Science: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Danielkueh (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
←Replaced content with 'BUM SEX' |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
BUM SEX |
|||
{{pp-vandalism|small=yes}} |
|||
{{Pp-move-indef}} |
|||
{{Otheruses}} |
|||
{{Science}} |
|||
'''Science''' (from the [[Latin]] ''scientia'', meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories.<ref>{{cite book | last = Wilson | first = Edward | title = Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge | publisher = Vintage | location = New York | date = 1999 | ISBN = 0-679-76867-X }}</ref> As knowledge has increased, some methods have proved more reliable than others, and today the [[scientific method]] is the standard for science. It includes the use of careful observation, [[experiment]], [[measurement]], [[mathematics]], and replication -- to be considered a science, a body of knowledge must stand up to repeated testing by independent observers. The use of the scientific method to make new discoveries is called scientific [[research]], and the people who carry out this research are called scientists.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/science |quote= knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method '''. . .''' such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena |publisher=Merriam-Webster |title=Online dictionary |accessdate=2009-05-22}}</ref><ref name="Popper">{{cite book |last=Popper |first=Karl |authorlink=Karl Popper |title=The Logic of Scientific Discovery |origyear=1959 |edition=2nd English |year=2002 |publisher=Routledge Classics |location=New York, NY |isbn=0-415-27844-9 |oclc=59377149 |page=3}}</ref> This article focuses on science in the more restricted sense, what is sometimes called [[Experiment|experimental science]]. [[Applied science]], or [[engineering]], is the practical application of scientific knowledge. |
|||
A scientific [[hypothesis]] is an educated guess about the nature of the universe, a scientific [[theory]] is a hypothesis which has been confirmed by repeated observation and measurement. Scientific theories are usually given mathematical form, and are always subject to refutation if future experiments contradict them. |
|||
In the modern world, scientific research is a major activity in all developed nations, and scientists are expected to publish their discoveries in refereed journals, scientific periodicals where referees check the facts in an article before it is published. Even after publication, new scientific ideas are not generally accepted until the work has been replicated. |
|||
[[Scientific literacy]] is the ability of the general population to understand the basic concepts related to science. |
|||
==Basic classifications== |
|||
[[Fields of science|Scientific fields]] are commonly divided into two major groups: [[natural science]]s, which study natural phenomena (including [[Biology|biological life]]), and [[social sciences]], which study [[human behavior]] and [[Society|societies]]. These groupings are [[empirical]] sciences, which means the knowledge must be based on observable [[Phenomenon|phenomena]] and capable of being tested for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions.<ref name=Popper>{{cite book | last = Popper | first = Karl | authorlink = Karl Popper | title = The Logic of Scientific Discovery | origyear = 1959 | edition = 2nd English | year = 2002 | publisher = Routledge Classics | location = New York, NY | isbn = 0-415-27844-9 | oclc =59377149 }}</ref><!-- p. 20 --> There are also related disciplines that are grouped into interdisciplinary and applied sciences, such as [[engineering]] and [[health science]]. Within these categories are specialized scientific fields that can include elements of other scientific disciplines but often possess their own terminology and body of expertise.<ref>See: {{cite web | author=Editorial Staff | date=March 7, 2008 | url=http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2007/03/scientific_method_relationship.php | title=Scientific Method: Relationships among Scientific Paradigms | publisher=Seed magazine | accessdate=2007-09-12 }}</ref> |
|||
[[Mathematics]], which is classified as a [[formal science]], has both similarities and differences with 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 and a posteriori|''a priori'']] rather than empirical methods.<ref name=Popper/><!-- p. 10-11 --> Formal science, which also includes [[statistics]] and [[logic]], is 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 [[Hypothesis|hypotheses]], [[Theory|theories]], and [[physical law|laws]],<ref name=Popper/><!-- p. 79-82 --> both in discovering and describing how things work (natural sciences) and how people think and act (social sciences). |
|||
==History and etymology== |
|||
{{main|History of science}} |
|||
[[File:SciencePersonificationBoston.jpg|thumb|250px|[[Personification]] of "Science" in front of the [[Boston Public Library]]]] |
|||
While [[empirical]] investigations of the natural world have been described since [[Ancient history|antiquity]] (for example, by [[Aristotle]], [[Theophrastus]] and [[Pliny the Elder]]), and [[scientific method]]s have been employed since the [[Middle Ages]] (for example, by [[Alhazen|Ibn al-Haytham]], [[Abu Rayhan Biruni]] and [[Roger Bacon]]), the dawn of modern science is generally traced back to the [[early modern period]] during what is known as the [[Scientific revolution|Scientific Revolution]] of the 16th and 17th centuries.<ref>[http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ENLIGHT/SCIREV.HTM "The Scientific Revolution"]. Washington State University</ref> |
|||
The word "science" comes through the [[Old French]], and is derived in turn from the [[Latin]] {{lang|la|''scientia''}}, "knowledge", the nominal form of the verb {{lang|la|''scire''}}, "to know". The [[Proto-Indo-European root|Proto-Indo-European]] (PIE) root that yields ''scire'' is ''*skei-'', meaning to "cut, separate, or discern".<ref>[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=science&searchmode=none Etymology of "science" at Etymology Online]. See also details of the PIE root at [http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE464.html American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language'', 4th edition, 2000.].</ref> Similarly, the Greek word for science is 'επιστήμη', deriving from the verb 'επίσταμαι', 'to know'. From the [[Middle Ages]] to the [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]], ''science'' or ''scientia'' meant any systematic recorded knowledge.<ref>{{cite book | first=Neville | last=MacMorris | year=1989 | title=The Natures of Science | pages=31–33 | publisher=Fairleigh Dickinson University Press | location=New York | isbn=0838633218 }}</ref> ''Science'' therefore had the same sort of very broad meaning that ''[[philosophy]]'' had at that time. In other languages, including French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian, the word corresponding to ''science'' also carries this meaning. |
|||
Prior to the 1700s, the preferred term for the study of nature was [[natural philosophy]], while English speakers most typically referred to other philosophical disciplines (such as [[logic]], [[metaphysics]], [[epistemology]], [[ethics]] and [[aesthetics]]) as [[Ethics|moral philosophy]]. Today, "moral philosophy" is more-or-less synonymous with "ethics". Far into the 1700s, science and [[natural philosophy]] were not quite synonymous, but only became so later with the direct use of what would become known formally as the [[scientific method]]. By contrast, the word "science" in English was still used in the 17th century (1600s) to refer to the [[Aristotelianism|Aristotelian]] concept of knowledge which was secure enough to be used as a sure prescription for exactly how to do something. In this differing sense of the two words, the philosopher [[John Locke]] wrote disparagingly in 1690 that "natural philosophy [the study of nature] is not capable of being made a science".<ref name=Locke1838> {{cite book |
|||
| last=Locke | first=J. | authorlink=John Locke | year = 1838 |
|||
| title = [[An Essay Concerning Human Understanding]] |
|||
| publisher = Printed by Thomas Davison |
|||
| isbn=0140434828 }}''[[An Essay Concerning Human Understanding]]''</ref> |
|||
Locke was to be proven wrong, however. By the early 1800s, natural philosophy had begun to separate from philosophy, though it often retained a very broad meaning. In many cases, ''science'' continued to stand for reliable knowledge about any topic, in the same way it is still used in the broad sense (see the introduction to this article) in modern terms such as [[library science]], [[political science]], and [[computer science]]. In the more narrow sense of ''science'', as natural philosophy became linked to an expanding set of well-defined laws (beginning with Galileo's laws, Kepler's laws, and Newton's laws for motion), it became more popular to refer to natural philosophy as natural science. Over the course of the nineteenth century, moreover, there was an increased tendency to associate science with study of the natural world (that is, the non-human world). This move sometimes left the study of human thought and society (what would come to be called [[Social sciences|social science]]) in a linguistic limbo by the end of the century and into the next.<ref name = Thurs>{{cite book | first=Daniel Patrick | last=Thurs | year=2007 | title=Science Talk: Changing Notions of Science in American Popular Culture| publisher=Rutgers University Press | location=New Brunswick, NJ | isbn = 978-0813540733 | oclc=170031241}}</ref><!-- p. 22-55 --> |
|||
Through the 1800s, many English speakers were increasingly differentiating science (i.e., the natural sciences) from all other forms of knowledge in a variety of ways. The now-familiar expression “[[scientific method]],” which refers to the ''prescriptive'' part of how to make discoveries in natural philosophy, was almost unused until then, but became widespread after the 1870s, though there was rarely total agreement about just what it entailed.<ref name = Thurs/><!-- p. 74-79 --> The word "scientist," meant to refer to a systematically-working natural philosopher, (as opposed to an intuitive or empirically-minded one) was coined in 1833 by William Whewell.<ref name=Ross1962>{{cite journal | format = PDF | author = Ross, S. | year = 1962 | title = Scientist: The story of a word | journal = Annals of Science | volume = 18 | issue = 2 | pages = 65–85 | url = http://www.informaworld.com/index/739364907.pdf | accessdate = 2008-02-08 | doi = 10.1080/00033796200202722}}</ref> Discussion of [[scientist]]s as a special group of people who did science, even if their attributes were up for debate, grew in the last half of the 19th century.<ref name = Thurs/><!-- p. 69-74, 79-84 --> Whatever people actually meant by these terms at first, they ultimately depicted science, in the narrow sense of the habitual use of the scientific method and the knowledge derived from it, as something deeply distinguished from all other realms of human endeavor. |
|||
By the twentieth century (1900s), the modern notion of science as a special kind of knowledge about the world, practiced by a distinct group and pursued through a unique method, was essentially in place. It was used to give legitimacy to a variety of fields through such titles as "scientific" medicine, engineering, advertising, or motherhood.<ref name = Thurs/><!-- p. 95 --> Over the 1900s, links between science and [[technology]] also grew increasingly strong. |
|||
Richard Feynman described science in the following way for his students: "The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: ''The test of all knowledge is experiment.'' Experiment is the ''sole judge'' of scientific 'truth'. But what is the source of knowledge? Where do the laws that are to be tested come from? Experiment, itself, helps to produce these laws, in the sense that it gives us hints. But also needed is imagination to create from these hints the great generalizations — to guess at the wonderful, simple, but very strange patterns beneath them all, and then to experiment to check again whether we have made the right guess." Feynman also observed, "...there is an expanding frontier of ignorance...things must be learned only to be unlearned again or, more likely, to be corrected."<ref>Feynman, Leighton, Sands. "The Feynman Lectures On Physics", pp. 1-1, [[California Institute of Technology]], 1964.</ref> |
|||
==Scientific method== |
|||
{{main|Scientific method}} |
|||
[[Image:DNA Overview2.png|thumb|right|upright|[[DNA]] determines the genetic structure of all known life]] |
|||
[[File:Bohr model.svg|thumb|left|The [[Bohr model]] of the [[atom]], like many ideas in the [[history of science]], was at first prompted by and later partially disproved by experiment]] |
|||
A [[scientific method]] seeks to explain the events of [[nature]] in a [[reproducible]] way, and to use these reproductions to make useful [[prediction]]s. It is done through observation of natural phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate natural events under controlled conditions. It provides an objective process to find solutions to problems in a number of scientific and technological fields.<ref name=backer>{{cite web |
|||
| last=Backer | first=Patricia Ryaby |
|||
| date=October 29, 2004 |
|||
| url=http://www.engr.sjsu.edu/pabacker/scientific_method.htm |
|||
| title=What is the scientific method? |
|||
| publisher=San Jose State University |
|||
| accessdate=2008-03-28 }}</ref> |
|||
Based on observations of a phenomenon, a scientist may generate a [[Scientific modeling|model]]. This is an attempt to describe or depict the phenomenon in terms of a logical physical or mathematical representation. As empirical evidence is gathered, a scientist can suggest a [[hypothesis]] to explain the phenomenon. This description can be used to make predictions that are testable by experiment or observation using scientific method. When a hypothesis proves unsatisfactory, it is either modified or discarded. |
|||
While performing experiments, [[scientist]]s may have a preference for one outcome over another, and it is important to ensure that this tendency does not bias their interpretation.<ref>{{cite web |
|||
| last=van Gelder | first=Tim | year=1999 |
|||
| url=http://www.philosophy.unimelb.edu.au/tgelder/papers/HeadsIWin.pdf |
|||
| format=PDF |
|||
| title="Heads I win, tails you lose": A Foray Into the Psychology of Philosophy |
|||
| publisher=University of Melbourne |
|||
| accessdate=2008-03-28 |
|||
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |
|||
| last=Pease | first=Craig |
|||
| date=September 6, 2006 |
|||
| url=http://law-and-science.net/Science4BLJ/Scientific_Method/Deliberate.bias/Text.htm |
|||
| title=Chapter 23. Deliberate bias: Conflict creates bad science |
|||
| work=Science for Business, Law and Journalism |
|||
| publisher=Vermont Law School |
|||
| accessdate=2008-03-28 |
|||
}}</ref> A strict following of a scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of a scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. This can be achieved by correct [[Design of experiments|experimental design]], and a thorough [[peer review]] of the experimental results as well as conclusions of a study.<ref>{{cite book |
|||
| first=David | last=Shatz | year=2004 |
|||
| title=Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry |
|||
| publisher=Rowman & Littlefield | isbn=074251434X |
|||
| oclc=54989960 |
|||
}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |
|||
| first=Sheldon | last=Krimsky | year=2003 |
|||
| title=Science in the Private Interest: Has the Lure of Profits Corrupted the Virtue of Biomedical Research |
|||
| publisher=Rowman & Littlefield | isbn=074251479X |
|||
| oclc=185926306 }}</ref> 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.<ref>{{cite book |
|||
| first=Ruth Ellen | last=Bulger | year=2002 |
|||
| coauthors=Heitman, Elizabeth; Reiser, Stanley Joel |
|||
| title=The Ethical Dimensions of the Biological and Health Sciences |
|||
| edition=2nd | isbn=0521008867 |
|||
| publisher=Cambridge University Press |
|||
| oclc=47791316 }}</ref> |
|||
Once a hypothesis has survived testing, it may become adopted into the framework of a [[theory (science)|scientific theory]]. This is 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. These broader theories may be formulated using principles such as [[parsimony]] (traditionally known as "[[Occam's Razor]]"). They are then repeatedly tested by analyzing how the collected evidence ([[fact]]s) compares to the theory. When a theory survives a sufficiently large number of empirical observations, it then becomes a scientific generalization that can be taken as fully verified. |
|||
Unlike a mathematical proof, a scientific theory is [[empirical]], and is always open to [[falsifiability|falsification]] if new evidence is presented. Even the most basic and fundamental theories may turn out to be imperfect if new observations are inconsistent with them. Critical to this process is making every relevant aspect of research publicly available, which allows ongoing review and repeating of experiments and observations by multiple researchers operating independently of one another. Only by fulfilling these expectations can it be determined how reliable the experimental results are for potential use by others. |
|||
==Mathematics== |
|||
{{main|Mathematics}} |
|||
[[File:Michelsonmorley-boxplot.svg|thumb|300px|Data from the famous [[Michelson–Morley experiment]]]] |
|||
[[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. [[Arithmetic]], [[algebra]], [[geometry]], [[trigonometry]] and [[calculus]], for example, are all essential to [[physics]]. Virtually every branch of mathematics has applications in science, including "pure" areas such as [[number theory]] and [[topology]]. |
|||
[[Statistics|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.<ref>[http://www.siam.org/students/resources/report.php Graduate Education for Computational Science and Engineering], SIAM Working Group on CSE Education. Retrieved 2008-04-27.</ref> |
|||
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, since it does not require an experimental test of its theories and hypotheses. Mathematical [[theorem]]s and [[formula]]s are obtained by [[Mathematical logic|logical]] derivations which presume [[axiom]]atic systems, rather than the combination of [[empirical]] observation and logical reasoning that has come to be known as [[scientific method]]. In general, mathematics is classified as [[formal science]], while natural and social sciences are classified as [[empirical]] sciences.<ref>{{cite book | title = Philosophy of Science: From Problem to Theory | author = Bunge, Mario Augusto | year = 1998 | publisher = Transaction Publishers | isbn = 0-765-80413-1 | page = 24}}</ref> |
|||
==Scientific community== |
|||
{{main|Scientific community}} |
|||
The scientific community consists of the total body of scientists, its relationships and interactions. It is normally divided into "sub-communities" each working on a particular field within science. |
|||
===Fields=== |
|||
{{main|Fields of science}} |
|||
[[File:Meissner effect p1390048.jpg|thumb|The [[Meissner effect]] causes a [[magnet]] to levitate above a [[superconductor]]]] |
|||
<!-- The organizational tables have been moved to the main article "Fields of science" --> |
|||
Fields of science are widely-recognized categories of specialized expertise, and typically embody their own [[terminology]] and [[nomenclature]]. Each field will commonly be represented by one or more [[scientific journal]], where [[peer reviewed]] research will be published. |
|||
===Institutions=== |
|||
[[File:Académie des Sciences 1671.jpg|thumb|upright|[[Louis XIV]] visiting the {{lang|fr|[[French Academy of Sciences|Académie des sciences]]}} in 1671]] |
|||
[[Learned society|Learned societies]] for the communication and promotion of scientific thought and experimentation have existed since the [[Renaissance]] period.<ref>{{cite web | last=Parrott | first=Jim | date=August 9, 2007 | url=http://www.scholarly-societies.org/1599andearlier.html | title=Chronicle for Societies Founded from 1323 to 1599 | publisher=Scholarly Societies Project | accessdate=2007-09-11}}</ref> The oldest surviving institution is the {{lang|it|''[[Accademia dei Lincei]]''}} in [[Italy]].<ref>{{cite web | year=2006 | url=http://positivamente.lincei.it/ | title=Benvenuto nel sito dell'Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei | language=Italian | publisher=Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei | accessdate=2007-09-11}}</ref> National [[Academy of Sciences]] are distinguished institutions that exist in a number of countries, beginning with the British [[Royal Society]] in 1660<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=2176 | title=Brief history of the Society | publisher=The Royal Society | accessdate=2007-09-11}}</ref> and the French {{lang|fr|''[[Académie des Sciences]]''}} in 1666.<ref>{{cite web | first=G.G. | last=Meynell | url=http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=2176 | title=The French Academy of Sciences, 1666-91: A reassessment of the French Académie royale des sciences under Colbert (1666-83) and Louvois (1683-91) | publisher=Topics in Scientific & Medical History | accessdate=2007-09-11}}</ref> |
|||
International scientific organizations, such as the [[International Council for Science]], have since been formed to promote cooperation between the scientific communities of different nations. More recently, influential government agencies have been created to support scientific research, including the [[National Science Foundation]] in the [[United States|U.S.]] |
|||
Other prominent organizations include the [[CONICET|National Scientific and Technical Research Council]] in Argentina, the [[academy of sciences|academies of science]] of many nations, [[CSIRO]] in Australia, {{lang|fr|[[Centre national de la recherche scientifique]]}} in France, [[Max Planck Society]] and {{lang|de|[[Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft]]}} in Germany, and in Spain, [[CSIC]]. |
|||
===Literature=== |
|||
{{main|Scientific literature}} |
|||
An enormous range of [[scientific literature]] is published.<ref>{{cite journal |
|||
| last=Ziman | first=Bhadriraju |
|||
| journal=Science |
|||
| title=The proliferation of scientific literature: a natural process |
|||
| year=1980 | volume=208 | issue=4442 |
|||
| pages=369–371 |
|||
| doi= 10.1126/science.7367863 |
|||
| pmid=7367863 }}</ref> [[Scientific journal]]s 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 of the Royal Society|Philosophical Transactions]]'', began publication in 1665. Since that time the total number of active periodicals has steadily increased. As of 1981, one estimate for the number of scientific and technical journals in publication was 11,500.<ref>{{cite book |
|||
| first=Krishna | last=Subramanyam |
|||
| coauthors=Subramanyam, Bhadriraju | year=1981 |
|||
| title=Scientific and Technical Information Resources |
|||
| publisher=CRC Press | isbn=0824782976 |
|||
| oclc=232950234 }}</ref> Today [[Pubmed]] lists almost 40,000, related to the medical sciences only.<ref>ftp://ftp.ncbi.nih.gov/pubmed/J_Entrez.txt</ref> |
|||
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 magazine]]s such as [[NewScientist|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 book]]s 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]].<ref>{{cite web | first=Mario | last=Petrucci |
|||
| url=http://writeideas.org.uk/creativescience/index.htm | title=Creative Writing <-> Science |
|||
| accessdate=2008-04-27 }}</ref> |
|||
==Philosophy of science== |
|||
{{main|Philosophy of science}} |
|||
[[File:Bose Einstein condensate.png|thumb|Velocity-distribution data of a gas of [[rubidium]] atoms, confirming the discovery of a new phase of matter, the [[Bose–Einstein condensate]]]] |
|||
The philosophy of science seeks to understand the nature and justification of scientific knowledge. It has proven difficult to provide a definitive [[Scientific method#Philosophy and sociology of science|account of scientific method]] that can decisively serve to distinguish science from non-science. Thus there are legitimate arguments about exactly where the borders are, which is known as the [[problem of demarcation]]. There is nonetheless a set of core precepts that have broad consensus among published philosophers of science and within the [[scientific community]] at large. For example, it is universally agreed that scientific hypotheses and theories must be capable of being independently tested and verified by other scientists in order to become accepted by the scientific community. |
|||
There are different schools of thought in the philosophy of scientific method. [[Methodological naturalism]] maintains that scientific investigation must adhere to [[empirical]] study and independent verification as a process for properly developing and evaluating natural explanations for [[observation|observable]] phenomena.<ref>{{cite journal|journal = The Review of Metaphysics|title = Casebeer, William D. Natural Ethical Facts: Evolution, Connectionism, and Moral Cognition|author = Brugger, E. Christian|volume = 58| issue = 2|year = 2004}}</ref> Methodological naturalism, therefore, rejects [[supernatural]] explanations, [[Appeal to authority|arguments from authority]] and biased [[observational studies]]. [[Critical rationalism]] instead holds that unbiased observation is not possible and a demarcation between natural and supernatural explanations is arbitrary; it instead proposes [[falsifiability]] as the landmark of empirical theories and falsification as the universal empirical method. Critical rationalism argues for the ability of science to increase the scope of testable knowledge, but at the same time against its [[authority]], by emphasizing its inherent [[fallibilism|fallibility]]. It proposes that science should be content with the rational elimination of errors in its theories, not in seeking for their verification (such as claiming certain or probable proof or disproof; both the proposal and falsification of a theory are only of methodological, conjectural, and tentative character in critical rationalism).<ref>{{cite book | title = Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge | author = Popper, Karl | publisher = Routledge | year = 2002 | isbn = 0061313769}}</ref> [[Instrumentalism]] rejects the concept of truth and emphasizes merely the utility of theories as instruments for explaining and predicting phenomena.<ref>{{cite book|title = The Rationality of Science | author = Newton-Smith, W. H. | location = London | publisher = Routledge | year = 1994 | page = 30|isbn = 0710009135}}</ref> |
|||
Another aspect is that philosophy is at least implicitly at the core of every decision made. The schools of philosophical thought determine what is a necessity for scientific inquiry to take place.<ref name=Kate >{{cite web |
|||
| last = A. |
|||
| first = Kate |
|||
| coauthors = Sergei, Vitaly |
|||
| title = Evolution and Philosophy: Science and Philosophy |
|||
| publisher = Think Quest |
|||
| date = 2000 |
|||
| url = http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/ph1.shtml |
|||
| accessdate = 19 January 2009}}</ref> |
|||
For instance, there are basic philosophical assumptions implicit at the foundation of science — namely, 1) that reality is objective and consistent, 2) that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately, and 3) that rational explanations exist for elements of the real world. These assumptions are based in naturalism, critical rationalism, and instrumentalism, within which science is done.<ref name=Kate /> Biologist [[Stephen Jay Gould|Stephen J. Gould]] maintained that certain philosophical propositions--i.e., 1) Uniformity of law and 2) uniformity of processes across time and space--must first be assumed before you can proceed as a scientist doing science. Gould summarized this view as follows: "You cannot go to a rocky outcrop and observe either the constancy of nature's laws nor the working of unknown processes. It works the other way around." You first assume these propositions and "then you go to the out crop of rock."<ref>{{cite book |
|||
| last = Gould |
|||
| first = Stephen J |
|||
| title = [[Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle]]: Myth and Metaphor in the Discovery of Geological Time |
|||
| publisher = Harvard University Press |
|||
| date = 1987 |
|||
| location = Cambridge, MA |
|||
| pages = 120 |
|||
| isbn = 0674891988}}</ref> |
|||
==Pseudoscience, fringe science, and junk science== |
|||
{{main| Pseudoscience|Fringe science|Junk science|Cargo cult science|Scientific misconduct}} |
|||
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 "alternative science". Another term, [[junk science]], is often used to describe scientific hypotheses or conclusions which, while perhaps legitimate in themselves, are believed to be used to support a position that is seen as not legitimately justified by the totality of evidence. A variety of commercial advertising, ranging from hype to fraud, may fall into this category. There also can be an element of political or ideological bias on all sides of such debates. Sometimes, research may be characterized as "bad science", research that is well-intentioned but is seen as 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. |
|||
==Critiques== |
|||
{{main|Criticisms of Science}} |
|||
===Philosophical critiques=== |
|||
Historian [[Jacques Barzun]] termed science "a [[faith]] as [[fanaticism|fanatical]] as any in [[history]]" and warned against the use of scientific thought to suppress considerations of [[meaning]] as integral to [[human]] existence.<ref>Jacques Barzun, ''Science: The Glorious Entertainment'', Harper and Row: 1964. p. 15. (quote) and Chapters II and XII.</ref> Many recent thinkers, such as [[Carolyn Merchant]], [[Theodor Adorno]] and [[E. F. Schumacher]] considered that the 17th century [[scientific revolution]] shifted science from a focus on understanding [[nature]], or [[wisdom]], to a focus on manipulating nature, i.e. [[power (sociology)|power]], and that science's emphasis on manipulating nature leads it inevitably to manipulate people, as well.<ref name=UW>Fritjof Capra, ''Uncommon Wisdom'', ISBN 0-671-47322-0, p. 213</ref> Science's focus on quantitative measures has led to critiques that it is unable to recognize important qualitative aspects of the world.<ref name=UW/> |
|||
Philosopher of science [[Paul K Feyerabend]] advanced the idea of [[epistemological anarchism]], which holds that there are no useful and exception-free [[methodology|methodological rules]] governing the [[scientific progress|progress of science]] or the growth of [[knowledge]], and that the idea that science can or should operate according to universal and fixed rules is unrealistic, pernicious and detrimental to science itself.<ref name="contra">{{cite book | last = Feyerabend | first = Paul |authorlink = Paul Feyerabend | title = Against Method | publisher = Verso | location = London | year = 1993 | isbn = 9780860916468 }}</ref>. Feyerabend advocates treating science as an [[ideology]] alongside others such as [[religion]], [[Magic (paranormal)|magic]] and [[mythology]], and considers the dominance of science in society [[authoritarian]] and unjustified.<ref name="contra"/>. He also contended (along with [[Imre Lakatos]]) 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.<ref name="contra"/> |
|||
Feyerabend also criticized Science for not having evidence for its own philosophical precepts. Particularly the notion of Uniformity of Law and the Uniformity of Process across time and space. "We have to realize that a unified theory of the physical world simply does not exist" says Feyerabend, "We have theories that work in restricted regions, we have purely formal attempts to condense them into a single formula, we have lots of unfounded claims (such as the claim that all of chemistry can be reduced to physics), phenomena that do not fit into the accepted framework are suppressed; in physics, which many scientists regard as the one really basic science, we have now at least three different points of view...without a promise of conceptual (and not only formal) unification"<ref>{{cite book | isbn = 0860911845 | title = Farewell To Reason| page = 100 | publisher = Verso | last = Feyerabend | first = Paul | year = 1987 | authorlink = Paul Feyerabend}}</ref>. |
|||
Professor [[Stanley Aronowitz]] scrutinizes science for operating with the presumption that the only acceptable criticisms of science are those conducted within the methodological framework that science has set up for itself. That science insists that only those who have been inducted into its community, through means of training and credentials, are qualified to make these criticisms.<ref>{{cite book | isbn = 0816616590 | title = Science As Power: Discourse and Ideology in Modern Society | page = viii (preface) | publisher = University of Minnesota Press | last = Aronowitz | first = Stanley | year = 1988 | authorlink = Stanley Aronowitz}}</ref> Aronowitz also alleges that while scientists consider it absurd that [[Fundamentalist Christianity]] uses biblical references to bolster their claim that the bible is true, scientists pull the same tactic by using the tools of science to settle disputes concerning its own validity.<ref>Stanley Aronowitz in conversation with Derrick Jensen in {{cite book | isbn = 1931498520 | title = Welcome to the Machine: Science, Surveillance, and the Culture of Control | page = 31 | publisher = Chelsea Green Publishing Company | last = Jensen | first = Derrick | year = 2004 | authorlink = Derrick Jensen}}</ref> |
|||
Psychologist [[Carl Jung]] believed that though science attempted to understand all of nature, the experimental method imposed artificial and conditional questions that evoke equally artificial answers. Jung encouraged, instead of these 'artificial' methods, empirically testing the world in a [[Holism|holistic]] manner.<ref>{{cite book | isbn = 0691017948 | title = Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle | page = 35 | publisher = Princeton University Press | last = Jung | first = Carl | year = 1973 | authorlink = Carl Jung}}</ref> David Parkin compared the [[epistemology|epistemological]] stance of science to that of [[divination]].<ref>{{harvnb|Parkin|1991}} "Simultaneity and Sequencing in the Oracular Speech of Kenyan Diviners", p. 185.</ref> He suggested that, to the degree that divination is an epistemologically specific means of gaining insight into a given question, science itself can be considered a form of divination that is framed from a Western view of the nature (and thus possible applications) of knowledge. |
|||
Several academics have offered critiques concerning [[ethics]] in science. In ''Science and Ethics'', for example, the philosopher [[Bernard Rollin]] examines the relevance of ethics to science, and argues in favor of making education in ethics part and parcel of scientific training.<ref>{{cite book |
|||
| first=Bernard E. | last=Rollin | year=2006 |
|||
| title=Science and Ethics |
|||
| publisher=Cambridge University Press |
|||
| isbn=0521857546 |
|||
| oclc=238793190 }}</ref> |
|||
===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]] requires considerable expertise regarding the matter.<ref>{{cite web |
|||
| last=Dickson | first=David | date=October 11, 2004 |
|||
| url=http://www.scidev.net/Editorials/index.cfm?fuseaction=readEditorials&itemid=131&language=1 |
|||
| title=Science journalism must keep a critical edge |
|||
| publisher=Science and Development Network |
|||
| accessdate=2008-02-20 |
|||
}}</ref> Few journalists have real scientific knowledge, and even [[beat reporter]]s who know a great deal about certain scientific issues may know little about other ones they are suddenly asked to cover.<ref>{{cite web |
|||
| last=Mooney | first=Chris | year=2007 |
|||
| url=http://cjrarchives.org/issues/2004/6/mooney-science.asp |
|||
| title=Blinded By Science, How 'Balanced' Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality |
|||
| publisher=Columbia Journalism Review |
|||
| accessdate=2008-02-20 |
|||
}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |
|||
| last=McIlwaine | first=S. | coauthors=Nguyen, D. A. |
|||
| title=Are Journalism Students Equipped to Write About Science? |
|||
| journal=Australian Studies in Journalism |
|||
| year=2005 | volume=14 | pages=41–60 |
|||
| url=http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:8064 |
|||
| accessdate=2008-02-20 }}</ref> |
|||
===Politics=== |
|||
Many issues damage the relationship of science to the media and the use of science and scientific arguments by [[politician]]s. 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 [[United Kingdom|Britain]] 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 eggs were contaminated with ''[[Salmonella]]''.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/3/newsid_2519000/2519451.stm "1988: Egg industry fury over salmonella claim"], "On This Day," BBC News, December 3, 1988.</ref> |
|||
==See also== |
|||
{{Portal|Science|Nuvola apps kalzium.png}} |
|||
{{main|Outline of science}} |
|||
==Notes== |
|||
{{reflist|2}} |
|||
==References== |
|||
* [[Paul Feyerabend|Feyerabend, Paul]] (2005). ''Science, history of the philosophy'', as cited in {{cite book |author=Honderich, Ted |title=The Oxford companion to philosophy |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=Oxford [[Oxfordshire]] |year=2005 |pages= |isbn=0199264791 |oclc= 173262485|doi=}} of.'' Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford. |
|||
* {{cite book|author=Feynman, R.P.|year=1999|title=The Pleasure of Finding Things Out: The Best Short Works of Richard P. Feynman|publisher=Perseus Books Group|isbn=0465023959 | oclc = 181597764}} |
|||
* [[David Papineau|Papineau, David]]. (2005). ''Science, problems of the philosophy of.'', as cited in {{cite book |author=Honderich, Ted |title=The Oxford companion to philosophy |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=Oxford [[Oxfordshire]] |year=2005|isbn=0199264791 |oclc= 173262485}} |
|||
* {{Cite book|last=Parkin|first=D|year=1991|article=Simultaneity and Sequencing in the Oracular Speech of Kenyan Diviners|editor=Philip M. Peek|title=African Divination Systems: Ways of Knowing|location=Indianapolis, IN|publisher=Indiana University Press}}. |
|||
==Further reading== |
|||
* Augros, Robert M., Stanciu, George N., "The New Story of Science: mind and the universe", Lake Bluff, Ill.: Regnery Gateway, c1984. ISBN 0895268337 |
|||
* Baxter, Charles {{PDFlink|[http://www.adihome.org/phpshop/pdf/articles/DIN_02_01_10.pdf "Myth versus science in educational systems"]|66.4 KB}} |
|||
* {{cite book|last=Becker|first=Ernest|title=The structure of evil; an essay on the unification of the science of man|location=New York|publisher=G. Braziller|year=1968|authorlink=Ernest Becker}} |
|||
* Cole, K. C., ''Things your teacher never told you about science: Nine shocking revelations'' [[Newsday]], [[Long Island, New York]], March 23, 1986, pg 21+ |
|||
* Feynman, Richard [http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/02/CargoCult.pdf "Cargo Cult Science"] |
|||
* Gopnik, Alison, [http://www.amacad.org/publications/winter2004/gopnik.pdf "Finding Our Inner Scientist"], [[Daedalus (journal)|Daedalus]], Winter 2004. |
|||
* Krige, John, and Dominique Pestre, eds., ''Science in the Twentieth Century'', Routledge 2003, ISBN 0-415-28606-9 |
|||
* [[Thomas Samuel Kuhn|Kuhn, Thomas]], ''[[The Structure of Scientific Revolutions]]'', 1962. |
|||
* MacComas, William F. {{PDFlink|[http://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/roe/Knowability_590/Week2/Myths%20of%20Science.pdf "The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myths"]|189 KB}} Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California. Direct Instruction News. '''Spring 2002''' 24–30. |
|||
* {{cite book|last=Obler|first=Paul C.|coauthors=Estrin, Herman A.|title = The New Scientist: Essays on the Methods and Values of Modern Science | publisher = Anchor Books, Doubleday |date=1962}} |
|||
* {{cite book | first=Daniel Patrick | last=Thurs | year=2007 | title=Science Talk: Changing Notions of Science in American Popular Culture| pages=22–52 | publisher=Rutgers University Press | location=New Brunswick, NJ | isbn=978-0-8135-4073-3 }} |
|||
* [[Yuval Levin|Levin, Yuval]] (2008). ''Imagining the Future: Science and American Democracy''. New York, Encounter Books. ISBN 1594032092 |
|||
* Stephen Gaukroger. ''The Emergence of a Scientific Culture: Science and the Shaping of Modernity 1210-1685.'' Oxford, Clarendon Press, 2006, 576 pp. |
|||
==External links== |
|||
{{sisterlinks}} |
|||
'''Publications''' |
|||
* "''[[b:GCSE Science|GCSE Science textbook]]''". [[Wikibooks]].org |
|||
'''News''' |
|||
* [http://www.newscientist.com Current Events]. [[New Scientist]] Magazine, Reed Business Information, Ltd. |
|||
* [http://www.sciencedaily.com ScienceDaily] |
|||
* [http://sciencia.org Sciencia] |
|||
* [http://www.discovermagazine.com Discover Magazine] |
|||
* [http://www.science.ie/ Irish Science News] from Discover Science & Engineering |
|||
'''Resources''' |
|||
* [http://www.euroscience.org/ Euroscience]: |
|||
** [http://www.euroscience.org/esof.html Euroscience Open Forum] (ESOF) |
|||
* [http://www.sciencecouncil.org/DefiningScience.php Science Council] |
|||
* [http://www.en.argentina.ar/_en/science-and-education/ Science Development in the ''Latin American docta''] |
|||
* [http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-57 Classification of the Sciences] Dictionary of the History of Ideas |
|||
* [http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/nature/index.shtml "Nature of Science"] University of California Museum of Paleontology |
|||
* [http://www.science.gov United States Science Initiative]. Selected science information provided by U.S. Government agencies, including research and development results. |
|||
[[Category:Science| ]] |
|||
{{Link FA|nl}} |
|||
{{Link FA|tr}} |
|||
[[af:Wetenskap]] |
|||
[[ar:علم]] |
|||
[[an:Sciencia]] |
|||
[[as:বিজ্ঞান]] |
|||
[[ast:Ciencia]] |
|||
[[ay:Yatxatawi]] |
|||
[[az:Elm]] |
|||
[[bn:বিজ্ঞান]] |
|||
[[zh-min-nan:Kho-ha̍k]] |
|||
[[ba:Фән]] |
|||
[[be:Навука]] |
|||
[[be-x-old:Навука]] |
|||
[[bar:Wissnschåft]] |
|||
[[bs:Nauka]] |
|||
[[br:Skiant]] |
|||
[[bg:Наука]] |
|||
[[ca:Ciència]] |
|||
[[cv:Ăслăх]] |
|||
[[ceb:Kaalamdag]] |
|||
[[cs:Věda]] |
|||
[[cy:Gwyddoniaeth]] |
|||
[[da:Videnskab]] |
|||
[[de:Wissenschaft]] |
|||
[[et:Teadus]] |
|||
[[el:Επιστήμη]] |
|||
[[es:Ciencia]] |
|||
[[eo:Scienco]] |
|||
[[ext:Céncia]] |
|||
[[eu:Zientzia]] |
|||
[[fa:علم]] |
|||
[[fr:Science]] |
|||
[[fy:Wittenskip]] |
|||
[[fur:Sience]] |
|||
[[ga:Eolaíocht]] |
|||
[[gd:Saidheans]] |
|||
[[gl:Ciencia]] |
|||
[[gan:科學]] |
|||
[[gu:વિજ્ઞાન]] |
|||
[[hak:Khô-ho̍k]] |
|||
[[ko:과학]] |
|||
[[haw:Akeakamai]] |
|||
[[hy:Գիտություն]] |
|||
[[hi:विज्ञान]] |
|||
[[hr:Znanost]] |
|||
[[io:Cienco]] |
|||
[[bpy:বিজ্ঞান]] |
|||
[[id:Ilmu]] |
|||
[[ia:Scientia]] |
|||
[[os:Зонад]] |
|||
[[xh:ISyensya]] |
|||
[[is:Vísindi]] |
|||
[[it:Scienza]] |
|||
[[he:מדע]] |
|||
[[jv:Èlmu]] |
|||
[[kn:ವಿಜ್ಞಾನ]] |
|||
[[ka:მეცნიერება]] |
|||
[[csb:Ùczba]] |
|||
[[kk:Ғылым]] |
|||
[[kw:Godhonieth]] |
|||
[[sw:Sayansi]] |
|||
[[kg:Kizabu]] |
|||
[[ht:Syans]] |
|||
[[ku:Zanist]] |
|||
[[la:Scientia]] |
|||
[[lv:Zinātne]] |
|||
[[lb:Wëssenschaft]] |
|||
[[lt:Mokslas]] |
|||
[[li:Weitesjap]] |
|||
[[jbo:saske]] |
|||
[[lmo:Scienza]] |
|||
[[hu:Tudomány]] |
|||
[[mk:Наука]] |
|||
[[ml:ശാസ്ത്രം]] |
|||
[[mt:Xjenza]] |
|||
[[ms:Sains]] |
|||
[[mwl:Ciéncia]] |
|||
[[mn:Шинжлэх ухаан]] |
|||
[[nah:Tlamatiliztli]] |
|||
[[nl:Wetenschap]] |
|||
[[ne:विज्ञान]] |
|||
[[new:विज्ञान]] |
|||
[[ja:科学]] |
|||
[[pih:Saiens]] |
|||
[[no:Vitenskap]] |
|||
[[nn:Vitskap]] |
|||
[[nrm:Scienche]] |
|||
[[oc:Sciéncia]] |
|||
[[mhr:Шанче]] |
|||
[[uz:Fan]] |
|||
[[pnb:سائنس]] |
|||
[[pap:Siencia]] |
|||
[[pms:Siensa]] |
|||
[[nds:Wetenschop]] |
|||
[[pl:Nauka]] |
|||
[[pt:Ciência]] |
|||
[[crh:İlim]] |
|||
[[ro:Ştiinţă]] |
|||
[[qu:Hamut'ay]] |
|||
[[ru:Наука]] |
|||
[[sah:Үөрэх]] |
|||
[[sm:Saienisi]] |
|||
[[sco:Science]] |
|||
[[st:Sayense]] |
|||
[[sq:Shkencëtari]] |
|||
[[scn:Scienza]] |
|||
[[si:බටහිර-විද්යාව හෙවත් සයන්ස්]] |
|||
[[simple:Science]] |
|||
[[ss:Isayensi]] |
|||
[[sk:Veda]] |
|||
[[sl:Znanost]] |
|||
[[ckb:زانست]] |
|||
[[srn:Skoro]] |
|||
[[sr:Наука]] |
|||
[[sh:Nauka]] |
|||
[[su:Élmu]] |
|||
[[fi:Tiede]] |
|||
[[sv:Vetenskap]] |
|||
[[tl:Agham]] |
|||
[[ta:அறிவியல்]] |
|||
[[tt:Фән]] |
|||
[[th:วิทยาศาสตร์]] |
|||
[[tg:Илм]] |
|||
[[ve:Saintsi]] |
|||
[[tr:Bilim]] |
|||
[[uk:Наука]] |
|||
[[ur:سائنس]] |
|||
[[ug:پەن]] |
|||
[[za:Gohyoz]] |
|||
[[vec:Sienza]] |
|||
[[vi:Khoa học]] |
|||
[[fiu-vro:Tiidüs]] |
|||
[[wa:Syince]] |
|||
[[zh-classical:格致]] |
|||
[[war:Syensya]] |
|||
[[ts:Sciences]] |
|||
[[yi:וויסנשאפט]] |
|||
[[yo:Sáyẹ́nsì]] |
|||
[[zh-yue:科學]] |
|||
[[bat-smg:Muokslos]] |
|||
[[zh:科学]] |
|||
Revision as of 10:40, 4 May 2010
BUM SEX