Talk:Science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Science article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	This article has been identified by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team as a Core Topic, one of the 150 most important articles for any encyclopedia to have. Please help improve this article as we push to 1.0. If you'd like help with this article, you may nominate it for the core topics collaboration.
B	Science has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Natsci article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.

This article is part of WikiProject Science, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to Science. For guidelines see the project page and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.

This article has had a scientific peer review which has now been archived. It may contain ideas that you can use to improve this article.

Archives Archive 1 (November 2003 - September 2005)

Contents 1 Scientific method is not science 1.1 defintions 2 Technology isn't applied science 3 Weaselspeak in Goals of science 4 Testing evolution 5 Confusing 6 The Truth 7 conservative wiki 8 publication 9 Is Paleontology a Science? 10 Literature of science 11 Economics of Science 12 Soil Science 13 Section "The Scientific Method" 14 Scrapping scientific method section 15 Astrology 15.1 Astrology 16 What is science: empiricism vs scientific realism 17 Next contestant 18 'What science is', a discussion 19 Fields of Science 20 1.0 core topics COTF 21 Removed sentence from introductory paragraph 22 Section removed for further consideration by the editors 23 Three paragraphs removed from Etymology for further consideration 24 Recent edits 25 sentence removed for further consideration 26 Fields of science 27 Eugene Wignerand 28 Template 29 Mathematics 30 See also? 31 Immortality 32 Removed material 33 Introduction 34 Antiscience 35 Cause and effect V.s the existence of a God 36 Current Scientific Discoveries 37 Dead links I can't fix 38 Criticism Section? 39 The review of Physics continues at Talk:Physics/wip 40 Linkspam 41 Fields not canonically science 42 Practical Pulic Useable Sciences Definitions Advised 43 Science and social sciences 44 Sciences 45 Public perception of science in France 46 Mapping the sciences: scientific adjectives/name of the science(s) 47 Political Science vs Politics 48 Objective 49 Suggestion 50 Another Suggestion 51 Enlightenment template 52 Map of science

[edit] Scientific method is not science

I think the article would benefit by including a view of science that classifies it as a human activity with a specific set of goals, values and preferences. Most of what is classified as science doesn't even involve the scientific method. A great deal of it is nothing more than discovery and recording. And science is after all something done by people not robots, it is more than a single recipe called the scientific method. And as another pointed out science is not a "truth" oriented activity (whatever "truth" is). As a start I would call it 'A human tradition that attempts to honestly explore and explain reality where competing explanations are tested against one another and the explanation that does the better job of predicting reality before the fact is preferred (but not always).' And because one of the primary goals is exploration, explanations (or theories) that can greatly assist in exploring other areas of reality are also preferred even though they are not as generally applicable as other theories to their specific area. This is why Newtonian Mechanics is still taught. Not because it is the "truth" of motion but because it is so dang useful for exploring reality in general.

I am not sure I would include mathematics in science since it is more a human effort to determine the consequences of a given set of rules whereas science is the exact opposite. It is the human effort to determine the rules of reality from their observed consequences. Not to say that mathematics is not extremely important to science, but so is human language, but that doesn't make human language science. But there certainly can be scientists that specialize in mathematics, but their use and exploration of mathematics is in service to their goal of exploring and explaining reality not in exploring the consequences of a set of rules just to see what results mathematically with no interest if it has anything at all to do with reality.

Gkochanowsky 12:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Please sign your comments. No, we teach Newtonian mechanics because it is true in the only sense of "true" that matters: true enough to give predictions for all practical purposes, under conditions previously defined. There is no other "truth" in science that isn't trivially true by definition (ie, true as a syllogism only). Harris 07:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• • "Truth" is such a malleable word. My bet is that when you use it you actually mean real. If that is the case then in that sense you do not teach Newtonian Mechanics because it is the best predictive explanation of motion but because it is a very useful explanation of motion. And its major use is in its application in further exploration and explanation of reality. Gkochanowsky 12:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• What's the difference between "very useful" and "best"? You have only so much time and computer power to get an answer. You can spend that to get a general relativistic answer for the motion of an missile to 10 digits, or you can use it to work on the effects of input variables and chaos problems which swamp even the Newtonian 5 digit predictions. It's the same for a moonshot. Here, using the motion equation approximation which provides answers better than the background noise, is not only the BEST overall predictive explanation, given your resources, but it will always provide you with the most correct and truest predictions (ie, the objectively better answer), given the real state of your resources and real world you live in. Which you can't get out of. I'm tired of talking to philosophers. Science is what I do for a living. You? SBHarris 19:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• It is the difference between the winner of a race and second or third place. Second or third place winners can still be formable competitors. Because science requires that explanations of reality be tested against reality there is a competition among explanations as to which can predict reality before the fact the most reliably and with greatest fidelity and applicability. At one time Newtonian Mechanics was that winner. Then phenomena were discovered where it didn't do so well. Other explanations were proffered and have replaced Newtonian Mechanics as the best explanation of motion to-date. Even though Newtonian Mechanics is not the best, it is still very useful. And as you point out it is still useful because even though it doesn't account for all known phenomenon as well as other explanations, for certain applications it does fine and is much easier to use. And because of this it makes it easier to conduct further explorations into reality, such as the space program, where new discoveries are constantly made. This distinction will of course be more important to people more interested in the physical theories of motion itself rather than applications. You do not get the Nobel Prize for showing how well an existing recognized explanation does at predicting reality. You get it for finding where the existing explanations have failed and putting forth a competing explanation that does a better job. When you do this a new best-to-date explanation emerges. But it doesn’t stop there. Exploration of reality continues and discoveries of phenomena that are not well predicted by the current best-to-date explanations are made and this opens an opportunity for someone to concoct an explanation that does a better job. And so on and so forth. Gkochanowsky 21:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, math fits here (or seems to). But such truths aren't truths about nature-- they are only truths about language. They describe agreements in human communication. Science seeks to describe the universe. SBHarris 07:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• • If mathematics is "agreements in human communications" then it is no more science than the English language.Gkochanowsky 12:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• That's probably true, if you're talking about the subset of human language that can be used to talk out math. Anything you can say with an equation, you can say (though it may take you longer) in words. Or a digital algorithm. Boole knew that. Yes, math is just a short form of counting better. A high level set of languages for doing that, plus certain rules of logic. So? We need that because often we're not smart enough to keep track of the numbers, or the logic, in other ways. SBHarris 19:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Yes we need math, just as we need spoken language. But as I have repeated several times now, that no more turns mathematics into science than it turns spoken language into science.

However the study of the human use of language is science because humans are real and their activity called language is also real. Thus what is real about mathematics is the humans that do it. Nature counts but it doesn't do math. Math is a human invention. Or as Feynman would say, "Mathematics makes counting easier." (I am not completely sure of the exact wording of this quote, just its sentiment) It is the actual counting that is science, not the tricks used to make it easier or even possible in many cases. At best it is a tool of science just as pen and paper is a tool of science because it makes it easier to record and pass on those measurements. And lastly mathematics is used in Astrology but doesn't turn Astrology into science. Do not confuse the tool with the result.Gkochanowsky 12:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

What the article desperately needs is some sources about the meaning and scope of science. The word science is definitely used often to mean "scientific method", as well as something like "the current body of natural knowledge", as well as (approximately) "the conventions, techniques, and institutions used to create that knowledge", as well as "the consensus of the scientific community" and even simply "truth". The intro gets this across fairly well, but it would needs some sourced credibility. A good start might be to collect some different well-regarded definitions and their sources.--ragesoss 17:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think that the article is too taken over by philosophy to be a good exposition of the enterprise called science. It would be like asking sports photographers about the experience of being a quarterback. Photographers may observe quarterbacks every day but they really don't know what it is like. I could care less what philosophers think about anything other than philosophy (whatever that is). The physics article is much, much better in that regard in that it gives a feel for what it is like to be a physicist.

[edit] defintions

American Association of Physics Teachers:

• "Science is the systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the universe and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories." [1]

[edit] Technology isn't applied science

"technology—the use of scientific knowledge for practical purposes" People have been creating and using technology long before "science" ever existed. I'm altering this sentence a bit to reflect that.Vesperal 00:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I was just going to fix another "Technology is applied science" problem, but the whole paragraph was pretty shaky, so I reworded it a bit.Vesperal 04:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weaselspeak in Goals of science

The following text is found in the secton titled "goals of science":

"It has been said that it is virtually impossible to make inferences from human senses which actually describe what “is.”"

The phrase "it has been said" smells like weaselspeak. Who said it? Does anybody know a source for a statement like this? This could be important because the statement seems fairly profound. --InformationalAnarchist 15:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

John Locke said it, see Locke's gap fact-value gap. --Oldak Quill 01:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm tempted to rewrite the opening sentences quite heavily, or cut out some of what's there. For example, it's obvious and literally true that the physical sciences study physical reality, but the implication that there is ultimately any other reality is highly controversial. Many people claim that science can, in principle, study everything. This is not a mere misconception, but a legitimate point of view with powerful defenders. In fact, it may well be the majority view among philosophers and scientists. Of course, the combinatorial complexity of phenomena may require different approaches in practice, including high-level approaches that are more humanistic, but that kind of explanation is not given. Metamagician3000 13:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I also have a problem with the claim about truth. Some of what science discovers may well be absolutely true. The fact that it is given credence only provisionally, and is thus questionable, is quite consistent with this. Provisionality does not entail the rejection of scientific realism. I would delete the reference to "absolute", which is at least controversial, and simply retain "unquestionable". I agree that no scientist believes that science discovers unquestionable truths, although some are so well corroborated that they come damn close. Metamagician3000 13:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

In fact, this whole section is permeated by highly controversial instrumentalist theory. Metamagician3000 13:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure a rewrite would do the best job here. The points made in discussion above could be added as a counter balance, so to speak. Quoting John Locke and a citation would also be a constructive addition. Malangthon 03:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Time to "be bold" here, guys! I've quoted (and wikified) Locke on the statement but the quote still needs verification. Metamagician3000, I'm having a hard time tracking down your source. If you have one, it would certainly help! --InformationalAnarchist 15:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact-value gap is David Hume, rather than John Locke, and is a rather different idea. Is the problem more the problem of induction (also due to Hume)? On the provisionality of scientific theory - but also the claim that science is not merely instrumental - one good source would be the writings of Karl Popper ... though the rejection of instrumentalist interpretations of science goes back at least to Galileo. Metamagician3000 03:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The section on the goals of science should be in the philosophy of science article. It represents what philosophers think of science. I would think that an authoratative article on science would be about what scientists have considered the goals of science, not philosophers. Gkochanowsky 13:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Testing evolution

The article claims:

relativity, electromagnetism and biological evolution have survived rigorous empirical testing without being contradicted

Could someone please show me exactly where in Wikipedia I can find out how biological evolution has undergone "rigorous empirical testing?" I'm particularly interested in how one can design and perform a test (in the here and now) of something which may have happened 2 million or 400 million years ago. Uncle Ed 14:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The theory predicts nested hierarchies. ALL molecular genetic data points to nested hierarchies. If one can prove that nested hierarchies are the exception the theory of evolution will have to be modified. As yet, no one has shown that the predicted nest hierarchies do not exist. Why do you have a problem with that type of analysis? So far the theory of evolution is consistent with the ALL the available data. David D. (Talk) 15:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Try reading some scientific magazines, notably ones where we have observed speciation due to environmental stimuli, exactly as predicted.

Perhaps I have not made myself clear. I always use the word predict in terms of a future event. I also think of testing in terms of "I do X to it, and observe that Y happens".

To me there's a difference between the following two formulations:

1. biological evolution has survived rigorous empirical testing without being contradicted; and,
2. the theory of evolution is consistent with the ALL the available data.

Is it the same for you, or do you see a difference here? Uncle Ed 18:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Your misunderstanding what it means to predict here. One predicts what one will observe. The observation may be an event in the past, but that prediction regardless has been confirmed. Prediction in this case is not referring to the temporal status of the event, but rather, the observation of the event. Furthermore, to view the wide range of confirmation of biological evolution, please look here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ or http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen/ or http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html or http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/ or http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html or, in fact, why not just look at http://www.talkorgins.org, the site entire?

Furthermore, experimentation has been undergone in evolution. Perhaps you have never heard of the Fruit Fly literature. Or experiments in mutation. Or, one of my favorites, Marcelo Nobrega's experiment regarding the functionality of non-coding DNA: http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3767&context=lbnl

68.88.193.62 21:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

With regard to predict there is an element of the future in there. In the future the predicition may turn out to be false. As yet the data to falsify the theory has not been found. That does not mean it cannot be found. However, until the falsification is found why would you doubt the theory? Sorry but I'm not sure what you are asking with rtegard to the two statements above? David D. (Talk) 21:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I assume his point is that biological evolution is not tested by means of constructing experimental scenarios in which evolution predicts a certain (future) outcome. However, that does not disqualify it from being an empirically-tested theory, as every theory implicitly predicts that no data will ever be found that is inconsistent with it. If evolution is not empirically tested because its most interesting aspects happened in the past, then the Big Bang theory is in exactly the same position. – Smyth\^talk 14:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

See microevolution --Oldak Quill 01:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Theories make predictions about what data will be found in the future. The data may be data about the present or the past. E.g. I may predict that when I carbon date a fossil in a particular rock stratum it will be so many million years old. If the observation is consistent with the prediction, then my hypothesis that led to it is corroborated. Empirical testing does not mean that we have to predict future outcomes in some strong sense, such as predicting that a particular kind of lizard will evolve in a hundred million years' time. Evolution has been empirically tested in that it is not just consistent with all the data that existed at the time it was first hypothesised; it is consistent with many, many observations that have been made since. It is an extremely thoroughly and rigorously corroborated theory. Metamagician3000 13:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing

The article is very confusing. It says "Empiricist philosopher, Karl Popper", yet Popper is not even mentioned at Empiricism and Karl Popper#Popper's philosophy claims the opposite: "Popper coined the term critical rationalism to describe his philosophy. This designation is significant, and indicates his rejection of classical empiricism." Interesting to note also that the article does not mention at all said critical rationalism which as far as I understood provides just the definition of science that has widely become accepted nowadays. --Rtc 19:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it is not useful for the wikipedia Science article to say that Popper is an "empiricist philosopher". It would be more constructive to just label him as a philosopher of science, as is done at Karl Popper. More radical corrective surgery would be to move out of the Science article all of the analysis of science in terms of philosophical theory (it belongs in Philosophy of science). --JWSchmidt 19:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Just deleting those two words doesn't seem to hurt much - or adding PoS instead. BTW I don't see why critical rationalism is exactly the oposite of empirisism, although former was used to reject the latter. Almost all religions reject each other but that doesn't mean that every religion is the opposite of all others. Greenleaf 10:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Truth

The article starts out by saying that science is the search for the truth. But surely this is the biggest misnomer about science that there is. The "truth" of Newton was only truth until Einstein came along. The entire reason scientific theories are called theories is that they cannot be proven, only disproven. Mattopia 19:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Do you therefore think that Newton's laws are false? Karol 06:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

They are false and often a very good approximation of the truth. --MarSch 10:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Is not what you just wrote here a contradiction? :-) Karol 12:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

You said yourself that "science is the search for the truth". The ideas that Newton put forward were a very good approximation to the truth and Einstein's ideas are an even better approximation. Progress is being made towards better models of "the truth" or in other words our external (and internal) environment, is this not a good description of the search for the truth?

Samuel Mindel 16:09, 30 October 2005 (GMT)

Here here. Science indeed seeks the truth. The mere fact that it has changed over time is evidence that we are, in fact, actively searching rather than resting on our laurels. T'is the duty of every scientist to test boundaries. Jachra 05:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Science only deals with consistant systems. Therefore it produces formal systems and questions their validity with the real word, seeking paradoxes more than truth. If one system appears to avoid paradoxes, we just can expect it to be rationnal. Not true, litteraly speaking. --Kubrick 908 18:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

You have defined mathematics, not science. Metamagician3000 13:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

An issue I have with this is that it talks about science as if it were some monolithic truth-seeking body. Newton->Einstein is a good example of this, as it shows 'science' becoming more precise. But what about the scientists who sacrificed their careers for speaking up about CFCs or DDT? This characterizes the supposedly truth-revealing peer review system as a sometimes dogmatic institution. The truth about science is that it is done by groups of scientists in laboratories (themselves isolated from the greater world) and that those laboratories are funded by *someone* who probably has an interest in seeing the work done. Another issue is that science relies on quantifiable, observable data. There are limits both to quantifiability and observability, especially with regards to self, emotion and spirit. The downfall of writing about science is the same that permeates science itself: by claiming and defining "truth" you necessarily limit what you can discover. --Mike mis4mike@gmail.com

It has been my experience that those that use "truth" in the context of science actually mean "real". However the problem with presenting it as "truth" presumes what it is trying to discover. Science is a human enterprise to honestly explore, discover and explain reality and it doesn't need to make that presumption. And there is no way at this time that I am aware of where we can know that we have somehow seen it all. To call our explanations of what we have discovered the "truth" of reality is to presume more than we have assumed. The word "truth" also carries too much baggage with it from philosophy and religion and science can go along very nicely without it. Also "truth" claims are not something that scientists make in general if much at all in published scientific papers. They are usually far too tentative to do such a thing. Gkochanowsky 04:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] conservative wiki

It appears that people involved in wikipedia are very conservative; although it is said that anyone can edit or make useful additions, but my experience is that some people just do not tolerate any changes whatsoever, they act dictatorialy, and keep on reverting changing and their only response is "put your ideas somewhere else not on wikipedia. I stongly feel, it against the awoed policy of wikipedia, people should not be so possesive and intolerant, let others also express their opinion before changes are rejected. 202.141.141.10 11:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Useful additions. This from the person who created List of cocepts [sic] in science. If you have contructive edits to make, please do. But don't expect the community to fix your spelling mistakes, and your haphazzard inclusions. Yes, 'concepts' are part of science. What's your point? Should we include a disconnected sentence into the article, or should we find a better stop to make that point, if it needs to be made at all? -- Ec5618 11:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

As for this edit of yours, heat is not a form of energy. It is the transfer of energy. Why did you change correct wording into something false? -- Ec5618 11:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Similar situation with the definition of molecule as well as a few other paragraphs from that article. While not interested in discouraging contributions from new users, I sometimes wish there was some sort of initiation or training required before one such user were allowed to contribute to an existing article --just reviewing some of the last major edits should well enough help the novice understand how things work and at what level the contributions go.--Unconcerned 22:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] publication

would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC) YES The Procrastinator 12:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is Paleontology a Science?

--Kubrick 908 18:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course paleontology is a science. It's slightly controversial, though, whether archaeology is one.--Pharos 05:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Both are dealing with History. I am a little bit confused with the fact that History, because it uses advanced scientifical technics more and more, could be a Science too. I don't see the link. When you study the evolution of life on earth, that is Science. When you focuse on the humans, it is not. That seems paradoxal to me.--Kubrick 908 09:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, this is a big debate in anthropology, and the idea that it is properly a science has been particularly popular in the U.S. with what's called processual archaeology.--Pharos 09:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Following that logic, many would argue that History itself is Scientifical... which is not the case. ;) --Kubrick 908 15:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, at various times historians, archaeologists, sociologists and economists have all claimed that what they do is science, or at least uses scientific methodology. –Joke 03:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

In principle there is no reason why history could not be a science. But it has to rely on humanistic methods for much of its analysis for a whole range of reasons. E.g. it often attempts to draw very specific inferences about what was in individual people's minds, or about the significance of quite specific events, but getting data on that which can be rigorously evaluated is very hard to do. By contrast, paleontologists don't care about what specific plans some specific dinosaur had 100 million years ago. They may conjecture about this from time to time, for fun, or because it is of some relevance to a scientific point, but it's just not at the heart of the sciences in the way it is at the heart of humanistic disciplines like history or literary criticism where we are trying for a different kind of understanding of people and their actions and works. Often historians fall back on methods of humanistic interpretation based on their implicit understandings of what people are like, etc., etc. In principle, however, the truths of history must be consistent with those of all other disciplines. We may not be sure exactly why Charlemagne decided to be crowned Holy Roman Emperor, or why the pope crowned him, or whatever, but we can be sure they did not violate any laws of physics at the time, or think in some way that was inconsistent with human biology. Metamagician3000 14:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

History is not repeatable. Nor is it directly observable. "Social Science" (and I have a B.S. in a SS discipline) is a misnomer. I question the ability of humans to objectively observe themselves, AND our ability to simplify social systems to a point where they are both meaningful and quantifiable.

[edit] Literature of science

I have tried to introduce this topic n this page. I plan to improve it in coming days. Any comments and editing is welcome.Charlie 07:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I spruced it up a bit. Karol 22:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Economics of Science

I have tried to make the content of this pge a bit interdisciplinary. Any comments? Charlie 08:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Soil Science

I have added soil science. I have posted my views on the hierarchical placement of soil science on my user talk page. I have further stated them on my blog Paleorthid 18:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Section "The Scientific Method"

This section mentions nothing about computation. Consider:

"Now I am going to discuss how we would look for a new law. In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science."

- The Character of Physical Law, Richard Feynman, page 156

It doesn't have to be a computation in the sense of any complex calculations being involved (though it almost always would require these in modern physics, which is Feynman's field). All it takes is some kind of logical prediction from the hypothesis. An experiment or observation is then conducted to test the hypothesis. If I discover a new kind of dinosaur skeleton that is missing the jaw, I might conjecture/hypothesise that it was a plant-eater. From that, I might predict that if the next such skeleton has a fossilised jaw then the teeth will be a certain shape. That is my hypothesis, and I might well get a chance to test it. Feynman's discussion is too specific to physics, and to modern physics at that. In the past a lot of progress could be made even in physics without doing anything that could readily be described as computation. Actually, even what I have just described is a narrow Popperian account of how science is done. Popper may have had a lot going for him, but science can't be straightjacketed entirely into his conjecture/refutation model. Scientific arguments often take other forms. Metamagician3000 13:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scrapping scientific method section

I am cutting out the content added to the scientific method section. A separate article exists so that this section doesn't grow too big. I guess someone could scrap some material from this onto that page, if useful, although I notice some of the content overlaps and is contradictory... Karol 09:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

FIVE STEPS IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
1. Observation:  The scientific method starts with observations and descriptions of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.  The scientist then raises a question about the observations. The question raised must have a concrete answer that can be obtained by performing an experiment.
2. Hypothesis:  A hypothesis is an educated guess.  It forms a feasible explanation for the phenomena.  It will make a prediction as to the expected results if the hypothesis and other underlying assumptions and principles are true and an experiment is done to test that hypothesis.  The hypothesis will many times describe a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Testing:  Experiments that are repeatable and confirmable will be developed to support the hypothesis.  If results from the experiments disprove the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is ruled out.  At times, the failure of an experiment may not disprove a hypothesis, but will itself have defects that need to be resolved.  If the hypothesis holds up under an experiment, then the experiment becomes evidence that supports the hypothesis, but is not proof that the hypothesis is true.
4. Peer Review:  Experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments will either support or discredit the hypothesis.
5. Conclusion:  Based on the experiments conducted, a conclusion will be reached regarding the reliability and ramifications of the hypothesis.  If sufficient experimental evidence supports a hypothesis to become generally accepted in the scientific community, then it either becomes a theory or modifies an existing theory.
TERMINOLOGY RELATED TO THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD
A theory is a generalization based on many observations and experiments; a well-tested, verified hypothesis that fits existing data and explains how processes or events are thought to occur. It is a basis for predicting future events or discoveries. Theories may be modified as new information is gained.  This is in contrast to the common usage of the word that refers to ideas that have no firm proof or support.
To say "the apple fell" is to state a fact, whereas Newton's theory of universal gravitation is a body of ideas that explain why the apple fell. Thus a multitude of falling objects are reduced to a few concepts or abstractions  interacting according to a small set of laws, allowing a scientist to make predictions about the behaviour of falling objects in general.
An especially fruitful theory that has withstood the test of time and has an overwhelming quantity of evidence supporting it is considered to be "proven" in the scientific sense. Some universally accepted models such as heliocentric theory, biological evolution, and atomic theory are so well-established that it is nearly impossible to imagine them ever being falsified. Others, such as relativity and electromagnetism have survived rigorous empirical testing without being contradicted, but it is nevertheless conceivable that they will some day be supplanted. Younger theories such as string theory may provide promising ideas, but have yet to receive the same level of scrutiny.

[edit] Astrology

I just reverted an edit that made one sentence read:

Mathematical branches most often used in science include algebra, geometry, and trigonometry, interestingly, invented by astrologers.

I'm not sure what exactly this sentence claims astrologers invented, but none of the linked articles support that assertion. Many of the early roots of science go indeed back to philosophers (e.g. Thales, Pythagoras, Aristotle) and polymaths (e.g. Isaac Newton, Gottfried Leibniz) who dabbled in several fields at the same time. You could say (without lying) that the laws of gravity were discovered by an alchemist. At least when looking at ancient Greece, philosophers can claim many of these guys their own – except pretty much everything was philosophy then. That said, if there is some solid evidence that whoever laid the foundations for a scientific field like trigonometry did it just to make better horoscopes, that deserves being pointed out in an encyclopedia, and it wouldn't be surprising at all. Some of humankind's most brilliant minds have conducted science of dubious merits at times, some because they were a tad crazy, some because it was much harder to recognize crackpot science without the benefit of hindsight. So basically what I'm saying is: Write sentences that are not ambiguous. And source your claims. Well, duh. Algae 13:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Astrology is an ancient science and pre-dates even ancient Greece. It was not "dabbled" with by people - but practiced as a full science and gave birth to many modern sciences of today. There exists copious materials of information on astrology which is easily available to you without anyone - including me - having to prove anything regarding astrology - to you. It is also common knowledge that algebra, geometry, and trigonometry were inventions of astrologers - despite saying that brilliant minds conducted science of "dubious" merits - which, translated, means that conventional thinkers would dub astrology as so - or meaning they might have been "a tad crazy." The sentence is not ambiguous. Astrology is not a crackpot science as you state, and I would suggest you refrain from tagging it so without serious study of the science on your part. Moreover, Wikipedia is an encyclopedic resource, and those editing articles should easily be able to find information that does not fit into preconceived notions of such serious subjects as astrology. Suggest you use Wikipedia itself to find the facts that algebra, geometry, and trigonometry were inventions of astrologers calculating the motions of planets, and stars relative to the Earth. Would sugest you refrain from pre-positioning your mind toward a set, negative view of "astrology" that then calls into question a sentence which reflects historical fact - not opinion. The above statement of yours is a point of view that is personal and does not reflect the history of science; especially regarding astrology. Sources will be added though; although I would suggest that you find the proof yourself using the Internet since there is copious information out there on the invention of mathematics by astrologers. It is no surprise to those who have spent any time reading the materials available for many centuries. Would also suggest that you refrain from terming "astrology" as one monolethic subject; i.e., associating the word with "crackpot science of dubious merits." You must be confusing true, scientific astrology with "sun-sign astrology_ - which has nothing to do with the actual science of astrology - an ancient science over thousands of years and still practiced today - using the mathematics and the emperical method.Theo 02:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Theo, you seem to have taken personal offence to Algae's concerns that there is no source for this information. If this knowledge is so common, as you insist, it should not be hard for you to bring up one or two sources from good places on the internet. In 24-hours, I will revert otherwise. --huwr 02:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I realize what I wrote suggests that I don't think highly of astrology. However, nowhere did I say astrology is a crackpot science, and what I wrote is true either way. Some of humankind's greatest minds have conducted science of dubious merits: some tried to turn lead into gold, to name just one such endeavor. – Also, it puzzles me how you can claim that something is "common knowledge" if so many of us don't know about it. It may be common knowledge in your field, it apparently is not elsewhere. – And finally, it is you who keeps adding references to astrology everywhere as if it was a monolithic subject that needs neither qualification nor explanation. Algae 11:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Would ask you not to assume what I take personally and what I do not take personally. Ask first. I do not take that personally. What does bother me is that some who have issues with "astrology" often have no idea what they are talking about - and that does bug me since this science has been around for thousands of years. It is not a new science, and nearly every culture, and nation on the planet has practiced it. A good search engine will provide anyone with enough materials to study or research the subject before making statements on astrology that associate it with "crackpots" and being "dubious." This is the 21st century, and the tools available for a serious review of the subject can be done from the comfort of one's own home using the Internet. If one has a problem finding good materials; then ask - but first, take a look yourself before setting in stone one's personal opinion that astrology is a crackpot subject. I'm busy enough as it is not to have to handmaid those who can easily find their way to Wikipedia, but seem to have a problem using the Internet to conduct a serious study using a common search engine. If you must revert, then do so without a POV that is personal, but reflects historical fact. If you decide to revert based on your personal views, then it will be written on more extensively in the article then has already been done. I am quite able to provide much more written material in the article. Thanks. Theo 03:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You say "I am quite able to provide much more written material in the article." This may be true but can you verify it? You aslo say "I'm busy enough as it is not to have to handmaid those who can easily find their way to Wikipedia, but seem to have a problem using the Internet to conduct a serious study using a common search engine.". I'm afraid if you make the assertion then the onus is on you to cite a reliable source. David D. (Talk) 03:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Again, re-read my post on this Talk Page. If one is honest, and will not attempt to rewrite history on the facts surrounding astrology as a science - then it is a simple matter for one to read the materials on astrological history as a science and to utilize the Internet's search engines, libraries, etc. Using "sourcing" as an excuse to avoid doing your own work is not positive. However, if you do want me to source, then I will after adding more information into the article. As it stands, it is only a sentence; but if sources are required then I will write an entire paragraph or two.Theo 04:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Theodore7, this is the 21st century, and the tools are available for you to cite sources to back up your claims. We're all busy enough as it is. --huwr 04:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with well sourced facts. But remember there is a lot of crap on the internet too so don't use personal web pages as primary source . That will NOT be good enough. David D. (Talk) 05:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Theodore7, you have cited a source, but that source is Wikipedia itself - the Astrology article. That does not count, particularly as you are one of the major `contributors' to that article. Please find something more appropriate. --huwr 05:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Astrology

This content doesn't belong in this article. This article is on science and its history, not the history of mathematics. Find a more appropriate place for it. While astrology probably used mathematics (or even invented some aspects of it), this article is on science, not mathematics. It is useless clutter. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-8 05:18

I don't find it nice, nor respectable to call my two paragraphs "useless clutter." I suggest you take another read and learn that science without mathematics is useless. You seem to be stuck on the preconceived notion that astrology is not a science. I challenge this view and can supply plenty of evidence to the contrary. I suggest that if you want to discuss this that you do so without your personal POV - since history will show another story and is sourced by many authors of the centuries - both ancient and contemporary. Astrologers did not invent some "aspect of it" - this is your personal conjecture and not fact. Let's stick with the facts since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. You definition of "science" is not written in stone and I suggest you work with others rather than making statements like the above about "useless clutter." Who are you to determine what I wrote as clutter? Try some good manners please.Theo 05:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Brian makes a good point here, a seperate article may well be the place for this material: Excerpt of cut material below:

Mathematical branches most often used in science include algebra, geometry, and trigonometry, invented by astrologers to calculate the positions of the planets and stars relative to the earth. Some of the earliest known uses of mathematics were in ancient China and India, where astrologers used a form of arithmatic called algebra, which was used as a kind of mathematical shorthand for complex astronomical calculations. According to Carl B. Boyer, the author of "History of Mathematics" it was the Arab astrologer, Mohammed ibn-Musa al-Khwarizmi, who wrote half a dozen books on astrological mathematical works derived from the Hindus of India. One of these books, titled, "De Numero Indorum" (Concerning the Hindu Art of Reckoning) was based on the Hindu counting system using the digits zero, 1,2,3 to the number 9 along with a decimal place value. The later Latin translations of Al-Khwarizmi's books, and mathematical notations came to be known as Algorismi and the Hindu scheme of numeration was later called Algorithm - also derived from the name of the Arab astrologer.

I don't think this paragraph relies on a wikipedia source it seems like Boyer's book is the primary source for the information. That sounds legitimate. Theo do you have the primary sources that Boyer cites in his book too? I assume he has footnotes or such. David D. (Talk) 05:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, dear. I beg your pardon, I missed that. Brian's point remains, however. This probably belongs in a separate article. --huwr 05:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It probably goes in History of mathematics, if it is accurate. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-8 05:40

I disagree. It is two paragraphs, and continues the train of thought in the article section. I suggest that if you desire sources that you first allow it to be read and talked about before passing instant judgement as you are doing. I also suggest that you learn the truth about the invention of mathematics by astrologers. It is a fact - and not subject to your personal point of view. History says otherwise. And - this history is sourced.Theo 05:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• You go from "science uses mathematics" in one sentence, to "the branches used in science are" in the next sentence, to "this branch was invented by astrology" in the next sentence, to "here is a book about the history of astrology and mathematics" in the next couple sentences, to "this astrologer invented this bit of mathematics, and another astrologer invented another bit." This is not a "continuation of a train of thought" for a section on the use of mathematics in scientific models. It clearly belongs in History of mathematics. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-8 05:54

Suggest you cease with the reverts, and then perhaps the edits can take place to tighten the paragraphs. Your earlier statements are negative on astrology to begin with - and you called my writing "useless clutter" without apology - so, I suggest that if you want to work on this article without your POV that you do so honestly without the cynical attitude and rude comments. That would be a good start.Theo 05:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• The content clearly belongs in History of mathematics. It has nothing to do with the use of mathematics in scientifc models. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-8 06:08

I respectfully disagree. It is two paragraphs and can easily be added. You don't own the page Brian. This is Wikipedia. Mathematics and science have a direct relationship and the links from one subject to the other are easily added.Theo 06:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

• Straw man. Your content is on the origins of mathematics. Science uses mathematics, but this article can't possibly deal with the tangential topic of the origins of mathematics. Such content belongs in the history of mathematics. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 2006-01-8 06:17

Hmm... plenty of evidence in favour of astrology... You can't really proof anything in science, only disproof (and if you choose a field that can't be proven false by logic, it's not science). So no matter how much evidence there is in favour of astrology, a single proof that it's wrong can take down the whole "theory". And yes, there is proof that astrology is wrong.

[edit] What is science: empiricism vs scientific realism

As they are described, I find I agree with both empiricism and scientific realism. Are they supposed to be mutually exclusive? If not then the "In contrast" is confusing.

I would have though that the opposite of scientific realism was instrumentalism. Metamagician3000 13:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Next contestant

I reverted these edits that tried to introduce links to some new science disciplines: Conscientiology and Projectiology. I suggest editors keep an eye on other articles edited by Gracekamala (talk • contribs) who seems to be on a mission to spread the word about those two as well as Conscientiotherapy. Funny thing is when I looked at therapy, I can't really say it doesn't fit there any less than its neighbours. Algae 21:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'What science is', a discussion

People: Mathematics is no more a science than pure empiricism is.

If you can't use Logic to study the world you do not have science. If you can't use Mathematics to study the world you do not have science.

If you study Logic to build Logic tools, you learn. Learning is what science is. If you study Mathematics to build Mathematical tools, you learn. Learning is what science is. If you study empiricism to build empirical tools, you learn. Learning is what science is. If you study nature to build natural tools, you learn. Learning is what science is.

The fist Scientists took what was "knowledge" at the time (Several religiously followed philosophies.) and combined them.

Science isn't any single one thing, nor must it include any other area of it to learn new "knowledge". What we learn empirically is science, but we also can learn without empirical input. Science doesn't equate to the philosophy of the empiricists, although there are many that believe so.

Believing so, doesn't make it so. Choose what you like to study from knowledge or belief, your choice. --Eric Norby 10:00(PST), 2006, January 29(AD)

Moved comment down.

What's your point? How does this help the article? -- Ec5618 18:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

For a (very) concise definition, I would be bold enough to offer the following: "Science is the accurate description of Nature". I feel that the question of how the description is arrived at may be of less importance than how its accuracy is gauged. But a sensible guide might be that the description should at least correspond with some experience. Keith P Walsh (with gratitude to R P Feynman), 31 March 2006.

[edit] Fields of Science

Shouldn't the huge list of links be below the etymology section? One looks like a typical artical while the other is just a list. Don't get me wrong, I came to the Science page hoping for a list, but it just doesn't look right when placed above a legitamate artical section.

You're right. I've moved the section up, it now directly follows 'what is science'. I'm not opposed to it being moved again, but it certainly didn't belong down there.

Perhaps we should consider a Fields of science article. -- Ec5618 23:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The Fields of science/temp now has a copy of the "Fields of science" sub-section content. — RJH 22:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Came from the german "Wissenschaft" page to this, because I wanted the classification of sciences in english. I was quite shocked about the weird and incomplete classification scheme. Seems I have to translate the classification from the german article for my needs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.149.88.203 (talk • contribs).

Could you suggest a more appropriate classification scheme? It could be implemented on the Fields of science sub-page, and would give the page more value. Thanks. — RJH 22:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1.0 core topics COTF

	This is a candidate for the 1.0 core topics collaboration of the fortnight. Please see that page to support or comment on the nomination. We are working toward a release version of Wikipedia.

[edit] Removed sentence from introductory paragraph

I removed this sentence, which is erroneous, from the first paragraph of the article for further consideration as to content and placement within the article...Kenosis 22:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The basic unit of knowledge is the theory, which is a hypothesis that is predictive. 22:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section removed for further consideration by the editors

I have removed this section and placed it here for consideration. It is scattered, not informative, mostly unsourced, only marginally relevant, wrong in several places, and contains POV's. Possibly some of this material belongs in a brief section on the sociology of science, an interesting and relevant topic which includes the viewpoints of Kuhn, Fayerabend, Polanyi and others. Quine belongs in the analysis of scientific method and/or in the philosophy of science, and Kuhn may also properly be part of those summaries. At an absolute minimum this section, if it is to be included, should be structured in such a way that it is not a magnet for passersby to throw in quick POV's about science...Kenosis 03:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

== What is science? ==

Main article: Theories and sociology of the history of science

There are many different conceptions of the word "science".

According to empiricism, scientific theories are objective, empirically testable, and predictive — they predict empirical results that can be checked and possibly contradicted.

In contrast, scientific realism defines science in terms of ontology: science attempts to identify phenomena and entities in the environment, their causal powers, the mechanisms through which they exercise those powers, and the sources of those powers in terms of the thing's structure or internal nature.

Even in the empiricist tradition, we must be careful to understand that "prediction" refers to the outcome of an experiment or study, rather than to literally predicting the future. For example, to say, "a paleontologist may make predictions about finding a certain type of dinosaur" is consistent with the empiricist's use of prediction. On the other hand, sciences like geology or meteorology need not be able to make accurate predictions about earthquakes or the weather to qualify as sciences. Empiricist philosopher, Karl Popper also argued that certain verification is impossible and that scientific hypotheses can only be falsified (falsification).

Positivism, a form of empiricism, advocates using science, as defined by empiricism, to govern human affairs. Because of their close affiliation, the terms "positivism" and "empiricism" are often used interchangeably. Both have been subjected to criticisms:

• W. V. Quine demonstrated the impossibility of a theory-independent observation language, so the very notion of testing theories with facts is problematic.
• Observations are always theory-laden. Thomas Kuhn argued that science always involves "paradigms," sets of (often unstated) assumptions, rules, practices, etc. and that transitions from one paradigm to another generally does not involve verification or falsification of scientific theories. Moreover, he argued that science has not proceeded historically as the steady accumulation of facts, as the empiricist model implies.03:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three paragraphs removed from Etymology for further consideration

These three paragraphs are now here for consideration as to placement and content in the article, because they are not part of the etymology of "science." Possibly this material belongs, in more compact form, in the Philosophy of science section, more specifically with respect to the problem of demarcation. Possibly some or all of the content of the last paragraph belongs in the Math section of the article...Kenosis 08:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Fields of study are sometimes distinguished in terms of hard sciences and soft sciences and these terms are often synonymous with the terms natural and social science (respectively). Physics, chemistry, biology and geology are all forms of "hard sciences". Studies of anthropology, history, psychology, and sociology are sometimes called "soft sciences." Even within the fields there is sorting of the fields. Although it might be difficult to say whether geology or biology is "harder", physics is usually considered the "hardest". Especially "hard" are the fields of high energy physics and cosmology. In this usage, "hard" means mathematic, or in experimental area, expensive.08:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Proponents of this division use the arguments that the "soft sciences" do not use the scientific method, admit anecdotal evidence, or are not mathematical, all adding up to a "lack of rigor" in their methods. Opponents of the division in the sciences counter that the "social sciences" often make systematic statistical studies in strictly controlled environments, or that these conditions are not adhered to by the natural sciences either (for example, ethology or behavioural ecology relies upon fieldwork in uncontrolled environments, astronomy cannot design experiments, only observe limited conditions). Opponents of the division also point out that some of the current "hard sciences" suffered a similar "lack of rigor" in their own infancy.08:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The term "Maths" is sometimes pressed into service for new and interdisciplinary fields that make use of scientific methods at least in part, and which in any case aspire to be systematic and careful explorations of their subjects, including computer science, library and information science, and environmental science. Mathematics and computer science reside under "Q" in the Library of Congress classification, along with all else we now call science.08:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

With some 30 edits in 24 hours, this article may be moving a bit too fast. The most recent edit makes we wonder if it's moving in a good direction at all. Removing "tobacco" from the description of a plant because it "may not be the best illustration in the 21st century" is about political correctness and not about making a good encyclopedia. Algae 21:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't know 'bout the other 29, but I just put tobacco back into the image caption. Don't think anyone will take up smokin' just from seeing the word. Related note here, do we acknowledge the prime source for science funding anywhere? Or just pretend that the money just appears. Government funds are important, but funding by corporations with a view toward reaping the $$ benefits of the supported research is significant. The lowly tobacco plant is so well studied as a result of industry funded research. We should make mention of this economic incentive for scientific research and not pretend that there is a solid division between pure and applied science. Vsmith 22:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was the editor who inserted the reference to "junk science." If you think it'll hold, by all means go ahead with such a discussion in the Social issues section. For that matter, put a link to Junk Science from the pic. Appreciate the challenge to my edit, and I hope I didn't ruin or waste too much of your afternoon...Kenosis 22:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

With some 30 edits in 24 hours, this article may be moving a bit too fast. The most recent edit makes we wonder if it's moving in a good direction at all. Removing "tobacco" from the description of a plant because it "may not be the best illustration in the 21st century" is about political correctness and not about making a good encyclopedia. Algae 21:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

More than fair enough-- I realized that after seeing the reversion. If you look a bit more closely at the history, you will notice that a hatchet job had been done on this illustration caption, which I proceeded to correct and rephrase the original reference to "the incredible power of science..." so it is a bit more explanatory. By all means revert to the earler version before Z_E_U_S's edit if you and/or other editors prefer. The last maneuver was really an afterthought, and I agree with you that it was quite unnecessary and even a bit counterproductive.

I still have a definite problem with the last paragraph of the Philosophy of science section, which I will address later and make a note of it here. And a bit more research on the etymology which would be great if someone else did it instead. And that's about it. Algae, I've appreciated seeing your edits on this article incidentally.

Any thoughts about the issue of those three paragraphs above taken out of etymology? There is meaningful and informative content there (with the exception of two or three, maybe four sentences), and I think deserves serious consideration for reintegration. Perhaps another section in the article?...Kenosis 22:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Those three paragraphs are rather incoherent and confusing; it wouldn't hurt cleaning them up before adding them back to the article (under a different title). The subject of "hard vs. soft science" fits the article, though. Algae 22:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• For what its worth, the reason the "tobacco plant" part is important has to do with the vector Ow et al used to insert the GFP gene into the plant—the tobacco mosaic virus. MarcoTolo 00:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting; I didn't know that. Appreciate the info, as I was wondering if it was a "plant" in the article emanating directly from the tobacco industry. Please rest content that I am among those who have a high level of respect for reasoned consenses in Wikipedia, and will revert any attempts I happen to notice to significantly alter or remove it. It's an amazing pic to be sure...Kenosis 00:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• the vector was not a virus and I don't think the plasmid had any TMV sequence. Why was the vector important? Also it is not GFP it is luciferase. David D. (Talk) 06:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sentence removed for further consideration

I have removed this sentence from the opening paragraph of the article for further analysis by the editors. At minimum, certainly the social sciences would disagree in many instances, and certainly biology would not limit its field to this demarcation line...Kenosis 06:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Mathematics is the language used by science to describe this knowledge. Thus, anything that cannot be described by mathematics is not science.06:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fields of science

The list of fields of science is getting so long it might be worthwhile to move it to a separate page. Karol 07:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I set up a Fields of science/temp page if you would like to edit it. — RJH 22:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Judging by some of the edits I've seen ("Mr. Peapody is a great science teacher!," "Mr. Wilson's science class $@(#*^$", etc, etc) many elementary and early high-schoolers check into this article. In a way it's a useful list for the naturally curious and those interested in probing through some of these realms. Frankly don't see the need to eliminate these links quite yet. Cladistics, for instance, is in there; I find it hard to imagine the basic list could get all that much longer, and if it does so the editors can certainly hack away the fringes and link to an article such as that you just created. On the other hand, maybe the criteria for exclusion would be so vague we'd either need to eliminate the list completely with a seealso, or leave it as is?...Kenosis 23:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

There was no positive support for the idea, so I renamed the sub-page to Fields of science and left the duplicate content in place... for now. — RJH 22:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think trimming it out of the science article is appropriate.--ragesoss 22:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay it has been trimmed. I tried to give a single paragraph overview, but I'm quite sure it can be much improved. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eugene Wignerand

There is a reference to Eugene Wigner and The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences, seen as

Further information: Eugene Wigner and The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences

and typed in as {{see|Eugene Wigner|The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences}}.

I've tried to fix this, but to no avail. What causes the automatic "and" to be added to the back of Wigner's last name and linked, and what can be done to fix it? 13:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)~

The "and" comes from "Template:see" which has been deprecated. Using "Template:further" as suugested under the "see" page fixes it. --Bduke 21:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

As far as I can remember, there is a template with the fields of science. Which is that? NCurse _work 14:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematics

---Mathematics.. the ultimate science??

Empirical truth is subject to falsification through a contradictory observation made of a new experiment but mathematics deals with pure rationality and reasoning. Its results are based on axioms. Its results exist independent of systems and observers. Is it not the purest of sciences? It seems that the physical world consists of special cases of mathematical realities (r^2 coulumb law,and derivation of the Maxwell equations.) Shreyaskaptan

Math and science

The paragraph at the beginning on the nature and significance of math in relation to science is succinct and readable, especially for high school students (I asked some to read it and they got the point). It is an important point to be sure. However, it would be nice to quote and/or cite an authority or two. Is that possible? I am referring to the section that begins, " Whether mathematics is a science is a matter of perspective." Malangthon 03:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Assumptions

Refering to the same paragraph stating that mathematics is based upon a series of unprovable assumtions is a misnomer and speaking as a mathematician just seems strange. Firstly, shouldn't the word assumptions be replaced with axioms with the appropriate link? Secondly, the 5 mathematical axioms hold for all Euclidean space since they are logical statements that create "space". Although Euclidian space is now known to not be the sole form of geometry, calling the axioms "unprovable assumtions" seems more than a little strong. However truthful. Kae1is 22:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See also?

The See also section contains:

• The Arts
• Religion

Why?

If they support the text above surely they should be linked at the appropriate point inthe text.

If they are science related, some input is needed on the pages in question as they make no mention of science.

If they are there by way of contrast or perhaps even as opposites (though i cant think why) perhaps they should be labelled such - and maybe accompanied by Poetry, Metaphor, Superstition etc.

The list is long enough, I'll just edit them away - with an open mind of course. DavidP

[edit] Immortality

Polls suggest that leading scientists tend not to believe in the possibility of human immortality.[2] This was noted in the Immortality article but was removed ([3]). I feel that if the article mentions certain religious viewpoints then it should also mention the secular and scientific perspectives. Anyone wants to help add it back? Shawnc 02:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It's unlikely to have human immortality, but extended life could be an easier to cope with (and discover, possibly). (eg. supposedly, single celled organisms a very long time ago lived "forever"). Longer life isn't a very big deal anyway. It should come under a topic such as Bio-informatics/Biology

[edit] Removed material

Placed here for analysis as to relevance. ... Kenosis 05:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• "A fundamental philosophical issue is that it is impossible to prove a negative. This means that science can only tell us what has been understood to happen, in a given set of circumstances but it cannot tell us what doesn't happen." ... 05:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed last paragraph from "Scientific method" section for discussion. and reconsideration: ... Kenosis 05:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

• "The lessons learned from the history of science are that, in the light of new developments and understanding, confidently-held tenets can be found wanting, requiring new models and theories to embrace the newer understanding. Scientific establishment must therefore, always be aware that its cherished beliefs of today may be tomorrow's object of historical interest." ... 05:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I just removed the following sentence from the second introductory paragraph because it basically is a redundant statement of a definition currently placed in the first paragraph of the article as of the time of this edit. ... Kenosis 03:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Particular specialized studies that make use of empirical methods are often referred to as sciences as well. ... 03:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the introduction will need some further attention to arrive at a summary definition and statement about which use of the word "science" the article is dealing with-- ideally one that is agreeable among interested editors. ... Kenosis 03:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

(moved from another talk page) Hgilbert, may we parse through the first two paragraphs of the article on science? The definition you added seems fine, but there is a bit of crossover and redundancy between the first and second paragraphs of that article at the moment. Can we sort this out in a way that gives proper accord to natural and social sciences while making the categorical distinction in a way that is consistent with the exclusion of the more casual use of "science" in reference to areas of study such as, say, "political science", that are not included in this article's focus? Always a tough task to get this touchy issue right, but I think it can be done with some further thought about how it's explained there. ... Kenosis 00:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: OK, I tried to reduce the redundancy (and go from the largest category to the smallest, big picture to details, perhaps a mistake here). Let's try to build up a picture of the introduction, however; how do you see it?Hgilbert 02:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I imagine that the specific definition of the article's content should go first as before. I was concerned that the sentence in the second paragraph about "particular specialized studies" that make use of the empirical method was redundant with what you had added to the first paragraph. Maybe we should proceed to move this discussion to the article's talk page. I might not have a chance to get back to this tonight. ... Kenosis 02:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right, though I am concerned that the article itself is arbitrarily narrow in focus and suggest that it is important to articulate this specialization clearly up front.Hgilbert 15:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

NP by me. Could be from the general to the specific, or start with the specific and add qualifiers about the more general sense of the word. Currently it goes from the general to the specific, as you had proposed, providing at least one definition with a very reasonably credible citation. ... Kenosis 17:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Antiscience

There is a dispute on antiscience concerning the matter of whether certain religious and conservative groups have traditionally been critical of science. Since this article concerns related conflicts, perhaps some editors might be interested in helping break our deadlock. Al 18:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cause and effect V.s the existence of a God

So how is the concept of causillity or "cause and effect" more justifiable than the existence of God? Both cannot be empirically tested; you can not "experience" both with your five senses. I understand that one concept can be "believed in more" than the other; for example, you COULD say that you believe in cause and effect more than you believe in the existence of God. But you can't say, from an empiricist point of view; that you KNOW casualty or God exists. So what I'm asking is how can scientists (and empiricists) believe in the concept of "cause and effect" more than they believe in the existence of God? How is causility more justified (and therefore, more readily "assumeable") than the existence of God? You can't say you know they both exist according to Hume, if you are an empiricist, but why would anyone be an atheist (not believe in God), but assume that causility exist? 165.196.139.24 21:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

An empirist/scientist/atheist can show proof/theory on how things relate (cause/effect). You move an object, an object moves. That is very direct experience, one which every one(with a healthy eyes, of course) can see and experience and reproduce. "God" thing is something one or two out of million or so can "experience" through faith. Faith is believing without any justification other than that "there might be". See what the difference is? Direct experience/fact vs. "there might be". To an empiricist/scientist/atheist/rational, direct experience/fact that everyone can acknowledge is more acceptable than "there might be". And oh btw, atheists(that i know) don't "don't belive in God", they simply don't belive in the existince of "God" or maybe I am over generalizing? Monkey Brain 22:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Cause and effect: As long as you are visible and the object you move, too, it's easy -most probably-. But when you think about the law of karma the assumption of cause and effect becomes much more complicated. For example, you have an accident with another person, both of you going by car (by different cars, I mean), where is the cause and where is the effect?? Austerlitz 88.72.1.23 15:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC) *****

Cause and effect is also better in that you can possibly work backwards and forwards from any given point in research. For example, if there is a cause that you can attribute to an effect, you can also work backwards and say that the effect could also be attributed to another cause. This may seem strange, but if you believe only in God and not Cause & effect there isn't going to be anything to associate God to making it uselessTosayit 03:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current Scientific Discoveries

Oh boy, I don't know about this, but here goes. There is apparently (unless I've missed it) no article, project or portal on Wikipedia devoted to current or ongoing scientific research findings/breakthroughs. Kind of a big gaping hole IMO. Now, starting such a thing would involve a lot of work, because it would require informed contributions from people who keep abreast of the wide and deep scientific research world by reading the current literature. It would be a major effeort, but it would also be a great contribution. Please list yourself below and make any comments about how to go about it if you are at all interested in making this happen. Thanks! Jeeb 18:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see a reason for one to be started. First of all, the newest ongoing scientific research is original research by Wikipedia standards. The parts of it that have been accepted as standard knowledge are usually well covered already by WP articles (no point in listing examples), and are or can be linked to on the Portal:Science or where be it. Also, don't forget about wikinews. Karol 16:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dead links I can't fix

• "GSCE science textbook". Wikibooks.org
• Strange Science and Technology News (Alternative and under-reported video and audio streams with an analysis-ready news network with Online Analytical Processing and embedded Extract, Transform, and Load Data Mining capabilities.)

The latter link is dead in the sense that it says "Were you looking for 7/7 London Bombings - A Summary Of The Evidence? Go here." and has links that are more about politics than science. Art LaPella 03:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

___________________

"Of course, value judgements are intrinsic to science itself. For example, scientists value relative truth and knowledge."

This contradicts the previous sentences of its paragraph. And it's wrong. Value judgements are not intrinsic. They may be unavoidable in practice but they are not intrinsic to science. Newtonian physics is true (or not) whether a scientist believes it and whether a scientist values it.

Pepper 150.203.227.130 09:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism Section?

I'm concerned because many topics that are entangled with philosophy and/or politics have specific headings for criticism, but science does not. My bias is in favor of science, so I'm not sure what exactly people would say against science, but to imply that there is no criticism seems misleading. (And I know that controversy can be found within the subtopics, but this still seems a little misrepresentative). Topher0128 22:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The review of Physics continues at Talk:Physics/wip

Some time ago a group of editors set up a "work in progress" page (at Talk:Physics/wip) to hammer out a consensus for the Physics article, which for too long had been in an unstable state. Discussion of the lead for the article has taken a great deal of time and thousands of words. The definitional and philosophical foundations seem to cause most headaches; but progress has been made. Why not review some of the proposals for the lead material that people are putting forward, or put forward your own, or simply join the discussion? The more contributors the better, for a consensus. – Noetica 02:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: Concrete proposals have now been put forward, arising from recent discussion aimed at producing a stable and consensual lead section for the Physics article. We have set up a straw poll, for comments on the proposals. Why not drop in at Talk:Physics/wip, and have your say? The more the better! – Noetica 22:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linkspam

The number of external links on this article is astounding: there are 23 of them, not counting those in the references section, and most of the links are worthless. For example, there is a link to the "Science Chat Forum," while links to forums are to be avoided under WP:EL. And why link to the article "Most scientific papers are probably wrong"? Shouldn't that space be used for a better science resource site?

The external links section needs desperately to be cleaned up. I'll start if nobody complains. Cap'n Refsmmat 21:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, proposed changes:

• Remove all links in News section (almost all are spam) and replace with link to ScienceDaily as well as the New Scientist link from Resources.
• Remove links to retrovirology.com, cemag.us, intute.ac.uk, labmgr.com, newton.dep.anl.gov, and sciencechatforum.com from the Resources section. Links to forums are discouraged as per WP:EL, and the others are not directly relevant to the article.
• Remove link to SpinWatch from Further Reading section.
• Remove link to Kinetic Theatre from Fun Science section, as we are not all in UK primary schools.

Comments? Cap'n Refsmmat 01:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. I've done what I suggested above. If you don't like the changes, feel free to beat me with a stick, but let's not go sticking them all back, because some of them are blatantly worthless. Complaints can go here, I guess. Cap'n Refsmmat 01:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It's happening again. I'll be removing a bunch of the links soon if nobody speaks up. Cap'n Refsmmat 03:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fields not canonically science

This section does not adopt a nuetral point of view, starting from a imputation about the motivation of those who named Computer Science, Acturial Science, etc.

It's unclear what purpose this serves.

Hey, please remember that words change meanings over the years. A pilot used to work on boats, and a driver used to manage horses, etc. Electrocution used to require actual execution, and wasn't applied to what happened accidentally with a toaster. "Science" didn't always refer to the natural sciences (what were then called natural philosophy). A science was any set of arts which could be communicated, like how to make a boat. There's one section in Locke where he muses that natural philosophy ought to have stated methods, so that one day it might be made into a "science." He's using the word exactly in this way, and correctly for his time. A lot of the arguing about "computer science" and political science and so forth, is entirely missing the historical context of where we got the terminology.

Some of this has been fixed in the present article, but it appears that more needs doing, so we don't have all these debates everytime somebody comes upon use of their favorite power-word in a context where they've never seen it before. SBHarris 17:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I've gathered that most folks contributing to this page haven't the slightest clue what social scientists do. Consider this quote from the article: Actuarial science, political science and library science sometimes make claim to the title because of their grounding in mathematical rigor. However, in such arguments it is better to remember (see the introduction) that the word "science" goes back historically to use of the term to describe an objective transferrable body of knowledge regarding the means to carry out a program or manual art, and a "science" therefore does not implicitly require use of mathematics (though quantitation always helps in making objective claims). Of these, only political science is a social science, so my remarks are confined to its inclusion in this sentence. Mathematical rigor is only half the story. Look in one of the leading political science journals before trying to imply that social scientists do not "describe an objective transferrable body of knowledge regarding the means to carry out a program." By this standard, the social sciences are clearly sciences. So rather than belittle the contributions of those who choose to apply scientific methods to the study of social phenomena rather than natural phenomena, let's learn a little about the social sciences before looking down our collective noses at them. - a10brown

Hey, read the addition again. It agrees with your view, and that's why it was added. Political science does describe a transferable objective body of knowledge, and so does library science and computer science. The addition points out that THIS is the defining criterion, not the use of math. Though math is always helpful for showing that you have a body of knowledge which makes apriori objective predictions.

I might add that this point for illustration that stellar astronomy is a science, but history isn't. Why? Because of the math and the prediction. In neither history or astronomy can you influence what you're looking at. In both cases you're just looking at the past through a different filter. But in astronomy there are math models which tell you what you expect to find if you do, and in history, there aren't (shades of Asimov and Harry Seldon..,). Thus, the doing of astronomy is a transferable body of objective knowledge about how to carry out a program of discovery, which will make predictions about future discoveries. History isn't. History is more like teaching literature or the fine arts. You can teach it and transfer the art, but it's hard to prove you did it, or that the people you taught are more skilled than the people you didn't. Historical judgement just not rigorous enough to qualify as a science.

By contrast, political science makes predictions. How will white males of age 20 to 30 in Kentucky vote on an abortion law? A good poly-sci guy can tell you the answer before you do the vote or even the poll. That (the PREDICTION) and objective knowlege of the future, is what makes it a science. You can teach people how to DO that, and they can prove they've LEARNED how. See the point? SBHarris 19:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I thought I signed my original comment. I couldn't agree more with what you just said there. You've nailed it. But the article as it currently stands implies that these fields are not sciences. In my reading, it comes off as "These fields say they are sciences because they use math, but they are not sciences because they don't describe an objective transferrable body of knowledge." I'm in a rush now, but some clarification here would help. A10brown 02:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Practical Pulic Useable Sciences Definitions Advised

I made additions and changes today, Nov 25, '06 in the early paragraphs. I maintain that althoough everything written so far is true, it is not the whole truth and is too "abstract, impractical and "windy", a term my stuedents use, not meant to be pejorative by either them or me. I am making these changes based on "a need for this knowledge in the form they want it". It may not meet the full verifiablity requirements; but, in not so doing it meets my student's "windylessness" requirement.

I am not bragging and have no personal need for it; but for where I am coming from it is imortant that I credentialize a bit: I have done 30+ years of full Ph.D RDT&E in black and white industry, military and civilian applications, and have taught science and math at K through grad school levels. Most of what I am writing here, came from those experiences in fighting "bad science and pedagogy" as my ultimate students and customers ALL finally agreed. The most important of these to me was teaching masters level science and math for rural teachers of 10+ classroom yars of experience and WHO WERE GOING BACK TO THE CLASSROOM, in a manner that they themseleves callled reinvigorated science and math understanding.

I agree with most everything said above as truth. But, not having the scientific method right there within the definition and similar things, defeats what "the students say they need!"LekLiberty 20:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)Leslie B. Dean, Ph.D.

[edit] Science and social sciences

• Social sciences, which study human behavior and societies (although according to several definitions of science, including those stated above, the social sciences are not overwhelmingly considered to be science, and in fact many groups of people from academicians[4] to politicians[5] oppose the use of the label "science" in some fields of study and knowledge they consider non-scientific[6], [7])

This was deleted twice. I think total deletion is unfair and biased, the sources are credible and the issues are recurrent. Let's not get into a reversion war, but instead let's get some others' input.Nwanda 13:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Nwanda. This is interesting. I believe you could be correct, though it may need a clearer more distinguishing feature. For example it may be better to explain why some think that those are not sciences per se. If you could find an explanation from those or similar sources that states something about those sciences not using the scientific method or something similar, it may diffuse any risk of a edit battle. Also I suggest that if a battle was likely, it may be a good idea to identify who may oppose if it is not written quite to the standard you had envisaged. Contact those discerning individuals, and see if they have similar information that may help. Other readers, please come forward if you have any useful information that may help. Thank you. Kit Fander 06:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There was no total deletion; I removed this version from the introduction, but I added a new paragraph under Science#Fields of science to direct to the correct article about at least one concrete dispute (feel free to add others if there are others, but please don't weasel it down to something like "although according to several definitions of science, including those stated above[which is not correct BTW], the social sciences are not overwhelmingly considered to be science, and in fact many groups of people from academicians[8] to politicians[9] oppose the use of the label "science" in some fields of study and knowledge they consider non-scientific[10], [11])" (I emphasized the parts that are weasels). That's far too unspecific and broad to be a useful information for an encyclopedic article. If you write about a dispute, don't try to include all positions in one sentence with "many", "most", "some", "critics", "proponents". Instead be specific and to the point, write who (names) took part in the dispute, which positions were defended, when and where did the dispute happen, why are there confliciting positions etc. --Rtc 14:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Rtc. Actually the info I have has exactly the vaguery problems you mention. I'll look for something more specific. Kit Fander 04:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions and explanations accepted. Thank you all. Nwanda 12:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sciences

Science is getting complicated these days now because no one really understands it-unless if you are really smart. Today's science includes new discoveries, while before, people were making connoctions. Now people are making test-tube babies and are trying to alter the natural order of life.-Ziggymarley01 22:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Ziggymarley01

[edit] Public perception of science in France

The French CNRS (national institute for scientific research) has realized and published some results on the public perception of science (and of CNRS) in France. The interesting slide is in page 6. It gives a rare historical perspective on the evolution of the oppinion. For those who don't know French:

• green = science brought mankind more good things than bad things
• blue = as many bad things as good ones
• red = more bad things than good ones.

Dpotop 11:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mapping the sciences: scientific adjectives/name of the science(s)

Scientific adjectives is a sub-project of the WikiProject Conceptual Jungle, aiming at making an overview in a table of scientific adjectives and the various branches of (the) science(s) and qualify them by discussing them, improving the Wikipedia articles and make clear the interlinkages. Please feel free to add your contributions to the table. Best regards, Brz7 12:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Political Science vs Politics

There seems to be some confusion as to what "political science" is. As it currently stands, the article categorizes political science as a field which "traffic[s] more in opinion and persuasion." Whoever wrote this misunderstands the difference between politics and political science.

In politics, people work to argue and persuade. Political science, by contrast, applies scientific methods to understand political phenomena. The arguments in all major political science journals traffic in experiments, mathematical models, and empirical analyses--not "opinion and persuasion." For example, a prominent set of formal models analyzes how general policy outcomes would change if a country added more players to its constitutional processes. This "veto players" literature is deeply mathematical and has been the subject of numerous field studies. As another example, several studies seek to identify the variables that influence voter turnout. These studies, like scientific studies in other fields, identify variables and models and test them empirically. How is this inconsistent with this article's definition of science?

It is not, and to state otherwise simply reflects our preconceived notions about what political science is rather than a knowledge of what political scientists actually do. Karl Rove, Bill Clinton, and political journalists work in politics. Arend Lijphart, Philip Converse, and Gary Cox are political scientists. There is a reason that several political scientists have been admitted to the National Academy of Sciences, but not a single politician has.

I will shortly amend the article to correct these misperceptions. - A10brown 16:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Objective

I have tried to do some minor explanation of the concept of "objective" in the LEAD here, but have been frankly reverted by user:kenosis as though we all should know what the word "objective" means, and all agree on it. He's even insisted on removing the quotation marks. Sorry, but I think more is needed. Aristotle defined science as public knowledge which was demonstrable. That is also more or less what we mean by "objective." Something needs to be said in that line, since the average person reading this article is going to be confronted with creation science, library science, political science, and natural science. The idea of objectivity and public knowledge is key to tracking down proper usage. Thoughts? SBHarris 01:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Just noticed this. Actually, a vandal was what brought my current attention to the lead, as I hadn't checked in in some time. The article lead was in need of a more general cleanup as a result of too many non-knowledgeable edits recently. I brought a significant portion of the relevant material about being "objective" over to the article on Objectivity (science). It's linked to by the first wikilink in the article on science. Alternately, it seems to me that a comment about "objective" or "objectivity" to this same basic effect as above would be useful in the section on Science#Scientific_method as well. ... Kenosis 23:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I noticed that. Glad we also added something short to science, too. I wanted something in science up front somewhere, because I truly think that "objective" is an under-appreciated word, which many people won't link and read, as they're reading the LEAD here. Objective means everybody agrees on criteria beforehand, as in a horse race, and then they all agree on means to test the results. With money held by the third party if necessary! Any science is just like horse race betting, if it's done honestly. Place your bets beforehand. Gates go down. Off they go. Winner is announced by methods which can be checked. No welching, back-betting, or changing the bet rules post hoc. That's why political science and computer science are sciences, and theology isn't. SBHarris 00:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I just reviewed my edits again. The main ones were here, here, here and here. ... Kenosis 00:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

I suggest to put www.sciforums.com in links section. It's fantastic science discussion board. It could help people interested in science a lot to discuss various topics and test various theories. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.242.112.235 (talk) 12:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Another Suggestion

The article states ...

"Critical to this process is making every relevant aspect of research publicly available, which permits peer review of published results, ... "

In view of the apparently justified low esteem expressed in the Wikipedia article of the same name, it appears that some further clarification is needed around the concept of "peer review". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.157.187.233 (talk) 10:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Enlightenment template

Should there be one here? Just wondering, it doesn't look in place here. Never mind...--Jazzwick 22:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC) Hi

[edit] Map of science

i think this would be good here. if someone agrees and has the skils to edit it in nicely... please do :)

"This map was constructed by sorting roughly 800,000 published papers into 776 different scientific paradigms (shown as pale circular nodes) based on how often the papers were cited together by authors of other papers. Links (curved black lines) were made between the paradigms that shared papers, then treated as rubber bands, holding similar paradigms nearer one another when a physical simulation forced every paradigm to repel every other; thus the layout derives directly from the data. Larger paradigms have more papers; node proximity and darker links indicate how many papers are shared between two paradigms. Flowing labels list common words unique to each paradigm, large labels general areas of scientific inquiry." http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/uploads/scimaplarge.jpg http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2007/03/scientific_method_relationship.php http://mapofscience.com/