Science

The Universe represented as multiple disk-shaped

slices across time, which passes from left to right.

Science (from the Latin word scientia,

meaning "knowledge")[1] is a systematic
enterprise that builds and organizes
knowledge in the form of testable
explanations and predictions about the
universe.[2][3][4]

The earliest roots of science can be traced

to Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia in
around 3500 to 3000 BCE.[5][6] Their
contributions to mathematics, astronomy,
and medicine entered and shaped Greek
natural philosophy of classical antiquity,
whereby formal attempts were made to
provide explanations of events in the
physical world based on natural
causes.[5][6] After the fall of the Western
Roman Empire, knowledge of Greek
conceptions of the world deteriorated in
Western Europe during the early centuries
(400 to 1000 CE) of the Middle Ages[7] but
was preserved in the Muslim world during
the Islamic Golden Age.[8] The recovery
and assimilation of Greek works and
Islamic inquiries into Western Europe from
the 10th to 13th century revived "natural
philosophy",[7][9] which was later
transformed by the Scientific Revolution
that began in the 16th century[10] as new
ideas and discoveries departed from
previous Greek conceptions and
traditions.[11][12][13][14] The scientific
method soon played a greater role in
knowledge creation and it was not until the
19th century that many of the institutional
and professional features of science
began to take shape;[15][16][17] along with
the changing of "natural philosophy" to
"natural science."[18]

Modern science is typically divided into

three major branches that consist of the
natural sciences (e.g., biology, chemistry,
and physics), which study nature in the
broadest sense; the social sciences (e.g.,
economics, psychology, and sociology),
which study individuals and societies; and
the formal sciences (e.g., logic,
mathematics, and theoretical computer
science), which study abstract concepts.
There is disagreement,[19][20] however, on
whether the formal sciences actually
constitute a science as they do not rely on
empirical evidence.[21] Disciplines that use
existing scientific knowledge for practical
purposes, such as engineering and
medicine, are described as applied
sciences.[22][23][24][25]

Science is based on research, which is

commonly conducted in academic and
research institutions as well as in
government agencies and companies. The
practical impact of scientific research has
led to the emergence of science policies
that seek to influence the scientific
enterprise by prioritizing the development
of commercial products, armaments,
health care, and environmental protection.

History
Science in a broad sense existed before
the modern era and in many historical
civilizations.[26] Modern science is distinct
in its approach and successful in its
results, so it now defines what science is
in the strictest sense of the term.[3][5][27]
Science in its original sense was a word
for a type of knowledge, rather than a
specialized word for the pursuit of such
knowledge. In particular, it was the type of
knowledge which people can
communicate to each other and share. For
example, knowledge about the working of
natural things was gathered long before
recorded history and led to the
development of complex abstract thought.
This is shown by the construction of
complex calendars, techniques for making
poisonous plants edible, public works at
national scale, such as those which
harnessed the floodplain of the Yangtse
with reservoirs,[28] dams, and dikes, and
buildings such as the Pyramids. However,
no consistent conscious distinction was
made between knowledge of such things,
which are true in every community, and
other types of communal knowledge, such
as mythologies and legal systems.
Metallurgy was known in prehistory, and
the Vinča culture was the earliest known
producer of bronze-like alloys. It is thought
that early experimentation with heating
and mixing of substances over time
developed into alchemy.

Early cultures
Clay models of animal livers dating between the
nineteenth and eighteenth centuries BCE, found in the
royal palace in Mari, Syria

Neither the words nor the concepts

"science" and "nature" were part of the
conceptual landscape in the ancient near
east.[29] The ancient Mesopotamians used
knowledge about the properties of various
natural chemicals for manufacturing
pottery, faience, glass, soap, metals, lime
plaster, and waterproofing;[30] they also
studied animal physiology, anatomy, and
behavior for divinatory purposes[30] and
made extensive records of the movements
of astronomical objects for their study of
astrology.[31] The Mesopotamians had
intense interest in medicine[30] and the
earliest medical prescriptions appear in
Sumerian during the Third Dynasty of Ur
(c. 2112 BCE – c. 2004 BCE).[32]
Nonetheless, the Mesopotamians seem to
have had little interest in gathering
information about the natural world for the
mere sake of gathering information[30] and
mainly only studied scientific subjects
which had obvious practical applications
or immediate relevance to their religious
system.[30]

Classical antiquity
In classical antiquity, there is no real
ancient analog of a modern scientist.
Instead, well-educated, usually upper-
class, and almost universally male
individuals performed various
investigations into nature whenever they
could afford the time.[33] Before the
invention or discovery of the concept of
"nature" (ancient Greek phusis) by the Pre-
Socratic philosophers, the same words
tend to be used to describe the natural
"way" in which a plant grows,[34] and the
"way" in which, for example, one tribe
worships a particular god. For this reason,
it is claimed these men were the first
philosophers in the strict sense, and also
the first people to clearly distinguish
"nature" and "convention."[35]:209 Natural
philosophy, the precursor of natural
science, was thereby distinguished as the
knowledge of nature and things which are
true for every community, and the name of
the specialized pursuit of such knowledge
was philosophy – the realm of the first
philosopher-physicists. They were mainly
speculators or theorists, particularly
interested in astronomy. In contrast, trying
to use knowledge of nature to imitate
nature (artifice or technology, Greek
technē) was seen by classical scientists as
a more appropriate interest for artisans of
lower social class.[36]
The early Greek philosophers of the
Milesian school, which was founded by
Thales of Miletus and later continued by
his successors Anaximander and
Anaximenes, were the first to attempt to
explain natural phenomena without relying
on the supernatural.[37] The Pythagoreans
developed a complex number
philosophy[38]:467–68 and contributed
significantly to the development of
mathematical science.[38]:465 The theory of
atoms was developed by the Greek
philosopher Leucippus and his student
Democritus.[39][40] The Greek doctor
Hippocrates established the tradition of
systematic medical science[41][42] and is
known as "The Father of Medicine".[43]

Aristotle, 384–322 BCE, one of the early figures in the

development of the scientific method.[44]

A turning point in the history of early

philosophical science was Socrates'
example of applying philosophy to the
study of human matters, including human
nature, the nature of political communities,
and human knowledge itself. The Socratic
method as documented by Plato's
dialogues is a dialectic method of
hypothesis elimination: better hypotheses
are found by steadily identifying and
eliminating those that lead to
contradictions. This was a reaction to the
Sophist emphasis on rhetoric. The
Socratic method searches for general,
commonly held truths that shape beliefs
and scrutinizes them to determine their
consistency with other beliefs.[45] Socrates
criticized the older type of study of physics
as too purely speculative and lacking in
self-criticism. Socrates was later, in the
words of his Apology, accused of
corrupting the youth of Athens because he
did "not believe in the gods the state
believes in, but in other new spiritual
beings". Socrates refuted these claims,[46]
but was sentenced to death.[47]: 30e

Aristotle later created a systematic

programme of teleological philosophy:
Motion and change is described as the
actualization of potentials already in
things, according to what types of things
they are. In his physics, the Sun goes
around the Earth, and many things have it
as part of their nature that they are for
humans. Each thing has a formal cause, a
final cause, and a role in a cosmic order
with an unmoved mover. The Socratics
also insisted that philosophy should be
used to consider the practical question of
the best way to live for a human being (a
study Aristotle divided into ethics and
political philosophy). Aristotle maintained
that man knows a thing scientifically
"when he possesses a conviction arrived
at in a certain way, and when the first
principles on which that conviction rests
are known to him with certainty".[48]

The Greek astronomer Aristarchus of

Samos (310–230 BCE) was the first to
propose a heliocentric model of the
universe, with the Sun at the center and all
the planets orbiting it.[49] Aristarchus's
model was widely rejected because it was
believed to violate the laws of physics.[49]
The inventor and mathematician
Archimedes of Syracuse made major
contributions to the beginnings of
calculus[50] and has sometimes been
credited as its inventor,[50] although his
proto-calculus lacked several defining
features.[50] Pliny the Elder was a Roman
writer and polymath, who wrote the
seminal encyclopedia Natural
History,[51][52][53] dealing with history,
geography, medicine, astronomy, earth
science, botany, and zoology.[51] Other
scientists or proto-scientists in Antiquity
were Theophrastus, Euclid, Herophilos,
Hipparchus, Ptolemy, and Galen.

Medieval science

De potentiis anime sensitive, Gregor Reisch (1504)

Margarita philosophica. Medieval science postulated a
ventricle of the brain as the location for our common
sense,[54]:189 where the forms from our sensory
systems commingled.
Because of the collapse of the Western
Roman Empire due to the Migration Period
an intellectual decline took place in the
western part of Europe in the 400s. In
contrast, the Byzantine Empire resisted the
attacks from invaders, and preserved and
improved upon the learning. John
Philoponus, a Byzantine scholar in the
500s, questioned Aristotle's teaching of
physics and to note its
flaws.[55]:pp.307, 311, 363, 402 John
Philoponus' criticism of Aristotelian
principles of physics served as an
inspiration to medieval scholars as well as
to Galileo Galilei who ten centuries later,
during the Scientific Revolution,
extensively cited Philoponus in his works
while making the case for why Aristotelian
physics was flawed.[55][56]

During late antiquity and the early Middle

Ages, the Aristotelian approach to
inquiries on natural phenomena was used.
Aristotle's four causes prescribed that four
"why" questions should be answered in
order to explain things scientifically.[57]
Some ancient knowledge was lost, or in
some cases kept in obscurity, during the
fall of the Western Roman Empire and
periodic political struggles. However, the
general fields of science (or "natural
philosophy" as it was called) and much of
the general knowledge from the ancient
world remained preserved through the
works of the early Latin encyclopedists
like Isidore of Seville.[58] However,
Aristotle's original texts were eventually
lost in Western Europe, and only one text
by Plato was widely known, the Timaeus,
which was the only Platonic dialogue, and
one of the few original works of classical
natural philosophy, available to Latin
readers in the early Middle Ages. Another
original work that gained influence in this
period was Ptolemy's Almagest, which
contains a geocentric description of the
solar system.
During late antiquity, in the Byzantine
empire many Greek classical texts were
preserved. Many Syriac translations were
done by groups such as the Nestorians
and Monophysites.[59] They played a role
when they translated Greek classical texts
into Arabic under the Caliphate, during
which many types of classical learning
were preserved and in some cases
improved upon.[59][a] In addition, the
neighboring Sassanid Empire established
the medical Academy of Gondeshapur
where Greek, Syriac and Persian
physicians established the most important
medical center of the ancient world during
the 6th and 7th centuries.[60]
The House of Wisdom was established in
Abbasid-era Baghdad, Iraq,[61] where the
Islamic study of Aristotelianism flourished.
Al-Kindi (801–873) was the first of the
Muslim Peripatetic philosophers, and is
known for his efforts to introduce Greek
and Hellenistic philosophy to the Arab
world.[62] The Islamic Golden Age
flourished from this time until the Mongol
invasions of the 13th century. Ibn al-
Haytham (Alhazen), as well as his
predecessor Ibn Sahl, was familiar with
Ptolemy's Optics, and used experiments as
a means to gain knowledge.[b][63][64]:463–65
Alhazen disproved Ptolemy's theory of
vision,[65] but did not make any
corresponding changes to Aristotle's
metaphysics. Furthermore, doctors and
alchemists such as the Persians Avicenna
and Al-Razi also greatly developed the
science of Medicine with the former
writing the Canon of Medicine, a medical
encyclopedia used until the 18th century
and the latter discovering multiple
compounds like alcohol. Avicenna's canon
is considered to be one of the most
important publications in medicine and
they both contributed significantly to the
practice of experimental medicine, using
clinical trials and experiments to back their
claims.[66]
In Classical antiquity, Greek and Roman
taboos had meant that dissection was
usually banned in ancient times, but in
Middle Ages it changed: medical teachers
and students at Bologna began to open
human bodies, and Mondino de Luzzi (c.
1275–1326) produced the first known
anatomy textbook based on human
dissection.[67][68]

By the eleventh century most of Europe

had become Christian; stronger
monarchies emerged; borders were
restored; technological developments and
agricultural innovations were made which
increased the food supply and population.
In addition, classical Greek texts started to
be translated from Arabic and Greek into
Latin, giving a higher level of scientific
discussion in Western Europe.[7]

By 1088, the first university in Europe (the

University of Bologna) had emerged from
its clerical beginnings. Demand for Latin
translations grew (for example, from the
Toledo School of Translators); western
Europeans began collecting texts written
not only in Latin, but also Latin translations
from Greek, Arabic, and Hebrew.
Manuscript copies of Alhazen's Book of
Optics also propagated across Europe
before 1240,[69]:Intro. p. xx as evidenced by
its incorporation into Vitello's Perspectiva.
Avicenna's Canon was translated into
Latin.[70] In particular, the texts of Aristotle,
Ptolemy,[c] and Euclid, preserved in the
Houses of Wisdom and also in the
Byzantine Empire,[71] were sought
amongst Catholic scholars. The influx of
ancient texts caused the Renaissance of
the 12th century and the flourishing of a
synthesis of Catholicism and
Aristotelianism known as Scholasticism in
western Europe, which became a new
geographic center of science. An
experiment in this period would be
understood as a careful process of
observing, describing, and classifying.[72]
One prominent scientist in this era was
Roger Bacon. Scholasticism had a strong
focus on revelation and dialectic
reasoning, and gradually fell out of favour
over the next centuries, as alchemy's focus
on experiments that include direct
observation and meticulous
documentation slowly increased in
importance.

Renaissance and early modern

science
 

Astronomy became more accurate after Tycho Brahe

devised his scientific instruments for measuring
angles between two celestial bodies, before the
invention of the telescope. Brahe's observations were
the basis for Kepler's laws.

New developments in optics played a role

in the inception of the Renaissance, both
by challenging long-held metaphysical
ideas on perception, as well as by
contributing to the improvement and
development of technology such as the
camera obscura and the telescope. Before
what we now know as the Renaissance
started, Roger Bacon, Vitello, and John
Peckham each built up a scholastic
ontology upon a causal chain beginning
with sensation, perception, and finally
apperception of the individual and
universal forms of Aristotle.[73] A model of
vision later known as perspectivism was
exploited and studied by the artists of the
Renaissance. This theory uses only three
of Aristotle's four causes: formal, material,
and final.[74]
In the sixteenth century, Copernicus
formulated a heliocentric model of the
solar system unlike the geocentric model
of Ptolemy's Almagest. This was based on
a theorem that the orbital periods of the
planets are longer as their orbs are farther
from the centre of motion, which he found
not to agree with Ptolemy's model.[75]

Kepler and others challenged the notion

that the only function of the eye is
perception, and shifted the main focus in
optics from the eye to the propagation of
light.[74][76]:102 Kepler modelled the eye as
a water-filled glass sphere with an
aperture in front of it to model the
entrance pupil. He found that all the light
from a single point of the scene was
imaged at a single point at the back of the
glass sphere. The optical chain ends on
the retina at the back of the eye.[d] Kepler
is best known, however, for improving
Copernicus' heliocentric model through
the discovery of Kepler's laws of planetary
motion. Kepler did not reject Aristotelian
metaphysics, and described his work as a
search for the Harmony of the Spheres.
 

Galileo Galilei, regarded as the father of modern

science.[77]: Vol. 24, No. 1, p. 36

Galileo made innovative use of experiment

and mathematics. However, he became
persecuted after Pope Urban VIII blessed
Galileo to write about the Copernican
system. Galileo had used arguments from
the Pope and put them in the voice of the
simpleton in the work "Dialogue
Concerning the Two Chief World Systems",
which greatly offended Urban VIII.[78]

In Northern Europe, the new technology of

the printing press was widely used to
publish many arguments, including some
that disagreed widely with contemporary
ideas of nature. René Descartes and
Francis Bacon published philosophical
arguments in favor of a new type of non-
Aristotelian science. Descartes
emphasized individual thought and argued
that mathematics rather than geometry
should be used in order to study nature.
Bacon emphasized the importance of
experiment over contemplation. Bacon
further questioned the Aristotelian
concepts of formal cause and final cause,
and promoted the idea that science should
study the laws of "simple" natures, such as
heat, rather than assuming that there is
any specific nature, or "formal cause", of
each complex type of thing. This new
science began to see itself as describing
"laws of nature". This updated approach to
studies in nature was seen as
mechanistic. Bacon also argued that
science should aim for the first time at
practical inventions for the improvement
of all human life.
Age of Enlightenment

Isaac Newton, shown here in a 1689 portrait, made

seminal contributions to classical mechanics, gravity,
and optics. Newton shares credit with Gottfried Leibniz
for the development of calculus.

As a precursor to the Age of

Enlightenment, Isaac Newton and
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz succeeded in
developing a new physics, now referred to
as classical mechanics, which could be
confirmed by experiment and explained
using mathematics (Newton (1687),
Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia
Mathematica). Leibniz also incorporated
terms from Aristotelian physics, but now
being used in a new non-teleological way,
for example, "energy" and "potential"
(modern versions of Aristotelian "energeia
and potentia"). This implied a shift in the
view of objects: Where Aristotle had noted
that objects have certain innate goals that
can be actualized, objects were now
regarded as devoid of innate goals. In the
style of Francis Bacon, Leibniz assumed
that different types of things all work
according to the same general laws of
nature, with no special formal or final
causes for each type of thing.[79] It is
during this period that the word "science"
gradually became more commonly used to
refer to a type of pursuit of a type of
knowledge, especially knowledge of
nature – coming close in meaning to the
old term "natural philosophy."

During this time, the declared purpose and

value of science became producing wealth
and inventions that would improve human
lives, in the materialistic sense of having
more food, clothing, and other things. In
Bacon's words, "the real and legitimate
goal of sciences is the endowment of
human life with new inventions and
riches", and he discouraged scientists
from pursuing intangible philosophical or
spiritual ideas, which he believed
contributed little to human happiness
beyond "the fume of subtle, sublime, or
pleasing speculation".[80]

Science during the Enlightenment was

dominated by scientific societies[81] and
academies, which had largely replaced
universities as centres of scientific
research and development. Societies and
academies were also the backbone of the
maturation of the scientific profession.
Another important development was the
popularization of science among an
increasingly literate population.
Philosophes introduced the public to many
scientific theories, most notably through
the Encyclopédie and the popularization of
Newtonianism by Voltaire as well as by
Émilie du Châtelet, the French translator of
Newton's Principia.

Some historians have marked the 18th

century as a drab period in the history of
science;[82] however, the century saw
significant advancements in the practice
of medicine, mathematics, and physics;
the development of biological taxonomy; a
new understanding of magnetism and
electricity; and the maturation of chemistry
as a discipline, which established the
foundations of modern chemistry.

Enlightenment philosophers chose a short

history of scientific predecessors –
Galileo, Boyle, and Newton principally – as
the guides and guarantors of their
applications of the singular concept of
nature and natural law to every physical
and social field of the day. In this respect,
the lessons of history and the social
structures built upon it could be
discarded.[83]
19th century

Charles Darwin in 1854, by then working towards

publication of On the Origin of Species.

The nineteenth century is a particularly

important period in the history of science
since during this era many distinguishing
characteristics of contemporary modern
science began to take shape such as:
transformation of the life and physical
sciences, frequent use of precision
instruments, emergence of terms like
"biologist", "physicist", "scientist"; slowly
moving away from antiquated labels like
"natural philosophy" and "natural history",
increased professionalization of those
studying nature lead to reduction in
amateur naturalists, scientists gained
cultural authority over many dimensions of
society, economic expansion and
industrialization of numerous countries,
thriving of popular science writings and
emergence of science journals.[17]

Early in the 19th century, John Dalton

suggested the modern atomic theory,
based on Democritus's original idea of
individible particles called atoms.

Combustion and chemical reactions were studied by

Michael Faraday and reported in his lectures before the
Royal Institution: The Chemical History of a Candle,
1861.

Both John Herschel and William Whewell

systematized methodology: the latter
coined the term scientist.[84] When Charles
Darwin published On the Origin of Species
he established evolution as the prevailing
explanation of biological complexity. His
theory of natural selection provided a
natural explanation of how species
originated, but this only gained wide
acceptance a century later.

The laws of conservation of energy,

conservation of momentum and
conservation of mass suggested a highly
stable universe where there could be little
loss of resources. With the advent of the
steam engine and the industrial revolution,
there was, however, an increased
understanding that all forms of energy as
defined in physics were not equally
useful： they did not have the same energy
quality. This realization led to the
development of the laws of
thermodynamics, in which the free energy
of the universe is seen as constantly
declining: the entropy of a closed universe
increases over time.

The electromagnetic theory was also

established in the 19th century, and raised
new questions which could not easily be
answered using Newton's framework. The
phenomena that would allow the
deconstruction of the atom were
discovered in the last decade of the 19th
century: the discovery of X-rays inspired
the discovery of radioactivity. In the next
year came the discovery of the first
subatomic particle, the electron.

20th century

The DNA double helix is a molecule that encodes the

genetic instructions used in the development and
functioning of all known living organisms and many
viruses.
Einstein's theory of relativity and the
development of quantum mechanics led to
the replacement of classical mechanics
with a new physics which contains two
parts that describe different types of
events in nature.

In the first half of the century, the

development of antibiotics and artificial
fertilizer made global human population
growth possible. At the same time, the
structure of the atom and its nucleus was
discovered, leading to the release of
"atomic energy" (nuclear power). In
addition, the extensive use of
technological innovation stimulated by the
wars of this century led to revolutions in
transportation (automobiles and aircraft),
the development of ICBMs, a space race,
and a nuclear arms race.

The molecular structure of DNA was

discovered in 1953. The discovery of the
cosmic microwave background radiation
in 1964 led to a rejection of the Steady
State theory of the universe in favour of
the Big Bang theory of Georges Lemaître.

The development of spaceflight in the

second half of the century allowed the first
astronomical measurements done on or
near other objects in space, including
manned landings on the Moon. Space
telescopes lead to numerous discoveries
in astronomy and cosmology.

Widespread use of integrated circuits in

the last quarter of the 20th century
combined with communications satellites
led to a revolution in information
technology and the rise of the global
internet and mobile computing, including
smartphones. The need for mass
systematization of long, intertwined
causal chains and large amounts of data
led to the rise of the fields of systems
theory and computer-assisted scientific
modelling, which are partly based on the
Aristotelian paradigm.[85]

Harmful environmental issues such as

ozone depletion, acidification,
eutrophication and climate change came
to the public's attention in the same
period, and caused the onset of
environmental science and environmental
technology.

21st century
A simulated event in the CMS detector of the Large
Hadron Collider, featuring a possible appearance of the
Higgs boson.

The Human Genome Project was

completed in 2003, determining the
sequence of nucleotide base pairs that
make up human DNA, and identifying and
mapping all of the genes of the human
genome.[86] Induced pluripotent stem cells
were developed in 2006, a technology
allowing adult cells to be transformed into
stem cells capable of giving rise to any cell
type found in the body, potentially of huge
importance to the field of regenerative
medicine.[87]
With the discovery of the Higgs boson in
2012, the last particle predicted by the
Standard Model of particle physics was
found. In 2015, gravitational waves,
predicted by general relativity a century
before, were first observed.[88][89]

Branches of science
Modern science is commonly divided into
three major branches that consist of the
natural sciences, social sciences, and
formal sciences. Each of these branches
comprise various specialized yet
overlapping scientific disciplines that often
possess their own nomenclature and
expertise.[90] Both natural and social
sciences are empirical sciences[91] as their
knowledge are based on empirical
observations and are capable of being
tested for its validity by other researchers
working under the same conditions.[92]

There are also closely related disciplines

that use science, such as engineering and
medicine, which are sometimes described
as applied sciences. The relationships
between the branches of science are
summarized by the following table.
 Science

Empirical sciences
Formal science
Natural science Social science

Physics; Chemistry; Biology; Economics; Political

Logic; Mathematics;
Foundation Earth science; Space science;
Statistics
science Sociology; Psychology

Engineering; Agricultural
science; Business administration;
Application Computer science
Medicine; Dentistry; Jurisprudence; Pedagogy
Pharmacy

Natural science

False-color composite of global oceanic and terrestrial

photoautotroph abundance by the SeaWiFS Project,
NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center, and ORBIMAGE.
Natural science is concerned with the
description, prediction, and understanding
of natural phenomena based on empirical
evidence from observation and
experimentation. It can be divided into two
main branches: life science (or biological
science) and physical science. Physical
science is subdivided into branches,
including physics, chemistry, astronomy
and earth science. These two branches
may be further divided into more
specialized disciplines. Modern natural
science is the successor to the natural
philosophy that began in Ancient Greece.
Galileo, Descartes, Bacon, and Newton
debated the benefits of using approaches
which were more mathematical and more
experimental in a methodical way. Still,
philosophical perspectives, conjectures,
and presuppositions, often overlooked,
remain necessary in natural science.[93]
Systematic data collection, including
discovery science, succeeded natural
history, which emerged in the 16th century
by describing and classifying plants,
animals, minerals, and so on.[94] Today,
"natural history" suggests observational
descriptions aimed at popular
audiences.[95]

Social science
 

In economics, the supply and demand model describes

how prices vary as a result of a balance between
product availability and demand.

Social science is concerned with society

and the relationships among individuals
within a society. It has many branches that
include, but are not limited to,
anthropology, archaeology,
communication studies, economics,
history, human geography, jurisprudence,
linguistics, political science, psychology,
public health, and sociology. Social
scientists may adopt various philosophical
theories to study individuals and society.
For example, positivist social scientists
use methods resembling those of the
natural sciences as tools for
understanding society, and so define
science in its stricter modern sense.
Interpretivist social scientists, by contrast,
may use social critique or symbolic
interpretation rather than constructing
empirically falsifiable theories, and thus
treat science in its broader sense. In
modern academic practice, researchers
are often eclectic, using multiple
methodologies (for instance, by combining
both quantitative and qualitative research).
The term "social research" has also
acquired a degree of autonomy as
practitioners from various disciplines
share in its aims and methods.

Formal science

Formal science is involved in the study of

formal systems. It includes
mathematics,[96][97] systems theory, and
theoretical computer science. The formal
sciences share similarities with the other
two branches by relying on objective,
careful, and systematic study of an area of
knowledge. They are, however, different
from the empirical sciences as they rely
exclusively on deductive reasoning,
without the need for empirical evidence, to
verify their abstract concepts.[21][98][92] The
formal sciences are therefore a priori
disciplines and because of this, there is
disagreement on whether they actually
constitute a science.[19][20] Nevertheless,
the formal sciences play an important role
in the empirical sciences. Calculus, for
example, was initially invented to
understand motion in physics.[99] Natural
and social sciences that rely heavily on
mathematical applications include
mathematical physics, mathematical
chemistry, mathematical biology,
mathematical finance, and mathematical
economics.

Scientific research
Scientific research can be labeled as either
basic or applied research. Basic research
is the search for knowledge and applied
research is the search for solutions to
practical problems using this knowledge.
Although some scientific research is
applied research into specific problems, a
great deal of our understanding comes
from the curiosity-driven undertaking of
basic research. This leads to options for
technological advance that were not
planned or sometimes even imaginable.
This point was made by Michael Faraday
when allegedly in response to the question
"what is the use of basic research?" he
responded: "Sir, what is the use of a new-
born child?".[100] For example, research
into the effects of red light on the human
eye's rod cells did not seem to have any
practical purpose; eventually, the discovery
that our night vision is not troubled by red
light would lead search and rescue teams
(among others) to adopt red light in the
cockpits of jets and helicopters.[101]
Finally, even basic research can take
unexpected turns, and there is some sense
in which the scientific method is built to
harness luck.

Scientific method

The central star IRAS 10082-5647 was captured by the

Advanced Camera for Surveys aboard the Hubble
Space Telescope.

Scientific research involves using the

scientific method, which seeks to
objectively explain the events of nature in
a reproducible way.[102] An explanatory
thought experiment or hypothesis is put
forward as explanation using principles
such as parsimony (also known as
"Occam's Razor") and are generally
expected to seek consilience – fitting well
with other accepted facts related to the
phenomena.[103] This new explanation is
used to make falsifiable predictions that
are testable by experiment or observation.
The predictions are to be posted before a
confirming experiment or observation is
sought, as proof that no tampering has
occurred. Disproof of a prediction is
evidence of progress.[e][f][102][104] This is
done partly through observation of natural
phenomena, but also through
experimentation that tries to simulate
natural events under controlled conditions
as appropriate to the discipline (in the
observational sciences, such as
astronomy or geology, a predicted
observation might take the place of a
controlled experiment). Experimentation is
especially important in science to help
establish causal relationships (to avoid the
correlation fallacy).

When a hypothesis proves unsatisfactory,

it is either modified or discarded.[105] If the
hypothesis survived testing, it may
become adopted into the framework of a
scientific theory, a logically reasoned, self-
consistent model or framework for
describing the behavior of certain natural
phenomena. A theory typically describes
the behavior of much broader sets of
phenomena than a hypothesis; commonly,
a large number of hypotheses can be
logically bound together by a single theory.
Thus a theory is a hypothesis explaining
various other hypotheses. In that vein,
theories are formulated according to most
of the same scientific principles as
hypotheses. In addition to testing
hypotheses, scientists may also generate
a model, an attempt to describe or depict
the phenomenon in terms of a logical,
physical or mathematical representation
and to generate new hypotheses that can
be tested, based on observable
phenomena.[106]

While performing experiments to test

hypotheses, scientists may have a
preference for one outcome over another,
and so it is important to ensure that
science as a whole can eliminate this
bias.[107][108] This can be achieved by
careful experimental design, transparency,
and a thorough peer review process of the
experimental results as well as any
conclusions.[109][110] After the results of an
experiment are announced or published, it
is normal practice for independent
researchers to double-check how the
research was performed, and to follow up
by performing similar experiments to
determine how dependable the results
might be.[111] Taken in its entirety, the
scientific method allows for highly creative
problem solving while minimizing any
effects of subjective bias on the part of its
users (especially the confirmation
bias).[112]

Verifiability
John Ziman points out that intersubjective
verifiability is fundamental to the creation
of all scientific knowledge.[113] Ziman
shows how scientists can identify patterns
to each other across centuries; he refers to
this ability as "perceptual
consensibility."[113] He then makes
consensibility, leading to consensus, the
touchstone of reliable knowledge.[114]

Role of mathematics

 
Calculus, the mathematics of continuous change,
underpins many of the sciences.

Mathematics is essential in the formation

of hypotheses, theories, and laws[115] in
the natural and social sciences. For
example, it is used in quantitative
scientific modeling, which can generate
new hypotheses and predictions to be
tested. It is also used extensively in
observing and collecting measurements.
Statistics, a branch of mathematics, is
used to summarize and analyze data,
which allow scientists to assess the
reliability and variability of their
experimental results.
Computational science applies computing
power to simulate real-world situations,
enabling a better understanding of
scientific problems than formal
mathematics alone can achieve.
According to the Society for Industrial and
Applied Mathematics, computation is now
as important as theory and experiment in
advancing scientific knowledge.[116]

Philosophy of science
 

English philosopher and physician John Locke (1632–

1704), a leading philosopher of British empiricism

Scientists usually take for granted a set of

basic assumptions that are needed to
justify the scientific method: (1) that there
is an objective reality shared by all rational
observers; (2) that this objective reality is
governed by natural laws; (3) that these
laws can be discovered by means of
systematic observation and
experimentation.[3] Philosophy of science
seeks a deep understanding of what these
underlying assumptions mean and
whether they are valid.

The belief that scientific theories should

and do represent metaphysical reality is
known as realism. It can be contrasted
with anti-realism, the view that the
success of science does not depend on it
being accurate about unobservable
entities such as electrons. One form of
anti-realism is idealism, the belief that the
mind or consciousness is the most basic
essence, and that each mind generates its
own reality.[g] In an idealistic world view,
what is true for one mind need not be true
for other minds.

There are different schools of thought in

philosophy of science. The most popular
position is empiricism,[h] which holds that
knowledge is created by a process
involving observation and that scientific
theories are the result of generalizations
from such observations.[117] Empiricism
generally encompasses inductivism, a
position that tries to explain the way
general theories can be justified by the
finite number of observations humans can
make and hence the finite amount of
empirical evidence available to confirm
scientific theories. This is necessary
because the number of predictions those
theories make is infinite, which means that
they cannot be known from the finite
amount of evidence using deductive logic
only. Many versions of empiricism exist,
with the predominant ones being
Bayesianism[118] and the hypothetico-
deductive method.[117]

The Austrian-British philosopher of science Karl

Popper (1902–1994) in 1990. He is best known for his
work on empirical falsification.

Empiricism has stood in contrast to

rationalism, the position originally
associated with Descartes, which holds
that knowledge is created by the human
intellect, not by observation.[119] Critical
rationalism is a contrasting 20th-century
approach to science, first defined by
Austrian-British philosopher Karl Popper.
Popper rejected the way that empiricism
describes the connection between theory
and observation. He claimed that theories
are not generated by observation, but that
observation is made in the light of theories
and that the only way a theory can be
affected by observation is when it comes
in conflict with it.[120] Popper proposed
replacing verifiability with falsifiability as
the landmark of scientific theories and
replacing induction with falsification as
the empirical method.[120] Popper further
claimed that there is actually only one
universal method, not specific to science:
the negative method of criticism, trial and
error.[121] It covers all products of the
human mind, including science,
mathematics, philosophy, and art.[122]

Another approach, instrumentalism,

colloquially termed "shut up and
multiply,"[123] emphasizes the utility of
theories as instruments for explaining and
predicting phenomena.[124] It views
scientific theories as black boxes with only
their input (initial conditions) and output
(predictions) being relevant.
Consequences, theoretical entities, and
logical structure are claimed to be
something that should simply be ignored
and that scientists shouldn't make a fuss
about (see interpretations of quantum
mechanics). Close to instrumentalism is
constructive empiricism, according to
which the main criterion for the success of
a scientific theory is whether what it says
about observable entities is true.
Thomas Kuhn argued that the process of
observation and evaluation takes place
within a paradigm, a logically consistent
"portrait" of the world that is consistent
with observations made from its framing.
He characterized normal science as the
process of observation and "puzzle
solving" which takes place within a
paradigm, whereas revolutionary science
occurs when one paradigm overtakes
another in a paradigm shift.[125] Each
paradigm has its own distinct questions,
aims, and interpretations. The choice
between paradigms involves setting two or
more "portraits" against the world and
deciding which likeness is most
promising. A paradigm shift occurs when
a significant number of observational
anomalies arise in the old paradigm and a
new paradigm makes sense of them. That
is, the choice of a new paradigm is based
on observations, even though those
observations are made against the
background of the old paradigm. For Kuhn,
acceptance or rejection of a paradigm is a
social process as much as a logical
process. Kuhn's position, however, is not
one of relativism.[126]

Finally, another approach often cited in

debates of scientific skepticism against
controversial movements like "creation
science" is methodological naturalism. Its
main point is that a difference between
natural and supernatural explanations
should be made and that science should
be restricted methodologically to natural
explanations.[127][i] That the restriction is
merely methodological (rather than
ontological) means that science should
not consider supernatural explanations
itself, but should not claim them to be
wrong either. Instead, supernatural
explanations should be left a matter of
personal belief outside the scope of
science. Methodological naturalism
maintains that proper science requires
strict adherence to empirical study and
independent verification as a process for
properly developing and evaluating
explanations for observable
phenomena.[128] The absence of these
standards, arguments from authority,
biased observational studies and other
common fallacies are frequently cited by
supporters of methodological naturalism
as characteristic of the non-science they
criticize.

Certainty and science

A scientific theory is empirical[h][129] and is

always open to falsification if new
evidence is presented. That is, no theory is
ever considered strictly certain as science
accepts the concept of fallibilism.[j] The
philosopher of science Karl Popper sharply
distinguished truth from certainty. He
wrote that scientific knowledge "consists
in the search for truth," but it "is not the
search for certainty ... All human
knowledge is fallible and therefore
uncertain.[130]

New scientific knowledge rarely results in

vast changes in our understanding.
According to psychologist Keith Stanovich,
it may be the media's overuse of words like
"breakthrough" that leads the public to
imagine that science is constantly proving
everything it thought was true to be
false.[101] While there are such famous
cases as the theory of relativity that
required a complete reconceptualization,
these are extreme exceptions. Knowledge
in science is gained by a gradual synthesis
of information from different experiments
by various researchers across different
branches of science; it is more like a climb
than a leap.[101] Theories vary in the extent
to which they have been tested and
verified, as well as their acceptance in the
scientific community.[k] For example,
heliocentric theory, the theory of evolution,
relativity theory, and germ theory still bear
the name "theory" even though, in practice,
they are considered factual.[131]
Philosopher Barry Stroud adds that,
although the best definition for
"knowledge" is contested, being skeptical
and entertaining the possibility that one is
incorrect is compatible with being correct.
Therefore, scientists adhering to proper
scientific approaches will doubt
themselves even once they possess the
truth.[132] The fallibilist C. S. Peirce argued
that inquiry is the struggle to resolve
actual doubt and that merely quarrelsome,
verbal, or hyperbolic doubt is
fruitless[133] – but also that the inquirer
should try to attain genuine doubt rather
than resting uncritically on common
sense.[134] He held that the successful
sciences trust not to any single chain of
inference (no stronger than its weakest
link) but to the cable of multiple and
various arguments intimately
connected.[135]

Stanovich also asserts that science avoids

searching for a "magic bullet"; it avoids the
single-cause fallacy. This means a
scientist would not ask merely "What is the
cause of ...", but rather "What are the most
significant causes of ...". This is especially
the case in the more macroscopic fields of
science (e.g. psychology, physical
cosmology).[101] Research often analyzes
few factors at once, but these are always
added to the long list of factors that are
most important to consider.[101] For
example, knowing the details of only a
person's genetics, or their history and
upbringing, or the current situation may
not explain a behavior, but a deep
understanding of all these variables
combined can be very predictive.

Scientific literature
 

Cover of the first volume of the scientific journal

Science in 1880.

Scientific research is published in an

enormous range of scientific literature.[136]
Scientific journals communicate and
document the results of research carried
out in universities and various other
research institutions, serving as an
archival record of science. The first
scientific journals, Journal des Sçavans
followed by the Philosophical Transactions,
began publication in 1665. Since that time
the total number of active periodicals has
steadily increased. In 1981, one estimate
for the number of scientific and technical
journals in publication was 11,500.[137] The
United States National Library of Medicine
currently indexes 5,516 journals that
contain articles on topics related to the life
sciences. Although the journals are in 39
languages, 91 percent of the indexed
articles are published in English.[138]

Most scientific journals cover a single

scientific field and publish the research
within that field; the research is normally
expressed in the form of a scientific paper.
Science has become so pervasive in
modern societies that it is generally
considered necessary to communicate the
achievements, news, and ambitions of
scientists to a wider populace.

Science magazines such as New Scientist,

Science & Vie, and Scientific American
cater to the needs of a much wider
readership and provide a non-technical
summary of popular areas of research,
including notable discoveries and
advances in certain fields of research.
Science books engage the interest of
many more people. Tangentially, the
science fiction genre, primarily fantastic in
nature, engages the public imagination
and transmits the ideas, if not the
methods, of science.

Recent efforts to intensify or develop links

between science and non-scientific
disciplines such as literature or more
specifically, poetry, include the Creative
Writing Science resource developed
through the Royal Literary Fund.[139]

Practical impacts
Discoveries in fundamental science can be
world-changing. For example:
 Research

Static electricity and magnetism (c. 1600)

Electric current (18th century)
Diffraction (1665)

Germ theory (1700)

Vaccination (1798)

Photovoltaic effect (1839)

The strange orbit of Mercury (1859) and othe

leading to special (1905) and general relativit
Radio waves (1887)
Radioactivity (1896) and antimatter (1932)
X-rays (1896)

Crystallography and quantum mechanics (19

Plastics (1907)

Antibiotics (1880s, 1928)

Nuclear magnetic resonance (1930s)

Challenges

Replication crisis

The replication crisis is an ongoing

methodological crisis primarily affecting
parts of the social and life sciences in
which scholars have found that the results
of many scientific studies are difficult or
impossible to replicate or reproduce on
subsequent investigation, either by
independent researchers or by the original
researchers themselves.[140][141] The crisis
has long-standing roots; the phrase was
coined in the early 2010s[142] as part of a
growing awareness of the problem. The
replication crisis represents an important
body of research in metascience, which
aims to improve the quality of all scientific
research while reducing waste.[143]

Fringe science, pseudoscience, and junk

science

An area of study or speculation that

masquerades as science in an attempt to
claim a legitimacy that it would not
otherwise be able to achieve is sometimes
referred to as pseudoscience, fringe
science, or junk science.[m] Physicist
Richard Feynman coined the term "cargo
cult science" for cases in which
researchers believe they are doing science
because their activities have the outward
appearance of science but actually lack
the "kind of utter honesty" that allows their
results to be rigorously evaluated.[144]
Various types of commercial advertising,
ranging from hype to fraud, may fall into
these categories. Science has been
described as "the most important tool" for
separating valid claims from invalid
ones.[145]
There can also be an element of political
or ideological bias on all sides of scientific
debates. Sometimes, research may be
characterized as "bad science," research
that may be well-intended but is actually
incorrect, obsolete, incomplete, or over-
simplified expositions of scientific ideas.
The term "scientific misconduct" refers to
situations such as where researchers have
intentionally misrepresented their
published data or have purposely given
credit for a discovery to the wrong
person.[146]

Scientific community
The scientific community is a group of all
interacting scientists, along with their
respective societies and institutions.

Scientists

German-born scientist Albert Einstein (1879–1955)

developed the theory of relativity. He also won the
Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921 for his work in
theoretical physics.
Scientists are individuals who conduct
scientific research to advance knowledge
in an area of interest.[147][148] The term
scientist was coined by William Whewell in
1833. In modern times, many professional
scientists are trained in an academic
setting and upon completion, attain an
academic degree, with the highest degree
being a doctorate such as a Doctor of
Philosophy (PhD),[149] Doctor of Medicine
(MD), or Doctor of Engineering (DEng).
Many scientists pursue careers in various
sectors of the economy such as academia,
industry, government, and nonprofit
organizations.[150][151][152]
Scientists exhibit a strong curiosity about
reality, with some scientists having a
desire to apply scientific knowledge for the
benefit of health, nations, environment, or
industries. Other motivations include
recognition by their peers and prestige.
The Nobel Prize, a widely regarded
prestigious award,[153] is awarded annually
to those who have achieved scientific
advances in the fields of medicine,
physics, chemistry, and economics.

Women in science
 

Marie Curie was the first person to be awarded two

Nobel Prizes: Physics in 1903 and Chemistry in
1911.[154]

Science has historically been a male-

dominated field, with some notable
exceptions.[n] Women faced considerable
discrimination in science, much as they
did in other areas of male-dominated
societies, such as frequently being passed
over for job opportunities and denied
credit for their work.[o] For example,
Christine Ladd (1847–1930) was able to
enter a PhD program as "C. Ladd";
Christine "Kitty" Ladd completed the
requirements in 1882, but was awarded
her degree only in 1926, after a career
which spanned the algebra of logic (see
truth table), color vision, and psychology.
Her work preceded notable researchers
like Ludwig Wittgenstein and Charles
Sanders Peirce. The achievements of
women in science have been attributed to
their defiance of their traditional role as
laborers within the domestic sphere.[155]
In the late 20th century, active recruitment
of women and elimination of institutional
discrimination on the basis of sex greatly
increased the number of women
scientists, but large gender disparities
remain in some fields; in the early 21st
century over half of new biologists were
female, while 80% of PhDs in physics are
given to men. In the early part of the 21st
century, women in the United States
earned 50.3% of bachelor's degrees, 45.6%
of master's degrees, and 40.7% of PhDs in
science and engineering fields. They
earned more than half of the degrees in
psychology (about 70%), social sciences
(about 50%), and biology (about 50-60%)
but earned less than half the degrees in
the physical sciences, earth sciences,
mathematics, engineering, and computer
science.[156] Lifestyle choice also plays a
major role in female engagement in
science; women with young children are
28% less likely to take tenure-track
positions due to work-life balance
issues,[157] and female graduate students'
interest in careers in research declines
dramatically over the course of graduate
school, whereas that of their male
colleagues remains unchanged.[158]

Learned societies
 

Physicists in front of the Royal Society building in

London (1952).

Learned societies for the communication

and promotion of scientific thought and
experimentation have existed since the
Renaissance.[159] Many scientists belong
to a learned society that promotes their
respective scientific discipline, profession,
or group of related disciplines.[160]
Membership may be open to all, may
require possession of some scientific
credentials, or may be an honor conferred
by election.[161] Most scientific societies
are non-profit organizations, and many are
professional associations. Their activities
typically include holding regular
conferences for the presentation and
discussion of new research results and
publishing or sponsoring academic
journals in their discipline. Some also act
as professional bodies, regulating the
activities of their members in the public
interest or the collective interest of the
membership. Scholars in the sociology of
science argue that learned societies are of
key importance and their formation
assists in the emergence and
development of new disciplines or
professions.

The professionalization of science, begun

in the 19th century, was partly enabled by
the creation of distinguished academy of
sciences in a number of countries such as
the Italian Accademia dei Lincei in
1603,[162] the British Royal Society in 1660,
the French Académie des Sciences in
1666,[163] the American National Academy
of Sciences in 1863, the German Kaiser
Wilhelm Institute in 1911, and the Chinese
Academy of Sciences in 1928.
International scientific organizations, such
as the International Council for Science,
have since been formed to promote
cooperation between the scientific
communities of different nations.

Science and the public

Science policy

The United Nations Global Science-Policy-Business

Forum on the Environment in Nairobi, Kenya (2017).
Science policy is an area of public policy
concerned with the policies that affect the
conduct of the scientific enterprise,
including research funding, often in
pursuance of other national policy goals
such as technological innovation to
promote commercial product
development, weapons development,
health care and environmental monitoring.
Science policy also refers to the act of
applying scientific knowledge and
consensus to the development of public
policies. Science policy thus deals with the
entire domain of issues that involve the
natural sciences. In accordance with
public policy being concerned about the
well-being of its citizens, science policy's
goal is to consider how science and
technology can best serve the public.

State policy has influenced the funding of

public works and science for thousands of
years, particularly within civilizations with
highly organized governments such as
imperial China and the Roman Empire.
Prominent historical examples include the
Great Wall of China, completed over the
course of two millennia through the state
support of several dynasties, and the
Grand Canal of the Yangtze River, an
immense feat of hydraulic engineering
begun by Sunshu Ao (孫叔敖 7th c. BCE),
Ximen Bao (西門豹 5th c.BCE), and Shi Chi
(4th c. BCE). This construction dates from
the 6th century BCE under the Sui Dynasty
and is still in use today. In China, such
state-supported infrastructure and
scientific research projects date at least
from the time of the Mohists, who inspired
the study of logic during the period of the
Hundred Schools of Thought and the study
of defensive fortifications like the Great
Wall of China during the Warring States
period.

Public policy can directly affect the

funding of capital equipment and
intellectual infrastructure for industrial
research by providing tax incentives to
those organizations that fund research.
Vannevar Bush, director of the Office of
Scientific Research and Development for
the United States government, the
forerunner of the National Science
Foundation, wrote in July 1945 that
"Science is a proper concern of
government."[164]

Funding of science

The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research

Organisation (CSIRO) Main Entomology Building in
Organisation (CSIRO) Main Entomology Building in
Australia

Scientific research is often funded through

a competitive process in which potential
research projects are evaluated and only
the most promising receive funding. Such
processes, which are run by government,
corporations, or foundations, allocate
scarce funds. Total research funding in
most developed countries is between 1.5%
and 3% of GDP.[165] In the OECD, around
two-thirds of research and development in
scientific and technical fields is carried out
by industry, and 20% and 10% respectively
by universities and government. The
government funding proportion in certain
industries is higher, and it dominates
research in social science and humanities.
Similarly, with some exceptions (e.g.
biotechnology) government provides the
bulk of the funds for basic scientific
research. Many governments have
dedicated agencies to support scientific
research. Prominent scientific
organizations include the National Science
Foundation in the United States, the
National Scientific and Technical Research
Council in Argentina, Commonwealth
Scientific and Industrial Research
Organisation (CSIRO) in Australia, Centre
national de la recherche scientifique in
France, the Max Planck Society and
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft in
Germany, and CSIC in Spain. In
commercial research and development, all
but the most research-oriented
corporations focus more heavily on near-
term commercialisation possibilities rather
than "blue-sky" ideas or technologies
(such as nuclear fusion).

Public awareness of science

 
Dinosaur exhibit in the Houston Museum of Natural
Science

The public awareness of science relates to

the attitudes, behaviors, opinions, and
activities that make up the relations
between science and the general public. it
integrates various themes and activities
such as science communication, science
museums, science festivals, science fairs,
citizen science, and science in popular
culture. Social scientists have devised
various metrics to measure the public
understanding of science such as factual
knowledge, self-reported knowledge, and
structural knowledge.[166][167]
Science journalism

The mass media face a number of

pressures that can prevent them from
accurately depicting competing scientific
claims in terms of their credibility within
the scientific community as a whole.
Determining how much weight to give
different sides in a scientific debate may
require considerable expertise regarding
the matter.[168] Few journalists have real
scientific knowledge, and even beat
reporters who know a great deal about
certain scientific issues may be ignorant
about other scientific issues that they are
suddenly asked to cover.[169][170]
Politicization of science

Results of seven papers from 2004–2015 assessing

the overwhelming scientific consensus on man-made
global warming (see Surveys of scientists' views on
climate change), in contrast to the political controversy
over this issue, particularly in the United States.

Politicization of science occurs when

government, business, or advocacy groups
use legal or economic pressure to
influence the findings of scientific
research or the way it is disseminated,
reported, or interpreted. Many factors can
act as facets of the politicization of
science such as populist anti-
intellectualism, perceived threats to
religious beliefs, postmodernist
subjectivism, and fear for business
interests.[171] Politicization of science is
usually accomplished when scientific
information is presented in a way that
emphasizes the uncertainty associated
with the scientific evidence.[172] Tactics
such as shifting conversation, failing to
acknowledge facts, and capitalizing on
doubt of scientific consensus have been
used to gain more attention for views that
have been undermined by scientific
evidence.[173] Examples of issues that
have involved the politicization of science
include the global warming controversy,
health effects of pesticides, and health
effects of tobacco.[173][174]

See also
Antiquarian science books
Criticism of science
Human timeline
Index of branches of science
Life timeline
List of scientific occupations
Nature timeline
 Normative science
Outline of science
Pathological science
Protoscience
Science in popular culture
Science wars
Scientific dissent
Sociology of scientific knowledge
Wissenschaft – all areas of scholarly
study

Notes
a. Alhacen had access to the optics
books of Euclid and Ptolemy, as is
shown by the title of his lost work A
 Book in which I have Summarized the
Science of Optics from the Two Books
of Euclid and Ptolemy, to which I have
added the Notions of the First
Discourse which is Missing from
Ptolemy's Book From Ibn Abi Usaibia's
catalog, as cited in (Smith
2001):91(vol .1), p. xv
b. "[Ibn al-Haytham] followed Ptolemy's
bridge building ... into a grand
synthesis of light and vision. Part of
his effort consisted in devising ranges
of experiments, of a kind probed
before but now undertaken on larger
scale."— Cohen 2010, p. 59
c. The translator, Gerard of Cremona (c.
1114–1187), inspired by his love of the
Almagest, came to Toledo, where he
knew he could find the Almagest in
Arabic. There he found Arabic books
of every description, and learned
Arabic in order to translate these
books into Latin, being aware of 'the
poverty of the Latins'. —As cited by
Burnett, Charles (2002). "The
Coherence of the Arabic-Latin
Translation Program in Toledo in the
Twelfth Century". Science in Context.
14 (1–2): 249–88.
doi:10.1017/S0269889701000096 .
d. Kepler, Johannes (1604) Ad
Vitellionem paralipomena, quibus
astronomiae pars opticae traditur
(Supplements to Witelo, in which the
optical part of astronomy is treated)
as cited in Smith, A. Mark (January 1,
2004). "What Is the History of
Medieval Optics Really about?".
Proceedings of the American
Philosophical Society. 148 (2): 180–
94. JSTOR 1558283 .
PMID 15338543 .
The full title translation is from p.
60 of James R. Voelkel (2001)
Johannes Kepler and the New
Astronomy Oxford University
Press. Kepler was driven to this
experiment after observing the
partial solar eclipse at Graz, July
10, 1600. He used Tycho Brahe's
method of observation, which
was to project the image of the
Sun on a piece of paper through a
pinhole aperture, instead of
looking directly at the Sun. He
disagreed with Brahe's conclusion
that total eclipses of the Sun were
impossible, because there were
historical accounts of total
eclipses. Instead he deduced that
the size of the aperture controls
the sharpness of the projected
 image (the larger the aperture, the
more accurate the image – this
fact is now fundamental for
optical system design). Voelkel, p.
61, notes that Kepler's
experiments produced the first
correct account of vision and the
eye, because he realized he could
not accurately write about
astronomical observation by
ignoring the eye.
e. di Francia 1976, pp. 4–5: "One learns
in a laboratory; one learns how to
make experiments only by
experimenting, and one learns how to
work with his hands only by using
 them. The first and fundamental form
of experimentation in physics is to
teach young people to work with their
hands. Then they should be taken into
a laboratory and taught to work with
measuring instruments – each student
carrying out real experiments in
physics. This form of teaching is
indispensable and cannot be read in a
book."
f. Fara 2009, p. 204: "Whatever their
discipline, scientists claimed to share
a common scientific method that ...
distinguished them from non-
scientists."
g. This realization is the topic of
intersubjective verifiability, as
recounted, for example, by Max Born
(1949, 1965) Natural Philosophy of
Cause and Chance , who points out
that all knowledge, including natural or
social science, is also subjective. p.
162: "Thus it dawned upon me that
fundamentally everything is subjective,
everything without exception. That
was a shock."
h. In his investigation of the law of falling
bodies, Galileo (1638) serves as
example for scientific investigation:
Two New Sciences "A piece of wooden
moulding or scantling, about 12 cubits
long, half a cubit wide, and three
finger-breadths thick, was taken; on its
edge was cut a channel a little more
than one finger in breadth; having
made this groove very straight,
smooth, and polished, and having lined
it with parchment, also as smooth and
polished as possible, we rolled along it
a hard, smooth, and very round bronze
ball. Having placed this board in a
sloping position, by lifting one end
some one or two cubits above the
other, we rolled the ball, as I was just
saying, along the channel, noting, in a
manner presently to be described, the
time required to make the descent. We
... now rolled the ball only one-quarter
the length of the channel; and having
measured the time of its descent, we
found it precisely one-half of the
former. Next we tried other distances,
comparing the time for the whole
length with that for the half, or with
that for two-thirds, or three-fourths, or
indeed for any fraction; in such
experiments, repeated many, many,
times." Galileo solved the problem of
time measurement by weighing a jet of
water collected during the descent of
the bronze ball, as stated in his Two
New Sciences.
i. credits Willard Van Orman Quine
(1969) "Epistemology Naturalized"
Ontological Relativity and Other
Essays New York: Columbia University
Press, as well as John Dewey, with the
basic ideas of naturalism –
Naturalized Epistemology, but
Godfrey-Smith diverges from Quine's
position: according to Godfrey-Smith,
"A naturalist can think that science can
contribute to answers to philosophical
questions, without thinking that
philosophical questions can be
replaced by science questions.".
j. "No amount of experimentation can
ever prove me right; a single
 experiment can prove me wrong." —
Albert Einstein, noted by Alice
Calaprice (ed. 2005) The New
Quotable Einstein Princeton University
Press and Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, ISBN 0-691-12074-9 p.
291. Calaprice denotes this not as an
exact quotation, but as a paraphrase
of a translation of A. Einstein's
"Induction and Deduction". Collected
Papers of Albert Einstein 7 Document
28. Volume 7 is The Berlin Years:
Writings, 1918–1921. A. Einstein; M.
Janssen, R. Schulmann, et al., eds.
k. Fleck, Ludwik (1979). Trenn, Thaddeus
J.; Merton, Robert K (eds.). Genesis
 and Development of a Scientific Fact.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
ISBN 978-0-226-25325-1. Claims that
before a specific fact "existed", it had
to be created as part of a social
agreement within a community. Steven
Shapin (1980) "A view of scientific
thought" Science ccvii (Mar 7, 1980)
1065–66 states "[To Fleck,] facts are
invented, not discovered. Moreover,
the appearance of scientific facts as
discovered things is itself a social
construction: a made thing. "
l. Evicting Einstein , March 26, 2004,
NASA. "Both [relativity and quantum
mechanics] are extremely successful.
 The Global Positioning System (GPS),
for instance, wouldn't be possible
without the theory of relativity.
Computers, telecommunications, and
the Internet, meanwhile, are spin-offs
of quantum mechanics."
m. "Pseudoscientific – pretending to be
scientific, falsely represented as being
scientific", from the Oxford American
Dictionary, published by the Oxford
English Dictionary; Hansson, Sven Ove
(1996)."Defining Pseudoscience",
Philosophia Naturalis, 33: 169–76, as
cited in "Science and Pseudo-science"
(2008) in Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. The Stanford article
states: "Many writers on
pseudoscience have emphasized that
pseudoscience is non-science posing
as science. The foremost modern
classic on the subject (Gardner 1957)
bears the title Fads and Fallacies in
the Name of Science. According to
Brian Baigrie (1988, 438), "[w]hat is
objectionable about these beliefs is
that they masquerade as genuinely
scientific ones." These and many other
authors assume that to be
pseudoscientific, an activity or a
teaching has to satisfy the following
two criteria (Hansson 1996): (1) it is
not scientific, and (2) its major
proponents try to create the
impression that it is scientific".
For example, Hewitt et al.
Conceptual Physical Science
Addison Wesley; 3 edition (July
18, 2003) ISBN 0-321-05173-4,
Bennett et al. The Cosmic
Perspective 3e Addison Wesley; 3
edition (July 25, 2003) ISBN 0-
8053-8738-2; See also, e.g.,
Gauch HG Jr. Scientific Method in
Practice (2003).
A 2006 National Science
Foundation report on Science and
engineering indicators quoted
Michael Shermer's (1997)
definition of pseudoscience:
'"claims presented so that they
appear [to be] scientific even
though they lack supporting
evidence and plausibility" (p. 33).
In contrast, science is "a set of
methods designed to describe
and interpret observed and
inferred phenomena, past or
present, and aimed at building a
testable body of knowledge open
to rejection or confirmation" (p.
17)'.Shermer M. (1997). Why
People Believe Weird Things:
Pseudoscience, Superstition, and
Other Confusions of Our Time.
New York: W. H. Freeman and
Company. ISBN 978-0-7167-3090-
3. as cited by National Science
Board. National Science
Foundation, Division of Science
Resources Statistics (2006).
"Science and Technology: Public
Attitudes and Understanding" .
Science and engineering
indicators 2006. Archived from
the original on February 1, 2013.
"A pretended or spurious science;
a collection of related beliefs
about the world mistakenly
regarded as being based on
scientific method or as having the
 status that scientific truths now
have," from the Oxford English
Dictionary, second edition 1989.
n. Women in science have included:
Hypatia (c. 350–415 CE), of the
Library of Alexandria.
Trotula of Salerno, a physician c.
1060 CE.
Caroline Herschel, one of the first
professional astronomers of the
18th and 19th centuries.
Christine Ladd-Franklin, a doctoral
student of C.S. Peirce, who
published Wittgenstein's
proposition 5.101 in her
dissertation, 40 years before
Wittgenstein's publication of
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus.
Henrietta Leavitt, a professional
human computer and astronomer,
who first published the significant
relationship between the
luminosity of Cepheid variable
stars and their distance from
Earth. This allowed Hubble to
make the discovery of the
expanding universe, which led to
the Big Bang theory.
Emmy Noether, who proved the
conservation of energy and other
constants of motion in 1915.
Marie Curie, who made
discoveries relating to
radioactivity along with her
husband, and for whom Curium is
named.
Rosalind Franklin, who worked
with X-ray diffraction.
Jocelyn Bell Burnell, at first not
allowed to study science in her
preparatory school, persisted, and
was the first to observe and
precisely analyse the radio
pulsars, for which her supervisor
was recognized by the 1974
Nobel prize in Physics. (Later
awarded a Special Breakthrough
prize in Physics in 2018, she
donated the cash award in order
that women, ethnic minority, and
refugee students might become
physics researchers.)
In 2018 Donna Strickland became
the third woman (the second
being Maria Goeppert-Mayer in
1962) to be awarded the Nobel
Prize in Physics, for her work in
chirped pulse amplification of
lasers. Frances H. Arnold became
the fifth woman to be awarded
the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for
 the directed evolution of
enzymes.
See the project of Jess Wade
(Christina Zdanowicz (27 July 2018),
CNN A physicist is writing one
Wikipedia entry a day to recognize
women in science )
o. Nina Byers, Contributions of 20th
Century Women to Physics which
provides details on 83 female
physicists of the 20th century. By
1976, more women were physicists,
and the 83 who were detailed were
joined by other women in noticeably
larger numbers.
References

Further reading
Augros, Robert M., Stanciu, George N., The
New Story of Science: mind and the universe,
Lake Bluff, Ill.: Regnery Gateway, c1984.
ISBN 0-89526-833-7
Becker, Ernest (1968). The structure of evil; an
essay on the unification of the science of man.
New York: G. Braziller.
Burguete, Maria, and Lam, Lui, eds.(2014). All
About Science: Philosophy, History, Sociology
& Communication. World Scientific:
Singapore. ISBN 978-981-4472-92-0
Cole, K.C., Things your teacher never told you
about science: Nine shocking revelations
Newsday, Long Island, New York, March 23,
1986, pp. 21+
Crease, Robert P. (2011). World in the
Balance: the historic quest for an absolute
system of measurement. New York: W.W.
Norton. p. 317. ISBN 978-0-393-07298-3.
Feyerabend, Paul (2005). Science, history of
the philosophy, as cited in Honderich, Ted
(2005). The Oxford companion to philosophy.
Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press.
ISBN 978-0-19-926479-7. OCLC 173262485 .
Feynman, Richard P. (1999). Robbins, Jeffrey
(ed.). The pleasure of finding things out the
best short works of Richard P. Feynman.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Perseus Books.
ISBN 978-0465013128.
Feynman, R.P. (1999). The Pleasure of Finding
Things Out: The Best Short Works of Richard
P. Feynman. Perseus Books Group. ISBN 978-
0-465-02395-0. OCLC 181597764 .
Feynman, Richard "Cargo Cult Science"
Gaukroger, Stephen (2006). The Emergence
of a Scientific Culture: Science and the
Shaping of Modernity 1210–1685. Oxford:
Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-
929644-6.
Gopnik, Alison, "Finding Our Inner Scientist" ,
Daedalus, Winter 2004.
Krige, John, and Dominique Pestre, eds.,
Science in the Twentieth Century, Routledge
2003, ISBN 0-415-28606-9
Levin, Yuval (2008). Imagining the Future:
Science and American Democracy. New York,
Encounter Books. ISBN 1-59403-209-2
Lindberg, D.C. (1976). Theories of Vision from
al-Kindi to Kepler. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Kuhn, Thomas, The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions, 1962.
William F., McComas (1998). "The principal
elements of the nature of science: Dispelling
the myths" (PDF). In McComas, William F.
(ed.). The nature of science in science
education: rationales and strategies. Springer.
ISBN 978-0-7923-6168-8.
Needham, Joseph (1954). "Science and
Civilisation in China: Introductory
Orientations". 1. Cambridge University Press.
Obler, Paul C.; Estrin, Herman A. (1962). The
New Scientist: Essays on the Methods and
Values of Modern Science. Anchor Books,
Doubleday.
Papineau, David. (2005). Science, problems of
the philosophy of., as cited in Honderich, Ted
(2005). The Oxford companion to philosophy.
Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press.
ISBN 978-0-19-926479-7. OCLC 173262485 .
Parkin, D. (1991). "Simultaneity and
Sequencing in the Oracular Speech of Kenyan
Diviners". In Philip M. Peek (ed.). African
Divination Systems: Ways of Knowing.
Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press.
Russell, Bertrand (1985) [1952]. The Impact
of Science on Society. London: Unwin.
ISBN 978-0-04-300090-8.
Rutherford, F. James; Ahlgren, Andrew
(1990). Science for all Americans . New York,
NY: American Association for the
Advancement of Science, Oxford University
Press. ISBN 978-0-19-506771-2.
Smith, A. Mark (2001). Written at
Philadelphia. Alhacen's Theory of Visual
Perception: A Critical Edition, with English
Translation and Commentary, of the First
Three Books of Alhacen's De Aspectibus, the
Medieval Latin Version of Ibn al-Haytham's
Kitāb al-Manāẓir, 2 vols. Transactions of the
American Philosophical Society. 91.
Philadelphia: American Philosophical
Society. ISBN 978-0-87169-914-5.
OCLC 47168716 .
Smith, A. Mark (2001). "Alhacen's Theory
of Visual Perception: A Critical Edition,
with English Translation and
Commentary, of the First Three Books of
Alhacen's "De aspectibus", the Medieval
Latin Version of Ibn al-Haytham's "Kitāb
al-Manāẓir": Volume One". Transactions
of the American Philosophical Society. 91
(4): i–337. JSTOR 3657358 .
Smith, A. Mark (2001). "Alhacen's Theory
of Visual Perception: A Critical Edition,
with English Translation and
Commentary, of the First Three Books of
Alhacen's "De aspectibus", the Medieval
Latin Version of Ibn al-Haytham's "Kitāb
al-Manāẓir": Volume Two". Transactions
of the American Philosophical Society. 91
(5): 339–819. doi:10.2307/3657357 .
JSTOR 3657357 .
 Thurs, Daniel Patrick (2007). Science Talk:
Changing Notions of Science in American
Popular Culture . ISBN 978-0-8135-4073-3.

External links
Publications

"GCSE Science textbook". Wikibooks.org

Resources

Euroscience
Classification of the Sciences in
Dictionary of the History of Ideas.
(Dictionary's new electronic format is
badly botched, entries after "Design" are
inaccessible. Internet Archive old
version ).
United States Science Initiative
Selected science information provided
by US Government agencies, including
research & development results
How science works University of
California Museum of Paleontology
1. Harper, Douglas. "science" . Online
Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved
September 20, 2014.
2. Wilson, E.O. (1999). "The natural
sciences". Consilience: The Unity of
Knowledge (Reprint ed.). New York,
New York: Vintage. pp. 49–71.
ISBN 978-0-679-76867-8.
3. "... modern science is a discovery as
well as an invention. It was a discovery
that nature generally acts regularly
enough to be described by laws and
even by mathematics; and required
invention to devise the techniques,
abstractions, apparatus, and
organization for exhibiting the
regularities and securing their law-like
descriptions."— p.vii Heilbron, J.L.
(editor-in-chief) (2003). "Preface". The
Oxford Companion to the History of
Modern Science. New York: Oxford
University Press. pp. vii–X. ISBN 978-
0-19-511229-0.
4. "science" . Merriam-Webster Online
Dictionary. Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Retrieved October 16, 2011. "3 a:
knowledge or a system of knowledge
covering general truths or the
operation of general laws especially as
obtained and tested through scientific
method b: such knowledge or such a
system of knowledge concerned with
the physical world and its
phenomena."
5. "The historian ... requires a very broad
definition of "science" – one that ... will
help us to understand the modern
scientific enterprise. We need to be
broad and inclusive, rather than narrow
and exclusive ... and we should expect
that the farther back we go [in time]
the broader we will need to be."  p.3—
Lindberg, David C. (2007). "Science
before the Greeks". The beginnings of
Western science: the European
Scientific tradition in philosophical,
religious, and institutional context
(Second ed.). Chicago, Illinois:
University of Chicago Press. pp. 1–27.
ISBN 978-0-226-48205-7.
6. Grant, Edward (2007). "Ancient Egypt
to Plato". A History of Natural
Philosophy: From the Ancient World to
the Nineteenth Century (First ed.). New
York, New York: Cambridge University
Press. pp. 1–26. ISBN 978-052-1-
68957-1.
7. Lindberg, David C. (2007). "The revival
of learning in the West". The
beginnings of Western science: the
European Scientific tradition in
philosophical, religious, and
institutional context (Second ed.).
Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago
Press. pp. 193–224. ISBN 978-0-226-
48205-7.
8. Lindberg, David C. (2007). "Islamic
science". The beginnings of Western
science: the European Scientific
tradition in philosophical, religious, and
institutional context (Second ed.).
Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago
Press. pp. 163–92. ISBN 978-0-226-
48205-7.
 9. Lindberg, David C. (2007). "The
recovery and assimilation of Greek
and Islamic science". The beginnings
of Western science: the European
Scientific tradition in philosophical,
religious, and institutional context (2nd
ed.). Chicago, Illinois: University of
Chicago Press. pp. 225–53. ISBN 978-
0-226-48205-7.
10. Principe, Lawrence M. (2011).
"Introduction". Scientific Revolution: A
Very Short Introduction (First ed.).
New York, New York: Oxford University
Press. pp. 1–3. ISBN 978-0-199-
56741-6.
11. Lindberg, David C. (1990).
"Conceptions of the Scientific
Revolution from Baker to Butterfield: A
preliminary sketch". In David C.
Lindberg; Robert S. Westman (eds.).
Reappraisals of the Scientific
Revolution (First ed.). Chicago, Illinois:
Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–26.
ISBN 978-0-521-34262-9.
12. Lindberg, David C. (2007). "The legacy
of ancient and medieval science". The
beginnings of Western science: the
European Scientific tradition in
philosophical, religious, and
institutional context (2nd ed.).
Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago
Press. pp. 357–368. ISBN 978-0-226-
48205-7.
13. Del Soldato, Eva (2016). Zalta, Edward
N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (Fall 2016 ed.).
Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford
University.
14. Grant, Edward (2007). "Transformation
of medieval natural philosophy from
the early period modern period to the
end of the nineteenth century". A
History of Natural Philosophy: From
the Ancient World to the Nineteenth
Century (First ed.). New York, New
York: Cambridge University Press.
pp. 274–322. ISBN 978-052-1-68957-
1.
15. Cahan, David, ed. (2003). From Natural
Philosophy to the Sciences: Writing
the History of Nineteenth-Century
Science. Chicago, Illinois: University of
Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-08928-
7.
16. The Oxford English Dictionary dates
the origin of the word "scientist" to
1834.
17. Lightman, Bernard (2011). "13.
Science and the Public". In Shank,
Michael; Numbers, Ronald; Harrison,
Peter (eds.). Wrestling with Nature :
From Omens to Science. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press. p. 367.
ISBN 978-0226317830.
18. Harrison, Peter (2015). The Territories
of Science and Religion. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press. p. 164–
165. ISBN 9780226184517. "The
changing character of those engaged
in scientific endeavors was matched
by a new nomenclature for their
endeavors. The most conspicuous
marker of this change was the
replacement of "natural philosophy" by
"natural science". In 1800 few had
spoken of the "natural sciences" but by
1880, this expression had overtaken
the traditional label "natural
philosophy". The persistence of
"natural philosophy" in the twentieth
 century is owing largely to historical
references to a past practice (see
figure 11). As should now be apparent,
this was not simply the substitution of
one term by another, but involved the
jettisoning of a range of personal
qualities relating to the conduct of
philosophy and the living of the
philosophical life."
19. Bishop, Alan (1991). "Environmental
activities and mathematical culture" .
Mathematical Enculturation: A Cultural
Perspective on Mathematics
Education. Norwell, Massachusetts:
Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 20–
59. ISBN 978-0-792-31270-3.
20. Bunge, Mario (1998). "The Scientific
Approach". Philosophy of Science:
Volume 1, From Problem to Theory. 1
(revised ed.). New York, New York:
Routledge. pp. 3–50. ISBN 978-0-765-
80413-6.
21. Fetzer, James H. (2013). "Computer
reliability and public policy: Limits of
knowledge of computer-based
systems". Computers and Cognition:
Why Minds are not Machines (1st ed.).
Newcastle, United Kingdom: Kluwer
Academic Publishers. pp. 271–308.
ISBN 978-1-443-81946-6.
22. Fischer, M.R.; Fabry, G (2014).
"Thinking and acting scientifically:
Indispensable basis of medical
education" . GMS Zeitschrift für
Medizinische Ausbildung. 31 (2):
Doc24. doi:10.3205/zma000916 .
PMC 4027809 . PMID 24872859 .
23. Abraham, Reem Rachel (2004).
"Clinically oriented physiology
teaching: strategy for developing
critical-thinking skills in undergraduate
medical students". Advances in
Physiology Education. 28 (3): 102–04.
doi:10.1152/advan.00001.2004 .
PMID 15319191 .
24. Sinclair, Marius. "On the Differences
between the Engineering and Scientific
Methods" . The International Journal
of Engineering Education.
25. "Engineering Technology :: Engineering
Technology :: Purdue School of
Engineering and Technology, IUPUI" .
www.engr.iupui.edu. Retrieved
September 7, 2018.
26. Grant, Edward (January 1, 1997).
"History of Science: When Did Modern
Science Begin?". The American
Scholar. 66 (1): 105–113.
JSTOR 41212592 .
27. Pingree, David (December 1992).
"Hellenophilia versus the History of
Science". Isis. 83 (4): 554–63.
Bibcode:1992Isis...83..554P .
doi:10.1086/356288 . JSTOR 234257 .
28. Sima Qian (司馬遷, d. 86 BCE) in his
Records of the Grand Historian (太史
公書) covering some 2500 years of
Chinese history, records Sunshu Ao (孫
叔敖, fl. c. 630–595 BCE – Zhou
dynasty), the first known hydraulic
engineer of China, cited in (Joseph
Needham et.al (1971) Science and
Civilisation in China 4.3 p. 271) as
having built a reservoir which has
lasted to this day.
29. Rochberg, Francesca (2011). "Ch.1
Natural Knowledge in Ancient
Mesopotamia". In Shank, Michael;
Numbers, Ronald; Harrison, Peter
(eds.). Wrestling with Nature : From
Omens to Science. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press. p. 9. ISBN 978-
0226317830.
30. McIntosh, Jane R. (2005). Ancient
Mesopotamia: New Perspectives .
Santa Barbara, California, Denver,
Colorado, and Oxford, England: ABC-
CLIO. pp. 273–76. ISBN 978-1-57607-
966-9.
31. A. Aaboe (May 2, 1974). "Scientific
Astronomy in Antiquity". Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society. 276
(1257): 21–42.
Bibcode:1974RSPTA.276...21A .
doi:10.1098/rsta.1974.0007 .
JSTOR 74272 .
32. R D. Biggs (2005). "Medicine, Surgery,
and Public Health in Ancient
Mesopotamia". Journal of Assyrian
Academic Studies. 19 (1): 7–18.
33. Lehoux, Daryn (2011). "2. Natural
Knowledge in the Classical World". In
Shank, Michael; Numbers, Ronald;
Harrison, Peter (eds.). Wrestling with
Nature : From Omens to Science.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
p. 39. ISBN 978-0226317830.
34. See the quotation in Homer
(8th century BCE) Odyssey 10.302–03
35. "Progress or Return" in An Introduction
to Political Philosophy: Ten Essays by
Leo Strauss (Expanded version of
Political Philosophy: Six Essays by Leo
Strauss, 1975.) Ed. Hilail Gilden.
Detroit: Wayne State UP, 1989.
36. Cropsey; Strauss (eds.). History of
Political Philosophy (3rd ed.). p. 209.
37. O'Grady, Patricia F. (2016). Thales of
Miletus: The Beginnings of Western
Science and Philosophy . New York
City, New York and London, England:
Routledge. p. 245. ISBN 978-0-7546-
0533-1.
38. Burkert, Walter (June 1, 1972). Lore
and Science in Ancient
Pythagoreanism . Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University
Press. ISBN 978-0-674-53918-1.
Archived from the original on January
29, 2018.
39. Pullman, Bernard (1998). The Atom in
the History of Human Thought .
pp. 31–33.
Bibcode:1998ahht.book.....P .
ISBN 978-0-19-515040-7.
40. Cohen, Henri; Lefebvre, Claire, eds.
(2017). Handbook of Categorization in
Cognitive Science (Second ed.).
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.
p. 427. ISBN 978-0-08-101107-2.
41. Margotta, Roberto (1968).
vFZrAAAAMAAJ The Story of
Medicine Check |url= value (help).
New York City, New York: Golden
Press.
42. Touwaide, Alain (2005). Glick, Thomas
F.; Livesey, Steven; Wallis, Faith (eds.).
Medieval Science, Technology, and
Medicine: An Encyclopedia . New York
City, New York and London, England:
Routledge. p. 224. ISBN 978-0-415-
96930-7.
43. Leff, Samuel; Leff, Vera (1956). From
Witchcraft to World Health . London,
England: Macmillan.
44. Mitchell, Jacqueline S. (February 18,
2003). "The Origins of Science" .
Scientific American Frontiers. PBS.
Archived from the original on March
3, 2003. Retrieved November 3, 2016.
45. "Plato, Apology" . p. 17. Archived from
the original on January 29, 2018.
Retrieved November 1, 2017.
46. "Plato, Apology" . p. 27. Archived from
the original on January 29, 2018.
Retrieved November 1, 2017.
47. "Plato, Apology, section 30" . Perseus
Digital Library. Tufts University. 1966.
Archived from the original on January
27, 2017. Retrieved November 1, 2016.
48. Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics (H.
Rackham ed.).
Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0054%3A
bekker%20page%3D1139b Archived
Check |archiveurl= value (help)
from the original on March 17, 2012.
1139b
49. McClellan III, James E.; Dorn, Harold
(2015). Science and Technology in
World History: An Introduction .
Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins
University Press. pp. 99–100.
ISBN 978-1-4214-1776-9.
50. Edwards, C.H. Jr. (1979). The
Historical Development of the
Calculus (First ed.). New York City,
New York: Springer-Verlag. p. 75.
ISBN 978-0-387-94313-8.
51. Lawson, Russell M. (2004). Science in
the Ancient World: An Encyclopedia .
Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO.
pp. 190–91. ISBN 978-1-85109-539-1.
52. Murphy, Trevor Morgan (2004). Pliny
the Elder's Natural History: The Empire
in the Encyclopedia . Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press. p. 1.
ISBN 9780199262885.
53. Doode, Aude (2010). Pliny's
Encyclopedia: The Reception of the
Natural History . Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press. p. 1.
ISBN 9781139484534.
54. Smith, A. Mark (June 2004), "What is
the History of Medieval Optics Really
About?", Proceedings of the American
Philosophical Society, 148 (2): 180–
94, JSTOR 1558283 , PMID 15338543
55. Lindberg, David C. (2007). "Roman and
early medieval science". The
beginnings of Western science: the
European Scientific tradition in
philosophical, religious, and
institutional context (Second ed.).
Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago
Press. pp. 132–162. ISBN 978-0-226-
48205-7.
56. Wildberg, Christian (May 1, 2018).
Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy .
Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford
University – via Stanford Encyclopedia
of Philosophy.
57. Aristotle, Physics II, 3, and
Metaphysics V, 2
58. Grant, Edward (1996). The
Foundations of Modern Science in the
Middle Ages: Their Religious,
Institutional and Intellectual Contexts .
Cambridge Studies in the History of
Science. Cambridge University Press.
pp. 7–17. ISBN 978-0521567626.
59. Grant, Edward (2007). "Islam and the
eastward shift of Aristotelian natural
philosophy". A History of Natural
Philosophy: From the Ancient World to
the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge
University Press. pp. 62–67. ISBN 978-
0-521-68957-1.
60. The Cambridge history of Iran. Fisher,
W.B. (William Bayne). Cambridge:
University Press. 1968–1991.
ISBN 978-0521200936.
OCLC 745412 .
61. "Bayt al-Hikmah" . Encyclopædia
Britannica. Archived from the original
on November 4, 2016. Retrieved
November 3, 2016.
62. Klein-Frank, F. Al-Kindi. In Leaman, O &
Nasr, H (2001). History of Islamic
Philosophy. London: Routledge. p.
165. Felix Klein-Frank (2001) Al-Kindi,
pp. 166–67. In Oliver Leaman &
Hossein Nasr. History of Islamic
Philosophy. London: Routledge.
63. "Science in Islam". Oxford Dictionary of
the Middle Ages. 2009.
64. Toomer, G.J. (1964). "Reviewed work:
Ibn al-Haythams Weg zur Physik,
Matthias Schramm". Isis. 55 (4): 463–
65. doi:10.1086/349914 .
JSTOR 228328 . See p. 464:
"Schramm sums up [Ibn Al-Haytham's]
achievement in the development of
scientific method.", p. 465: "Schramm
has demonstrated .. beyond any
dispute that Ibn al-Haytham is a major
figure in the Islamic scientific tradition,
particularly in the creation of
experimental techniques." p. 465: "only
when the influence of ibn al-Haytam
and others on the mainstream of later
medieval physical writings has been
 seriously investigated can Schramm's
claim that ibn al-Haytam was the true
founder of modern physics be
evaluated."
65. Smith 2001:Book I, [6.54]. p. 372
66. Selin, H (2006). Encyclopaedia of the
History of Science, Technology, and
Medicine in Non-Western Cultures.
pp. 155–156.
Bibcode:2008ehst.book.....S .
ISBN 978-1-4020-4559-2.
67. Numbers, Ronald (2009).
9780674057418 Galileo Goes to Jail
and Other Myths about Science and
Religion Check |url= value (help).
Harvard University Press. p. 45.
ISBN 978-0-674-03327-6.
68. Shwayder, Maya (April 7, 2011).
"Debunking a myth" . The Harvard
Gazette. Retrieved May 11, 2019.
69. Smith 2001
70. McGinnis, Jon (2010). The Canon of
Medicine. Oxford University. p. 227.
71. Lindberg, David (1992). The
Beginnings of Western Science .
University of Chicago Press. p. 162.
ISBN 9780226482040.
72. "St. Albertus Magnus | German
theologian, scientist, and
philosopher" . Archived from the
original on October 28, 2017. Retrieved
October 27, 2017.
73. Smith, A. Mark (2001). "Alhacen's
Theory of Visual Perception: A Critical
Edition, with English Translation and
Commentary, of the First Three Books
of Alhacen's "De aspectibus", the
Medieval Latin Version of Ibn al-
Haytham's "Kitāb al-Manāẓir": Volume
One". Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society. 91 (4): i–337.
JSTOR 3657358 .
74. Smith, A. Mark (1981). "Getting the Big
Picture in Perspectivist Optics". Isis.
72 (4): 568–89. doi:10.1086/352843 .
JSTOR 231249 .
75. Goldstein, Bernard R (2016).
"Copernicus and the Origin of his
Heliocentric System". Journal for the
History of Astronomy. 33 (3): 219–35.
doi:10.1177/002182860203300301 .
76. Cohen, H. Floris (2010). How modern
science came into the world. Four
civilizations, one 17th-century
breakthrough (Second ed.).
Amsterdam: Amsterdam University
Press. ISBN 9789089642394.
77. "Galileo and the Birth of Modern
Science". American Heritage of
Invention and Technology. 24.
78. van Helden, Al (1995). "Pope Urban
VIII" . The Galileo Project. Archived
from the original on November 11,
2016. Retrieved November 3, 2016.
79. MacTutor Archive, Gottfried Wilhelm
von Leibniz
80. Freudenthal, Gideon; McLaughlin,
Peter (May 20, 2009). The Social and
Economic Roots of the Scientific
Revolution: Texts by Boris Hessen and
Henryk Grossmann . Springer Science
& Business Media.
ISBN 9781402096044.
81. Thomas G. Bergin (ed.), Encyclopedia
of the Renaissance (Oxford and New
York: New Market Books, 1987).
82. see Hall (1954), iii; Mason (1956), 223.
83. Cassels, Alan. Ideology and
International Relations in the Modern
World. p. 2.
84. Ross, Sydney (1962). "Scientist: The
story of a word" (PDF). Annals of
Science. 18 (2): 65–85.
doi:10.1080/00033796200202722 .
Retrieved March 8, 2011. To be exact,
the person who coined the term
scientist was referred to in Whewell
1834 only as "some ingenious
gentleman." Ross added a comment
that this "some ingenious gentleman"
was Whewell himself, without giving
the reason for the identification. Ross
1962, p. 72.
85. von Bertalanffy, Ludwig (1972). "The
History and Status of General Systems
Theory". The Academy of
Management Journal. 15 (4): 407–26.
doi:10.2307/255139 . JSTOR 255139 .
86. Naidoo, Nasheen; Pawitan, Yudi;
Soong, Richie; Cooper, David N.; Ku,
Chee-Seng (October 2011). "Human
genetics and genomics a decade after
the release of the draft sequence of
the human genome" . Human
Genomics. 5 (6): 577–622.
doi:10.1186/1479-7364-5-6-577 .
PMC 3525251 . PMID 22155605 .
87. Rashid, S. Tamir; Alexander, Graeme
J.M. (March 2013). "Induced
pluripotent stem cells: from Nobel
Prizes to clinical applications". Journal
of Hepatology. 58 (3): 625–629.
doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2012.10.026 .
ISSN 1600-0641 . PMID 23131523 .
88. Abbott, B.P.; Abbott, R.; Abbott, T.D.;
Acernese, F.; Ackley, K.; Adams, C.;
Adams, T.; Addesso, P.; Adhikari, R.X.;
Adya, V.B.; Affeldt, C.; Afrough, M.;
Agarwal, B.; Agathos, M.; Agatsuma,
K.; Aggarwal, N.; Aguiar, O.D.; Aiello, L.;
Ain, A.; Ajith, P.; Allen, B.; Allen, G.;
Allocca, A.; Altin, P.A.; Amato, A.;
Ananyeva, A.; Anderson, S.B.;
Anderson, W.G.; Angelova, S.V.; et al.
(2017). "Multi-messenger
Observations of a Binary Neutron Star
Merger". The Astrophysical Journal.
848 (2): L12. arXiv:1710.05833 .
Bibcode:2017ApJ...848L..12A .
doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 .
89. Cho, Adrian (2017). "Merging neutron
stars generate gravitational waves and
a celestial light show". Science.
doi:10.1126/science.aar2149 .
90. "Scientific Method: Relationships
Among Scientific Paradigms" . Seed
Magazine. March 7, 2007. Archived
from the original on November 1,
2016. Retrieved November 4, 2016.
91. Bunge, Mario Augusto (1998).
Philosophy of Science: From Problem
to Theory. Transaction Publishers.
p. 24. ISBN 978-0-7658-0413-6.
92. Popper, Karl R. (2002a) [1959]. "A
survey of some fundamental
problems". The Logic of Scientific
Discovery. New York, New York:
Routledge Classics. pp. 3–26.
ISBN 978-0-415-27844-7.
OCLC 59377149 .
93. Gauch Jr., Hugh G. (2003). "Science in
perspective" . Scientific Method in
Practice. Cambridge, United Kingdom:
Cambridge University Press. pp. 21–
73. ISBN 978-0-52-101708-4.
94. Oglivie, Brian W. (2008). "Introduction".
The Science of Describing: Natural
History in Renaissance Europe
(Paperback ed.). Chicago, Illinois:
University of Chicago Press. pp. 1–24.
ISBN 978-0-226-62088-6.
95. "Natural History" . Princeton University
WordNet. Archived from the original
on March 3, 2012. Retrieved
October 21, 2012.
96. Tomalin, Marcus (2006). Linguistics
and the Formal Sciences.
doi:10.2277/0521854814 .
97. Löwe, Benedikt (2002). "The Formal
Sciences: Their Scope, Their
Foundations, and Their Unity".
Synthese. 133: 5–11.
doi:10.1023/a:1020887832028 .
98. Bill, Thompson (2007), "2.4 Formal
Science and Applied Mathematics",
The Nature of Statistical Evidence,
Lecture Notes in Statistics, 189 (1st
ed.), Springer, p. 15
 99. Mujumdar, Anshu Gupta; Singh,
Tejinder (2016). "Cognitive science
and the connection between physics
and mathematics". In Anthony Aguirre;
Brendan Foster (eds.). Trick or Truth?:
The Mysterious Connection Between
Physics and Mathematics. The
Frontiers Collection (1st ed.).
Switzerland: SpringerNature. pp. 201–
218. ISBN 978-3-319-27494-2.
100. Richard Dawkins (May 10, 2006). "To
Live at All Is Miracle Enough" .
RichardDawkins.net. Archived from the
original on January 19, 2012.
Retrieved February 5, 2012.
101. Stanovich, Keith E. (2007). How to
Think Straight About Psychology.
Boston: Pearson Education. pp. 106–
147. ISBN 978-0-205-68590-5.
102. "The amazing point is that for the first
time since the discovery of
mathematics, a method has been
introduced, the results of which have
an intersubjective value!" (Author's
punctuation)}} —di Francia, Giuliano
Toraldo (1976). "The method of
physics". The Investigation of the
Physical World. Cambridge, United
Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
pp. 1–52. ISBN 978-0-521-29925-1.
103. Wilson, Edward (1999). Consilience:
The Unity of Knowledge. New York:
Vintage. ISBN 978-0-679-76867-8.
104. Fara, Patricia (2009). "Decisions" .
Science: A Four Thousand Year
History. Oxford, United Kingdom:
Oxford University Press. p. 408 .
ISBN 978-0-19-922689-4.
105. Nola, Robert; Irzik, Gürol (2005k).
"naive inductivism as a methodology
in science". Philosophy, science,
education and culture. Science &
technology education library. 28.
Springer. pp. 207–230. ISBN 978-1-
4020-3769-6.
106. Nola, Robert; Irzik, Gürol (2005j). "The
aims of science and critical inquiry".
Philosophy, science, education and
culture. Science & technology
education library. 28. Springer.
pp. 207–230. ISBN 978-1-4020-3769-
6.
107. van Gelder, Tim (1999). " "Heads I win,
tails you lose": A Foray Into the
Psychology of Philosophy" (PDF).
University of Melbourne. Archived
from the original (PDF) on April 9,
2008. Retrieved March 28, 2008.
108. Pease, Craig (September 6, 2006).
"Chapter 23. Deliberate bias: Conflict
creates bad science" . Science for
Business, Law and Journalism.
Vermont Law School. Archived from
the original on June 19, 2010.
109. Shatz, David (2004). Peer Review: A
Critical Inquiry. Rowman & Littlefield.
ISBN 978-0-7425-1434-8.
OCLC 54989960 .
110. Krimsky, Sheldon (2003). Science in
the Private Interest: Has the Lure of
Profits Corrupted the Virtue of
Biomedical Research . Rowman &
Littlefield. ISBN 978-0-7425-1479-9.
OCLC 185926306 .
111. Bulger, Ruth Ellen; Heitman, Elizabeth;
Reiser, Stanley Joel (2002). The Ethical
Dimensions of the Biological and
Health Sciences (2nd ed.). Cambridge
University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-
00886-0. OCLC 47791316 .
112. Backer, Patricia Ryaby (October 29,
2004). "What is the scientific
method?" . San Jose State University.
Archived from the original on April 8,
2008. Retrieved March 28, 2008.
113. Ziman, John (1978c). "Common
observation". Reliable knowledge: An
exploration of the grounds for belief in
science. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. pp. 42–76. ISBN 978-
0-521-22087-3.
114. Ziman, John (1978c). "The stuff of
reality". Reliable knowledge: An
exploration of the grounds for belief in
science. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. pp. 95–123.
ISBN 978-0-521-22087-3.
115. Popper, Karl R. (2002e) [1959]. "The
problem of the empirical basis". The
Logic of Scientific Discovery. New
York, New York: Routledge Classics.
pp. 3–26. ISBN 978-0-415-27844-7.
OCLC 59377149 .
116. "SIAM: Graduate Education for
Computational Science and
Engineering" . Society for Industrial
and Applied Mathematics. Archived
from the original on December 28,
2016. Retrieved November 4, 2016.
117. Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2003c).
"Induction and confirmation". Theory
and Reality: An Introduction to the
Philosophy of Science (1st ed.).
Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago.
pp. 39–56. ISBN 978-0-226-30062-7.
118. Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2003o).
"Empiricism, naturalism, and scientific
realism?". Theory and Reality: An
Introduction to the Philosophy of
Science (1st ed.). Chicago, Illinois:
University of Chicago. pp. 219–232.
ISBN 978-0-226-30062-7.
119. Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2003b). "Logic
plus empiricism". Theory and Reality:
An Introduction to the Philosophy of
Science (1st ed.). Chicago, Illinois:
University of Chicago. pp. 19–38.
ISBN 978-0-226-30062-7.
120. Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2003d). "Popper:
Conjecture and refutation". Theory and
Reality: An Introduction to the
Philosophy of Science (1st ed.).
Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago.
pp. 57–74. ISBN 978-0-226-30062-7.
121. Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2003g).
"Lakatos, Laudan, Feyerabend, and
frameworks". Theory and Reality: An
Introduction to the Philosophy of
Science (1st ed.). Chicago, Illinois:
University of Chicago. pp. 102–121.
ISBN 978-0-226-30062-7.
122. Popper, Karl (1972). Objective
Knowledge.
123. "Shut up and multiply" . LessWrong
Wiki. September 13, 2015. Archived
from the original on October 19, 2016.
Retrieved November 4, 2016.
124. Newton-Smith, W.H. (1994). The
Rationality of Science. London:
Routledge. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-7100-
0913-5.
125. Bird, Alexander (2013). Zalta, Edward
N. (ed.). "Thomas Kuhn" . Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved
October 26, 2015.
126. T.S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions, 2nd. ed., Chicago: Univ. of
Chicago Pr., 1970, p. 206. ISBN 0-226-
45804-0
127. Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2003j).
"Naturalistic philosophy in theory and
practice". Theory and Reality: An
Introduction to the Philosophy of
Science (1st ed.). Chicago, Illinois:
University of Chicago. pp. 149–162.
ISBN 978-0-226-30062-7.
128. Brugger, E. Christian (2004).
"Casebeer, William D. Natural Ethical
Facts: Evolution, Connectionism, and
Moral Cognition". The Review of
Metaphysics. 58 (2).
129. Winther, Rasmus Grønfeldt (2015).
"The Structure of Scientific Theories" .
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Retrieved November 4, 2016.
130. Popper, Karl Raimund (1996). In
Search of a Better World: Lectures and
Essays From Thirty Years. New York,
New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-
13548-1.
131. Dawkins, Richard; Coyne, Jerry
(September 2, 2005). "One side can be
wrong" . The Guardian. London.
Archived from the original on
December 26, 2013.
132. "Barry Stroud on Scepticism" .
philosophy bites. December 16, 2007.
Archived from the original on January
23, 2012. Retrieved February 5, 2012.
133. Peirce (1877), "The Fixation of Belief",
Popular Science Monthly, v. 12, pp. 1–
15, see §IV on pp. 6–7 Archived April
15, 2016, at the Wayback Machine.
Reprinted Collected Papers v. 5,
paragraphs 358–87 (see 374–76),
Writings v. 3, pp. 242–57 (see 247–
48), Essential Peirce v. 1, pp. 109–23
(see 114–15), and elsewhere.
134. Peirce (1905), "Issues of
Pragmaticism", The Monist, v. XV, n. 4,
pp. 481–99, see "Character V" on p.
491 . Reprinted in Collected Papers v.
5, paragraphs 438–63 (see 451),
Essential Peirce v. 2, pp. 346–59 (see
353), and elsewhere.
135. Peirce (1868), "Some Consequences
of Four Incapacities", Journal of
Speculative Philosophy v. 2, n. 3, pp.
140–57, see p. 141 Archived April 15,
2016, at the Wayback Machine.
Reprinted in Collected Papers, v. 5,
paragraphs 264–317, Writings v. 2, pp.
211–42, Essential Peirce v. 1, pp. 28–
55, and elsewhere.
136. Ziman, J.M. (1980). "The proliferation
of scientific literature: a natural
process". Science. 208 (4442): 369–
71. Bibcode:1980Sci...208..369Z .
doi:10.1126/science.7367863 .
PMID 7367863 .
137. Subramanyam, Krishna;
Subramanyam, Bhadriraju (1981).
Scientific and Technical Information
Resources. CRC Press. ISBN 978-0-
8247-8297-9. OCLC 232950234 .
138. "MEDLINE Fact Sheet" . Washington
DC: United States National Library of
Medicine. Archived from the original
on October 16, 2011. Retrieved
October 15, 2011.
139. Petrucci, Mario. "Creative Writing –
Science" . Archived from the original
on January 6, 2009. Retrieved April 27,
2008.
140. Schooler, J. W. (2014). "Metascience
could rescue the 'replication crisis' ".
Nature. 515 (7525): 9.
Bibcode:2014Natur.515....9S .
doi:10.1038/515009a .
PMID 25373639 .
141. Smith, Noah. "Why 'Statistical
Significance' Is Often Insignificant" .
Bloomberg. Retrieved November 7,
2017.
142. Pashler, Harold; Wagenmakers, Eric
Jan (2012). "Editors' Introduction to
the Special Section on Replicability in
Psychological Science: A Crisis of
Confidence?". Perspectives on
Psychological Science. 7 (6): 528–
530.
doi:10.1177/1745691612465253 .
PMID 26168108 .
143. Ioannidis, John P. A.; Fanelli, Daniele;
Dunne, Debbie Drake; Goodman,
Steven N. (October 2, 2015). "Meta-
research: Evaluation and Improvement
of Research Methods and Practices" .
PLOS Biology. 13 (10): –1002264.
doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002264 .
ISSN 1545-7885 . PMC 4592065 .
PMID 26431313 .
144. Feynman, Richard (1974). "Cargo Cult
Science" . Center for Theoretical
Neuroscience. Columbia University.
Archived from the original on March
4, 2005. Retrieved November 4, 2016.
145. Novella, Steven, et al. The Skeptics'
Guide to the Universe: How to Know
What's Really Real in a World
Increasingly Full of Fake. Grand
Central Publishing, 2018. pp. 162.
146. "Coping with fraud" (PDF). The COPE
Report 1999: 11–18. Archived from
the original (PDF) on September 28,
2007. Retrieved July 21, 2011. "It is 10
years, to the month, since Stephen
Lock ... Reproduced with kind
permission of the Editor, The Lancet."
147. "Eusocial climbers" (PDF). E.O. Wilson
Foundation. Retrieved September 3,
2018. "But he’s not a scientist, he’s
never done scientific research. My
definition of a scientist is that you can
complete the following sentence: ‘he
or she has shown that...’,” Wilson
says."
148. "Our definition of a scientist" . Science
Council. Retrieved September 7, 2018.
"A scientist is someone who
systematically gathers and uses
research and evidence, making a
hypothesis and testing it, to gain and
share understanding and knowledge."
149. Cyranoski, David; Gilbert, Natasha;
Ledford, Heidi; Nayar, Anjali; Yahia,
Mohammed (2011). "Education: The
PhD factory". Nature. 472 (7343):
276–79.
Bibcode:2011Natur.472..276C .
doi:10.1038/472276a .
PMID 21512548 .
150. Kwok, Roberta (2017). "Flexible
working: Science in the gig economy".
Nature. 550: 419–21.
doi:10.1038/nj7677-549a .
151. Editorial, ed. (2007). "Many junior
scientists need to take a hard look at
their job prospects" . Nature. 550.
doi:10.1038/nj7677-549a .
152. Lee, Adrian; Dennis, Carina; Campbell,
Phillip (2007). "Graduate survey: A
love–hurt relationship". Nature. 550
(7677): 549–52. doi:10.1038/nj7677-
549a .
153. Stockton, Nick (October 7, 2014), "How
did the Nobel Prize become the
biggest award on Earth?" , Wired,
retrieved September 3, 2018
154. "Nobel Prize Facts" . Nobel
Foundation. Archived from the
original on July 8, 2017. Retrieved
October 11, 2015.
155. Spanier, Bonnie (1995). "From
Molecules to Brains, Normal Science
Supports Sexist Beliefs about
Difference". Im/partial Science: Gender
Identity in Molecular Biology. Indiana
University Press.
ISBN 9780253209689.
156. Rosser, Sue V. (March 12, 2012).
Breaking into the Lab: Engineering
Progress for Women in Science. New
York: New York University Press. p. 7.
ISBN 978-0-8147-7645-2.
157. Goulden, Mark; Frasch, Karie; Mason,
Mary Ann (2009). Staying Competitive:
Patching America's Leaky Pipeline in
the Sciences. University of Berkeley
Law.
158. Change of Heart: Career intentions
and the chemistry PhD. Royal Society
of Chemistry. 2008.
159. Parrott, Jim (August 9, 2007).
"Chronicle for Societies Founded from
1323 to 1599" . Scholarly Societies
Project. Archived from the original on
January 6, 2014. Retrieved
September 11, 2007.
160. "The Environmental Studies
Association of Canada - What is a
Learned Society?" . Archived from the
original on May 29, 2013. Retrieved
May 10, 2013.
161. "Learned societies & academies" .
Archived from the original on June 3,
2014. Retrieved May 10, 2013.
162. "Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei" (in
Italian). 2006. Archived from the
original on February 28, 2010.
Retrieved September 11, 2007.
163. Meynell, G.G. "The French Academy of
Sciences, 1666–91: A reassessment
of the French Académie royale des
sciences under Colbert (1666–83) and
Louvois (1683–91)" . Archived from
the original on January 18, 2012.
Retrieved October 13, 2011.
164. Bush, Vannevar (July 1945). "Science
the Endless Frontier" . National
Science Foundation. Archived from
the original on November 7, 2016.
Retrieved November 4, 2016.
165. "Main Science and Technology
Indicators – 2008-1" (PDF). OECD.
Archived from the original (PDF) on
February 15, 2010.
166. Ladwig, Peter (2012). "Perceived
familiarity or factual knowledge?
Comparing operationalizations of
scientific understanding". Science and
Public Policy. 39 (6): 761–74.
doi:10.1093/scipol/scs048 .
167. Eveland, William (2004). "How Web
Site Organization Influences Free
Recall, Factual Knowledge, and
Knowledge Structure Density". Human
Communication Research. 30 (2):
208–33. doi:10.1111/j.1468-
2958.2004.tb00731.x .
168. Dickson, David (October 11, 2004).
"Science journalism must keep a
critical edge" . Science and
Development Network. Archived from
the original on June 21, 2010.
169. Mooney, Chris (November–December
2004). "Blinded By Science, How
'Balanced' Coverage Lets the Scientific
Fringe Hijack Reality" . Columbia
Journalism Review. Vol. 43 no. 4.
Archived from the original on January
17, 2010. Retrieved February 20, 2008.
170. McIlwaine, S.; Nguyen, D.A. (2005).
"Are Journalism Students Equipped to
Write About Science?" . Australian
Studies in Journalism. 14: 41–60.
Archived from the original on August
1, 2008. Retrieved February 20, 2008.
171. Goldberg, Jeanne (2017). "The
Politicization of Scientific Issues:
Looking through Galileo's Lens or
through the Imaginary Looking
Glass" . Skeptical Inquirer. 41 (5): 34–
39. Archived from the original on
August 16, 2018. Retrieved August 16,
2018.
172. Bolsen, Toby; Druckman, James N.
(2015). "Counteracting the
Politicization of Science". Journal of
Communication (65): 746.
173. Freudenberg, William F. "Scientific
Certainty Argumentation Methods
(SCAMs): Science and the Politics of
Doubt". Sociological Inquiry. 78: 2–38.
doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.2008.00219
(inactive August 28, 2019).
174. van der Linden, Sander; Leiserowitz,
Anthony; Rosenthal, Seth; Maibach,
Edward (2017). "Inoculating the Public
against Misinformation about Climate
Change" (PDF). Global Challenges. 1
(2): 1. doi:10.1002/gch2.201600008 .

Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Science&oldid=913917382"

Last edited 3 days ago by AnomieB…

Content is available under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless

otherwise noted.