arris 20:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
One of the users has a very interesting way of putting science into various orders. I came across this while I was researching some of the users here on Wikipedia. Does anyone have any suggestions as to if this would be a viable way to study science? Refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NormaGehring — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.198.51 ( talk) 20:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I request that the first sentence of this article: "Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe." be removed. And instead be replaced with "Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[1]) is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge by systematically testing logical explanations and predictions about the universe."
My reasoning: While the current wording is not incorrect, it can be misinterpreted by the reader as meaning to convey the idea that "only explanations which hold up in the face testing are considered to be part of the scientific enterprise", which is clearly not the intended meaning, as explanations and predictions made during the process of science are continually tested, and refined based on the outcomes of those tests, but subsequent, more accurate predictions do not exclude prior iterations or precursory predictions from the overall enterprise of "science", and indeed logical hypothesis subjected to the scientific method which turn out to lack evidence-based support should not be designated an "unscientific", but rather as hypothesis disproved by science. The currently listed references for this sentence should sufficiently support this change in wording. Morahed18 ( talk) 16:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Sam Sailor
Sing
11:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)@ User:Teaksmitty, it does not suffice to use 'Author year' as the citation, without the citation information. There are a number of examples of the Harvard reference style in the article already which you can use to guide the form of your references. Search for 'harvnb', for example. -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 15:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I would like to restore John Locke's picture to the section on philosophy of science, as an adherent of the philosophy behind science. It should be easy enough to add text to show his relationship to the spirit of his time, and the Enlightenment which followed. OK?
For example,
shows his viewpoint, which does not require centralized authority for a law of nature. All one has to do is discover it. -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 06:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
While searching for citation needed tags, I found a weaselly sentence which I tagged 'discuss', and propose to strike. Additionally, there is a claim about Lakatos which I also propose striking. -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 14:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
What Scientists Really Do, New York Review of Books
This external link is not inappropriate. It is not a promotion. It satisfies WP:EL.
Regards, IjonTichy ( talk) 03:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
History of Science and this article leave out formal sciences and humanities. Formal sciences are not natural science at all, but a third kind. The lede refers to a elder meaning of "science", the body of knowledge hedged and produced at mainstream universities and reasearch institutes. This elder meaning is as well the current one, it is in line the mainstream of studies in actual STS, science sociology and history of science papers and with "Wissenschaft", the current German interwiki. The article tries to purport a part of science as the only one, it is based on a popular interpretation of 19th century positivism, confined to "hard" natural sciences. It doesnt get the difference between natural history and the important differenes between e.g. physics or live or earth sciences. The claim of islam being the foundation of science as of today is based on a BBC article, sorry thats a no-go. I strongly doubt it, better read the source. Islam helped to conserve a variety of ancient writings, which were of use in the Renaissance, but never had the chance to develope the academic freedom needed for science. Ibn al-Haytham lived in the wrong world, so he couldnt contribute anything to modern physics. Try the Merton thesis instead or check Humboldtian science for the actual background of science. Serten II ( talk) 12:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Domn Ihde is quite interesting as he does no accept the Diltheyan divide between science and humanities, but sees them as being part of the same way of thinking. That sounds like a sort of 21th century perspective, science is a part of philosophy and works of art. The current lede is parroting 19th century posititivism. Serten II ( talk) 20:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Right now there are a slew of references which are intended to back up statements in the lede. The fifth sentence has eight references; the first sentence has four. I propose to use the model illustrated in Buffalo_Soldier#Notes to lessen the visual impact of this information, while retaining the existing citations. There are citations from the history of optics and vision which could be added in the Notes of the article this way. Right now I am awaiting access to JSTOR, but would this change be acceptable to the editors of this article? -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 14:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Moorrests ( talk) 19:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I also agree. In fact, I would say that most of the references in the lede could be removed. LadyLeodia ( talk) 00:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
I added those five important reference in the article so they can be removed from lead. Moorrests ( talk) 19:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Smith finds that Alhacen (965-1040 CE) was firmly grounded in the latest thinking for his time, ranging from those of the natural philosophers ( Aristotle 384–322 BCE), physiologists and physicians ( Galen 129-216 CE), mathematicians ( Euclid fl. 300 BCE and Ptolemy 90 – c. 168 CE), to hands-on practical experimenters (Alhacen and his assistants). Alhacen synthesized these views into a work on optics of his own, which was carried forward centuries later by al-Farisi (1276-1319 CE), and the Perspectivists: Roger Bacon (1214-1292), Witelo (1230-c.1300), and John Pecham (1230-1292), each of whom were influenced by his work on optics. (Bacon freely cited Alhacen.)
Alhacen (11th c.), Smith, A. Mark, ed. and trans. De Aspectibus. Critical editions of 7 books, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society New Series, Vols 91, 95, 98, and 100. via JSTOR:
Books 1-3 are Alhacen's Visual perception; books 4-6 are on Reflection from mirrors, plane, curved, and at the edges of mirrors. Book 7 on Refraction is the most surprising; upon reading book 7 like a story, Alhacen moves from table-top physics to inferences about the stars, to the Moon illusion. I was personally surprised that Alhacen did not include Ibn Sahl's formulation of refraction (which was covered by Claudius Ptolemy), only giving the experimental setup to measure refraction.
The next chapter in the history of optics was Kepler (1604), who, in Smith's estimation, pivoted off of Alhacen's work to reformulate Visual perception, in the Scientific revolution. The chief reason is that light from a scene, when passing through an aperture (as in Alhacen's camera obscura) is inverted. Yet we do not see scenes inverted. Kepler closely examined our visual system and could find no second aperture. He concluded that the light from the scene ends on the retina only, and does not pass little forms through tubes to our brain's ventricles. This is in direct contradiction to Aristotle, on down to Alhacen, and the ontology of the Middle ages.
Finally, of course, in Newton's Opticks (1704), light can be diffracted into colors, which contradicts the ontology of the Middle ages. Thus Alhacen is rightly honored for his exhaustive examination of optics, which still can be used for personal study, to this day. OK, but what about his ontology? I suggest that we not throw rocks too freely if we critically examine our own unfounded assumptions of today. Optics gives us instructive analogs for points ( the blur circle, lines ( Ray (optics)), and waves ( electromagnetic waves). Optics is used in computing, lasers, and materials science.
A. Mark Smith is Curator's Professor of History, University of Missouri, Columbia. His field is Medieval History and History of Science. His newest book is coming out in 2015. Smith (2015) From Sight to Light Chicago
A. Mark Smith's view on Alhacen's use of a hypothetico-deductive method can be found in 91,vol.1,p.cxv and in 100,vol.1,p.c.
Now back to the article edits. To all editors: you are welcome to contribute to the article. -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 16:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
To all editors: I have added the Alhacen citations to De Aspectibus, and could use some advice: Alhacen was welcomed in the West by 1200-1250, after his Latin translation. The Perspectivists recast his work on vision into Aristotle's categories, ala the Four causes, On the Soul etc. I quote Smith 1988, "Getting the Big Picture in Medieval Optics": "The perspectivist theory is remarkably reasonable economical and coherent". BUT after Kepler demolished Alhacen's theory of vision, this Aristotelean view went into steep decline. We don't even think about these things anymore. So why should we even mention this? Because maybe the current scientific theories are just as vulnerable? -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 02:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
The current version uses e.g. a BBC source for sorta dubious claims. Neither the lede nor the main text treats various crucial topics, namely
That said, the current version is far from being complete. I would refer to improve the article instead of defending the status quo. If you have an issue with my sources, comment them under the reference entry. Serten II ( talk) 12:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Science (from
Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"
[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes
knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about nature and the
universe.
[nb 1] In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied. A practitioner of science is known as a
scientist.
In modern usage, "science" may refer as well to a way of pursuing or producing knowledge, not only the knowledge itself. [2] Especially in the anglophone world "science" is often restricted to those branches of study that seek to explain the phenomena of the material universe. [3] The German approach of "Wissenschaften" in the tradition of Humboldtian science and Humboldtian education ideal is more generic and includes all sort of scholarly endeavours with philosophy still as a common denominator. The The Two Cultures [4] the German Positivism dispute and the US science wars refer to ongoing controversies about the role of natural sciences and the humanities. The controversies refered as well to the longstanding dominance of male White Anglo-Saxon Protestant scholars in e.g. US universities and the use of " Dead white European men" as role models. It has lead to various attempts, as in gender studies to involve e.g. female or minority perspectives in science and as well a backslash defending the important role of the classics. [5] [6] Science practices include a scientific ethos - and the breach of it, scientific misconduct, has lead to various scandals. Modern Science has lead to the developement of various scientific institutions and large scale scientific research programs and various interaction of private and state funded research. The use of large scale teams has lead to a new field describing the mechanisms of Science of team science as part of Science, technology and society studies. While some traditional fields of research have been deemed Pseudo or fringe science in the meanwhile, e.g. Physiognomy or parts of Eugenics. Science is undergoing fashions and trends as for Chaos theory, or Nanotechnology studies. Former popular fringe science topics as Animal magnetism have contributed to actual science, as it forced scholarly medicine to accept the Anesthesia methods. [7]
Classical antiquity saw science as a type of knowledge closely linked to philosophy, the approach was mirrored in the 19th century Humboldtian university, which used philosophy as connecting link of all sorts science, including the humnanities. The Islamic Golden Age [9] has provided important impulses for the foundation of the scientific method. Alhazen (or Al-Haytham; 965–1039 C.E.) has been described as (Bradley Steffens 2006) "first scientist" senso stricto. [nb 2] During the Islamic Renaissance (7th–13th centuries), Alhazen made significant contributions to anatomy, astronomy, engineering, mathematics, medicine, ophthalmology, philosophy, physics, psychology, and visual perception. He emphasized experimental data and reproducibility of its results. While the Islamic Renaissance did not continue after the Siege of Baghdad (1258), translations of Alhacen and other Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe found a continued interest in scholasticism and the early Western medieval universities at Paris and Oxford. Important Scholars include William of Auvergne, Henry of Ghent, Albert Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scotus, and William of Ockham. [10]
In the West during the early modern period the words "science" and "philosophy of nature" were sometimes used interchangeably. [11]: p.3 Until the 17th century natural philosophy (which is today called " natural science") was considered a separate branch of philosophy in the West. [12] The emancipation of natural history as a separate topic is closely connected to Humboldtian science, the work and writings of German naturalist and explorer Alexander von Humboldt who combined scientific field work with the age of Romanticism sensitivity and aestetic ideals [13] and made Romanticism in science rather popular. [14] [15]
The Merton Thesis sees a close link between early experimental science and Christian theology, especially Protestant pietism, similar to Max Weber's famous claim on the link between Protestant ethic and the capitalist economy. [16]. Merton's 1936 doctoral dissertation Science, Technology and Society in 17th-Century England raised important issues on the connections between religion and the rise of modern science and is still significant in sociology of science. [17]
In the 17th and 18th centuries scientists increasingly sought to formulate knowledge in terms of laws of nature such as Newton's laws of motion. Over the course of the 19th century, the word "science" became increasingly associated with the scientific method itself, as a disciplined way to study the natural world, including physics, chemistry, geology and biology. It is in the 19th century also that the term scientist began to be applied to those who sought knowledge and understanding of nature. [18] However, "science" has also continued to be used in a broad sense to denote reliable and teachable knowledge about a topic, as reflected in modern terms like library science or computer science. This is also reflected in the names of some areas of academic study such as " social science" or " political science".
German philosopher Wilhelm Dilthey (1833 – 1911) strongly rejected the exclusive role of natural sciences (Naturwissenschaften), and asked to develope a separate model for the human sciences ( Geisteswissenschaften). His argument centered around the idea that in the natural sciences we seek to explain phenomena in terms of cause and effect, or the general and the particular; in contrast, in the human sciences, we seek to understand in terms of the relations of the part and the whole. C.P Snow's The Two Cultures and the US Science Wars and the German Positivism dispute show a continued interest in the divide. There have been various attempts to bridge the gap. E.g. Bruno Latour suggest that modernity (and modern science) is based by producing new hybrids between nature and culture (translation) and by dividing them (purification). [2] The Camera obscura is a powerful example for such an epistemic machinery: While Alhazen developed a useable theory of the refraction of light, he was not at all interested (or even hostile, compare Aniconism in Islam) to producing images with it. [19] The Western use of the Arab knowledge however allowed a mass production of perspectival images and contributed to subjectivity and personality of artists and the persons depicted. [2] The use of perspective in paintings, maps, theatre setups and architectural and later photographic images and movies provided a major leap with important side effects for science. [19] Don Ihde goes so far to claim that "Art Precedes Science" and the Camera Obscura was crucial for the invention of Modern Science. [2] [20]
Perhaps I might offer a note in support of Max Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism on the link between Protestant ethic and the capitalist economy. If you were to come to Los Angeles, you will observe the healthy effect of certain Protestant immigrant groups on its economy. They are quite visible, as they are not ethnically Europeans, but they have boosted the economy (investments, businesses, cars, houses, clothes, support for tutoring of their children, etc.). not only in LA, but also, e.g., New York City, Vancouver BC. You are welcome to ask me on my talk page for details. Or, perhaps via e-mail. -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 10:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the following text:
"Science in a broad sense existed before the modern era, and in many historical civilizations,[9] but modern science is so distinct in its approach and successful in its results that it now defines what science is in the strictest sense of the term.[10] Much earlier than the modern era, another important turning point was the development of classical natural philosophy in the ancient Greek-speaking world."
1. I'm finding first sentence the following short paragraph to be very hard to read. 2. I'm puzzled by the second sentence, which might just be deleted. 3. Maybe all of this paragraph can just be deleted.
Sincerely, Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 00:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Hey, why is there no table of contents in this talk section? It would be helpful.
Now, onto the matter of the sea urchin photograph. I find this kind of distracting. I mean, this is an article about the very broad subject of "science". And, yes, the study of sea urchins in interesting. I even find them lovely. But I also find the presence and placement of this photograph to be distracting. Can we either delete it or move it down into the deep interior of the article? Thanks, Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 18:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 07:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/basics/factorysmoke.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isambard Kingdom ( talk • contribs) 14:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay, Ancheta Wis, here is a possible (compromise) list of images to keep, followed by images to delete.
Outline of science picture: (already being used). Beach picture: for physics and math, Sand Reckoner and, also, oceanography! Galileo: Astronomy, scientific method (already being used) Darwin: Natural history, evolution. Candle: Chemical reactions, Faraday. Maize: Agricultural science, food, genetics. Social science picture. Brain picture: for medicine and biology. Plate tectonic picture: (already being used). DNA picture: (already being used). Newton: Gravity, mathematics. CERN Higgs Boson event: (already being used). Smoke stack: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/basics/factorysmoke.jpg which touches on environment, global climate, social relevance, etc.
Images I'm in favor of deleting:
Pretty picture of bottles. Popper. Ibn al-Haytham. Astronomical sextant (or what ever that thing is) Lab book (low information content). Distinguished men of science. Johannes Hevelius and wife. Vera Rubin. Bill Clinton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isambard Kingdom ( talk • contribs) 15:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
@ Isambard Kingdom, thank you for refreshing the article. I hope that you will continue to contribute here. I added an image which leads to fMRI, as a potential continuation point for this collaboration. -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 14:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=nb>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=nb}}
template (see the
help page).