User:Sampanna Dulal/sandbox

This article is about the general term. For other uses, see Science (disambiguation).

The scale of the universe mapped to the branches of science and the hierarchy of science.[1] Part of a series on Science Formal [show] Physical [show] Life [show] Social [show] Applied [show] Interdisciplinary [show] Philosophy History [show] Outline Portal Category v t e Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge")[2][3]:58 is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[a]

Contemporary science is typically subdivided into the natural sciences which study the material world, the social sciences which study people and societies, and the formal sciences like mathematics. The formal sciences are often distinguished from the empirical sciences as the former does not depend on empirical observations.[4][5] Disciplines which use science like engineering and medicine may also be considered to be applied sciences.[6] Science is related to research, and is normally organized by a university, a college, or a research institute.

From classical antiquity through the 19th century, science as a type of knowledge was more closely linked to philosophy than it is now and, in fact, in the West the term "natural philosophy" encompassed fields of study that are today associated with science such as physics, astronomy, medicine, among many others.[7]:3[b] In the 17th and 18th centuries scientists increasingly sought to formulate knowledge in terms of laws of nature. As a slow process over centuries, the word "science" became increasingly associated with what is today known as the scientific method, a structured way to study the natural world.[8][9]

Contents [hide] 1	Modern science 2	History 2.1	Antiquity 2.2	Medieval science 2.3	Renaissance and early modern science 2.4	Age of Enlightenment 2.5	19th century 2.6	20th century 2.7	21st century 3	Scientific method 3.1	Mathematics and formal sciences 4	Scientific community 4.1	Branches and fields 4.2	Institutions 4.3	Literature 5	Science and society 5.1	Women in science 5.2	Science policy 5.3	Media perspectives 5.4	Political usage 5.5	Science and the public 6	Philosophy of science 6.1	Certainty and science 6.2	Fringe science, pseudoscience, and junk science 7	Scientific practice 7.1	Basic and applied research 7.2	Research in practice 7.3	Practical impacts of scientific research 8	See also 9	Notes 10	References 11	Sources 12	Further reading 13	External links Modern science In modern science, it is regarded as good scientific practice to aim for principles such as objectivity and reproducibility, which means that improvised methodology or bizarre interpretations should be downplayed, at least unless the scientist rightfully suspects a paradigm change. It is seen as advantageous to not deviate too far from the scientific method, which nonetheless is far more stringently applied in e.g. the medical sciences than in sociology. The optimal way to conduct modern science is under constant debate in the philosophy of science. The English term "science" often refers to a particularly formal kind of empirical research, whereas equivalent concepts in other languages may not distinguish as clearly between this and rationalist academic research. The acceptance of the influence of continental philosophy in modern science may differ between countries and between individual universities. Advances in modern science are sometimes used to develop new technology, but also examine limits to technological development.

History Main article: History of science Science in a broad sense existed before the modern era and in many historical civilizations.[c] 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.[10]

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 which those which harnessed the floodplain of the Yangtse with reservoirs,[11] dams, and dikes, and buildings such as the Pyramids. However, no consistent conscientious 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.

Antiquity

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (October 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) Main article: History of science in classical antiquity See also: Nature (philosophy)

Maize, known in some English-speaking countries as corn, is a large grain plant domesticated by indigenous peoples in Mesoamerica in prehistoric times 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,[12] 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."[13]:209 Science was therefore 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 lower class artisans.[14]

Aristotle, 384–322 BCE, one of the early figures in the development of the scientific method[15] A turning point in the history of early philosophical science was Socrates' example of applying philosophy to the study of human things, 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.[16] 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 "because he corrupts the youth and does not believe in the gods the state believes in, but in other new spiritual beings". Socrates refuted these claims,[17] but was sentenced to death.[18]: 30e

Aristotle later created a systematic programme of philosophy which was teleological: 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. While the Socratics 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), they did not argue for any other types of applied science. 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".[19]

Other scientists or proto-scientists in Antiquity were Thales, Anaximander, Leucippus, the Pythagoreans, Hippocrates, Democritus, Theophrastus, Euclid, Herophilos, Archimedes, Hipparchus, Pliny the Elder, 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,[20] where the forms from our sensory systems commingled. Further information: Science in the medieval Islamic world 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.[21] Some ancient knowledge was lost, or in some cases kept in obscurity, during the fall of the 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. 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.

In the Byzantine empire, many Greek science texts were preserved in Syriac translations done by groups such as the Nestorians and Monophysites.[22] Many of these were later on translated into Arabic under the Caliphate, during which many types of classical learning were preserved and in some cases improved upon.[22][d]

The House of Wisdom was established in Abbasid-era Baghdad, Iraq,[23] 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.[24] The Islamic Golden Age flourished form 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.[e][25][26]:463–5

In the later medieval period, the first universities started emerging in Europe, and 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,[27]:Intro. p.xx as evidenced by its incorporation into Vitello's Perspectiva. In particular, the texts of Aristotle, Ptolemy,[f] and Euclid, preserved in the Houses of Wisdom, 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.[28] 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.

Renaissance and early modern science Main article: Scientific revolution

Galen (129–c. 216) noted the optic chiasm is X-shaped. (Engraving from Vesalius, 1543) Alhazen disproved Ptolemy's theory of vision,[29] but did not make any corresponding changes to Aristotle's metaphysics. The scientific revolution ran concurrently to a process where elements of Aristotle's metaphysics such as ethics, teleology and formal causality slowly fell out of favour. Scholars slowly came to realize that the universe itself might well be devoid of both purpose and ethical imperatives. Many of the restrictions described by Aristotle and later favoured by the Catholic Church were thus challenged. This development from a physics infused with goals, ethics, and spirit, toward a physics where these elements do not play an integral role, took centuries.

Albrecht Durer (1525) Man drawing a lute, using Perspectivist techniques, as well as Alhazen's technique of taut strings to visualize a light ray. 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.[30] A model of vision later known as perspectivism was exploited and studied by the artists of the Renaissance. This theory utilizes only three of Aristotle's four causes: formal, material, and final.[31]

Galileo Galilei, father of modern science.[32]: Vol. 24, No. 1, p. 36 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.[33]

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.[34][35]: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.[g] 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 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 him.[36]

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 modern 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, Newton and Leibniz succeeded in developing a new physics, now referred to as classical mechanics, which could be confirmed by experiment and explained using mathematics. 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. 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."

Science during the Enlightenment was dominated by scientific societies 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;[37] 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.[38]

19th century Early in the 19th century, John Dalton suggested the modern atomic theory, based on Democritus's original idea of individible particles called atoms.

Charles Darwin in 1854, by then working towards publication of On the Origin of Species Both John Herschel and William Whewell systematized methodology: the latter coined the term scientist.[39] When Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species he proposed evolution as an explanation of biological complexity. His theory of natural selection sought to explain the process by which certain species survived and others did not.

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 by Newton 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 cumulative energy quality of the universe is seen as constantly declining: the entropy of the 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.

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 20th century

A simulated event in the CMS detector of the Large Hadron Collider, featuring a possible appearance of the Higgs boson 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.[40]

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. In a 1967 article, Lynn Townsend White Jr. blamed the ecological crisis on the historical decline of the notion of spirit in nature.[41]

21st century 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.[42][43]

Scientific method Main article: Scientific method The scientific method seeks to objectively explain the events of nature in a reproducible way.[h] 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.[3] 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.[i][j] 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.[44] 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.[45]

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.[46][47] This can be achieved by careful experimental design, transparency, and a thorough peer review process of the experimental results as well as any conclusions.[48][49] 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.[50] 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).[51]

Mathematics and formal sciences Main articles: Mathematics and Formal science

Calculus, the mathematics of continuous change, underpins many of the sciences. Mathematics is essential to the sciences. One important function of mathematics in science is the role it plays in the expression of scientific models. Observing and collecting measurements, as well as hypothesizing and predicting, often require extensive use of mathematics. For example, arithmetic, algebra, geometry, trigonometry, and calculus are all essential to physics. Virtually every branch of mathematics has applications in science, including "pure" areas such as number theory and topology.

Statistical methods, which are mathematical techniques for summarizing and analyzing data, allow scientists to assess the level of reliability and the range of variation in experimental results. Statistical analysis plays a fundamental role in many areas of both the natural sciences and social sciences.

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.[52]

Other formal sciences include information theory, systems theory, decision theory and theoretical linguistics. Such sciences involve the study of well defined abstract systems and depend heavily on mathematics. They do not involve empirical procedures, their results are derived logically from their definitions and are analytic in nature.[53]

Parts of the natural and social sciences which are based on empirical results but which depend heavily on mathematical development include mathematical finance, mathematical physics, mathematical chemistry, mathematical biology and mathematical economics.

Whether mathematics itself is properly classified as science has been a matter of some debate. Some thinkers see mathematicians as scientists, regarding physical experiments as inessential or mathematical proofs as equivalent to experiments. Others do not see mathematics as a science because it does not require an experimental test of its theories and hypotheses. Mathematical theorems and formulas are obtained by logical derivations which presume axiomatic systems, rather than the combination of empirical observation and logical reasoning that has come to be known as the scientific method. In general, mathematics is classified as formal science, while natural and social sciences are classified as empirical sciences.[54]

Scientific community Main article: Scientific community The scientific community is the group of all interacting scientists. It includes many sub-communities working on particular scientific fields, and within particular institutions; interdisciplinary and cross-institutional activities are also significant.

Branches and fields Main article: Branches of science

The somatosensory system is located throughout our bodies but is integrated in the brain. Scientific fields are commonly divided into two major groups: natural sciences, which study natural phenomena (including biological life), and social sciences, which study human behavior and societies. These are both empirical sciences, which means their knowledge must be based on observable phenomena and capable of being tested for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions.[55] There are also related disciplines that are grouped into interdisciplinary applied sciences, such as engineering and medicine. Within these categories are specialized scientific fields that can include parts of other scientific disciplines but often possess their own nomenclature and expertise.[56]

Mathematics, which is classified as a formal science,[57][58] has both similarities and differences with the empirical sciences (the natural and social sciences). It is similar to empirical sciences in that it involves an objective, careful and systematic study of an area of knowledge; it is different because of its method of verifying its knowledge, using a priori rather than empirical methods.[59] The formal sciences, which also include statistics and logic, are vital to the empirical sciences. Major advances in formal science have often led to major advances in the empirical sciences. The formal sciences are essential in the formation of hypotheses, theories, and laws,[60] both in discovering and describing how things work (natural sciences) and how people think and act (social sciences).

Apart from its broad meaning, the word "science" sometimes may specifically refer to fundamental sciences (maths and natural sciences) alone. Science schools or faculties within many institutions are separate from those for medicine or engineering, each of which is an applied science.

Institutions Learned societies for the communication and promotion of scientific thought and experimentation have existed since the Renaissance period.[61] The oldest surviving institution is the Italian Accademia dei Lincei which was established in 1603.[62] The respective National Academies of Science are distinguished institutions that exist in a number of countries, beginning with the British Royal Society in 1660[63] and the French Académie des Sciences in 1666.[64]

International scientific organizations, such as the International Council for Science, have since been formed to promote cooperation between the scientific communities of different nations. Many governments have dedicated agencies to support scientific research. Prominent scientific organizations include the National Science Foundation in the U.S., the National Scientific and Technical Research Council in Argentina, CSIRO in Australia, Centre national de la recherche scientifique in France, the Max Planck Society and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft in Germany, and CSIC in Spain.

Literature Main article: Scientific literature An enormous range of scientific literature is published.[65] 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.[66] 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.[67]

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.[68]

Science and society "Science and society" redirects here. For the academic journal, see Science & Society. Women in science Main article: Women in science

Marie Curie was the first person to be awarded two Nobel Prizes: Physics in 1903 and Chemistry in 1911[69] Science has historically been a male-dominated field, with some notable exceptions.[k] 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.[l] 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.[70]

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; over half of new biologists are female, while 80% of PhDs in physics are given to men.[citation needed] Feminists claim this is the result of culture rather than an innate difference between the sexes, and some experiments have shown that parents challenge and explain more to boys than girls, asking them to reflect more deeply and logically.[71]: 258–61. In the early part of the 21st century, in America, women earned 50.3% bachelor's degrees, 45.6% master's degrees, and 40.7% of PhDs in science and engineering fields with women earning more than half of the degrees in three fields: Psychology (about 70%), Social Sciences (about 50%), and Biology (about 50-60%). However, when it comes to the Physical Sciences, Geosciences, Math, Engineering, and Computer Science, women earned less than half the degrees.[72] However, 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,[73] 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.[74]

Science policy Main articles: Science policy, History of science policy, Funding of science, and Economics of science

President Clinton meets the 1998 U.S. Nobel Prize winners in the White House 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 (such as the civil engineering works in hydraulic engineering of Sunshu Ao (孫叔敖 7th c. BCE), Ximen Bao (西門豹 5th c.BCE), and Shi Chi (4th c. BCE) ) and science for thousands of years. These works 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 (such as the Great Wall of China, which took 2000 years to complete) during the Warring States period in China. In Great Britain, governmental approval of the Royal Society in the 17th century recognized a scientific community which exists to this day. The professionalization of science, begun in the 19th century, was partly enabled by the creation of scientific organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences, the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, and state funding of universities of their respective nations. 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."[75]

Science and technology 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.[76] 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. 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).

Media perspectives 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.[77] 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.[78][79]

Political usage See also: Politicization of science Many issues damage the relationship of science to the media and the use of science and scientific arguments by politicians. As a very broad generalisation, many politicians seek certainties and facts whilst scientists typically offer probabilities and caveats. However, politicians' ability to be heard in the mass media frequently distorts the scientific understanding by the public. Examples in the United Kingdom include the controversy over the MMR inoculation, and the 1988 forced resignation of a Government Minister, Edwina Currie, for revealing the high probability that battery farmed eggs were contaminated with Salmonella.[80]

John Horgan, Chris Mooney, and researchers from the US and Canada have described Scientific Certainty Argumentation Methods (SCAMs), where an organization or think tank makes it their only goal to cast doubt on supported science because it conflicts with political agendas.[81][82][83][84] Hank Campbell and microbiologist Alex Berezow have described "feel-good fallacies" used in politics, especially on the left, where politicians frame their positions in a way that makes people feel good about supporting certain policies even when scientific evidence shows there is no need to worry or there is no need for dramatic change on current programs.[85]: Vol. 78, No. 1. 2–38

Science and the public Various activities are developed to facilitate communication between the general public and science/scientists, such as science outreach, public awareness of science, science communication, science festivals, citizen science, science journalism, public science, and popular science. See Science and the public for related concepts.

Science is represented by the 'S' in STEM fields.

Philosophy of science See also: Philosophy of science Working 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.[10] 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.[m] In an idealistic world view, what is true for one mind need not be true for other minds.

The Sand Reckoner is a work by Archimedes in which he sets out to determine an upper bound for the number of grains of sand that fit into the universe. In order to do this, he had to estimate the size of the universe according to the contemporary model, and invent a way to analyze extremely large numbers. There are different schools of thought in philosophy of science. The most popular position is empiricism,[n] which holds that knowledge is created by a process involving observation and that scientific theories are the result of generalizations from such observations.[86] 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[87] and the hypothetico-deductive method.[88]:236

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.[88]:20 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.[88]:63–67 Popper proposed replacing verifiability with falsifiability as the landmark of scientific theories and replacing induction with falsification as the empirical method.[88]:68 Popper further claimed that there is actually only one universal method, not specific to science: the negative method of criticism, trial and error.[89] It covers all products of the human mind, including science, mathematics, philosophy, and art.[90]

Another approach, instrumentalism, colloquially termed "shut up and multiply,"[91] emphasizes the utility of theories as instruments for explaining and predicting phenomena.[92] 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.

Paul Feyerabend advanced the idea of epistemological anarchism, which holds that there are no useful and exception-free methodological rules governing the progress of science or the growth of knowledge and that the idea that science can or should operate according to universal and fixed rules are unrealistic, pernicious and detrimental to science itself.[93] Feyerabend advocates treating science as an ideology alongside others such as religion, magic, and mythology, and considers the dominance of science in society authoritarian and unjustified. He also contended (along with Imre Lakatos)[discuss] that the demarcation problem of distinguishing science from pseudoscience on objective grounds is not possible and thus fatal to the notion of science running according to fixed, universal rules.[93] Feyerabend also stated that science does not have evidence for its philosophical precepts, particularly the notion of uniformity of law and process across time and space.[94]

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.[o] 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.[95] 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

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. A scientific theory is empirical[n][96] 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.[p] 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."[97]:4

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.[98]:119–38 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.[98]:123 Theories vary in the extent to which they have been tested and verified, as well as their acceptance in the scientific community.[q] 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.[99] 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. Ironically, then, the scientist adhering to proper scientific approaches will doubt themselves even once they possess the truth.[100] 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[101]—but also that the inquirer should try to attain genuine doubt rather than resting uncritically on common sense.[102] 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.[103]

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).[98]:141–47 Of course, research often analyzes few factors at once, but these are always added to the long list of factors that are most important to consider.[98]:141–47 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.

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.[r] 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.[104] Various types of commercial advertising, ranging from hype to fraud, may fall into these categories.

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.[105]

Scientific practice See also: Research

Astronomy became much 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. Although encyclopedias such as Pliny's (fl. 77 AD) Natural History offered purported fact, they proved unreliable. A skeptical point of view, demanding a method of proof, was the practical position taken to deal with unreliable knowledge. As early as 1000 years ago, scholars such as Alhazen (Doubts Concerning Ptolemy), Roger Bacon, Witelo, John Pecham, Francis Bacon (1605), and C. S. Peirce (1839–1914) provided the community to address these points of uncertainty. In particular, fallacious reasoning can be exposed, such as "affirming the consequent."

"If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties."

— Francis Bacon, "The Advancement of Learning", Book 1, v, 8 The methods of inquiry into a problem have been known for thousands of years,[106] and extend beyond theory to practice. The use of measurements, for example, is a practical approach to settle disputes in the community.

John Ziman points out that intersubjective pattern recognition is fundamental to the creation of all scientific knowledge.[107]:44 Ziman shows how scientists can identify patterns to each other across centuries; he refers to this ability as "perceptual consensibility."[108]:46 He then makes consensibility, leading to consensus, the touchstone of reliable knowledge.[108]:104

Basic and applied research

Anthropogenic pollution has an effect on the Earth's environment and climate 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?".[109] 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.[98]:106–10 In a nutshell, basic research is the search for knowledge and applied research is the search for solutions to practical problems using this knowledge. Finally, even basic research can take unexpected turns, and there is some sense in which the scientific method is built to harness luck.

Research in practice Due to the increasing complexity of information and specialization of scientists, most of the cutting-edge research today is done by well-funded groups of scientists, rather than individuals.[110] D.K. Simonton notes that due to the breadth of very precise and far reaching tools already used by researchers today and the amount of research generated so far, creation of new disciplines or revolutions within a discipline may no longer be possible as it is unlikely that some phenomenon that merits its own discipline has been overlooked. Hybridizing of disciplines and finessing knowledge is, in his view, the future of science.[110]

Practical impacts of scientific research Discoveries in fundamental science can be world-changing. For example:

Research	Impact Static electricity and magnetism (c. 1600) Electric current (18th century)	All electric appliances, dynamos, electric power stations, modern electronics, including electric lighting, television, electric heating, transcranial magnetic stimulation, deep brain stimulation, magnetic tape, loudspeaker, and the compass and lightning rod. Diffraction (1665)	Optics, hence fiber optic cable (1840s), modern intercontinental communications, and cable TV and internet Germ theory (1700)	Hygiene, leading to decreased transmission of infectious diseases; antibodies, leading to techniques for disease diagnosis and targeted anticancer therapies. Vaccination (1798)	Leading to the elimination of most infectious diseases from developed countries and the worldwide eradication of smallpox. Photovoltaic effect (1839)	Solar cells (1883), hence solar power, solar powered watches, calculators and other devices. The strange orbit of Mercury (1859) and other research leading to special (1905) and general relativity (1916)	Satellite-based technology such as GPS (1973), satnav and satellite communications[s] Radio waves (1887)	Radio had become used in innumerable ways beyond its better-known areas of telephony, and broadcast television (1927) and radio (1906) entertainment. Other uses included – emergency services, radar (navigation and weather prediction), medicine, astronomy, wireless communications, geophysics, and networking. Radio waves also led researchers to adjacent frequencies such as microwaves, used worldwide for heating and cooking food. Radioactivity (1896) and antimatter (1932)	Cancer treatment (1896), Radiometric dating (1905), nuclear reactors (1942) and weapons (1945), mineral exploration, PET scans (1961), and medical research (via isotopic labeling) X-rays (1896)	Medical imaging, including computed tomography Crystallography and quantum mechanics (1900)	Semiconductor devices (1906), hence modern computing and telecommunications including the integration with wireless devices: the mobile phone,[s] LED lamps and lasers. Plastics (1907)	Starting with Bakelite, many types of artificial polymers for numerous applications in industry and daily life Antibiotics (1880s, 1928)	Salvarsan, Penicillin, doxycycline etc. Nuclear magnetic resonance (1930s)	Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy (1946), magnetic resonance imaging (1971), functional magnetic resonance imaging (1990s). See also Antiquarian science books Criticism of science Human timeline Index of branches of science Life timeline List of scientific occupations Normative science Outline of science Pathological science Protoscience Science wars Scientific dissent Sociology of scientific knowledge Notes Jump up ^ "... 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."— Heilbron 2003, p. vii "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. Jump up ^ Isaac Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687), for example, is translated "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy", and reflects the then-current use of the words "natural philosophy", akin to "systematic study of nature" Jump up ^ "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." — David Pingree (1992), "Hellenophilia versus the History of Science" Isis 83 554–63, as cited in (Lindberg 2007, p. 3), The beginnings of Western science: the European Scientific tradition in philosophical, religious, and institutional context, Second ed. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press ISBN 978-0-226-48205-7 See Grant, Edward (1 January 1997). "History of Science: When Did Modern Science Begin?". The American Scholar. 66 (1): 105–13. JSTOR 41212592. History of science#Early cultures History of science#Ancient Near East, Mesopotamia History of science#Ancient Near East, Egypt History of Science in China History of science#India Jump up ^ 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 Jump up ^ "[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 Jump up ^ The translator, Gerard of Cremona (c. 1114–87), 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 Charles Burnett (2001) "The Coherence of the Arabic-Latin Translation Program in Toledo in the Twelfth Century", pp. 250, 255, 257, Science in Context 14(1/2), 249–88 (2001). doi:10.1017/0269889701000096 Jump up ^ 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 (1 January 2004). "What Is the History of Medieval Optics Really about?". Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 148 (2): 180–94. JSTOR 1558283. . 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. Jump up ^ di Francia 1976, p. 13: "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) Jump up ^ 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." Jump up ^ Fara 2009, p. 204: "Whatever their discipline, scientists claimed to share a common scientific method that ... distinguished them from non-scientists." Jump up ^ 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. Jump up ^ 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. Jump up ^ 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." ^ Jump up to: a b 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. Jump up ^ Godfrey-Smith 2003, p. 151 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.". Jump up ^ "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. Jump up ^ Fleck, Ludwik (1979). Trenn, Thaddeus J.; Merton, Robert K, eds. Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-25325-2. 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. " Jump up ^ "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: 169–176, 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 0-7167-3090-1. 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. ^ Jump up to: a b 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." References Jump up ^ R. P. Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Vol.1, Chaps.1,2,&3. Jump up ^ Harper, Douglas. "science". Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved September 20, 2014. ^ Jump up to: a b Wilson, Edward (1999). Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. New York: Vintage. ISBN 0-679-76867-X. Jump up ^ Bunge, Mario (1998). "The Scientific Approach". Philosophy of Science: Volume 1, From Problem to Theory. 1 (revised ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. pp. 3–50. ISBN 0-765-80413-1. Jump up ^ Editorial Staff (March 7, 2008). "The Branches of Science". South Carolina State University. Retrieved November 25, 2017. Jump up ^ Editorial Staff (March 7, 2008). "Scientific Method: Relationships among Scientific Paradigms". Seed magazine. Retrieved September 12, 2007. Jump up ^ David C. Lindberg (2007), The beginnings of Western science: the European Scientific tradition in philosophical, religious, and institutional context, Second ed. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press ISBN 978-0-226-48205-7 Jump up ^ Cahan, David, ed. (2003). From Natural Philosophy to the Sciences: Writing the History of Nineteenth-Century Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-08928-2. Jump up ^ The Oxford English Dictionary dates the origin of the word "scientist" to 1834. ^ Jump up to: a b Heilbron 2003, p. vii Jump up ^ 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. 630 BCE- ca. 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. Jump up ^ See the quotation in Homer (8th century BCE) Odyssey 10.302–3 Jump up ^ "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. Jump up ^ Cropsey; Strauss (eds.). History of Political Philosophy (3rd ed.). p. 209. Jump up ^ 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. Jump up ^ http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0170%3Atext%3DApol.%3Apage%3D17 Jump up ^ http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0170%3Atext%3DApol.%3Apage%3D27 Jump up ^ "Plato, Apology, section 30". Perseus Digital Library. Tufts University. 1966. Retrieved November 1, 2016. Jump up ^ Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics (H. Rackham, ed.). 1139b Jump up ^ * 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, :189 Jump up ^ Aristotle, Physics II, 3, and Metaphysics V, 2 ^ Jump up to: a b Grant, Edward (2007). 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. Jump up ^ "Bayt al-Hikmah". Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved November 3, 2016. Jump up ^ 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, pages 166–167. In Oliver Leaman & Hossein Nasr. History of Islamic Philosophy. London: Routledge. Jump up ^ "Science in Islam". Oxford Dictionary of the Middle Ages. 2009. Jump up ^ G. J. Toomer. Review on JSTOR, Toomer's 1964 review of Matthias Schramm (1963) Ibn Al-Haythams Weg Zur Physik Toomer 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." Jump up ^ Smith 2001 Jump up ^ https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Albertus-Magnus Jump up ^ Smith 2001:Book I, [6.54]. p. 372 Jump up ^ Smith 2001 p. lxxii, via JSTOR Jump up ^ Smith, A. Mark (1981), "Getting the Big Picture in Perspectivist Optics" Isis 72(#4 — Dec. 1981), pp. 568–89 p. 588 via JSTOR Jump up ^ "Galileo and the Birth of Modern Science". American Heritage of Invention and Technology. 24. Jump up ^ Copernicus and the Origin of his Heliocentric System. Bernard R. Goldstein. Journal for the History of Astronomy. Vol 33, Issue 3, pp. 219 - 235. First Published August 1, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1177/002182860203300301 Jump up ^ A. Mark Smith, "Getting the Big Picture in Perspectivist Optics," Isis 72, no. 4 (Dec., 1981): 568-589. [1]. Jump up ^ 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. Jump up ^ van Helden, Al (1995). "Pope Urban VIII". The Galileo Project. Retrieved November 3, 2016. Jump up ^ see Hall (1954), iii; Mason (1956), 223. Jump up ^ Cassels, Alan. Ideology and International Relations in the Modern World. p. 2. Jump up ^ Ross, Sydney (1962). "Scientist: The story of a word" (PDF). Annals of Science. 18 (2): 65–85. doi:10.1080/00033796200202722. Retrieved 2011-03-08. 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. Jump up ^ The History and Status of General Systems Theory. Ludwig Von Bertalanffy. The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 15, No. 4, General Systems Theory (Dec., 1972), 407-426. doi: 10.2307/255139 Jump up ^ White, L., 1967, The historical roots of our ecologic crisis. Jump up ^ Astrophysical Journal Letters (2017 October 16), Multi-messenger Observations of a Binary Neutron Star Merger, co-authored by at least 3380 authors from 952 institutions, including at least 1 Nobel Laureate. Jump up ^ Adrian Cho Science (16 October 2017) "Merging neutron stars generate gravitational waves and a celestial light show" Jump up ^ Nola & Irzik 2005, p. 208. Jump up ^ Nola & Irzik 2005, pp. 199–201. Jump up ^ 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. Jump up ^ 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. Jump up ^ Shatz, David (2004). Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 0-7425-1434-X. OCLC 54989960. Jump up ^ Krimsky, Sheldon (2003). Science in the Private Interest: Has the Lure of Profits Corrupted the Virtue of Biomedical Research. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 0-7425-1479-X. OCLC 185926306. Jump up ^ Bulger, Ruth Ellen; Heitman, Elizabeth; Reiser, Stanley Joel (2002). The Ethical Dimensions of the Biological and Health Sciences (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-00886-7. OCLC 47791316. Jump up ^ 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. Jump up ^ "SIAM: Graduate Education for Computational Science and Engineering". Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. Retrieved November 4, 2016. Jump up ^ 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 Jump up ^ Bunge, Mario Augusto (1998). Philosophy of Science: From Problem to Theory. Transaction Publishers. p. 24. ISBN 0-7658-0413-1. Jump up ^ Popper 2002, p. 20. Jump up ^ "Scientific Method: Relationships Among Scientific Paradigms". Seed Magazine. March 7, 2007. Retrieved November 4, 2016. Jump up ^ Tomalin, Marcus (2006). Linguistics and the Formal Sciences. Cambridge.org. isbn: 0521854814. Retrieved February 5, 2012. Jump up ^ "The Formal Sciences: Their Scope, Their Foundations, and Their Unity". Synthese. 133. Jump up ^ Popper 2002, pp. 10–11. Jump up ^ Popper 2002, pp. 79–82. Jump up ^ Parrott, Jim (August 9, 2007). "Chronicle for Societies Founded from 1323 to 1599". Scholarly Societies Project. Retrieved September 11, 2007. Jump up ^ "Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei" (in Italian). 2006. Retrieved September 11, 2007. Jump up ^ "History of the Royal Society". The Royal Society. Retrieved October 16, 2011. Jump up ^ 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. Jump up ^ 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. . Jump up ^ Subramanyam, Krishna; Subramanyam, Bhadriraju (1981). Scientific and Technical Information Resources. CRC Press. ISBN 0-8247-8297-6. OCLC 232950234. Jump up ^ "MEDLINE Fact Sheet". Washington DC: United States National Library of Medicine. Retrieved October 15, 2011. Jump up ^ Petrucci, Mario. "Creative Writing – Science". Retrieved April 27, 2008. Jump up ^ "Nobel Prize Facts". Nobel Foundation. Retrieved 2015-10-11. Jump up ^ 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. Jump up ^ "Parents explain more often to boys than to girls during shared scientific thinking". Psychol. Sci. 12. Jump up ^ Rosser, Sue V. Breaking into the Lab: Engineering Progress for Women in Science. New York: New York University Press. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-8147-7645-2. Jump up ^ Goulden, Mark; Frasch, Karie; Mason, Mary Ann (2009). Staying Competitive: Patching America's Leaky Pipeline in the Sciences. University of Berkeley Law. Jump up ^ Change of Heart: Career intentions and the chemistry PhD. Royal Society of Chemistry. 2008. Jump up ^ Bush, Vannevar (July 1945). "Science the Endless Frontier". National Science Foundation. Retrieved November 4, 2016. Jump up ^ "Main Science and Technology Indicators – 2008-1" (PDF). OECD. Archived from the original (PDF) on October 19, 2010. Jump up ^ Dickson, David (October 11, 2004). "Science journalism must keep a critical edge". Science and Development Network. Archived from the original on June 21, 2010. Jump up ^ Mooney, Chris (Nov–Dec 2004). "Blinded By Science, How 'Balanced' Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality". 43 (4). Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved February 20, 2008. Jump up ^ McIlwaine, S.; Nguyen, D. A. (2005). "Are Journalism Students Equipped to Write About Science?". Australian Studies in Journalism. 14: 41–60. Retrieved February 20, 2008. Jump up ^ "1988: Egg industry fury over salmonella claim". BBC News. December 3, 1988. Retrieved November 4, 2016. Jump up ^ "– No Title –". Truth Tobacco Industry Documents. UC San Francisco. August 21, 1969. Retrieved November 4, 2016. Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy. Jump up ^ Horgan, John (December 18, 2005). "Political Science". The New York Times. Retrieved November 4, 2016. Jump up ^ Mooney, Chris (2005). The Republican War on Science. Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-04676-2. Jump up ^ "Scientific Certainty Argumentation Methods (SCAMs): Science and the Politics of Doubt". Sociological Inquiry. 78. Jump up ^ Berezow, Alex; Campbell, Alex. Science Left Behind: Feel-good Fallacies and the Rise of the Anti-Scientific Left (1st ed.). New York: PublicAffairs. ISBN 978-1-61039-164-1. Jump up ^ "... [T]he logical empiricists thought that the great aim of science was to discover and establish generalizations." —Godfrey-Smith 2003, p. 41 Jump up ^ Godfrey-Smith 2003, p. 203. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Godfrey-Smith 2003 Jump up ^ Popper called this Conjecture and Refutation. Godfrey-Smith 2003, pp. 117–8 Jump up ^ Popper, Karl (1972). Objective Knowledge. Jump up ^ "Shut up and multiply". LessWrong Wiki. September 13, 2015. Retrieved November 4, 2016. Jump up ^ Newton-Smith, W. H. (1994). The Rationality of Science. London: Routledge. p. 30. ISBN 0-7100-0913-5. ^ Jump up to: a b Feyerabend 1993. Jump up ^ Feyerabend, Paul (1987). Farewell To Reason. Verso. p. 100. ISBN 0-86091-184-5. Jump up ^ Brugger, E. Christian (2004). "Casebeer, William D. Natural Ethical Facts: Evolution, Connectionism, and Moral Cognition". The Review of Metaphysics. 58 (2). Jump up ^ Winther, Rasmus Grønfeldt (2015). "The Structure of Scientific Theories". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved November 4, 2016. Jump up ^ Popper 1996. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e Stanovich 2007 Jump up ^ Dawkins, Richard; Coyne, Jerry (September 2, 2005). "One side can be wrong". The Guardian. London. Jump up ^ "Barry Stroud on Scepticism". philosophy bites. December 16, 2007. Retrieved February 5, 2012. Jump up ^ Peirce (1877), "The Fixation of Belief", Popular Science Monthly, v. 12, pp. 1–15, see §IV on pp. 6–7. Reprinted Collected Papers v. 5, paragraphs 358–87 (see 374–6), Writings v. 3, pp. 242–57 (see 247–8), Essential Peirce v. 1, pp. 109–23 (see 114–15), and elsewhere. Jump up ^ 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. Jump up ^ Peirce (1868), "Some Consequences of Four Incapacities", Journal of Speculative Philosophy v. 2, n. 3, pp. 140–57, see p. 141. Reprinted in Collected Papers, v. 5, paragraphs 264–317, Writings v. 2, pp. 211–42, Essential Peirce v. 1, pp. 28–55, and elsewhere. Jump up ^ Feynman, Richard (1974). "Cargo Cult Science". Center for Theoretical Neuroscience. Columbia University. Archived from the original on March 4, 2005. Retrieved November 4, 2016. Jump up ^ "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. Jump up ^ In mathematics, Plato's Meno demonstrates that it is possible to know logical propositions, such as the Pythagorean theorem, and even to prove them, as cited by Crease 2009, pp. 35–41 Jump up ^ Ziman cites Polanyi 1958 chapter 12, as referenced in Ziman 1978 ^ Jump up to: a b Ziman 1978 Jump up ^ "To Live at All Is Miracle Enough — Richard Dawkins". RichardDawkins.net. May 10, 2006. Archived from the original on January 19, 2012. Retrieved February 5, 2012. ^ Jump up to: a b Simonton, Dean Keith (2013). "After Einstein: Scientific genius is extinct". Nature. 493 (7434): 602–02. Bibcode:2013Natur.493..602S. doi:10.1038/493602a. . Sources Crease, Robert P. (2009). The Great Equations. New York: W.W. Norton. ISBN 978-0-393-06204-5. di Francia, Giuliano Toraldo (1976). The Investigation of the Physical World. Originally published in Italian as L'Indagine del Mondo Fisico by Giulio Einaudi editore 1976; first published in English by Cambridge University Press 1981. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-29925-X. Fara, Patricia (2009). Science : a four thousand year history. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 408. ISBN 978-0-19-922689-4. Feyerabend, Paul (1993). Against Method (3rd ed.). London: Verso. ISBN 0-86091-646-4. Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2003). Theory and Reality. Chicago 60637: University of Chicago. p. 272. ISBN 0-226-30062-5. Heilbron, J. L. (editor-in-chief) (2003). The Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-511229-6. Lindberg, David C. (2007). The beginnings of Western science: the European Scientific tradition in philosophical, religious, and institutional context (Second ed.). Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-48205-7. Nola, Robert; Irzik, Gürol (2005). Philosophy, science, education and culture. Science & technology education library. 28. Springer. ISBN 1-4020-3769-4. Polanyi, Michael (1958). Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-67288-3 Popper, Karl Raimund (1996) [1984]. In search of a better world: lectures and essays from thirty years. New York, NY: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-13548-6. Popper, Karl R. (2002) [1959]. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York, NY: Routledge Classics. ISBN 0-415-27844-9. OCLC 59377149. Stanovich, Keith E. (2007). How to Think Straight About Psychology. Boston: Pearson Education. ISBN 978-0-205-68590-5. Ziman, John (1978). Reliable knowledge: An exploration of the grounds for belief in science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 197. ISBN 0-521-22087-4 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. 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 0-19-926479-1. OCLC 173262485. Feynman, Richard P. (1999). Robbins, Jeffrey, ed. The pleasure of finding things out the best short works of Richard P. Feynman. Cambridge, Mass.: Perseus Books. ISBN 0465013120. Feynman, R.P. (1999). The Pleasure of Finding Things Out: The Best Short Works of Richard P. Feynman. Perseus Books Group. ISBN 0-465-02395-9. 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 0-19-929644-8. 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: Univ. of Chicago Pr. Kuhn, Thomas, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1962. William F., McComas (1998). "The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myths". In McComas, William F. The nature of science in science education: rationales and strategies (PDF). 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 0-19-926479-1. OCLC 173262485. Parkin, D. (1991). "Simultaneity and Sequencing in the Oracular Speech of Kenyan Diviners". In Philip M. Peek. African Divination Systems: Ways of Knowing. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press. Russell, Bertrand (1985) [1952]. The Impact of Science on Society. London: Unwin. ISBN 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 0-19-506771-1.