Talk:Science/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

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

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

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

[edit] Linkspam

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

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

Okay, proposed changes:

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

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

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

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

[edit] Fields not canonically science

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

It's unclear what purpose this serves.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Practical Pulic Useable Sciences Definitions Advised

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

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

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

[edit] Science and social sciences

  • Social sciences, which study human behavior and societies (although according to several definitions of science, including those stated above, the social sciences are not overwhelmingly considered to be science, and in fact many groups of people from academicians[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)

[edit] Sciences

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

[edit] Public perception of science in France

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

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

Dpotop 11:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Political Science vs Politics

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

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

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

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

[edit] Objective

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

Hello. Just noticed this. Actually, a vandal was what brought my current attention to the lead, as I hadn't checked in in some time. The article lead was in need of a more general cleanup as a result of too many non-knowledgeable edits recently. I brought a significant portion of the relevant material about being "objective" over to the article on Objectivity (science). It's linked to by the first wikilink in the article on science. Alternately, it seems to me that a comment about "objective" or "objectivity" to this same basic effect as above would be useful in the section on Science#Scientific_method as well. ... Kenosis 23:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I noticed that. Glad we also added something short to science, too. I wanted something in science up front somewhere, because I truly think that "objective" is an under-appreciated word, which many people won't link and read, as they're reading the LEAD here. Objective means everybody agrees on criteria beforehand, as in a horse race, and then they all agree on means to test the results. With money held by the third party if necessary! Any science is just like horse race betting, if it's done honestly. Place your bets beforehand. Gates go down. Off they go. Winner is announced by methods which can be checked. No welching, back-betting, or changing the bet rules post hoc. That's why political science and computer science are sciences, and theology isn't. SBHarris 00:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I just reviewed my edits again. The main ones were here, here, here and here. ... Kenosis 00:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

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

[edit] Another Suggestion

The article states ...

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

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


[edit] Enlightenment template

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


[edit] Map of science

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

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Urdu Wikipedia

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

Thank you. Urdu wiki user.

[edit] protected?

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [1]

... 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.[citation needed]
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,[2][3] 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.[4]

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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...


[edit] Good science project site for kids

A good science fair resource and ideas for kids: