Talk:Science/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The review of Physics continues at Talk:Physics/wip

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

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

Linkspam

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

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

Okay, proposed changes:

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

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

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

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

Fields not canonically science

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

It's unclear what purpose this serves.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Practical Pulic Useable Sciences Definitions Advised

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

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

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

Science and social sciences

• Social sciences, which study human behavior and societies (although according to several definitions of science, including those stated above, the social sciences are not overwhelmingly considered to be science, and in fact many groups of people from academicians[1] to politicians[2] oppose the use of the label "science" in some fields of study and knowledge they consider non-scientific[3], [4])

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

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

There was no total deletion; I removed this version from the introduction, but I added a new paragraph under Science#Fields of science to direct to the correct article about at least one concrete dispute (feel free to add others if there are others, but please don't weasel it down to something like "although according to several definitions of science, including those stated above[which is not correct BTW], the social sciences are not overwhelmingly considered to be science, and in fact many groups of people from academicians[5] to politicians[6] oppose the use of the label "science" in some fields of study and knowledge they consider non-scientific[7], [8])" (I emphasized the parts that are weasels). That's far too unspecific and broad to be a useful information for an encyclopedic article. If you write about a dispute, don't try to include all positions in one sentence with "many", "most", "some", "critics", "proponents". Instead be specific and to the point, write who (names) took part in the dispute, which positions were defended, when and where did the dispute happen, why are there confliciting positions etc. --Rtc 14:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Sciences

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

Public perception of science in France

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

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

Dpotop 11:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Political Science vs Politics

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

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

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

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

Objective

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

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

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

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

Suggestion

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

Another Suggestion

The article states ...

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

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

Enlightenment template

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

Map of science

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

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

Scientific Literacy

Hello all. I started an article on scientific literacy. [9]. I believe its a notable and important subject. Help is welcome. Docleaf 11:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Popper?

In the article Popper is referenced for claims about science. Since when is Popper considered to be an authoratative source about what science is? Gkochanowsky 17:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a fundamental article dealing with the definition of science. The content of the article is in the realm of philosophy and debate and, although Popper is opinionated, he makes some statements which have concensus in the scientific community. Some of these include formal definitons of empiricism, verification, &c. He also makes assertions which are philosophically debateable and which he recognises as such. Any statements in this article which are subject to debate should be described as such and a small explanation of the debate should be given (or linked to). There is nothing wrong with an article on the definition of science to reference Popper and other philosophers of science (who else could such an article reference), but it shouldn't just reference them. --Oldak Quill 06:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is the content of the article in the realm of philosophy? This is an article on science isn't it? And perhaps if Popper was one of many references the preponderance of which were from actual scientists rather than armchair realists such as Popper then you would have a point. Now if you want to start an article on the Philosophy of Science then quote all the philosophers you like, but I would think that an authoritative article on science would quote what leading and notable scientists thought science was. 65.41.3.49 03:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You have a point. Since there exists a Wiki on Philosophy of science, probably all issues dealing with it as an academic subject should be severely summarized here, and referred there under heading of a "main article." Leaving more room here for the thoughts and habitual practices of working scientists who do not, and do not have to, separate the philosophy and the activity. SBHarris 00:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Defining science is a largely philosophical venture. --Oldak Quill 16:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

From a philospher’s view I suppose it is. But it is scientists that do it. I would think they have something in mind when they are doing it. Maybe they should be referred to when talking about the thing that scientists actually do. A place to start would be Feynman’s observation about science "Cargo Cult Science". I do not think anyone one would dispute his bona fides as a scientist and he does have something to say about what he does as a scientist. Gkochanowsky 15:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There is also, Scientific method. The references to Popper are mostly in the lead, which does not need to be referenced if the material is expended lower down. The references to Popper should be in the sections on Scientific method and Philosophy of science. I think the lead needs to be rewritten. --Bduke 22:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Is traditional chinese medicine science?

Could it be that in looking for a definition for science that will please everyone we're left with nothing meaningful? I'm afraid that may be the case here. After all, doesn't "any system of knowledge which attempts to model objective reality" include Traditional Chinese Medicine? I think we'd all agree that TCM (a holistic system of prediction, explanation, and experimentation) is not science.

I think there's two things we're missing here about science, the way things are observed and the reason why:

• Scientists use measurement for mathematical modeling and attempt to atomize or isolate factors/variables in order to understand things in terms of one or a few variables with the aim of modification of that variable.
• TCM requires a holistic vision, with a near infinite number of factors. While the human mind (noone knows how) can deal with reality in these terms, computers, and science and methematical models cannot. Scientists can also be holistic observers, and i'm willing to bet that better than most people, but it's not what helps them do their job.
• Both seek to understand basic principles of nature but for different reasons: Science's goal is to manipulate, effective but often with unpredictable side effects.
• TCM's (actually taoism's) goal is to harmonize the person with the environment, less effective but wiser in a world quickly disposing of many unreplacable resources.

Not to condemn one or the other, or to claim that they're mutually exclusive. Both holistic and scientific views are important and necessary, can be used complementary, and their predictions more often than not overlap even when the underlying explanations have mechanisms which are seemingly contradictory. Brallan 13:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think your criticism has pointed out a weakeness in the original LEAD definition, which I've attempted to fix with a qualification. Science isn't just about models; in order to be science, it must be about quantitatively PREDICTIVE models. No objective quantitative prediction, no science. TCM fails, there. Or largely fails. It isn't quantitative and it isn't objectively describle, even where it is predictive. It doesn't say that X number of blinded practicioners will agree with some statistical alpha that a given patient A is short of yin by a certain degree when they examine the patient, and that if he eats (say) potatoes, his condition can be expected statistically to improve by n-yin units, per potato eaten, per day. And that improvement in yin status will be expected to be noticed by Y independent and binded practitioners of TCM, who might examine him later, after therapy. If all this was true, TCM would be objective and quantifiable, and would be a science. But it's not. Not by a LOOOOONG shot. However, modern medical practice in many ways reaches all these criteria. As does political science when it comes to future voter behavior. And of course, all other other hard physical sciences we use as examples all meet these criteria, through their mathematical theoretical predictions. SBHarris 00:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Use of First Person

Why are the "goals of science" written in first person. Perhaps they should be changed to third person, considering that is how every other article is written? Brett 01:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Urdu Wikipedia

• Please enter the science page link of Urdu wiki in the interwiki links as, [[ur:سائنس]]

Thank you. Urdu wiki user.

protected?

Is there a reason this article is protected, but has no protection tag?--69.118.235.97 22:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

The introduction is unfortunately very misleading, not neutral and almost wrong. It begins with (1) "In the broadest sense science ... refers to any systematic methodology which attempts to collect accurate information about the shared reality and to model this in a way which can be used to make reliable, concrete and quantitative predictions about events, past, present, and future, in line with observations" and goes on with (2) "In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.", citing Popper. Now it is in fact the opposite. The latter is the broad sense, the former is one more restricted point of view on a specific aspect, the scientific method. It is the point of view of the "bucket theory" of the scientific method, which sees science as the activity of passively collecting evidence, then using this evidence to support a theory by logical conclusions that permit reliable predictions. However, contrary to what the citation suggests, and contrary to popular belief, Popper disagreed with this view completely. He held the "searchlight theory" of the scientific method, in which science first proposes a theory and then collects evidence—not to support the theory or make it more reliable, but to check selected aspects for errors. This explicitly does not make the theory more reliable, but simply less erroneous (more truthlike); and the goal is not reliable, "justified belief", but pure truth untainted by any attempts at justification. (You can find a good online description of the general differences between the bucket theory and the searchlight theory at [10]) Do not confuse truth and reliability! According to popper, the second doesn't exist, not even for evidence itself. Please put item (2) first and then describe (1) (Bucket theory) and, according to WP:NPOV, add the searchlight theory as an alternative point of view concering the scientific method. ---rtc 23:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Charles Darwin noted that scientists make observations for the purpose of supporting or destroying pre-existant theories, and that data is almost never collected in a vacuum without a sieve. The world is way too complicated for it to be otherwise. But Popper's insistance that this idea should be formally systematized into the modern "scientific method," which is the experimental method that underlies the modern statistical natural sciences, is a sideline to this article. This article is not about the natural sciences or about Popper, or about the modern scientific method. It's a general article which must cover the historical use of the word "science." Our ancestors had the building of sailboats down to a science long before Popper. Or Darwin, for that matter. And before statistics and before natural science was even called natural philosophy. Read the historical section of the article. The INTRO needs to reflect this broader context of the word "science", and not get mired down with arguments about post-modernist interpretations of how the scientific method actually is employed in doing (say) physics. SBHarris 00:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read again what I wrote. Of course, the article should give the broader context, which is already done by (2). If a more specific account on the scientific method is desired, then both major points of view must be described, and not only the bucket theory (1). Starting the article with the bucket theory (1) in a way that suggests that it is the only major view and the general base of all science is not neutral. I even doubt that anything but (2) needs to be said in the introduction. The specific accounts of the views on the scientific method can be described in the respective section. I am not requesting to include arguments, I would already be satisfied if it were at least described that there are two quite different major points of view about the issue. --rtc 09:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Totally Disputed

I put that tag in there because the POV within the article (especially the introduction, as already mentioned above, but it has become even worse in the mean time, and Science#Goal(s) of science) is really hardly bearable, up to denying that science seeks for absolute truth. Some scientists and people in philosophy of science may see this so, but it's neither attributed to some position nor are alternative positions described. It's written from the very primitive naive empiricist view that science works by making observations and then modelling them. There is this other direction in the philosophy of science, which is called rationalism, which strictly disagrees. The most recent form, critical rationalism, holds the complete opposite; that first some theory is made and then the observation. That's at least mentioned in one section, yet the others are ignoring such positions and writing it from the naive empiricist POV. The article needs to be improved a lot. --rtc 08:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. It might be worthwhile for you to focus your zeal for this subject over at scientific method rather than here. This section is quickly becoming more detailed in some ways than the main article. (See Wikipedia:Summary style.) Silly rabbit 02:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Some removed material

Removed from the Etymology section. Placed immediately below for future reference. ... Kenosis 01:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

"Science is classification" - Aristotle (about 340 B.C.)

"Science is commonsense classified" - Herbert Spencer.

"Science eliminates the worthless and the useless and then makes use of it in something else." - Thomas A. Edison

... 01:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The following was removed July 5 from the section on "Goals of science": ... Kenosis 13:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

“ Without the influence of custom, we should be entirely ignorant of every matter of fact beyond what is immediately present to the memory and senses. ” — David Hume, 1737

Intro going downhill fast

Wow, I looked in on this article a few weeks ago, made a few small changes to what was already a good intro. I come along today and the intro is completely different, and much for the worse. "Science ... is a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research"??. Come on, now. The "to" is an outright error and the first clause amounts to saying "Science is Science". I'm not a regular on this article so I don't feel right just taking things into my own hands, but I sure hope one of you regulars will either rewrite that thing or restore it to its former adequacy. JDG 23:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. There has been some deterioration of the lead over time, and some significant changes were made to the first paragraph recently. I'm not sure how much interest there is in this article during the summer season, but it would be nice to have it back in shape when the kids come back in full force in September. Much of the audience for this article is quite young, and trying to get a handle on what science is. This is, in very substantial part, why the article is always semi-protected, so as to help in avoiding petty vandalism like "Mrs. Jones is a ____" and such.

I think one of the issues that will need to be settled is whether to accept User:Rtc's recent elimination of broader definitions of science beyond empirical and formal science (loosely, any organized body of knowledge) which were mentioned previously in the first paragraph then narrowed down to a stricter definition. Frankly, I too favor cutting right to the chase by defining science as that which follows scientific method as understood today by the scientific community, with a separate mention, as there already is, of mathematics and other formal science such as statistics, as well as of the applied sciences. ... Kenosis 01:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Scientific method

[11] reverted my edits, commenting that "this should be about what the scientific method IS, not its history". 1) This is about what the scientific method 'IS', describing two points of view about it, according to WP:NPOV. 2) Of course some historical remarks are appropriate. In any case, reverting everything seems not justified Please write what you oppose in detail. --18:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's see, you're entire edit was off the march. Create and article on the Philosophy of Science and put your crap in there. There's much more to science than Karl Popper. Say fore Hail Popper's and three Our Popper's and you might find relief for you seeming idolatry of this man. •Jim62sch• 21:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course there is much more to science than Karl Popper, and I certainly don't idolize this man; it is merely an attempt to make the section more neutral. There's also much more to science than empiricism. Why don't you improve my edit, perhaps adding some more points of view? The section is completely unsourced and describes only some hearsay and popular philosophy prevalent within the scientific community. --rtc 06:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy as science

I think philosophy as a whole falls within the category of science just as math. Logic is identified as a kind of math in the opening section and logic is a kind of philosophy (see Philosophy). I don't think it deserves a lot attention in the article, but I think there should be a brief mention alongside mathm. --Ephilei 03:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Wasnt' theology once called the "Mother of the Sciences"? No more than very brief mentions for both, I'd say. Bendž|Ť 09:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed subsection

I've removed the following subsection and am placing it here for further consideration. ... Kenosis 04:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

=== Fields not canonically science ===

Uses of the word "science" in contexts other than those of the natural sciences, social sciences and formal science, may in many instances be historically valid, so long as they are describing an art or organized body of knowledge which can be taught objectively. The use of the word "science" is not therefore always an attempt to claim that the subject in question ought to stand on the same footing of inquiry as a natural science or those social sciences that make use of the scientific method in their research methodology.

The changing use of the word has resulted in much confusion (see above) when areas of inquiry and certain professions seem to have branded themselves as sciences, only for the added aura of seriousness or rigor that the term implies. Actuarial science, political science, computer science and library science sometimes make claim to the title because of their grounding in mathematical rigor.

Purported sciences, such as creation science, are connected with supernaturalism and not the naturalistic point of view held by a greater number of scientists. In such cases, opinions regarding whether or not creation science is scientific is heterogeneously disputed among different individuals, campuses, or states, with an implied majority of anthropologists disagreeing.

04:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed section

I've removed the entire section entitled "Science and social concerns", because it's useless as currently written IMO. The section most recently read as follows:... Kenosis 04:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

== Science and social concerns==

A thorough understanding of scientific method is important because it helps people to better utilize technology, which most humans interact with on a daily basis. This is especially significant in developed countries where advanced technology has become an important part of peoples' lives. Science education aims at increasing common knowledge about science and widening social awareness of scientific findings and issues. In developed countries, the process of learning science begins early in life for many people; school students start learning about science as soon as they acquire basic language skills and science is often an essential part of curriculum. Science education is also a very vibrant field of study and research. Learning science requires learning its language, which often differs from colloquial language. For example, the physical sciences heavily rely on mathematical jargon and Latin classification is pervasive in biological studies. The language used to communicate science is rife with terms pertaining to concepts, phenomena, and processes, which are initially alien to children.

Due to the growing economic value of technology and industrial research, the economy of any modern country depends on its state of science and technology. The governments of most developed and developing countries therefore dedicate a significant portion of their annual budget to scientific and technological research. Many countries have an official science policy and many undertake large-scale scientific projects—so-called "big science". The practice of science by scientists has undergone remarkable changes in the past few centuries. Most scientific research is currently funded by government or corporate bodies. These relatively recent economic factors appear to increase the incentive for some to engage in fraud in reporting the results of scientific research, often termed scientific misconduct. Occasional instances of verified scientific misconduct, however, are by no means solely modern occurrences. (see also: Junk science) In the United States, some have argued that with the politicization of science, funding for scientific research has suffered.

04:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC) Before that I had briefly addressed it, but quickly gave up in between this edit and here. I personally feel sure a section on "science and social concerns" would be appropriate to this article, but would like to see some way of presenting it that makes more sense. In any event, I've put it here for now, for everyone to consider. ... Kenosis 04:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The Quote in the Intro

Should the Quote be included in the intro: "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard P. Feynman. That seems either way off or vandalism. I will defer to the experts though. Jtflood1976 19:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Jtflood1976

I don't think it should be in the intro (it is not very encyclopedic style), but the quote is neither way off nor vandalism: it means, in short , that science does not assume that all knowledge is known, that experts know all. Which is a nice iconoclastic Feynman-y thing to say, but I don't think it belongs in the intro. --Panoptik 21:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Content issues

I find this article pretty weak at the moment. The "Scientific method" section is full of many statements which are either overstating its efficacy (promising that it delivers objectivity and all things like that) or are just empty (the scientific method finds solutions in scientific fields... tautology, much?).

I started thinking about how I would re-write it but I didn't get too far. Here's something of the approach I was taking:

The scientific method is an epistemological system by which to generate factual statements about nature. Though there is not a universally agreed upon description of exactly what the "scientific method" constitutes, the attempt to standardize the methods of acquiring knowledge and testing theories, for the purpose of eliminating falsehood and bias, has been a hallmark of modern science. In practice, the scientific method is often seen as a method for confirming or disproving ideas about the world more than it is a method for generating new ideas or new investigations. It is generally speaking the broad framework by which theoretical presuppositions are tested against empirical observation.

I think the above is much more in the flavor of how scientific method is discussed by serious students of it (rather than the off-the-cuff approaches you get in science textbooks), and reduces a lot of the fluff down to what it basically is and what it is meant to do.

As it currently stands the definition of the "scientific method" is also heavily bent towards science as a purely experimental endeavor. It refers to a whole number of activities that, say, a theoretical physicist, would never do. I'm not sure that is necessary; I don't think the point of the scientific method is that every single person always use it (which is false anyway) so much as it is here is the standard and set of protocols the enterprise of science as a whole uses to determine fact from falsehood. I think there is a little bit too much emphasis on the individual in this section.

The section also mashes up terms like "publicly available" and "peer review" in incompatible ways. "Peer review" is not the same thing as publicity; peer review is a specialized form of review by relevant experts before something is made publicly available.

In general it states far too much in the tone of "this is how science happens using the scientific method" rather than "this is how the scientific method is supposed to work and this is what it is supposed to accomplish." It is not the case that people are constantly retrying all experiments that are reported all the time; that is in fact pretty rare. It doesn't really matter, but the article sounds like it was written from someone who has not really studied science as an enterprise (and having studied a field of science does not necessarily make one immediately an expert in how science itself works).

The "Philosophy of science" article then presents us with a different definition of science and a lot of repetition. I think the "Scientific method" and "philosophy of science" parts could be very much folded into one another, since their goal here is the same (explain the underlying philosophy behind science as an approach to knowledge). Some aspects of it seem potentially misleading to me: methodological naturalism, for example, is not an "approach" to science, it is one of the underlying assumptions behind what is known as "science." Nobody who rejects methodological naturalism today is going to be considered a real scientist by the scientific community.

"Goals of science" reads more like a blog entry than an encyclopedia. Lots of probably one or two people's views of the goals of science presented as universal. The "What the goal is not" bit is ill-formed as well.

The article really needs an overhaul—for such an important topic it is almost useless. --Panoptik 21:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Historically false statements in the service of POV cheering for science

The section on the scientific method is littered with POV falsehoods. consider:

"Scientists never claim absolute knowledge of nature or the behavior of the subject of the field of study."

"NEVER?" No scientist has ever in the history of the world claimed absolute knowledge? Or is it that if he or she did claim absolute knowledge then he/she stopped being a scientist at that point?

" Unlike a mathematical proof, a scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification, if new evidence is presented."

By this measure Einstein was not a scientist. Nor for that matter is the Nobel Prize winner Steven Weinberg. cf. his comments about Maxwell's Laws being indisputable.

When empirical measurements showed that the general theory was wrong, Einstein responded by claiming that the measurments must have been wrong -- No evidence availve was going to trump his "absolute knowledge" and the general theory. Unless he could see the future (and measurements that would be taken then) Einstein DID "claim absolute knowledge" that trumped evidence. Did Einstein stop being a scientist at that point?

68.116.194.150 03:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Where is that table that showed all the major topics of physics, biology, chemistry?

Someone please revert this sudden change. I don't like it when this article doesn't have that big table full of different topics and terms...I love it, and I think it would be very useful to have it back...because it summarizes the key terms and theories/theorems in science...

Good science project site for kids

A good science fair resource and ideas for kids:

• Science Fair Projects Ideas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sciencefairprojects (talk • contribs) 12:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticism Section?

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

I can think of two:

• As our world is destroyed by technology I think we need to ask ourselves whether further progress is really necessary, if we really can find solutions to problems created by manipulation by means of further manipulation or whether this is a vicious cycle escapable only by learning to let natural processes occur on their own and minimally intervene.
• Scientific progress is a business, not the humanist endeavor many would like to believe. In a society with so much military spending, scientists often wind up working for the military and other organizations with antisocial goals.

Brallan 13:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That goes in the face of Original Research and NPOV. Trying to find a reliable source that doesn't shove down some agenda down reader's throats is going to be supremely difficult. --BirdKr (talk) 12:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The current "Critiques" section appears to be a grab-bag of random thoughts without any structure or flow. I think it badly needs a re-write and more content. The current criticisms seem to be:

• Unethical practices.
• Poor journalistic communication with the public.
• Negative impacts on society.
• Emphasis on results over philosophical wanderings.
• Jung prefers passive observation over laboratory experiments.

The statements about "considerations of meaning" and "important qualitative aspects of the world" seem too vague. Both could be explained better. I also think we need some counter-arguments.—RJH (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this article on "Science" is that it has been hijacked by a bunch of philosophy undergrads who are so slavishly into postmodernism that they want to add information on this article that pertains to their views: for example, physicists are sexist because most of them focus on hard stuff which is masculine and not fluids which are feminine. These aren't my words, but theirs. I'm fine if people want to post stuff about science from a non-scientific point of view - like gender inequality in wages of geoscience academia - but there are already articles about it on Wikipedia like "Sociology of Science". If you all can't get off your lazy asses and do something to make this article titled "Science" about science from a scientific point of view, before you know it, there will be a "Creationist Critique" headlining the article. 71.103.0.130 (talk) 05:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I see another problem in the article: an emphasis in the conection science-technology (technoscience), because technology is more criticable than science, and a biased view about the interaction between science and general culture. There is an emphasis about physics and biology, but what about historical, non experimental, non manipulative, observational sciences like cosmology, astronomy, paleontology, geology (for example, study of vulcanos and earthquakes), meteorology, climatology, computational neuroscience, computational biology, computational sociology, archeology, biological taxonomy (necessary for species conservation), ecology (remember, ecology is a biological science, not a political agenda!!!).

All these fields, by the definitions of the article, are not sciences! And pure mathematics, logics and teoretical computation is also not science because there is no technological applications nor experiments in these fields! So, I think that the initial, definitional section, locked, should be open for a definition of greater scope.

osame 12:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There are only two kinds of science:

• Natural science which is not man-made
• Man-made science which is more commonly called "religion".

An example of natural science is wood. Wood is not man-made. It is in fact beyond the power of mankind to create wood. What we choose to do with wood depends on our man-made religious beliefs. With respect to wood, the natural science laws limit us to changing wood's shape or location.

Dsoconno (talk) 05:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like original research to me. Can you provide multiple, reliable secondary sources to show that this is a mainstream view of the topic? Papa November (talk) 09:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

That is a very interesting religious question. Unfortunately, I am a scientist and not a theologian. I am only qualified to discuss what is not man-made. Is there a rational location to ask me about?

Dsoconno (talk) 01:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The Article starts talking about the real physical world and then almost immediately branches of into unrelated subject matter. I thought science was a method of study of a hierarchy of real physical entities. WFPM (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Science has done a lot of things to be criticized for. But that's mostly due to the size of it's acc omplishments. Consider our accomplishments in food production and housing and transportation and life expectancy which without the efforts of science would not be able to support our present day society. And we can only hope that the law of diminishing returns doesn't set in before we can hancle the rest of our problems. WFPM (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Is Naturalism integral to Science

I seem to recall that the definition of Science in Webster's New Collegate dictionary does not mention any requirement that science must be filtered through a naturalist philosophy.

Is it reasonable to change the phraseology to indicate that science is often influenced by Naturalistic philosophy instead of stating that science is a discipline of Naturalism? Gryff (talk) 03:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

you'd have to provide a source for that definition. Science must use a naturalism approach, saying something occurs because of 'magic' is not science; miracles and magic, being essentially inexplicable one-off events that are unrelated to the uniform physical processes that are assumed to make up the universe, are not useful as explanations and by their very nature could not be explained by science. I think naturalism is fine, I have a hard time thinking of a scientific discipline that uses non-naturalistic explanations. Parapsychology? WLU (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking in my American Heritage dictionary, the following definition is provided:

1a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.

b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.

c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.

3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.

4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

5. Science Christian Science.

My thinking had been that the phenomina were natural. M-theory, for example seems to rely on a hypothesis that other universes account for dimensional variables in our universe. To the extent that M-theory allows the introduction of variables that can be fit to observable, repeatable, and verifiable data, it seems to rely on the theoretical existance of leakage from other unknown and unknowable universes. Hence, M-theory relies on a cause that is either a theoretical construct or supernatural.

Net effect is that I agree with you. Leaving the definition as-is is probably fine. Gryff (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Positivism and Science

To Ryan Paris: You have removed the following edit from the definition:

A not entirely compatible definition is that Science is the attempt to create procedures to predict the outcome of experimental situations. Such definitions become increasingly relevant at the microscopic scales of Quantum Mechanics. Ironically the latter is often considered to be the foundation of all (at least Natural) Sciences.

Please explain why you have removed this. Do you consider that what Neils Bohr did was not Science?

Any description of Science is not complete without a Positivist understandins. At the moment the article is biased towards realist models of the world. This is particularly inappropriate for Quantum Mechanics.

Keith Bowden (Theoretical Physics Research Unit, Birkbeck College, London) Keithbowden (talk) 13:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

To Kenosis: You have replaced the edits of myself and Ryan Paris with the "long standing lead".

This is much better. The introduction is now entirely neutral on realism and positivism.

It is inappropriate to talk about "understanding" and "explanation" in Science without a balancing definition which allows the positivist point of view (and even a discussion of the schism). These should perhaps go elsewhere in the article.

I completely agree with the intro as it stands today. Keithbowden (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Scientific Method section

I'm puzzled by the end of the section on the scientific method, where it talks about Karl Popper:

Karl Popper denied the existence of evidence[15] and of scientific method.[16] Popper holds that there is only one universal method, the negative method of trial and error. It covers not only all products of the human mind, including science, mathematics, philosophy, art and so on, but also the evolution of life.[17]

Wouldn't it be clearer and more accurate to say that Popper's proposed scientific method relied mainly on falsifiability? That doesn't come through at all to me, reading the text that's there.

I notice that the same text appears in the main article on the Scientific_method.

Lukekendall (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Where did Popper propose that "scientific method" exists and "relied mainly on falsifiability"? How come the cited sources say the exact opposite? --rtc (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)~

To Lukekendall: It seems to me that Popper, later in his life, emphatized that evolutionary epistemology (trial and error, or mutation and selection of hypothesis) is a better description of his philosophy. Also, Popper accepted that there is not theory-independent "hard facts" (this technical stance should replace the misleading phrase "Karl Popper denied the existence of evidence"). This simply means that any observational "fact" is described by using theoretical constructs, and that even pure observations (like viewing a pointer in an apparatus) is a cerebral construct open to criticism (visual ilusions, etc). The fact that there is no pure objective facts and that facts are always interpreted is the fundation for the normal scientific activity of criticism of the validity of observations and experiments fundamental to any scientific polemics. The phrase "Popper denied the existence of a scientific method" must also be understood in the context of evolutionary epistemology: Popper would say that there is no perfect method to confirmation (verification) of empirical theories nor a perfect method to absolute empirical knowledge (in the sense that non empirical, formal sciences like mathematics or logics produce absolute knowledge throught explicit deduction of theorems). So, the paragraph mentioned by luke must be made more expicit because it is somewhat misleading... osame 12:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Section 4.1 Mathematics needs to be modified to clearly identify all mathematics as man-made languages. Studies in pure mathematics cannot be applied as credit towards an accredited pure science degree at any university in the country because mathematics is not science. Dsoconno (talk) 12:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's say that Chemistry is about what things are and Physics is about what things do, And that's Science. But if you dont have Mathematics you wont know about the relative size of things, and then where are you? WFPM (talk) 00:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You can locate every part of Natural Science (Chemistry, Physics, etc.) but languages have no location. Mathmetics is language, not science. Scientists invented Mathematics to communicate the locations of Natural Science. Dsoconno (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

False claims in the Method Section

re:

"Scientists never claim absolute knowledge of nature or the behavior of the subject..."

It is not true that scientists NEVER claim absolute knowledge. Some scientists have claimed absolute knowledge.

Why was it a problem that my edit had it that "Scientists usually do not claim absolute knowledge" ? Is that false?

Do the users who reverted my edits have absolute knowledge that no scientist has ever made claims to absolute knowledge?

Perhaps, by making such a claim to absolute knowledge of the history of science, these users are showing that they are not scientists themselves. Jncc0 (talk) 04:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In principle I agree that the word "never" is too strong. However, the proposed changed seemed wishy-washy. I think a different phrasing needs to be explored on the talk page first. Cheers, Silly rabbit (talk) 04:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is that the section is titled "method" -- which is a philosophy, or a procedure -- and the sentence in question is about people (that is, all scientists at every moment of their professional lives). Scientists are people and people periodically fail to live up the principles that they espouse. So, unless the point of the sentence is that a working scientist stops being a scientist when he or she make a claim of absolute knowledge about the world i should be changed. Therefore, I suggest that the section focus on norms or rules of procedure

If "never" is too strong, but "usually" is too wishy washy, then how about changing the sentence to be a statement along the lines of the following

the rules of the scientific method hold that scientists should never claim absolute knowledge

or, more precisely

according to Karl Popper, scientists should never claim absolute knowledge

Jncc0 (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, these are both improvements. I think the first one is probably better. The latter seems to suggest that only Popper holds the view, but I think it is relatively uncontroversial that scientists should never claim absolute knowledge. I know of no serious modern philosopher of scientist who disputes this. Silly rabbit (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think the first is better too. However, it has the problem that it suggests that there is only one scientific method.Jncc0 (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Where does Popper say that scientists should never claim absolute knowledge? --rtc (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well Popper basically said that scientific theories are merely abstract ideas used to explain and predict outcomes, and that it isn't possible to absolutely comfirm a theory, though it must be possible to falsify a theory in order for it to be science. Ergo, it isn't scientific to claim absolute knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lightnin Boltz (talk • contribs) 12:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to sign my post, but it looks like a bot just did it for me. Oh well, better late then never --Lightnin Boltz (talk) 12:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd say Popper didn't say scientists should never claim absolute knowledge, I'd guess it's more Popper said scientists can never absolutely know. Theories, according to Popper, are never proven. They fail to be disproven during testing. WLU (talk) 14:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Scientists are interested people who know that they dont know and are trying to find out. Which was explained by Plato as being an improvement over not knowing that you dont know in his "Meno". WFPM (talk) 00:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:Meissner effect.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Meissner effect.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Papa November (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that a photo about the deep field of galaxies of Hubble telescope is more representative of the word science than the almost unknown Meissner effect.osame 12:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osame (talk • contribs)

WTF!?

Why cant we edit this damn page!? Warning: Wikipidia may stop you when you're on an intellectual roll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PleaseVisitTheAppropriatePagesRegardingSaidTopic (talk • contribs) 00:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

As is mentioned at the very top of the article, new and unregistered users are temporarily prevented from editing the article due to recent and frequent vandalism. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice... looking forward to the science article becoming featured (if it ever happens). Twipley (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

Added to the criticisms section is a bit featuring input from Carl Jung and Robert Anton Wilson. Science#Epistemological_inadequacies A psychologist and a novelist aren't really great people to critique science in my mind, and surely there's a better way of pointing out the inadequacies of the scientific method. Any other thoughts? WLU (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If anything they used there main careers as an outlet for there philosophy that has had a rocognizable influence on our culture. Other critiques that still remain on the page have been made by historians and economists, if we can keep those then whats all uproar for two men who are notable philosophers as much as they are psychologists and writers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProductofSociety (talk • contribs) 17:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Notable as philosophers of science? Jung is historically important but I don't believe his theories are even seriously taught anymore, and has Wilson published anything academic? Also, using quotes for both, neither of whom are best known as philosophers of science, places huge weight upon their opinions. Can their quotes be summarized instead? WLU (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that a philosopher of science would critique science anymore then a philosopher of nihilism would for do the same for his branch of philosophy. Once you start to put serious doubt on science, would the scientific community ever consider you one of there own? Thats just me and I could be wrong, but do you see my point in that it may be asking for a bit much? If you want a critique of science the two most common learned communities you'll get it from are the schools of postmodernism and eastern thought who reject the mechanistic world view of the west- each of which is expressed by Jung and Wilson.

Wilson has worked with people of the trade, but not produced any academic material. And I wouldn't mind summarizing the quotes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.153.22 (talk) 06:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The view from nowhere has been criticized by philosophers, I've read an article on it and think it would be a much better criticism than the current versions. If Jung and Wilson are expressing two different worldviews, their criticisms would be better buttressed or replaced by philosophers of science. They're indeed critical of their own work, or they wouldn't be philosophers : ) I'll see if I can track down the article and in the mean time will summarize the quotes. WLU (talk) 14:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. WLU (talk) 14:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The following statement makes great sense, but is credited to Lawrence A. Kuznar's "Reclaiming a Scientific Anthropology"--wasn't this idea popularized by David Hume in the early 1800's (and thus he should be credited)?.

As such, the scientific method cannot deduce anything about the realm of reality that is beyond what is observable by existing or theoretical means.[16]

Lhomme77 (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

A better reference to academic criticism of the scientific community may be the works of Bruno Latour. Also, one could add a section about "radical criticism" or antiscientism, starting from the XVIII romantic movement through Heidegger, the Frankfurt School and the mid-60 generation (Theodore Roszak, Marcuse, Feyrabend etc) and the present romantic antiscientism (Postmodernism, New Age movements, right-wing antiscience, religious antiscience etc) with links to the "Antiscience" wikipage. osame 13:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osame (talk • contribs)

Problem with the lead section

The lead section doesn't really serve as a summary of the article (per Wikipedia:Lead section), but instead focuses primarily on the major divisions within science. There is also heavy emphasis on empirical vs. formal sciences, which the main body barely touches upon. Hence, that may need to be folded into the main article, followed by a re-write of the lead.

At the suggested length of four paragraphs, I believe that would leave about one paragraph each for the following:

• Introduction and History
• Scientific method
• Philosophy and critiques
• Scientific community.

Any thoughts?—RJH (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I merged most of the lead with the "Fields" section. It may need some clean up for flow.—RJH (talk) 01:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a heavy emphasis on empirical and formal sciences, and none at all into other types of sciences, like Human Science, almost equating science with empirical science. DanielDemaret (talk) 08:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

See Also

Is there a reason why the See Also list is right justified? I think it looks better on the left, see here. Any objections to the change? Jdrewitt (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

None that I'm aware.—RJH (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will change it to left justified then. Jdrewitt (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

History of Science

The section on the history of science is interesting, but I personally have two problems with it.

1. First of all, it seems to be based on American-only usage of the term, taken from "Changing Notions of Science in American Popular Culture". I may be wrong, but I think that British usage may differ, and that this should be reflected in the section somehow. Perhaps it would be enough to rename it from "History of Science", (which it is not) to "History of the usage of the word Science in American Popular Culture". A bit long, but at least it is correct.

2. A section that leads to a main article "History of Science" should be a summary of that main article, I thought. Here, the summary and the main article have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Perhaps it should be split into two separate paragraphs? 20:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC) DanielDemaret (talk) 09:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Needs to be fixed

"DNA determines the genetic structure of all life" is an invalid statement. There's AI and ET life as well, and "all life" is not all life on earth. Also, needs a source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.81.160.106 (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to "all life on earth". I don't think AI is can really be considered life however. Also, if you could sign your posts, even if you're not signed in, that would be great. Lightnin Boltz (talk) 12:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"science" in English and other languages

In English, the word "science" excludes humanities (doubters are invited to look at the list of departments included in the "Faculty of Science" of any English-speaking university), whereas in other languages, the equivalent of "science" includes humanities (e.g. French: sciences humaines). That is a big difference. Non-English speakers often use the word science incorrectly, leading to confusion that can give the uninitiated the impression that the humanities do not exist. That is a serious problem!

The English entry on science is currently linked to Francais: science, Deutsch: Wissenschaft etc., suggesting that these terms have equivalent meanings. It should be made clearer that this is not the case. One way to do that would be to link French: science, Deutsch: Wissenschaft and equivalents in many other languages to English: scholarship, English: research, and/or English: academe (academia), since these are the usual correct translations. Conversely, English: science should be linked to French: sciences naturelles and German: Naturwissenschaft.

Richard Parncutt 1.7.08 Parncutt (talk) 11:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a serious problem, and should be re-linked in all relevant languages. Also, It would be great if the heading could refer to some authority on this, rather than having to look up "faculty of science" of universities. 09:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC) DanielDemaret (talk) 09:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the link to the Swedish article from pointing to "Vetenskap" to "Naturvetenskap", since this is a better, althtough still not perfect translation of the word "Science". DanielDemaret (talk) 21:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC) The same should be done for the French, German and other languages. DanielDemaret (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and Richard, how does Human Science relate to this? And why does "Human science" link to one article, while "Human Sciences" link to "Social Science"? DanielDemaret (talk) 09:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

This has been solved: both now lead to the article Human science. I called for help from the ontologists to help bring order in how sciences are subdivided in categories, and why some have portals, categories and other not. It is still quite a mess. Thy for raising the issue and collaborating, SvenAERTS (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I forgot to add: in the organisation of "Science", for the moment, it is only subdivided into 3.1 Natural science, 3.2 Social science, 3.3 Formal science, 3.4 Applied science, 3 Interdisciplinary science and "Social science" is not mentioned, nor - how I thought sciences were subdivided: exact sciences, human sciences. What a mess. Awaiting the ontologists to come in. Cheers, SvenAERTS (talk) 09:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

A doubt: In English, Social Psychology and Economy are sciences? And archeology? osame 13:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osame (talk • contribs)

All this is explained in the article. The so-called "incorrect" way non-English speakers use the word is closely akin to the UK use of science, following the Greek use of the word "science" as referring to a developed body of knowledge which can be transmitted from one person to another. American universities tend to use science as a short form for "natural science" put we still have library science and political science which are straight from the older meaning of the word. The English word "science" USUALLY now refers to natural science, but it can also refer to the perfectly correct and older use of the term, as it is used in political science. In the same way, the English word "computer" now usually refers to a machine, not a job-description, but that doesn't mean the older use is now wrong. And pilot and driver now usually refer to controlling airplanes and automobiles, but their earlier uses to refer to people who control ships and animal-drawn wagons are NOT now incorrect. They are just now secondary (and less-used) meanings. SBHarris 23:54, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking again: Gee, you guys have redefined "science" to mean "natural science only", and now you're wondering why the whole non-English-speaking world, and considerable parts of English usage also, disagree with you! The old introduction was a lot more accurate:

In its broadest sense, science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") refers to any systematic knowledge or practice. In its more usual restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research. This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word. Science as discussed in this article is sometimes termed experimental science to differentiate it from applied science, which is the application of scientific research to specific human needs, though the two are often interconnected.

.

If you insist on being extremely narrow in your definitions, you'll continue to have problems with your parochial views.SBHarris 00:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Harris: the old introduction was much better, and more accurate. The reader needs to know about the social sciences as well as the natural sciences, each of which have their own article. I move for the old introduction to be restored. In addition, I suggest the article be re-written to encompase both types of science, and refer readers to natural science to get the majority of the information currently in the article. Shoreranger (talk) 18:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. Should I have some spare time within next days, I will try to work on this issue. Jorgen W (talk) 02:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to include all types of philosophical ideas under the science category, where are you going to find a niche for the person interested in only the "real physical entities" of nature, which at least has the benefit of having a limited and hierarchial set of subject matters.WFPM (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was plain that what you seem to mean by "real physical entities" would be found in natural science, as noted above. Shoreranger (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for additional external links

Science Daily might be one of the oldest science news website around, but nowadays I prefer Eureka Science News (http://esciencenews.com) which is a Google-News like site, very up to date, link each article to every other science sites who report the news.

(69.157.142.124 (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC))

Typo

In the first paragraph of the "Critiques" section, the word "use" should replace "used" in this sentence: "There is usually an element of political or ideological bias in the used of the term." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dev4net (talk • contribs) 09:39, 6 July, 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Please sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Jdrewitt (talk) 10:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, the paragraph in the opening section that begins "Lavoisier says," should really be changed to "Lavoisier states:" as a simple matter of regular academic language! --Tomsega (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Freezer Energy Consumption: Full or Empty

{{RFCsci}}

Does Energy Consumption Change with the mass or volume of refrigerated goods.

There are a lot of energy saving articles that advise consumers that a freezer is most efficient when it is completely filled. Upon reading, these articles indicate that a freezer on the top of a refrigerator loses significant cooling when the door is opened. This is logical as the cold air spills out and energy must be spent to remove the heat that was allowed to enter the compartment. The proposed remedy is to keep the freezer filled so that there is no surplus air to fall out and be lost when the door is opened. Some articles suggest filling the freezer with jugs of water, which would then freeze to fill up the space.

By extension, this logic was applied to a chest freezer and the claim that a chest freezer that has just 1 pound of hamburger in it uses more energy than a chest freezer that is filled with hamburger. Assuming that the door is not opened for several months, I believe that logic to be flawed and need your opinion, humbly.

My memory of physics is that once the hamburger (or any other item) is frozen, it will take more energy to keep 100 pounds of it frozen than just 1 pound. Forgetting the opening and closing of doors, in a steady state, is more energy consumed keeping a smaller mass frozen or a larger mass frozen.

As so far as keeping your refrigerator freezer filled with jugs of water, I would suggest that the cost to freeze that water and to keep it frozen would far outweigh the cost of good door management. That is, don't leave the frig or freezer door open for more than the absolute minimum.

Comments welcome —mcleodo (via posting script) 02:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment Rather than speculate, find reliable sources that have carried out investigations into the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ask on Reference Desk This is not really a discussion about how to improve the 'science' article but just a question requiring an answer. I suggest that you use Reference Desk. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

But from theory, once stuff inside the unit has reached the final cold temp, it should NOT matter what the thing has in it. The power it draws is solely due to the temp difference inside vs outside, and independent of what's inside. There's no way the fridge can "know" what's inside it! The heat leaking in is a function of temperature differfence, and there's no way what's inside affects that, either. Of course, if the power goes off, the rate at which the temp rises inside is heavily dependent on "balast", or what's inside. Otherwise, it makes no difference. SBHarris 01:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Sbharris is correct about the constant power draw, but incorrect about what happens when the door is open—the amount of heat lost when the door is open is very much a function of what is inside, firstly because different materials have different heat capacities (water's is something like 25 times that of air) and secondly, because air will convect when the door is open, and solid objects obviously will not. The first fact suggests that a freezer full of ice will draw in more heat when the door is open, but the latter fact will counteract this. The key question in how much of an effect do these facts have, and the vespa article below indicates it is no more than 1-2% of the total energy cost. » Swpb^{τ • ¢} 17:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to chip in and say that likely where the "most efficient" part comes from is the amount of dead air space in the freezer. When you open it the more air in there the more heat that can be quickly lost so the more work the freezer needs once you close it to bring everything back down to it's final temp. Also the more stuff you pile into it thats not frozen already means more work to cool all that down, but once it's at it's final temp so long as you open it, it should draw the same current regardless of what's inside (or not). Raeky (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment on relevance: this isn't a question that is relevant to improving the Science article. WP:Talk pages should "Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal". Ha! (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

External references

From http://www.consumerenergycenter.org/home/appliances/refrigerators.html (claim: Full is better):

"A full refrigerator retains cold better than an empty one. If your refrigerator is nearly empty, store water-filled containers inside. The mass of cold items will enable the refrigerator to recover more quickly after the door has been opened. On the other hand, don't overfill it, since that will interfere with the circulation of cold air inside. The simplest solution is to buy the right size for your family in the first place." » Swpb^{τ • ¢} 17:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

From http://vesma.com/webl-tech.htm" (claim: No difference when closed, full is no more than 1-2% better with door openings):

"It's sometimes said that a full freezer uses less energy - not true. When the door is closed and the load is at the required temperature, all the refrigeration circuit is doing is removing heat that leaks into the compartment through the insulated walls. The freezer could be full or empty - the rate of heat transfer will be no different. It will only change if the room temperature changes. You can detect that it must be dubious advice because of what people suggest for filling the space: bread (high mass and volume); empty ice-cream cartons (low mass, high volume); and crumpled newspaper (low mass, low volume). The only thing they have in common is they impede air circulation (of which more later).

Some people say that by keeping the freezer full, you reduce the amount of chilled air that can spill out. Maybe, but door openings account for only 1 - 2% of annual running costs so the effect is small... In fact one kilowatt-hour of electricity would rechill all the air in a 100-litre freezer about a thousand times." » Swpb^{τ • ¢} 18:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. The original question specified a long-closed door: "By extension, this logic was applied to a chest freezer and the claim that a chest freezer that has just 1 pound of hamburger in it uses more energy than a chest freezer that is filled with hamburger. Assuming that the door is not opened for several months, I believe that logic to be flawed and need your opinion, humbly." If you open it breifly, the amount of air inside that leaks out is larger if the thing is not full, and so you'll have more cold air to replace. I wouldn't expect this effect to be large, though, since heat capacity of air is very low. Cooling the warm air you let in every now and then, shouldn't cost a lot. I suppose it all depends on how often. SBHarris 02:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Closing Since this appears to be a reference desk question instead of a dispute directly related to improving this article, I've disabled the RfC template on the grounds that it's inappropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Navbox in lead

I was wondering if it would be OK to replace the two images in the lead section with this template. I think it would improve navigation. SharkD (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It's okay with me. They can be used further down, or moved to Natural science or Applied science, where they really belong.SBHarris 19:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Dispute over template

There's a dispute over what type of content should exist in {{Science}}. I prefer the former format, Stalk prefers the current format. We'd appreciate some outside input. SharkD (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Katie Smullen

Katie Smullen.... ...... ........ ........................ ....... ............ ............ ................ ........... .........

........ . .... ............ .......................

...... ........................................................................................... ....... ........... ..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.32.133.58 (talk) 10:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

LEAD still sucks

It's like the weather-- everybody talks about it but nobody does anything...

As it is, most of it tries to jam the meaning of science into natural science when we already have a Wiki called that. Worst of all, the LEAD isn't even diverse enough to cover the many fields named in Fields of science. The old LEAD did actually do that.

Unless there are thunderous objections, I'm going to take another whack at the LEAD, to remind us again of where the word science came from, even if it is often now used as a synonym for "natural science" and things like political science and library science are denigrated as wannabe hangers-on (when in fact they are merely perfectly natural historical applications of a once-broader meaning). SBHarris 01:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I've tossed in the slightly modified, old opening. It's not perfect, but also a good deal more accurate than it was before.~~Nicholas A. Chambers 15:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas.a.chambers (talk • contribs)

I applaud your efforts, but must agree that more must be done. It is a great improvement, but the body of the article itself also needs work to alleviate the bias toward natural science and effectively convey the social sciences' use of the scientific method. The social sciences are subtly - and sometimes not-so-subtly - denegrated and treated as a lesser for no clear reason. Shoreranger (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Scientific method

The article seems to spend a significant amount of attention on how "true" science is the applicaiton of the scientific method to determine how the "natural" or "physical" world works in reality. It seems to be taking great pains to establish study of the physcial and/or natural world the only legitimate application of the term "science" when, in fact, the scientific method article appears to make no such distinction and can easily be applied to the social sciences as well. From this perspecitve, the social sciences and the natural/physical sciences are just as "scientific" regardless of what modern popular usage of the word is - and I would offer that it is the job of an encyclopedic entry to point out such disparity between popular use and the proper use of a term, not to promote the popular use. Shoreranger (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The article presently incorporates and also distinguishes between "natural sciences" and "social sciences", though the statement that identifies the difference was moved downward from the article lead to Science#Fields some time ago. I've removed the last two brief paragraphs with the overemphasis on natural sciences (see, e.g., scientism) and poorly sourced diminution of the social sciences. At this point, lacking a strong argument to the contrary, I'm inclined to remove the "unbalanced" template. ... Kenosis (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Magisterium

I think that the word Magisterium would be appropriate when talking about the scientific community, in this article, in other articles and in other writings and publications, because of the consensus approach within scientific circles that often mirrors that of closed communities (cf Consensus Patrum). I think that this was Paul Feyerabend's fundamental epistemological criticism on the pretensions of modern science, namely that of constituting a scientific society by using the same kind of social control tools as that of religion. Feyerabend compares Science to a Church or Community and cynically says that the only reason that there have been conflicts between Church and Science is because both of them are structured like Churches. [12] ADM (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Three comments: one is that the magisterium and scientism-critique stuff (shades of Stephen J. Gould) is more appropriate for the natural sciences article. This article here is still broad enough to cover political science and library science. In the broad definition, a "science" is something reduced to a formula, so that it's no longer an art. That's it.

Second, I think Feyerabend is wrong even when it comes to the natural sciences. Natural sciences are subject to attacks by new data (though they have some stickiness as noted by Popper), and it's still true that beautiful hypotheses are killed by nasty newly discovered facts (T.H. Huxley's "tragedy of science.") That doesn't happen in churches. Scientific disagreements result in experiments and the death of one camp of followers (phlogiston believers or steady state universe people). Theological disagreements usually simply result in new sects. You can't kill the old ones. You can't do experiments to kill the old ones. They are evidence free and evidence-proof.

Finally, when it comes to natural sciences, they have something going for them that sects do NOT: they result in predictions and technology. If science isn't in some sense "true" (results in good predictions; nevermind if its models are in some Platonic sense correct) then the success of technology is a miracle! Can any religion say the same? A given field of science says: "If we're not producing some product, how is it that the jets fly, the bridges stay up, your computer and cell phones work?" What is the comeback from any given religion? SBHarris 07:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Critique

Shouldn't there be something added about Charles Hoy Fort in that section? Faro0485 (talk) 03:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed paragraph

I've removed the following paragraph and am placing it here just in case the citations might be useful in the future.

Science is reasoned-based analysis of sensation upon our awareness. As such, a scientific method cannot deduce anything about the realm of reality that is beyond what is observable by existing or theoretical means. When a manifestation of our reality previously considered supernatural is understood in the terms of causes and consequences, it acquires a scientific explanation.

The paragraph is full of "weasel" and is, IMO, useless in a brief summary of the philosophy of science. The second sentence is highly debatable as to whether it follows from the first, and presents only one POV among many that exist in the philosophy of science. It appeared to be trying to define the legitimate limits of speculation at the edges of scientific inquiry, i.e., how far ahead of verified observations can a hypothesis or theory reasonably get before it becomes baldly irresponsible speculation. As written, though, it only served to confuse things with gobbledygook. The third sentence essentially attempts to deal with the god of the gaps issue, which is one POV among numerous epistemological and theological views relating to scientific progress. As written, it's the equivalent of saying that after something's understood, it's no longer unknown and therefore no longer regarded as "supernatural" by folks who think the presently unknown is supernatural. Also, something doesn't acquire a scientific explanation when it's understood, but it becomes understood via its scientific explanation when that explanation is sufficiently confirmed to satisfy the relevant scientific community. ... Kenosis (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Another removed paragraph

I've also removed the following paragraph from the section presently titled "Pseudoscience and nonscience" in this edit:

The status of many bodies of knowledge as science has been a matter of debate. Fields such as social sciences and behavioural sciences have long been characterized by critics as being unscientific. Many groups of people from academicians like Nobel Prize physicist Percy W. Bridgman, or Dick Richardson, Ph.D.—Professor of Integrative Biology at the University of Texas at Austin, to politicians like U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and other co-sponsors, oppose giving their support or agreeing with the use of the label "science" in some fields of study and knowledge they consider non-scientific, ambiguous, or scientifically irrelevant compared with other fields. Karl Popper denied the existence of evidence and of scientific method. Popper holds that there is only one universal method, the negative method of trial and error. It covers not only all products of the human mind, including science, mathematics, philosophy, art and so on, but also the evolution of life. He also contributed to the Positivism dispute, a philosophical dispute between Critical rationalism (Popper, Albert) and the Frankfurt School (Adorno, Habermas) about the methodology of the social sciences.[End of removed paragraph]

The debate about whether social sciences are "science" doesn't belong in this section, or if it does, it needs to be rewritten to reasonably summarize what the debate has been. The given examples of politicians' and academics' views are arbitrary and explain little if anything for the reader. And, Karl Popper's view is cherrypicked out of the enormous body of writing he produced. If it belongs anywhere, it belongs in "Philosophy of science", but due to the numerous subtleties involved in his philosophical positions, which evolved substantially though the decades of his long career, would need to be very carefully summarized and cited to one or more reliable published secondary sources that summarize Popper's positions. The comments about critical rationalism, positivism, etc., also properly belong elsewhere than in a section on pseudoscience and related issues. So, the material is now here in case any of it is useful for future reference. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Uncritical Critique section

Why does the Critique section begin with examples of what scientists consider nonscience, and continue with examples of what scientists consider misrepresentation by media and politicians? These are not critiques of science. Not until the philosophical section do we get to real critique, such as Barzun's central attack on the quasi-religious nature of modern science. Other areas that ought to be mentioned include the supposed moral neutrality that allows scientists to work on behalf of antisocial entities, and the influence of the scientific career on the supposedly disinterested search for truth. To put this in perspective, imagine an article on an established religion where the Critique section was mainly concerned to attack heresies and what it regards as misrepresentation of its dogmas in the media. The fact that WP Science can't cope with Critique neatly illustrates Barzun's point.Sam Weller (talk) 11:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Taxonomy

This article seems to concentrate on experimental and mathematical science. There is little or no mention of classification. Much of science was and is concerned with taxonomy and not just causality and prediction. Myrvin (talk) 10:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Intersting info

Please add this to the article:

One interesting mention to the science was made 2500 years ago by Daniel the biblical writer: "But you, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge(Science) shall be increased." Daniel 12:3. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.210.28.78 (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Undid vandalism 68.95.116.165 (talk) 01:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Critiques?

Seriously? Isnt that French? Jørgen88 (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

No, although it does derive from the french, see [13], I blame those french-speaking norwegians. Mikenorton (talk) 11:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Better than chance

After much consideration, I added "better than can be achieved by chance." to the first sentence. It was reverted. Science has a unique ability to result in predictions better than those made by random chance. Anyone can make any prediction using any method. If a random prediction is made unscientifically, without any empirical basis (with no information about the situation), there is a chance that it could be right, and an equal chance that it could be wrong. An unscientific prediction is no better than chance - we're just guessing. However, as science has an empirical basis (it has collected data about the situation), and a recursive nature by which it can improve itself (through disproof of past predictions), it has a unique ability to make predictions better than those which can be made by guessing. I think the first sentence is the appropriate place for this clarification, as we otherwise risk leaving readers with the impression that science is simply about making predictions, however inaccurate they may be. I think we mislead is we leave the sentence as it is. Science is not simply about making predictions. It is about making predictions better than those that can be made by chance, by guessing. Please discuss. Nickenge (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem is the use of the word "chance", which has many meanings and need careful definition in context. Too much for a short LEAD. Thus, the best answer is to avoid the word.

There are too many areas in quantum mechanics where chance cannot be avoided, but science can predict the odds. If you watch a radioisotope atom for one half-life, you cannot tell if it will decay in that time, or not decay, and even in theory cannot do better than random guess of one or the other. However, there is still prediction that either guess is as good as the other (and not some third alternative), and it's even a meta-prediction that no better prediction than this, can be made. So all in all, it's better to talk about prediction-only. The aim of science is to predict nature as well as it can be predicted, but sometimes (science theory aims to define these times) that won't be any better than a certain kind of (chance, if you like) guess between carefully predicted alternatives. SBHarris 22:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I read your comments and think you two agree. I read the current text and think an essential part of what you agree upon is missing. I think you (and I) concur that science is means to prediction more accurate than that we can attain by other approaches. If we fail to say this at the outset, any prediction putatively drawn from a "systematic knowledge base" (stock market advice? religious prophecy?) falls within science.Dschrom (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Leave it as is. There have been numerous considerations that've gone into forming the lead, a few of which are visible in earlier talk threads. One of them, a central issue, is differentiating the various definitions of the word "science" offered in dictionaries and narrowing it down to the chosen scope of the article, which is the "empirical sciences" as understood today, the natural and social sciences that follow modern scientific method. This is the first point of business in the article, and it's a delicate balance that need not be complicated by picking nits here. The words "capable of resulting in a prediction or a predictable type of outcome" presumes that the prediction is more accurate than would occur by chance, so there's no need to get bogged down in yet another issue at the outset of the article. Beyond this, please read the sources provided, which we've tried to be careful to be faithful to in introducing the topic to the readers, many of whom are kids just looking to get introduced to the very basics. Perhaps a somewhat more thorough summary of characteristics of prediction would be appropriate farther along in the article, e.g., in the section on scientific method. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Robert Anton Wilson Philosophical Critique

A couple months back someone removed the Robert Anton Wilson Critique because he 'isn't a philosopher'. While Robert anton wilson is also a novelist, he has written just as many philosophical books, if not more, then he has fiction. Hes even been in affiliated with the likes of Timothy leary, Alan Watts, and gotten praise for some of his more scientifically oriented works by other scientists. I also cut out the youtube references, added some more critique, and referenced them to one of his books. RAW's critique should stay. Murderd2death (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't me. However, I'd be happier if I knew what Wilson's critique WAS. In his book The New Inquisition he says that the methods of science are fallible, but that's not news. Is he saying scientists generally think they aren't?? He also admits that the scientific method is powerfully effective (see the success of technology/engineering, which are hard to explain otherwise), but his criticism mentioned in this WP article seems to argue that one instrument cannot be calibrated against another, to provide data equivalent to sense-data (since all instrument calibration chains eventually wind up calibrated against sense-data). But that calibration-chain method is behind all technology, so you can't airily claim it doesn't work. Wilson both says that it doesn't, and admits that very often, it does. Not much of a philosopher.

I had lunch with him once in 1990, and he wasn't much of an arguer, either. I don't remember who ultimately paid for the meal; I do remember he clammed up, after deciding that I was a fundamentalist materialist, lost in the clutches of "scientism." All I wanted was reproducable sense-data! SBHarris 23:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The point of RAW's work is mainly focused at the science pundits behavior which he finds to be akin to christian fundamentalism, from whitewashing to proposed book burnings, little to no scientific protest when a scientific 'heretic' does get their books burned, or an experiment is made illegal, culture effecting scientific theories, and critiquing scientific taboos. I don't see why that doesn't count as philosophy, philosophical contentions are philosophical contentions, and he has written books upon books on philosophy, metaphysics, and the effects those philosophies have in branches like psychology, sociology and the like. Murderd2death (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

External links

{{editsemiprotected}}

Bolded text in ==External links== should be 3rd level headlined (===Text===).174.3.111.148 (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be best to discuss this and get consensus for the change. I can understand why proper subheadings would be preferred, but I can also understand why they may have been deliberately avoided in the first place - chiefly, to prevent them cluttering up the TOC unnecessarily. AJCham 00:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Canceling template per the above. Tim Song (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to find an applicable style guideline on how to deal with these sections and subsections, but have been unable to find one. I have initiated discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links#Subheadings in External Links section, in an attempt to have such a guideline implemented. AJCham 00:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It has been pointed out in that discussion that the relevant guideline is at MOS:APPENDIX, so per the consensus described there, this edit request is  Not done. AJCham 03:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Religious critiques

I know this article has been under attack be religious types before and it had to be locked up so that it could maintain authenticity, but should we be keeping religious critiques out of the critique section? They're still critiques, and ignoring them doesn't make them not exist. I think we should include them for the sake of thoroughness but I don't want to add them and have a revert war over them because they have to do with religion. ProductofSociety (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Even though I pay no attention to their claims, I honestly think they don't belong on a vital article like this one. Things like a certain political opinion by all means warrant a criticism section, but this is a core article of the entire encyclopedia.--Frankjohnson123 (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think they're should be a space reserved for these critiques somewhere, but I agree that the article is a little vital to include every little minute criticism coming from every corner of religion. As of late the criticism section has been getting pretty thick, I think its time that it get its own article so the section can have its own realm to go in as much depth as possible, political, philosophical, religious, etc. without as much restriction. ProductofSociety (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Terence McKenna

Although I originally mistook McKenna for the filmmaker by the same name, I re-assert my removal of McKenna's critique of science, as here. I fully recognize that many have a philosophical beef with science at one time or another w.r.t. some aspect of science, and that for some persons the beef is w.r.t. to the very notion of science. But WP has some editorial policies which must be followed. Among them are that content must be referenced to reliable sources. The McKenna section was referenced to [ sic ] "Audio Lecture: "In Search of the Original Tree of Knowledge pt3" spoken by Terence Mckenna". This is not by any stretch a reasonably reliable source, nor is McKenna a notable commentator on the topic of science. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

What makes the audio lecture unreliable? I can revert it and edit in the exact time frame in which either quotes where spoken, publisher and the isbn if you want, and source it to an audiofile on the internet that has them up for for free use. And what do you mean by notable? If by notable you mean getting worldwide attention via publishing several books, public speaking around the world, and being interviewed on nationally syndicated radio stations on philosophy, metaphysics, history, science, evolution, social critique and the like, Mckenna definitely is a notable figure- especially for his critique of science. Murderd2death (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Do McKenna or his arguments have any scientific or philosophical credentials? How many citations does his critique have? It's a bit worrying that we're making space for someone "interviewed on nationally syndicated radio stations" when there's all the peer-reviewed research on science that is presently being missed out. I think there's a WP:FRINGE issue. Thanks Kenosis for being bold to fix this. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I like how you took the weakest part of my statement about radio stations and attacked from there. The issue of his notability goes way deeper then that cutout statement. As far as philosophy goes hes been one of the most popular of the turn of the century and has been associated with the likes of Alan Watts, Timothy Leary, and Ralph Abraham (Ralph not being a philosopher, but a mathematician hes worked with more then once). Through his whole career he has been studying anthropology, neurology, evolution, and ethnobotany. On a philosophical level, which is what the critique is about, he is not fringe. Murderd2death (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

For awhile now, the section on "philosophical critiques" has bit-by-bit turned into something looking more like a section on "miscellaneous pot shots at science". Here's the paragraph I removed:

Terence McKenna had accused and criticized scientists and scientific institutions for "regarding itself as a meta-theory capable of passing judgment on all other theories. They are supposed to submit themselves to science to be told whether they're real or not" and compared such behavior to unscientific religious fervor and dogmatism. [Cited to Audio Lecture: "In Search of the Original Tree of Knowledge pt3" spoken by Terence Mckenna] He thought that most scientific philosophers had made gaps in their logic in justifying their worldview stating "for approximately 500 years... [sciences] argument for its pre-eminence was the beautiful toys that it could create: aircraft, railroads, global economies, television, spacecraft. But that is a fool’s argument for truth! I mean, that’s after all how a medicine show operates, you know: the juggler is so good, the medicine must be even better! This is not an entirely rational way to proceed." [Cited to "Audio Lecture "The World and Its Double" spoken by Terence Mckenna]

I googled the words "critique of science" and here's the result-- some fifteen million of them. Personally I think I'd want to see some more evidence that this person's opinion is notable among the countless other "philosophical critiques". McKenna doesn't name names of the "scientific philosophers" to which he purports to offer corrections, or cite any sources, or, frankly, amount to much of anything that has anything to do with actual scientific work but might have much more to do with responding to arguable misuses of the concept of science by others. If it's correctly quoted (I haven't heard the audiotape) McKenna's apparent diatribe wanders all over the map in its logic (if there is any at all) leaping from unnamed "scientific philosophers" to implying that their unspecified "worldview" for some 500 years has argued for "pre-eminence" based upon "beautiful toys" such as "aircraft, railroads, global economies, television, spacecraft" that have only been around for between 50 to 150 years (depending on which of McKenna's examples you pick). McKenna than sums up the string of disjointed logic by saying [presumably of "science"] that "this is not an entirely rational way to proceed".
..... So to be frank, not only is McKenna failing to offer a published, reasoned critique, in my observation it completely fails WP editorial policy, on WP:WEIGHT, WP:V#Reliable sources, and probably also on WP:NOR and WP:PSTS due to that WP is becoming an original transcription of an audiotape presentation. ... Kenosis (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Your using google to help you paint whats notable or not. Thats just great. I can google or youtube this or that and show you how many hits this or that has, and it would be irrelevant to how notable someone is because hit counters don't describe such things, and have nothing to do with peer review. Just because one is not a scientific philosopher doesn't mean one can't critique science on a philosophical level. In the philosophical critique you have stabs from every direction from historians to economists to sociologists to psychiatrists to professors and general philosophers all with there fair share of the spotlight with their philosophical contentions- why should Terence not have a spot? Philosophy as a whole does not operate on a basis of scientific peer review. If you were to reserve the science article completely for the scientists, and leave out all others, why don't you reserve the creationist/ID type articles to themselves or isolate the political articles from critiques of other political philosophies that don't jive well with them?Murderd2death (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a legit critique to me, don't you hear scientists throwing around there technology as their justification a lot? I do, and I don't see any disjointed logic coming from him comparing it to medicine shows of the days of old. Maybe if we took out the verbatim quote and paraphrased it, it would read better. And the article in question is about critiquing, and it doesn't need to come from a scientific philosopher, and there doesn't need to be a solution. murderd2death put up a direct source to the lecture, which was published. You don't need something in writing for it to be critiqued, its completely common for people to source lectures and critique them, and hes no exception, and hes no fringe figure. ProductofSociety (talk) 19:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Terence's talks as transcribed give a rather incoherent attack on science: were it of philosophical worth, it would by now have been published in writing, and discussed by other philosophers for its contribution to the debate. That does not seem to be the case, and no evidence has been presented that it is notable in this context. . . dave souza, talk 10:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC) to i

I really think that about all of the issues are being brought up are one by one by being pulled out of a of tricks to try to keep McKenna out because no one likes what he's saying. Somehow I think if I were to go through all his books again and find roughly the same quotes to place there with the book as the source all of this complaining would be a non-issue, which is a little ridiculous for me to chew on because I can guarantee a lot less people would be complaining if someone cited a lecture by Sir Martin Reece, Gould, or even someone like Lewis Mumford, since the biggest issue at hand here is that McKenna is giving a talk. I'll be back with those book sources Murderd2death (talk) 12:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

"Philosophy as a whole does not operate on a basis of scientific peer review." - I wonder how someone could think this. There is a world of difference between peer-reviewed philosophy and amateur philosophy, as there is a difference between peer-reviewed science and amateur science. Wikipedia policy does not make an exception for philosophy in its policy on reliable sources, does it? Murder2death seems to be avoiding the many criticisms in terms of WP policy (set out clearly by Kenosis above) when claiming that we object to this "source" because we don't like it. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think what hes saying is that the world of philosophy is extremely more inclusive when it comes to whose debating about what then science is (there are hundreds of schools of philosophies that 'peer review' eachother, but scientific peer review is a whole other ball game) like the aronowitz criticism says, which I have had experience with, entire arguments against science can be justifiably disregarded in the eyes of a scientist or scientific philosopher simply because one hasn't been inducted to the scientific community. And I'm seeing it being pulled out here as well, that because Terence isn't specifically a philosopher of science he doesn't deserve a spot here... Which is a bit ridiculous to me, philosophical criticism is philosophical criticism, regardless of what school it comes from. And I don't understand why you can't source an audio lecture either, i've seen other articles do it (although i can't name them off the top of my head), but when this particular one is questioned about its validity people drag the issue of 'fringe' and this and that. I too don't think its an issue of whether its fringe or whether he cites enough people because Terence is a pretty well known guy and he cites tons of sources in his talks and in his books (the guys a walking encyclopedia as far as I can tell), and they're usually scientific sources at that. I know one of the talks in question, the tree of knowledge or whatever, earlier in the talk he brings up thomas kuhn. Hes also brought up feyerabend several times, and hes really uppity on physics, biology, and quoting there adherents.Aeris144 (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what is not reliable, I supplied the published audio with Terence speaking in both quotes, and Terence McKenna is not a fringe figure in contemporary philosophy- and his work has been published and subject to peer review. After all the semantic gymnastics about the value of his statements, the only thing that stands is kenosis' opinion that his reason does not appeal to him.Murderd2death (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

"knowledge-base"

In the first sentence, "knowledge-base" is certainly almost entirely inappropriate, overly narrow to the small extent it may be appropriate, and shows systemic bias toward the use of computer science terminology prevalent in many articles.

I recommend substituting the words "collection of knowledge". 99.191.75.22 (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Natural Law

Shouldn't natural law redirect to science, with natural law's content living under something like Philosophy of natural law? Discussion might generate some controversy; it's initiated here. Jeremy (talk) 06:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The very first paragraph

When we say "we've got it down to a science now" we're using the very first and most primitive definition of the word. It means we have it down to a prescription or recipe, and it's no longer an art which needs definition, is unteachable, and which can't be trusted to do what we want. This meaning includes technical sciences, computer science, political science, library science, etc. It was the original meaning of the word before we had natural science or the scientific method. It was what Locke was referring to when he wondered if natural philosophy could be reduced to a science. SBHarris 08:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Please remember the primary audience for this article are folks who want to know what "science" is. A large part of this audience consists of kids. I recognize we can always quibble, and readily do so on the wiki, particularly w.r.t. topics that are tough to pin down an exact, concise definition. The lead as presently written is reasonable, IMO, even though it may test the reading level of some. At least the basic explanation is there. And thanks, SBHarris, for all the organizational work you've put into this over the many months. ... Kenosis (talk) 13:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Precisely because the primary audience for this article is folks - largely kids - who want to know what "science" is, is why the article should not promote and legitimize misconceived notions and popular assumptions. Break the cycle early and often to avoid perpetuation and ignorance. Shoreranger (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sensitive to the question of the kid coming here wanting to know what "science" is, having heard it used as a short term for "natural science." Right up front, even before the dab notice, we might place a one-line warning that "science" is often used as a short form of natural science and to see that article for meanings associated with areas of knowledge based on physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc. Then, the rest of this article can help people who really want to know if "social science" people are putting on airs, and whether "library science" is misnamed.

Okay, I was BOLD and went ahead and did it. No chance now that the kid looking for natural science and what "white coat scientists" do, will be mis-led and put off-track by this article. And yet, this article stays correct and true to the larger meanings. If you're "blinded by her science" it doesn't necessarily mean she threw a test tube at you. SBHarris 20:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

from whence does the claim that all science is predictive arise, as I've got to say after reading 30 different theories of demarcation of science... prediction is only possible in the few sciences that most of the world call 'special sciences'. it seems that prediction is pretty moot in the end, unless you are hempl-ian --Buridan (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I think that a reference to logical argument should be included in: "methods of scientific research include the generation of hypotheses about how phenomena work, and experimentation that tests these hypotheses under controlled conditions." Theories are subject, not only to experimantation, but also to logical criticism. Myrvin (talk) 07:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Science is based on faith. Believing the world is more complex based on it's complex out look on life and theories of the world.--207.68.234.177 (talk) 02:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Science + Tist

'Science' + 'Tist' ='Scientist'  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.58.228.79 (talk) 21:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC) 

Brilliant...!--207.68.234.177 (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Science

I would like to propose some changes in discussion on the distinction of science. One of the most basic classifications science is through the element of study them. Thus, there is the division between study of ideas (formal sciences) and study of things (the empirical sciences). The formal sciences are divided into Science Literary (based on language) and Exact Sciences (based on logic and mathematics), in turn, science empirical are divided into: natural sciences, (based on experiments and natural directions) and social sciences (based on social dynamics).

The FORMAL SCIENCES study the ideas, whether the order logic-material (objectification syntactic) or psychological projective (subjectivity syntactic).

- Mathematical Sciences: logic, mathematics, physics, astronomy, systems theory and the technical aspects of science computational theory, Science computing, information theory, microeconomics, decision theory, Statistics.

- Literary science: linguistic, rhetoric, philology.

The FACTUAL SCIENCES (also called actual, factual or empirical) are responsible to study the achievements in helping to observation and experimentation, whether order sensory material (objectification phenomenal) or psychosocial (subjective phenomenal).

- Natural sciences: studying the universe, is understood as governed by rules or orige nature laws, ie aspects materials and non-human. This includes subfields: Biology, Chemistry, Geography Natural and Earth Sciences.

- Social sciences: studying aspects human social world, ie the way social individuals and groups of people. This includes Anthropology, Economics, Geography human history, philology, science policy, psychology and sociology. --200.189.112.20 (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)--189.58.155.124 (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Add non-neutrality tag please

The philosophical critique section is not only bigger than the philosophy of science section, there is a failure to include criticism of some of those critiques. The choice of the "philosophers" quoted are not representative of philosophers of science, and some of them are not the least taken seriously.

The article would give an uninformed person reading about science the impression that all those criticisms are valid, and mainstream views within philosophy. Neither is true.

There is no educational merit to simply giving the opinions of people who don't understand science as if they were informed opinions that will help the reader understand science.

- 149.254.51.10 (talk) 08:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree, I've taken the WP:BOLD step of removing the paragraphs about Robert Anton Wilson and Alan Watts (both misleading described as philosophers). There are more problems with that section. We need references to establish not just that someone has criticised science, but that that criticism is notable and is part of serious academic literature, such as Feyerabend's. It's not sufficient to mention a book in which someone criticises science. There it still a WP:FRINGE problem with that section that needs attention. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

First sentence

Science ... is, in its broadest sense, any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome.

I'm not trying to stir up any unpleasantries here, but this definition seems a little too broad. As I read it, this could potentially include astrology, hermeticism and various other formulaic divinational arts that are based on procedures and arcane knowledge. Modern astrology in particular certainly seems systematic with predictions based on widely-known knowledge of the planetary bodies. Was that the intent?—RJH (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the intent was a prescriptive practice that resulted in a correct and relable predictive outcome. The bow fires a fast arrow. The sword cuts and doesn't break. The bridge stays up. The airplane flies. In the broad sense all the technologies are sciences, isasmuch as they're got the art reduced to a "science" (old meaning of the word), so that anybody can do it, and be reasonably sure to get a result. That's not true of astrology and divination. Their "bridges and airplanes" don't support weight predictably, whether you believe in them or not. I'll see if I can modify the sentence. SBHarris 21:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand, but it needed to be clarified in the text. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Science

Please stop messing with the lead of this article, especially when your revised definition does not include a source. In general, science is not the mathematical description of nature. An observation of bird migratory patterns can qualify as science without involving any mathematics. You can discuss your proposed changes in the talk page of the article if you so wish.UBER ^(talk) 20:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

WhatUberCryxic said. This article is NOT, repeat NOT, an article about natural science. We have one of those already. This article is about the general meaning of the word, and includes political science, library science, and so on. Also, it includes the historical use of the word "science" before people started using it as shorthand for "natural science" (and then claiming that political science is "misnamed!"). All this was carefully done.

If you want to mess with the definition of "natural science" go to THAT article, but even THERE, I think you'll still be out of luck in requiring use of mathematics. What about geometry? Even mathematics is merely a type of shorthand for logical operations, and natural science involves connecting these to physical prediction. However if you can predict something in logical terms without writing any mathematical symbols, you're still left with logical statements of prediction. IF I stand in my kitchen, hold my cup out over the floor, and let go, THEN it will fall to the floor. Logical IF-->THEN. That's a scientific statement and there's no math at all (unless you want to claim simple linguistic logic as pre-math, but then what's your point? Boole and Bourbaki have their own articles). If you choose to put logical statements involving physical events in symbolic terms, but you're not changing them into natural science. They already were natural science; all your're doing is shortening the notation. SBHarris 20:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

If this article is meant to be a general page of definitions, i.e. to include library science, political science, etc., it probably needs to be trimmed down heavily to dictionary definitions and disambiguation. I strongly object to this generalization. Most people who come to this page will not be coming for definitions of library science, political science, or the word science as it refers to a refined practice. "He had it down to a science."

Regarding Uber's assertion, the modern observation of bird migratory patterns in and of itself uses mathematics, whether or not you realize it is so. Any description of bird migratory patterns ultimately uses cartesian coordinates and statistics, fields which in the last two hundred years have become part of the study of Mathematics.

Regarding Sbharris's assertion, when you refer to logic (logical statements of prediction) you are indeed referring to a subset of the mathematical field of Analysis (see Principia_Mathematica. If you describe a phenomenon using the language of logic, you are describing it mathematically, even if that language existed long before the concepts were formalized and included into the body of what is now known as Mathematics.

No one would type the word science into Wikipedia while searching for library science or political science. They will simply use those phrases. Science, in the sense of the word for which most people will search for it, is "the mathematical description of Nature." That's a succinct, provable definition, and I'd challenge you to name any science which does not ultimately use mathematics to describe natural phenomenon (other than library science or political science). Voronwae (talk) 21:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the lead of this article, the current lead, the "He had it down to a science" definition, does not match the article. It severely detracts from the article's quality.

First of all, Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your personal opinions. I could entertain you with mine as well, but all I'm going to request is that you provide reputable sources for your views. Barring that, you have absolutely no argument here.UBER ^(talk) 21:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

-- Looking again through this article, I'll again make the point that the quality of the article is poor, either as an extremely general entry on the word science or as a natural science article. Voronwae (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

limits of science

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is, in its broadest sense, any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique or practice.

In its more restricted contemporary sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, and to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research. This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word. Science as discussed in this article is sometimes called experimental science to differentiate it from applied science, which is the application of scientific research to specific human needs—although the two are commonly interconnected.

Science is a continuing effort to discover and increase human knowledge and understanding and skills through disciplined research. Using controlled methods, scientists collect observable evidence of natural or social phenomena, record measurable data relating to the observations, and analyze this information to construct theoretical explanations of how things work. The methods of scientific research include the generation of hypotheses about how phenomena work, and experimentation that tests these hypotheses under controlled conditions. Scientists are also expected to publish their information so other scientists can do similar experiments to double-check their conclusions. The results of this process enable better understanding of past events, and better ability to predict future events of the same kind as those that have been tested.

The ability of the general population to understand the basic concepts related to science is referred to as scientific literacy.

Contrary to the popular opinion, science itself does not possess of such a comprehensive and completely self-sufficient character, to be able to say that there is no need for the concept of God. For instance, science still can build a theories (unproven, however, experimentally) on the origin of the Universe, but what it was before the "Big Bang" and what is beyond the limits of our Universe, science is fundamentally unable to describe. Thus becoming evident insufficiency of science in light of the concept of "God", "Absolute", "Almighty".

You seem not to have understood what an encylopediac article should contain. The question whether science renders the concept of god unnecessary or not is heavily disputed ever since and should not be presented as an fact - neither advocating for nor against an atheism induced by science, except for the methodological atheism implied by the scientific method itself. --82.140.56.160 (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Pennarin Alex, 14 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} "Scientific literacy is the ability of the general population to understand the basic concepts related of science." This should be "related to science". Pennarin Alex (talk) 04:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done and thanks! ^Avicenna_sis @ 04:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation assistance needed for meaning

This Talk page has a Disambiguation tag for the word meaning in the sentence "Historian Jacques Barzun termed science "a faith as fanatical as any in history" and warned against the use of scientific thought to suppress considerations of meaning as integral to human existence." (This is currently the first sentence of the article's Science#Philosophical critiques section.)

I've looked at the options, and the Jacques Barzun article, but from the context I cannot decide which of the current choices in the meaning disambiguation page is most appropriate or helpful to likely readers of this article. (I feel this is in part due to the variable quality of some of the dab-target articles.) My preference is to de-wikify meaning in this case (as the original editor apparently did not feel specifying a specific usage or context was essential), and let readers discover their own meaning, as it were, if they feel the need for further definition!

Can someone familiar with Barzun's ideas possibly fix this, and the same issue in Criticisms_of_Science#Philosophical_critiques. Thanks. -- Bricaniwi (talk) 06:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggest adding discussions of culture

I note and agree with the comment that this article needs improving. I also note there is no explicit mention of culture yet, despite the citations of three works with culture in their titles, in particular The Emergence of a Scientific Culture: Science and the Shaping of Modernity 1210-1685, but also Science Talk: Changing Notions of Science in American Popular Culture and Welcome to the Machine: Science, Surveillance, and the Culture of Control.

Can I suggest that part of the challenge of describing science is that, as implied by the title The Emergence of a Scientific Culture, much of both the historic and current debates about science involves cultural issues: different and changing practices and beliefs about the origin, nature, role and purpose of all kinds of knowledge, including what in (predominantly but not exclusively) modern, liberal, Western culture is now called science. There is good information in the article about how the meaning of the word science has changed, but the discussion is limited mainly to language.

I suggest then that adding some discussions about the culture of science and science's status and place in different cultures, acknowledging that science as a concept and a practice has been and still is seen in different ways in different cultures, may illuminate many of the existing sections, e.g. the philosophy of science, and also help achieve the desired NPOV by explaining some of the differing cultural approaches to science which existed in the past, and which still exist in different parts of the world now. Some of the issues in the criticisms section involve cultural ideas (without using that word), but these issues need to be expressed in the positive descriptions as well, not just the criticisms. Some of the different points of view expressed on this Talk page can also be seen as expressions of different cultural attitudes to science, rather than as being either "right" or "wrong".

I'm also suggesting the discussions of culture may need to include the past and present views of specific cultural groups like religious organisations, and a broader consideration of the relationship between science and religion.

I feel readers would often be prompted to come here, to this very general article, by current public discussions about science, and would therefore be helped by factual descriptions of the cultural contexts science has developed in.

No original research of course, and all well referenced. I'm confident there are knowledgeable editors out there who can tackle this, please.

And yes, I acknowledge the culture article itself needs work too! -- Bricaniwi (talk) 13:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Article fails to address the following

• What are the parts of science? (Answer: Only two parts of science - location or belief. Dsoconno (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC))
• What things are not compared to science?
• What things are not connected to science?
• What things do not affect science?
• What forms are not of science?
• What things do not qualify to substitute science?
• What things do not require science? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.249.50 (talk) 07:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Why should any article list specifically what is NOT meant by the lemma? --82.140.56.160 (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Summary

Science is a man-made word used to recognize the study of anything. There exists many sciences but each individual science is easily objectively classified into one of only two groups. Natural Science is the closed group of all sciences that study a change in location. Religion is the open group of all sciences that lack any location. Dsoconno (talk) 02:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Er, how is this related to improving the article? --Cybercobra (talk) 03:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Cybercobra raises a very interesting religious question. Unfortunately, I am a scientist, not a theologian. Dsoconno (talk) 13:57, 19 June 2010 (U)

You're the one who raised the question, Dsoconno. SBHarris 19:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

And what does the question have to do with religion, pray tell? Zazaban (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"Reagent Bottle" Entry Created - Please Add!

I just created the entry for Reagent bottle. If you have more useful and knowledgeable information, please do add it. Radical Mallard (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: IP edits

The recent IP edits were dealing with sorts of "fundamental assumptions of science" including uniformity of nature etc. I don't have time now, we should have a link to something like that on this page somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tesseract2 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Multiple paragraphs dependent on one author, a psychologist

I will leave aside for now the perhaps-inevitable debate about how heavily we ought be leaning on just one author, psychologist and apparent part-time philosopher of science Keith Stanovich. Though, I imagine we should at least have some page number(s), or approximate page range, for each citation to the 2007 edition of How to Think Straight About Psychology, so the content can at least be verified by persons who may want to do so. ... Kenosis (talk) 02:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I will certainly add page numbers when I get a chance. And I agree, more sources discussing the importance of these concepts would certainly be welcomed, and probably not too hard to find. Although obviously I found Stanovich's treatment of key concepts to science (specifically, Psychology) to have been surprisingly straightforward and thorough.-Tesseract2 (talk) 04:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Parenthetically, in this edit summary, I meant to say "first-person plural voice", not "second-person voice" ... Kenosis (talk) 05:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Definitions

Look, it's not my problem if people come to Wikipedia looking for natural science and get the more general meaning of the word. They have the same problem when they go to a dictionary. Here is Merriam-Webster.com:

Main Entry: sci·ence

Pronunciation: \ˈsī-ən(t)s\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; perhaps akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split — more at shed

Date: 14th century

• 1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
• 2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology> *b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge <have it down to a science>
• 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 : natural science
• 4 : a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws <cooking is both a science and an art>
• 5 capitalized : Christian science

COMMENT

I am also down to definition #5 and I do not yet see the definition you've used in your lead-in. BUT...I don't think the lead in for any good article should be an abstract definition, whether or not it's from Merriam-Webster's (I might have chosen Black's Law Dictionary over MW). A dictionary strives for legal precision; an encyclopedia should have the goal of drawing the reader into the article and teaching. The current article attempts to emulate a dictionary (or not offend library scientists) at the expense of being abstract and pointless for the average visitor. I believe that we can do better.

Physics is the mathematical description of Nature. I grew up with that definition, and I think over time I've applied that definition to all of Science; I think of science in physical and mathematical terms. Frankly, I can't think of an existence proof to the contrary. Even the lightest of modern sciences relies upon statistics.

Rather than argue, I'll concede the point. My goal in sitting down to write today was to improve this particular entry in Wikipedia. I'd been reading two books this morning, Feynman's Physics lectures and Richard Holmes' Age of Wonder. I don't remember why I went to the Science entry, but my immediate reaction was that it wasn't as good as it could be. I stand by my opinion.

I believe that 95% (or more) of people who type the word "science" into Wikipedia are looking for an entry on the popular English meaning of that word when used by itself. If they're looking for "library science", "social science", "political science", etc., they'll use the whole term. The Wikipedia Science entry as it is currently written is caught in a vague dichotomy between #2 and #3 in your above MW definitions. What I'd personally like to do is consolidate the Science and Natural Science entries and put links to Social Sciences, Library Science, Political Science, etc. in the disambiguation page.

Never in my entire life have I heard anyone talk about those topics without their respective modifiers. I don't think anyone will be offended, and the entries will be much better for it.

I'm down to "Chrisian science," as definition #5 and I haven't seen the word "mathematics" yet. Again, you're on a soapbox here to change the English language. I'm sorry, but you're going to have to start writing to the people who make dictionaries. I personally don't agree with you, either.

Now, if you'd like to discuss changing the headers to help people who type in science when they're really looking for what scientists do for a living, that's fine. But I'm not in favor of changing Wikipedia so that it conforms better with uneducated use of the language. If I type in axe looking for the hairstyling product, or wanting to know more about how I axe questions in school, I'm going to get something that I wasn't looking for. But that's not Wikipedia's fault. It's my fault. In that case, Wikipedia might actually teach me something. SBHarris 22:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree somewhat; the headers need to be changed as well. If you're worried about people accidentally getting to the page they wanted because they were ignorantly using the word "science" when what they meant was "natural science", well, if they don't find the right page, you can't very well educate them, can you? And no, I don't think anyone's going to read this page when they've happened upon it by mistake. The web attention span isn't that long, and the page isn't that good. Voronwae (talk) 06:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ahhhh. I just went and visited the Britannica Science entry. Close to perfect. Britannica has a short entry with a definition and a link to a disambiguation page. Voronwae (talk) 19:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Just putting in my two cents. I find the definition of science in this article to be a little too broad. If science is merely comprehensive information on any subject, then a person who studies voodoo comprehensively would be a scientist. Plus, that person's information (studying voodoo) would also be considered science. What about the quality of that information? The method by which it was obtained? If science is merely comprehensiveness, then won't that make autobiographies or biographies scientific documents? I guess I don't think comprehensiveness alone is a defining characteristic of science. I am more inclined to follow Karl Popper's definition of science as being "knowledge that is falsifiable" or Kuhn's definition of science as "knowledge being derived from a specific type of human activity." I think these definitions are sufficiently broad enough to include all natural and social sciences, but exclusive enough not to include Greek mythologies or journalism. Just my two cents. =) mezzaninelounge (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the article used to define science as something that "refers to any systematic knowledge or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a correct prediction. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique, technology, or practice, from which a good deal of randomness in outcome has been removed." That more or less removes voodoo, which is partly fine art, and totally unpredictable in effect (the study of what shamans DO however, might be partly predictable, but that would be social science). The additions of the last editor have made the definition so wishy washy that I dunno what it means. I'd personally change it back to the way it was. Myself and User talk:Danielkueh I suppose are two votes for this.

As to the objections of Voronwae, I would say the Britannica does an aweful job of defining "science," since if you type in "science" alone, all you get is a dab page with over 30 kinds of science to choose from, and if you choose "history of science" you get the history of technology merging into natural science. But nowhere does the Britannica say how all these "sciences" got their names, and it doesn't give, somewhere up front, the fact that what we most often call "science" is "natural science" and as little as two centuries ago, was "natural philosophy," with people despairing that natural philosophy might ever be MADE into a science (see the wonderful quote by Locke). You have to know this, before you can understand why political science and library science and "getting blackjack down to a science" all arise as usages. Voronwae wants to ignore all this because he says he's never heard people use the word like that. Acutally he has, but he's paid no attention. SBHarris 21:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

SBharris, I liked the old definition. I think we should revert back to it. Nevertheless, I would add the term "human-made" or something similar into that definition to emphasize that science is uniquely a human enterprise. I propose that there be a deadline for this discussion and a vote on this issue to get a consensus and resolution of some kind. Just my two cents again. :) mezzaninelounge (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

What else, if not human, should it be? Why is emphasis needed here? --82.140.56.160 (talk) 12:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. It is not something that apes, rats, or trees do :) It is human, and is therefore fallible. I think that is one thing people always forget when it comes to science. mezzaninelounge (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

A lot of time has passed since the last discussion on the definition. If no one want objects, I will revert the existing definition to the previous definition of science. I will also provide a reference for that definition as well. I realize this can be a contentious issue, so do let me know how you feel about this reversion. mezzaninelounge (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

No one has yet voiced an opinion or concern about reverting the current definition of science. Here is a definition given by E. O Wilson. He defines science as follows:

"Science is a systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories." -E. O. Wilson, Consilience

I find this definition to be similar in scope with the previous definition, retrieved by SBHarris, and is sufficiently broad enough to be applicable to the natural, behavioral, and social sciences. If no one objects, I plan to change the current definition of science to the one stated by E.O. Wilson. Again, any comments or criticisms would be most welcome.mezzaninelounge (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The definitions are subjective. Science can apply to any sentient being.

Without subjectivism to humans: Science is the ability to structure accumulated facts and gained knowledge from analyzing an occurrence (which can be recreated to the exact parameters of the original occurrence) in the perceivable universe by a sentient being, which can use the data to predict if, when, how, and why the occurrence may happen again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.39.21.98 (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussions needed before modifying main definition

I noticed that there are multiple definitions in the article. The first sentence of this article has changed yet again. I think such a change is not necessary and needs to be fully discussed. If this article is about the definition of science as stated by E.O. Wilson, then why not state that definition first, and then state the other secondary definitions later? mezzaninelounge (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I hope this article isn't about anything quite as narrow was Wilson's definition, which is half-way to natural science, but a little further along than simple tradecraft. "Science" used to mean tradecraft, woodcraft, botanical and astronomical knowledge (astrogation and callender making) and things like that, and the method wasn't really spelled out (though of course it was used, sometimes unconsciously, by those who developed the skills). So this article needs to include all these protosciences, which also happen to encompass the use of the world "science" in non-natural science settings. There's already an article about natural science. This is the broader one. Often when we say "science" we mean "natural science" but NOT ALWAYS. And the farther back you go in history, the less this was likely to be true, since our modern version of natural science didn't even exist until about 1600, and really took a couple of centuries before people got concerned with method. Our modern statistical methods date from only a hundred years ago! SBHarris 22:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. But the last sentence of the first paragraph appears to narrow the scope to this article to the definition stated by Wilson. I agree that this article isn't suppose to be restricted to the natural science and should not be treated as being synonymous with natural science either. That said, words have evolved. And the tradecraft definition of science that you allude to is very much antiquated. The article should reflect the conventional use of the term as it is understood by current scientists of all stripes, be they social, behavioral, or natural scientists. I propose a rearrangement of the first paragraph, with the Wilson's definition being the lead definition followed by other uses. If anything, the tradecraft definition should be in the history section of this article. mezzaninelounge (talk) 00:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that the way to deal with that is to take the Wilson definition OUT, and put it in the natural science article, then. This article IS the article about the history of "science" (in all its meanings) and the one that explains why we have political science and library science and so on. It ought to have a big "about" template header, so people who want to see an article about what scientists do, can go to the natural science article. [Edit] Okay, I"ve done that. I deleted some stuff which specifically was about natural science in the header of THIS article. If you like it, it should be added to the LEDE in the natural science article. Does anybody want me to do that? Again, if THIS article is to be about natural science we should delete either this article, or the natural science article, and direct one to the other. SBHarris 02:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Basically agreed. This article needs to provide some context for the reader. OTOH, I have no inherent objection to the April 2010 addition of Wilson's definition. Nor would I object to its removal for reasons SBHarris has given both above and below. ... Kenosis (talk) 03:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, let's have a differentiate header but let's also have the first paragraph that describes the conventional use of the term science. Wilson's definition is broad enough to include all of the sciences (natural otherwise), which HAVE testable laws AND theories. Now doubt, the history of science is important but it should not be given undue weight WP:UNDUE. Moreover, Wikipedia is not a dictionary WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and we should not have to list or cite every single definition of science or describe every nonconventional or slang use of the term such as "having it down to a science." That would be to duplicate the function of Wiktionary. Right now, there are three definitions in the first paragraph, two of which variants of each other. These definitions may confuse rather than educate naive readers who come to Wikipedia to learn about the subject. This being an encyclopedia article should be about the concept of "science," which is neatly summarized by Wilson's definition. The definition and its variants is found in many reputable scientific textbooks (natural or otherwise). It is in line with Wikipedia's policy of NPOV, verifiability, and no original research. I suggest again to revise the first paragraph to reflect the conventional use of the term science. Readers who would like to know more about the older use of term may read the history section of the article. Readers who would like to know how term can be used should be directed to Wiktionary. mezzaninelounge (talk) 02:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

We just had an edit conflict. Please do not edit this article yet as it defeats the purpose of having this discussion. Plus, I don't want to start an edit war. My goal here is to come to a consensus Wikipedia:Consensus on the scope of this article and how it should be communicated. mezzaninelounge (talk) 02:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

With respect to your last statement, I agree with you that this article is not about natural science. That goes without saying. If you look at the first sentence in the natural science article, it is clear that it is a much narrower subject. My first question to you is what is it about Wilson's definition that leads you to think it applies only to natural sciences? My second question is how does your definition differentiate science from say engineering, reading, typing, driving, or toy making? These are all systematic and they all produce predictable outcomes. My third question is don't you think there should be two articles on scientists (one natural and one generic)? I don't understand how we can have two articles on science but one article on scientists, which in this case, appears to refer to only natural scientists as described by this article's header mezzaninelounge (talk) 02:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

First, I hope you didn't lose material in the edit conflict. That's never necessary-- in any edit conflict your old material is always "down there" someplace, and you simply need to scroll down, find it, cut it out, and save it.

The definitions that science is "a systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories," fairly obviously refers to natural science, and if not, what needs to be added to specify natural science? Gathering knowledge lets out the formal sciences like math or computer science. If we refuse to make the connection that nature=world, then we end up asserting that psychology and politics are not part of "nature" but are part of the "world," which is odd, to say the least. Are people and minds "in the world"? Are they part of the world but not part of nature? Wilson's definition is the broader one that refuses to recognize the dichotomy. Taken at face value, it's broader than natural science, but there's always the question of what he means by it. As for how the broader definition differentiates engineering, reading, typing, driving, or toy making, it doesn't (at least so far as these things can be done without any element of art). The statement of having something "down to a science" far from beign "slang" is actually the older meaning of the world, before it began to be taken over as a short form for what was then called "natural philosophy." Which as the article says, once caused philosophers dispare about being something capable of being made into a science. Again, we're now sort of in the position of somebody who wants "pilot" to refer to "aviators" and regards boat pilots as "slang." As you see, this problem has been solved by directing "pilot" to the dab page, and perhaps we can do no better than to do that with "science" also. SBHarris 02:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't lose any material. First off, I hope you realize that we don't disagree on principle. What we disagree on is the wording or semantics. Yes, nature = world. In that regard, yes, that would include sociology, psychology, anthropology (cultural and linguistic), library, etc. In other words, anything that involves the materialistic world. Technically, you are right. But let's get serious here. People (educated) know that natural science refers to physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, and that "behavioral science" refers to psychology, political science, anthropology, etc. Sure, sure, it is as if particles are natural and don't behave and that people who behave are not natural. You are right, it is arbitrary as with many inconsistencies in the English language. But we are not here to be prescriptive or to develop a philosophical treatise on the subject. We are here to be descriptive and to write an encyclopedia article. How is the term science currently used today? Here is an analogy. The term evolution use to mean "unravel." Today, it means "change over time." In biology, it means a generation to generation change in allele frequency. So should we have an evolution article that describes everything that unravels as also evolving? Should the evolution article focus on its original meaning? If we are going to be so pedantic, then why should we even have an article on science? If everything or anything is a science, then the term has become vacuous. In fact, an artists who paints, a singer who sings, a pianist who plays the piano, and a poet who recites a poem would argue that their so called "fine arts" is just as systematic and produces reliable outcomes. Is there no difference between science and art? No difference between science and stamp collecting? I don't regard "boat pilots" as slang. But I regard a married man describing his wife as his "copilot" as "slang," which is analogous to "having down to a science." These are figures of speech. They are not concepts to be described at length in an encyclopedia article. In summary, I argue that the difference between science and natural/behavioral science is a matter of scope and emphasis. We have an article on natural science, an article on behavioral science, and an article on social science just as it is natural to have an article on physics, an article on quantum physics or biophysics. Look at the definition of this article and look at the entire article which contains sections on experimenting, hypothesizing, uncertainty, and mathematics. Tell me if the definition is not in sync with the entire article. mezzaninelounge (talk) 03:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI and clarification: whether math is a science or not is very much up for debate. I know as many mathematicians, if not more, who would argue that math is not science but a language. With respect to computer science, etc, there is knowledge creation in computer science and there are laws and theories that are being developed in that field as well. There are also laws and theories in psychology (e.g., law of effect), media studies, sociology, etc. These fields are all "part of the world." No contradictions with Wilson's definition. Why are they are not called "natural science" is due to convention and yes, quite arbitrary. mezzaninelounge (talk) 03:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

W.r.t. Wilson's definition of "science" as "a systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories ":
..... Among the reasons I didn't remove or argue against the recent inclusion of Wilson's definition (in my recent series of edits--although I did revert the removal of the other definitions that have long been part of this article) is that Wilson's definition also can readily be applied to the social sciences. Indeed this is how it came to be that social sciences gained wide respect as branches of modern "science" in their own right. As I imagine User:Tesseract would already know, this has ben the case, for example, with modern experimental psychology as it integrated state-of-the-art advances in statistical analysis in recent decades and led the way in providing reasonable grounds for validating social sciences as having at least some legitimate claim to being "science" under the modern understanding of the word. And this is also true of essentially all the social science to the extent that their theories and hypotheses are testable. I dare say even "political science" has in this respect made inroads to claiming title [to some extent at least] as a legitimate entrant into "modern science"--these days there's hardly a day when we aren't being quoted a statistical analysis of what's going on in the political sphere. We recognize they're not necessarily as exacting as, say, measurements in many branches of physics and chemistry, but then neither are many of the measurements made in biology, which is quite well accepted as a "natural science", and indeed neither are many of methods of numerous theoretical physicists who commonly use precise mathematics to speculate about as-yet-unobserved phenomena-- and so forth.
..... Some solutions to the dilemma are provided by Hugh Gauch in Scientific Method in Practice (2002). A very reasonable visual representation of Gauch's schema for reconciling some of these issues being discussed on this talk page can be seen in Gauch's Figure 1.1 here (click on the cover image which says "look inside", then "First pages", then forward to page 2). I submit we must also remember that boundaries between "science" and "non-science" or "pseudoscience" or "junk science" are never quite hard-and-fast.
..... My main point is that the readers, many of which are elementary and high-school kids seeking a basic idea, deserve to get some amount of basic context in this article, which, as previously consensused in this article, involves briefly reconciling the various definitions and then quickly narrowing it down to what is meant by the most common modern use of the mass noun "science" . Again, as to Wilson's definition, I personally have no objection to using it here, and personally think it's a reasonable one that readily accommodates both the natural and social sciences. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is it important to say that science is a 'mass noun'? Are there meanings of science as a countable noun that you wish to exclude? These kids of yours will not know what a mass noun is, let alone why 'science' has to be one. I don't know either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myrvin (talk • contribs) 13:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not stuck on including that linguistic fact, but I added it last night because a lot of people's difficulty with this topic seems to arise out of their failing to realize the boundaries aren't necessarily hard and fast. Which is, after repeated observations of people arguing this way and that about how science should be defined and what should be included, why the lead lays these things out for the readers. If it's awkward, do feel free to remove it. ... Kenosis (talk) 13:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. It's gone. Myrvin (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem. But I point out the distinction is significant. As a mass noun, science is what this article is about. What the article is not about is the various uses of "science" as a count noun when it refers to skilled techniques (e.g. the "science of sound" (used in advertising by a major manufacturer of audio equipment), "science of psychic healing", "science of astrology", and countless other manifestations of this sort of thing. Which is why these different uses of the word "science" are briefly defined and sorted out for the reader in the lead. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Kenosis, with the exception of the mass noun, which I am not too familiar with given that grammar is not my strong suit, I pretty much agree with your position. My concern is a matter of communication and organization. I agree that there this article should discuss some various nonconventional or antiquated use of the word science. But these uses should not given undue weight WP:UNDUE as they would be if they are introduced in the first sentence or paragraph of this article. Instead, they can be discussed in the history section of this article or in a new section called "other use of the term science." Many casual readers, myself included, may not necessarily read an article completely or carefully to pick up on the subtle nuances that were intended by the author. They may just read the first sentence of an article and briefly skim through the rest. As a result, they might have an inaccurate impression of the subject. I suggest that we be as explicit and clear as possible on the conventional and current use of the term science. Speaking as a scientist who has studied both social and natural sciences, I believe Wilson's definition or a variant of it is clear enough and should restored as the first statement of this article. mezzaninelounge (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I also wish to add that Wilson's definition comes his book, Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge , which discusses both natural and social sciences. Indeed, the first sentence in the preface of his book states quite clearly that there are "general principles of scientific method that are applicable to all of the sciences." mezzaninelounge (talk) 14:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yep. As I said above, I'm OK either with including Wilson's definition or with not including it. But if it's kept it should be kept properly maintained so it reflects this aspect of Wilson's presentation, which, like Gauch and others, unequivocally includes the social sciences to the extent they follow scientific methods. ... Kenosis (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Kenosis, I looked at Gauch's book and I like it. One sentence that caught my attention was that it cited AAAS when it described the scientific method as a "highly variable and creative process." A statement that is consistent with Kuhn's concept of "night science" and Popper rigorous requirement of falsifiability through experimenting. More importantly, the most telling statement is the one that states that the "scientific method is often misrepresented as a fixed set of sequence." The main definition in this article appears to fit that misrepresentation.mezzaninelounge (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

As I wrote my last response, I did not notice the latest changes to the article. The changes are improvements but they are still appear little awkward. mezzaninelounge (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

what is then word science means —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.210.128.75 (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Intro/definition

The intro/definition currently reads "Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is, in its broadest sense, any systematic knowledge that is capable of resulting in a correct prediction or reliable outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique, technology, or practice.[1][2]". So fine crochet work is science? No, of course it is not. Any properly and effectively trained scientist knows that "science is the objective study of natural phenomena (i.e. substance and actions)" in the broadest sense. Then we are taught that "The study shall consist of observation, experimentation, prediction, and shall be free of bias or unwarranted claims" (or words to that effect). "Good science shall lead to new understanding, be of open and full disclosure, and generate consensus". In a good intro Science would be contrasted with engineering (a discipline, not a science), art (subjective, freely creative, and without recourse to fixed relationships)... and mathematics (sometimes incorrectly considered a science). 98.249.185.122 (talk) 03:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. As you see can see from the previous discussion tread, this has been extensively discussed. Perhaps you can write an "prototypical intro" and post it here for further discussion. mezzaninelounge (talk) 23:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

In the widest meaning of the word, engineering is a science, and so are crafts to the extent that they've been differentiated from arts. Read the article and learn something about the original meaning and evolution of this word. SBHarris 03:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

SBHarris, you are missing the point made by user 98.249.185.122. He is disputing the current definition in this article as it is inconsistent with contemporary usage of this term by scientists. The definition as it is used in the first sentence of this article IS at variance with how it is used by contemporary scientists. And no, crochet is NOT a science and engineering is the PURPOSEFUL use of science. I think we need to resolve this issue. Is this article about science or is it about the layman's definition of science? If it is the latter, then I am not gonna be pursue this any further, if it is the former, then I really think we need to refine the first paragraph of this article. mezzaninelounge (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Contemporary scientists use the word "science" as a convenient short-form term for "natural science." So? Airplane pilots use the term "pilot" as a short form for their own profession (even though there are other kinds of pilots). In Texas, when they say "tea," they mean "iced tea" (they have say "hot tea" for something else). And when they say "ski" they mean "water ski" (they have to say "snow ski" for something else). In Britain, it's the other way around. Wikipedia has an unfortunate habit of taking words that probably should be dab'ed at best, or else historically put into context at best, and simply ignoring any meaning that isn't as common to the person whose prejudice is being examined. Sometimes they screw up hilarously. For example, the article on computer defines it as a machine, but later admits that it's anything that transforms information in a meaningful way. But even there, the article fails to mention that this can be a person, and that until a century ago, "computer" used to be a job description and didn't mean anything else.

The use of the word "science" to mean an algorithmic sort of knowledge is still common, and shows up in terms like political science, library science, computer science. The way the article was, we had people saying that of course these things aren't "really" sciences. That simply shows ignorance. Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, should combat ignorance. SBHarris 18:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

SBHarris, I am not going to respond to your disdain for Wikipedia's policies or how it presents its articles. I like many other editors have accepted them as imperfect but nevertheless useful. I will respond to the issue at hand, which is the need need to refine the lead definition of this article. First, I challenge you to find a social or behavioral scientist who agrees with the first sentence of this article as being a widely accepted definition of science. You have yet to produce a credible reference that substantiates your claim, which appears to violate widely accepted standard of statements needing verifiability in Wikipedia. If anything, it borders on original research. Based on the number of individuals who have expressed concern about the lead definition in the talk page of this article, you appear to have a minority viewpoint which has been given undue weight. I also find it most perplexing that you think the scientific method or the contemporary definition of science applies only to the natural sciences. Have you ever open a textbook in anthropology, psychology, sociology, and yes, even political science? Second, Wikipedia is a repository of knowledge. It is not a place to advance a personal agenda or to provide dictionary definitions. If you want to educate or convince the rest of the world that crochet is a science, then I suggest that you write a book about it. That way, at least we can reference that book in this article. Finally, I am invoking consensus as the main solution to this issue. Right now, the consensus appears to be leaning towards a need for refinement of the lead definition of this article. mezzaninelounge (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to provide dictionary definitions. The substance of WP:NOTDIC is not what you suggest, but only that Wikipedia articles should NOT be about words themselves, but rather about the things the words stand for. However, when a word stands for different things/concepts over time, and for more than one thing NOW, there's no avoiding some discussion of usage. Such discussion does not violate WP:DICT-- that's not what the policy is FOR (I'll be making some comments on its talk page about its attempted misuse HERE).

In sort, we have an article on natural science. Discuss natural science there, therefore. This article on science covers the many other formal sciences, and other uses of the word which are still active in English. So this is the place to discuss THOSE concepts. If you want to move some of this article's material to natural science and leave a summary behind, and even direct "science" searches to natural science (with a dab note that mentions this page) that's fine with me. SBHarris 20:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

SBHarris. Clarification: The current definition in this article is supposedly based on one or several definitions given by Merriam-Webster. You are right, this place "should not be about the words themselves." That is what Wiktionary is for. Yet you contradict yourself by saying that this is the place "to discuss the active use of the word science in English!" Now to the main issue. This is where the frustration really begins. You have yet to provide a good reason supported by any credible reference to show that the methods (e.g., experiment, observation) and principles (e.g., hypothesis testing, theorizing, etc) that are commonly used in the natural sciences are NOT applicable to the social or behavioral sciences. If anything, I suspect that you may be uninformed about the social and behavioral sciences. Because if you do know these sciences well, you would clearly see the unifying concepts that underlie both natural and social sciences. Instead, all you done so far is to make unsubstantiated claims about science as tradescraft. Moreover, you keep appealing to strawman arguments about needing to include "library science." For the record, just because a name of a field has the word "science" doesn't mean that it is necessarily a science or that there is wide agreement among scientists and the general public that it is science. Should we broaden our definition to include creation science as well? Another frustration is that you continuously mischaracterize the positions of other editors by claiming that we are trying to make this article a duplicate of the natural science article, which is clearly NOT the case. What we are trying to do is to provide an accurate and reasonably broad and widely accepted description of science that is applicable to the natural, behavioral, and social sciences. My question to you is quite simple, do you have credible reference to buttress your view point of science as a "skilled technique, technology, or practice?" If not, then this debate should be concluded, the second sentence of this article should be deleted, and the first sentence should be refined. mezzaninelounge (talk) 21:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC).

Sorry to have stirred the hornet's nest!! I was asked by mezzaninelounge to create a prototype introduction for peer review... Only when I came back to post it, did I discover the back-and-forth! So I added some footnotes to what I wrote to help clarify that what I write about really is Science in a broad sense. Here goes: Science is the objective study of natural phenomena [1] or systems, including both physical substance and action, analysis of cause and effect, and is both systematic and rigorous, albeit selective, in its methodology [2]. Scientific study consists of observation, experimentation and prediction, sometimes referred to as the "scientific method", free of personal bias [3] or unwarranted claims. Good science (aka "reliable" science and not to be confused with beneficial science, i.e. science with a value to society) leads not only to new information (discovery) [4] and understanding, but is also of open and full disclosure, and generates consensus amongst peers [3, 5]. Science usually includes generating informed proposals (i.e. more than mere opinions), called hypotheses [6], about natural systems . Once verified by continued investigation consisting of observation and experimentation (preferably repeated testing), a hypothesis is developed into a detailed theory, which can be used to predict behavior of even complex systems (e.g. biological). Discrete and fixed relationships of action and interaction can then be described and explained by laws (e.g. physical, chemical). Science can therefore be differentiated from engineering (a discipline, applying previously established laws, not predictive [7]), art (subjective, without recourse to fixed relationships, imaginitive and expressive [8]), and mathematics (not requiring physical experimentation nor substance, but involving postulates and theorems, logic, axioms [9] and proofs [10]).

Early science was inseparable from philosophy, i.e. the intellectual search for the underlying principles of nature. It was often characterized by speculation and mythology [11] and a preoccupation with what we now call astronomy [12]. In contrast, modern science is characterized by its associated technologies and division into narrow specialized areas of study[13].

Detailed research and modelling of systems, characteristic of science, has meant that the term is not only also associated with the exact sciences (experimental and quantitative) but also the studies of the ephemeral and unpredictable, and with interpretation of behavior such as "political science", "economics" and the other so-called "social" sciences [14].

[1] J. G. MacGregor, Science, Vol LXI, p160, 1899 [2] "Science and Method", Henri Poincaré, English Translation, Courier Dover Publications, 2003 [3] "Real science: what it is, and what it means", John Ziman, Cambridge University Press, 2002 [4] "Scientific Discovery: Logic and Tinkering", Aharon Kantorovich, SUNY Press, 1993 [5] "Living in the Environment: Principles, Connections, and Solutions", G. Tyler Miller, Scott Spoolman, Cengage Learning, 2008, pp33-34 [6] "Science and Hypothesis" Henri Poincaré, English Translation, Walter Scott Publishing, NY, 1907 [7] "Model-oriented Systems Engineering Science:a unifying framework for traditional and complex systems", Duane W. Hybertson, CRC Press, 2009, p38 [8] "An Art Philosopher's Cabinet" George Lansing Raymond, G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1915 [9] "Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science", Hermann Weyl, English Translation, Princeton University Press, 2009 [10] "What is mathematics, really?" Reuben Hersh, Oxford University Press US, 1999 [11] "Greek Philosophy:Thales to Aristotle", Reginald E. Allen, Simon and Schuster, 1991 [12] "Ancient Science Through the Golden Age of Greece", George Sarton, Courier Dover Publications, 1993 [13] "The Making of Modern Science: Science, Technology, Medicine and Modernity: 1789 - 1914", David Knight, Polity, 2009 [14] "Philosophy of Social Science", Alexander Rosenberg, Westview Press, 2007

Please note (in anticipation of further commentary): natural systems does NOT mean "the natural sciences" but those systems that are real, not "imagined" (so yes, substitute real for natural if you like, but could be confusing in terms of real/virtual in the world of physics). Ephemeral is NOT to be taken as a derogatory term, but merely something that is temporary and not reprodicible (therefore cannot be amenable to experimentation). "Differentiated" from engineering, art and mathematics does NOT mean antagonistic, contrary or incompatible. I included that differentiation to help emphasise what is the unique set of qualities of Science. 98.249.185.122 (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

User 98.249.185.122, I do not have problems with much of what is stated. I especially appreciate the list of references to support them. The only thing that concerns me is that (1) the introduction appears unwieldy and the (2) language used is a little bit dense and "techie." Right now, it appears that only a person with a graduate science degree can really get the full gist of it. Perhaps it could be "dumb down" a little bit? But otherwise, content looks fine! Great work! mezzaninelounge (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

mezzaninelounge: yes I agree, I overstuffed what I wrote to allow for plenty of pruning. Looks like the heat is off with the recent rewrite of the intro. 98.249.185.122 (talk) 00:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• User 98.249.185.122, I guess we will have to wait for this issue to be resolved (proposed through voting) first before incorporating your text. A lot of red tape! How unscientific! mezzaninelounge (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, he said mostly what I said, so what's your problem with what I said, now? To put it bluntly, crochet is part of the natural world. Incidentally, I've posted something about your misuse of WP:NOTDIC in the talk page of that policy article, and gotten some feedback. [14]. This policy is to keep WP from being used to make articles that focus on words themselves. It does not prohibit discussions of changing etymologies and word meanings, when discussing the history of a concept itself, which we are certainly doing here. SBHarris 01:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You know SBHariss, I cannot help but feel a little annoyed and irritated. I was about to walk out of my lab to a happy hour until I started to read this disingenuous and almost juvenile reply of yours. Not only that, you have once again misrepresent my position/intentions and the other position of other editors on another talk page. I apologize to the other editors who are reading this but I must confess my deepest annoyance. Of course crochet is part of the natural world. Just like walking, spitting, scratching, eating, and farting. Are all these behaviors science?!?!?!?!?! If they are, then what the hell is not science then!?!?!?! Why even bother having a such a special word that means practically anything and nothing at all?!?!?! As you can see, THAT IS THE POINT OF CONTENTION!!!!! For the record, why don't you read some introductory college level textbooks on psychology, sociology, and anthropology. These books do talk about "science," which is no different than the natural science textbooks like physics, chemistry, and biology. I feel like we have made no progress whatsoever in any of discussion. If anything, I find you are being nothing more than a contrarian. How childish! If this is what this is all about, whether something is natural or not, then this issue would have been resolved long ago! And if that was the case, then why for heaven sakes were you so opposed to Wilson's use of the word "wold" in his definition then? Does the word "world" not include people, behavior, crochet, and yes, your precious "library?!?!?!" Again, contradicting yourself. Again, I apologize to everyone, including SBHarris, for my outburst and the inappropriate language used but I need to express my frustration and exasperation given the amount of time that was spent writing on this talk page with the sole purpose of trying to resolve this issue and make this an informative article through consensus only to feel that no progress has been made at all. Now to happy hour. mezzaninelounge (talk) 22:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a science of walking: [15]. Not only is it descriptive, but also prescriptive when it comes to athletics, rehabilitation, and making two-legged robots that move like humans do. It is a skill that sometimes needs to be taught, although (as with flying) there is a lot of hardwired "knowledge" that lives in the normal nervous system, that comes pre-programmed. Likewise with eating-- speech therapists actually spend some time teaching stroke patients how to swallow without choking. Also a learned skill, sometimes, and to that extent, what speech therapists learn about it, is a science.

I'm sorry that I couldn't find a science of farting, but Edward Abbey says Farting is such sweet sorrow, so mayhaps there we're verging on the realm of art. In any case, not much skill/knowledge is required. SBHarris 01:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The study of walking, its physiology, energetics, etc, is scientific. That is not the point of contention. When I walk to a grocery store, am I doing science? No. When I'm eating and chatting with a friend over dinner, am I doing science? No. When I am switching television channels back and forth, am I doing science? No. When I am putting a band aid over a wound, am I doing science? No. Nevertheless, these activities would fit your definition of science. That is the point of contention. Do you see what is being disputed here? Do you understand why your definition is problematic? Do you "see" my point? If not, then I'm afraid this discussion is at a dead end. mezzaninelounge (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

If by "doing science" you mean employing the scientific method, then the answer is no. However, even natural science is both the method and the knowledge that comes from it. The entire point of the formal sciences as a classification, is that "science" is not necessarily defined by the method; it's also the knowledge and skill. Sometimes ONLY the knowledge and the skill. Which means that you're employing a "science" when you make use of any skill which can be taught and which results in an expected outcome. The scientific method as we understand it, is not used in library science or (for that matter) in mathematics, a formal science. One does not perform experiments to find out if 1+1=2 in different places-- rather that is the definition of 2. It would be the same on Pluto, as also the fact that there are 3 feet in a yard, so there is no point in doing that experiment on Pluto, or going there to do it. Mathematics is ultimately all that kind of thing, although it may not be immediately obvious if we've made a statement that is true-by-definion. Still, when we do, that is what we find we've done. No experimentation is involved, and once the proof has been completed, there is no inductive uncertainty that our results may in the future be proven false, by new evidence.

The point of the definition of this article, is that any "science" which uses the scientific method, IS "natural science." Library science involves the natural world, but it's a classificational and deductive thing, like mathematics. There is no induction in it. We do not do experiments to find out where a book goes, according to the Dewey decimal system. Nobody will ever prove this system wrong. Again, it is not the use of nature or the accrual of knowledge that is the issue, but lack of the inductive method. With induction and the natural world, we have natural science. Remove induction (and thus the method), and we may, or may NOT, still have a science (in the sense of "knowledge"). If we have knowledge and skill, we do have a science. If we don't, then no. When you switch the TV channels, do you get the expected result? Can you teach this to a child? Then you have it down to a science. It's not an art, it's knowledge. Scientia. SBHarris 03:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

SBHarris, again, you have missed the point of my argument. You haven't even address the point of contention or even look closely at your definition to see where the possible problem lies. Moreover, you seem to forget that we are trying to write an encyclopedic article, not a philosophical treatise. Going by your last sentence, you would consider learning to write poetry science, learning to oil paint science, studying history science, and a person learning to wipe his bottom with toilet paper science. Again, you have not provided any reference whatsoever. More to the point, paleontology would probably not qualify as a science in your definition given that it is not in the business of making predictions or looking for predictable outcomes since all the outcomes already happened and are already dead. Not only that, and I don't know whether this is deliberate, but it seems to me you have just redefined "natural science," which means in one swoop, rendered our entire discussion above meaningless. Wasted my time. I don't know whether you did this just to be cheeky but it is not worth pursuing. I think the only way to solve this issue is to take a vote as I cannot see how else to resolve this issue. FYI, proposing a scientific statement such as a hypothesis based on several observations may be done through induction but the falsification of those scientific statements is done through deduction and not induction. I suggest you read the logic of scientific discoveries by Karl Popper first before attempting to lecture me on a topic that you are clearly not familiar with. mezzaninelounge (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

If you are this PMID 18201754 Daniel Kueh, you have exactly two refereed publications in the scientific literature. Which means that odds are good that I was not only reading Popper (in college, 1975-1979), but publishing in the journals (first paper 1984 PMID 6431215) before you were born. Or if not, perhaps while you were learning to wipe your bottom with toilet paper, as above. So watch who you're teaching to suck eggs, O thou lowly grad student from Kalamazoo. I took my first dose of GHB when it was still sold in health food stores in 1989, and I probably have forgotten more about MDMA than you'll ever find out (though oddly, MDMA is moving in legal status toward where GHB is). I'm busy writing and publishing patents now, but here's my last scientific paper: PMID 16948589. That one was in the horse model, but I've published experimental physiology in mice (PMID 8057691, PMID 1997568, PMID 2394907), humans (PMID 454844), and dogs PMID 11719148. Also some cryobiology. Don't confuse me with the far more prolific S.B. Harris in diabetes, but do understand that I'm a working scientist with far more experience than you have. So would you like to try that again, with a bit more respect? A B C D E F G H I .. Got a Critic from Kalamazoo... SBHarris 04:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

SBHarris, the beautiful thing about Wikipedia is that physical and social characteristics of an editor such as age, title, bloodline, etc have little to no meaning here. Anyone can edit. I don't care to know you personally or your accomplishments. You may keep your CV to yourself. I don't mind you taking a jab at me, but to do background searches, reveal my identity, and violate my privacy is quite another. I will let this one slide, but rest assured, the next one will go to arbitration. Since you are very resourceful, you are free to e-mail me and speak your mind. If you are polite enough, I might even give you my number. I have been very patient with you and I have tried my hardest to resolve this as exemplified by the amount of time spent on this talk page responding to each and ever single one of your statements. All I asked in return was that you provide references, stick to the issues, and play by the guidelines set forth by the Wikipedia community. I am afraid, I have not received any of those. Hence, the frustration and exasperation. The only reference I have seen is a copy and paste from MW on the second section of this talk site that your definition was supposedly based on. Since none of them matched yours, that was probably a misuse or misquote of a citation. That aside, I am done having this discussion with you. It is not me whom you need to convince but all the editors below that I have invited to this talk site to vote and discuss this issue. Judging by the comments and number of votes below, I am afraid there is very little support for your definition of science. mezzaninelounge (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I have counted to “three”.

• First, you have no expectation of privacy on Wikipedia if you post your real name and your real life occupation on your userpage (as both of us do). Don’t be silly. Those pieces of information from somebody who claims to be a bio scientist allows me (or anybody) to immediately go to pubmed and look up your work, just as it’s implied we should do from the info you give. Which in turn tells me where you work, since you freely published that also. That’s all public knowledge. If you post and publish this about yourself, it’s YOUR problem, not mine. Any other inference I made is based on my knowledge of the “organizational science” game, not any other sources. There was no background check. Nor did I do anything “resourceful,” as you’d know completely if you knew your own academic game. Which apparently you don’t, yet. Much to learn you have, young padawan, but only to the dark side will anger bring you.
• Having said that, don’t threaten me with Arbcomm or think you’re doing me any favors by letting something slide. You’d be wasting your time, but it’s your time to waste. Have at it! I’ll be amused and you’ll be embarrassed. Here’s a quote to get you going: “Experience is a hard teacher, for she gives the test first, and the lesson only AFTER. But a fool will have no other.”
• The few bits from my own C.V. were in response to your suggestion that I don’t know the subject, which in part is the sociology and usages of science, as it is practiced. Since you are now exposed as what we call a “newb” in that field, it is natural that you fall back on other WP policies. I half expected you to drag in your major prof and his or her CV, and say something like “Here’s my boss, and he’s killed FAR MORE rats with NIH money than you, and so he’s a FAR BIGGER scientist than you!” And we could do some C.V. wagging to see who swings the bigger one. And maybe find out who is the larger money-whore in going after fed funds to fight the War On Drugs… Every scientist except those born rich, do some whoring, don’t you know.
• Anyone can edit WP, including people who have no idea of what they’re talking about. Nor is the popular, or most often published, notion of something, always the correct one. Worst still, the largest number of published citations from academic sources are of the opinion that Wikipedia itself is a bad thing and shouldn’t be trusted (the Wikipedia articles on this matter have references heavily cherry-picked, surprise). So the general argument for what “should” be here, is unwinable: to the extent that you demand academic opinion, you wouldn’t be doing the work here at all, because, on the whole, academia is against writing on Wikipedia. Anybody editing Wikipedia is here because we think academia wrong/shortsighted, not because we don’t know how academia, in general, thinks. Consider that.
• I have provided you now with a citation, which is to a work that happened to be sitting on my shelf, at hand. I didn’t even need to search the net. You’re now entitled to play the old and WP:LAME game of who has the most citations, and the latest ones. But see above.
• For the last time, STOP trying to teach me to suck eggs. I’ve been editing here exactly as long as you, but over that time I’ve put in 24 TIMES the edits, to a far wider range of science and history articles (and many other subjects). Don’t try to “teach” me about the politics and policies of this place. You’re simply wasting both of our time, since you don’t know your subject nearly as well as I do. Sorry, it’s a fact. Live with it. It’s not that hard to do; this is only a website. SBHarris 01:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

When you counted to three, did you fart at least? FYI, I didn't post my occupation on my personal page. Your rant is proof that I have indeed wasted my time talking to you. mezzaninelounge (talk) 01:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

What, you think that when you post that you support the Society for Neuroscience and spend all your time on the neurobiology article, that it's not obvious to anybody but idiots that you're a neuroscientist or student of same? Of course you are. I didn't think you were a plumber or fireman. And yes, it's apparent that you did waste your time talking to me, for you learned exactly nothing. Now, where's the ArbComm case you were going to file? SBHarris 02:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeap. Absolutely nothing. mezzaninelounge 13:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this section of the talk page could usefully be archived early? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)