Science
From Wikipedia, the free
encyclopedia
This
article is about the general term, particularly as it refers to experimental
sciences. For other uses, see Science (disambiguation).
|
Part of a series on
|
|
Science
|
|
Philosophy and history of science[show]
|
|
·
Outline
·
Portal
·
Category
|
|
·
v
·
t
·
e
|
Science (from Latin scientia, meaning
"knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizesknowledge in the form of testable
explanations and predictions about the universe.[1][2] In an older and closely
related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself,
of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied. Since classical
antiquity, science as a type of knowledge has been closely linked to philosophy. In the early
modern period the words "science" and
"philosophy" were sometimes used interchangeably.[3] By the 17th century, natural
philosophy (which is today called "natural science")
was considered a separate branch of philosophy.[4] However,
"science" continued to be used in a broad sense denoting reliable
knowledge about a topic, in the same way it is still used in modern terms such
as library science or political science.
In modern use,
"science" more often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, not only
the knowledge itself. It is "often treated as synonymous with 'natural and
physical science', and thus restricted to those branches of study that relate
to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws, sometimes with
implied exclusion of pure mathematics. This is now the dominant sense in
ordinary use.[5] This narrower sense of
"science" developed as scientists such as Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton began formulating laws of nature such as Newton's laws of motion. In this period[vague] it became more common to
refer to natural philosophy as "natural science". Over the course of
the 19th century, the word "science" became increasingly associated
with the scientific method, a
disciplined way to study the natural world, including physics,chemistry, geology and biology. It is in
the 19th century also that the term scientist was created by the
naturalist-theologian William Whewell to distinguish those who
sought knowledge on nature from those who sought knowledge on other
disciplines. The Oxford English Dictionary dates the origin of the
word "scientist" to 1834. This sometimes left the study of human
thought and society in a linguistic limbo, which was resolved by classifying
these areas of academic study as social science.
Similarly, several other major areas of disciplined study and knowledge exist
today under the general rubric of "science", such as formal science andapplied science.
The scale of the universe
mapped to the branches of science and the hierarchy of science.
|
Contents
[hide]
·
6 Notes
|
History and philosophy
History
Both Aristotle and Kuan Tzu (4th century BCE), in an
example of simultaneous
scientific discovery, mention that somemarine animals were subject to a lunar
cycle, and increase and decrease in size with the waxing and waning of the
moon. Aristotle was referring specifically to thesea urchin, pictured
above.[6]
Science in a broad sense
existed before the modern era, and in
many historical civilizations, but modern science is so distinct in its approach and successful in its results that it now defines what
science is in the strictest sense of the term.[7] Much earlier than the
modern era, another important turning point was the development of the
classical natural
philosophy in the ancient Greek-speaking world.
Pre-philosophical
Science in its original
sense is a word for a type of knowledge (Latin scientia, Ancient Greek epistemē), rather than a
specialized word for the pursuit of such knowledge. In particular it is one of
the types of knowledge which people can communicate to each other and share.
For example, knowledge about the working of natural things was gathered long
before recorded history and led to the development of complex abstract
thinking, as shown by the construction of complex calendars, techniques for
making poisonous plants edible, and buildings such as the pyramids. However no
consistent distinction was made between knowledge of such things which are true
in every community, and other types of communal knowledge such as mythologies
and legal systems.
Philosophical study of nature
Before the invention or
discovery of the concept of "nature" (Ancient Greek phusis), by the Pre-Socratic philosophers, the same words tend to be
used to describe the natural "way" in which a
plant grows,[8] and the "way" in
which, for example, one tribe worships a particular god. For this reason it is
claimed these men were the first philosophers in the strict sense, and also the
first people to clearly distinguish "nature" and
"convention".[9] Science was therefore
distinguished as the knowledge of nature, and the things which are true for
every community, and the name of the specialized pursuit of such knowledge was
philosophy — the realm of the first philosopher-physicists. They were
mainly speculators or theorists,
particularly interested in astronomy. In
contrast, trying to use knowledge of nature to imitate nature (artifice or technology, Greek technē) was seen by classical
scientists as a more appropriate interest for lower class artisans.[10]
Philosophical turn to human things
A major turning point in
the history of early philosophical science was the controversial but successful
attempt by Socrates to apply philosophy to the
study of human things, including human nature, the nature of political
communities, and human knowledge itself. He criticized the older type of study
of physics as too purely speculative, and lacking in self-criticism. He was
particularly concerned that some of the early physicists treated nature as if
it could be assumed that it had no intelligent order, explaining things merely
in terms of motion and matter.
The study of human things
had been the realm of mythology and tradition, and Socrates was executed. Aristotle later created a less
controversial systematic programme of Socratic philosophy, which was teleological, and
human-centred. He rejected many of the conclusions of earlier scientists. For
example in his physics the sun goes around the earth, and many things have it
as part of their nature that they are for humans. Each thing has a formal cause and final causeand a
role in the rational cosmic order. Motion and change is described as the actualization of potentials already in
things, according to what types of things they are. While the Socratics
insisted that philosophy should be used to consider the practical question of
the best way to live for a human being (a study Aristotle divided into ethics and political
philosophy), they did not argue for any other types of applied science.
Aristotle maintained the
sharp distinction between science and the practical knowledge of artisans, treating
theoretical speculation as the highest type of human activity, practical
thinking about good living as something less lofty, and the knowledge of
artisans as something only suitable for the lower classes. In contrast to
modern science, Aristotle's influential emphasis was upon the
"theoretical" steps of deducing universal rules from raw
data, and did not treat the gathering of experience and raw data as part of science
itself.[11]
Medieval science
During late antiquity and the early Middle Ages,
the Aristotelian approach to inquiries on natural phenomenon was used. Some
ancient knowledge was lost, or in some cases kept in obscurity, during the fall
of the Roman Empire and periodic political struggles. However, the general
fields of science, or Natural
Philosophy as it was called, and much of the general
knowledge from the ancient world remained preserved though the works of the
early encyclopedists like Isidore
of Seville. During the early medieval period, Syrian Christians from
Eastern Europe such as Nestorians and Monophysites were the ones that
translated much of the important Greek science texts from Greek to Syriac
and the later on they translated many of the works into Arabic and other
languages under Islamic rule.[12] This was a major line of
transmission for the development of Islamic science which provided much of the
activity during the early medieval period. In the later medieval period,
Europeans recovered some ancient knowledge by translations of texts and they
built their work upon the knowledge of Aristotle, Ptolemy, Euclid, and others works. In Europe, men like Roger Bacon learned Arabic and Hebrew and argued for more experimental
science. By the late Middle Ages, a synthesis of Catholicism and
Aristotelianism known as Scholasticism was flourishing in Western Europe,
which had become a new geographic center of science.
Renaissance, and early modern science
By the late Middle Ages,
especially in Italy there was an influx of texts and scholars from the
collapsing Byzantine empire.Copernicus formulated a heliocentric model of the solar system
unlike the geocentric model of Ptolemy's Almagest. All
aspects of scholasticism were criticized in the 15th and 16th centuries; one
author who was notoriously persecuted was Galileo, who made
innovative use of experiment and mathematics. However the persecution began
after Pope Urban VIII blessed Galileo to write about the Copernican system.
Galileo had used arguments from the Pope and put them in the voice of the
simpleton in the work "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World
Systems" which caused great offense to him.[14]
In Northern Europe, the new
technology of the printing press was widely used to publish many arguments
including some that disagreed with church dogma. René Descartes and Francis Bacon published philosophical
arguments in favor of a new type of non-Aristotelian science. Descartes argued
that mathematics could be used in order to study nature, as Galileo had done,
and Bacon emphasized the importance of experiment over contemplation. Bacon
questioned the Aristotelian concepts of formal cause and final cause, and
promoted the idea that science should study the laws of "simple"
natures, such as heat, rather than assuming that there is any specific nature,
or "formal
cause", of each complex type of thing. This new modern science
began to see itself as describing "laws of nature".
This updated approach to studies in nature was seen as mechanistic. Bacon
also argued that science should aim for the first time at practical inventions
for the improvement of all human life.
Age of Enlightenment
In the 17th and 18th
centuries, the project of modernity, as had been promoted by Bacon and
Descartes, led to rapid scientific advance and the successful development of a
new type of natural science, mathematical, methodically experimental, and
deliberately innovative. Newton and Leibniz succeeded in developing a
new physics, now referred to as Newtonian physics,
which could be confirmed by experiment and explained in mathematics. Leibniz
also incorporated terms from Aristotelian physics, but now being used in a new
non-teleological way, for example "energy" and "potential". But
in the style of Bacon, he assumed that different types of things all work
according to the same general laws of nature, with no special formal or final
causes for each type of thing.
It is, during this period
that the word "science" gradually became more commonly used to refer
to the pursuit of a type of knowledge, and especially knowledge of
nature — coming close in meaning to the old term "natural
philosophy".
19th century
Both John Herschel and William Whewell systematised methodology:
the latter coined the term scientist. When Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Specieshe established descent with modification as the prevailing evolutionary explanation of biological
complexity. His theory of natural selection provided a natural
explanation of how species originated, but this only
gained wide acceptance a century later. John Dalton developed the idea of atoms. The laws ofThermodynamics and the electromagnetic theory were also established in
the 19th century, which raised new questions which could not easily be answered
using Newton's framework.
20th century and beyond
Einstein's Theory
of Relativity and the development of quantum mechanics led to the replacement of
Newtonian physics with a new physics which contains two parts, that describe
different types of events in nature. The extensive use of scientific innovation
during the wars of this century, led to the space race and widespread public
appreciation of the importance of modern science. More recently it has been
argued that the ultimate purpose of science is to make sense of human beings
and our nature- for example in his book Consilience, EO Wilson said "The human
condition is the most important frontier of the natural sciences."[15] Jeremy Griffith supports this view.[16]
Philosophy
of science
John Locke
Working scientists usually
take for granted a set of basic assumptions that are needed to justify the
scientific method: (1) that there is an objective reality shared by all
rational observers; (2) that this objective reality is governed by natural
laws; (3) that these laws can be discovered by means of systematic observation
and experimentation. Philosophy of science seeks a deep understanding of what
these underlying assumptions mean and whether they are valid.
The belief that all
observers share a common reality is known as realism.
It can be contrasted with anti-realism, the
belief that there is no valid concept of absolute truth such that things that
are true for one observer are true for all observers. The most commonly
defended form of anti-realism is idealism, the belief
that the mind or consciousness is the most basic essence, and that each mind
generates its own reality.[17] In an idealistic
world-view, what is true for one mind need not be true for other minds.
There are different schools
of thought in philosophy of science. The most popular position is empiricism, which
claims that knowledge is created by a process involving observation and that
scientific theories are the result of generalizations from such observations.[18] Empiricism generally
encompasses inductivism, a
position that tries to explain the way general theories can be justified by the
finite number of observations humans can make and the hence finite amount of
empirical evidence available to confirm scientific theories. This is necessary
because the number of predictions those theories make is infinite, which means
that they cannot be known from the finite amount of evidence using deductive logic only. Many versions of
empiricism exist, with the predominant ones beingbayesianism[19] and the hypothetico-deductive method.[20]
Empiricism has stood in
contrast to rationalism, the
position originally associated withDescartes, which
holds that knowledge is created by the human intellect, not by observation.[23] A significant 20th-century
version of rationalism is critical
rationalism, first defined by Austrian-British philosopher Karl Popper. Popper
rejected the way that empiricism describes the connection between theory and
observation. He claimed that theories are not generated by observation, but
that observation is made in the light of theories and that the only way a
theory can be affected by observation is when it comes in conflict with it.[24] Popper proposed falsifiability as the landmark of
scientific theories, and falsification as the empirical method, to
replace verifiability[25] and induction by purely
deductive notions.[26] Popper further claimed that
there is actually only one universal method, and that this method is not
specific to science: The negative method of criticism, trial and error.[27] It covers all products of
the human mind, including science, mathematics, philosophy, and art [28]
Another approach, instrumentalism,
colloquially termed "shut up and calculate", emphasizes the utility
of theories as instruments for explaining and predicting phenomena.[29] It claims that scientific
theories are black boxes with only their input (initial conditions) and output
(predictions) being relevant. Consequences, notions and logical structure of
the theories are claimed to be something that should simply be ignored and that
scientists shouldn't make a fuss about (seeinterpretations of quantum mechanics). Close
to instrumentalism is Constructivist epistemology according to which the main
task of science is constructing modelsthat can be given input and will give
you an output that will predict the output given by the reality under same
conditions accurately and validly enough.
Paul K Feyerabend advanced the idea of epistemological anarchism, which holds that there are
no useful and exception-free methodological rules governing theprogress
of science or the growth of knowledge, and that
the idea that science can or should operate according to universal and fixed
rules is unrealistic, pernicious and detrimental to science itself.[30] Feyerabend advocates
treating science as an ideology alongside others such as religion, magic and mythology, and
considers the dominance of science in society authoritarian and unjustified. He also
contended (along with Imre Lakatos) that
the demarcation
problem of distinguishing science from pseudoscience on objective grounds is not
possible and thus fatal to the notion of science running according to fixed,
universal rules.[30] Feyerabend also stated that
science does not have evidence for its philosophical precepts, particularly the
notion of Uniformity of Law and the
Uniformity of Process across time and space.[31]
Finally, another approach often
cited in debates of scientific skepticism against controversial
movements like "scientific creationism", is methodological naturalism. Its main point is that a
difference between natural and supernatural explanations should be
made, and that science should be restricted methodologically to natural
explanations.[32] That the restriction is
merely methodological (rather than ontological) means that science should not
consider supernatural explanations itself, but should not claim them to be
wrong either. Instead, supernatural explanations should be left a matter of
personal belief outside the scope of science. Methodological naturalism
maintains that proper science requires strict adherence to empirical study and independent verification as a process for properly
developing and evaluating explanations for observable phenomena.[33] The absence of these
standards, arguments
from authority, biased observational studiesand other common fallacies are frequently cited by supporters
of methodological naturalism as criteria for the dubious claims they criticize
not to be true science.
Certainty and science
A scientific theory is empirical, and is
always open to falsification if new evidence is
presented. That is, no theory is ever considered strictly certain as science accepts the
concept of fallibilism. The
philosopher of science Karl Popper sharply distinguishes truth
from certainty. He writes that scientific knowledge "consists in the
search for truth", but it "is not the search for certainty ... All
human knowledge is fallible and therefore uncertain."[34]
New scientific knowledge
rarely results in vast changes in our understanding. According to psychologist Keith Stanovich, it
may be the media's overuse of words like "breakthrough" that leads
the public to imagine that science is constantly proving everything it thought
was true to be false.[35] While there are such famous
cases as the theory
of relativity that required a complete reconceptualization,
these are extreme exceptions. Knowledge in science is gained by a gradual
synthesis of information from different experiments, by various researchers,
across different branches of science; it is more like a climb than a leap.[36] Theories vary in the extent
to which they have been tested and verified, as well as their acceptance in the
scientific community.[37] For example, heliocentric theory, the theory of evolution, relativity theory,
and germ theory still bear the name
"theory" even though, in practice, they are considered factual.[38] Philosopher Barry Stroud adds that, although the
best definition for "knowledge"
is contested, being skeptical and entertaining the possibility that one is incorrect is
compatible with being correct. Ironically then, the scientist adhering to
proper scientific approaches will doubt themselves even once they possess the truth.[39] The fallibilist C. S. Peirce argued that inquiry is the
struggle to resolve actual doubt and that merely quarrelsome, verbal, or hyperbolic doubt is fruitless[40]—but also
that the inquirer should try to attain genuine doubt rather than resting
uncritically on common sense.[41] He held that the successful
sciences trust, not to any single chain of inference (no stronger than its
weakest link), but to the cable of multiple and various arguments intimately
connected.[42]
Stanovich also asserts that
science avoids searching for a "magic bullet"; it avoids the single-cause fallacy. This means a scientist would
not ask merely "What is the cause of...", but
rather "What are the most significant causes of...". This is
especially the case in the more macroscopic fields of science (e.g. psychology, cosmology).[43] Of course, research often
analyzes few factors at once, but these are always added to the long list of
factors that are most important to consider.[43] For example: knowing the
details of only a person's genetics, or their history and upbringing, or the
current situation may not explain a behaviour, but a deep understanding of all
these variables combined can be very predictive.
Pseudoscience,
fringe science, and junk science
Main
articles: Pseudoscience, Fringe science, Junk science, Cargo
cult science, and Scientific misconduct
An area of study or
speculation that masquerades as science in an attempt to claim a legitimacy
that it would not otherwise be able to achieve is sometimes referred to as pseudoscience, fringe science, or
"alternative science".[44] Another term, junk science, is
often used to describe scientific hypotheses or conclusions which, while
perhaps legitimate in themselves, are believed to be used to support a position
that is seen as not legitimately justified by the totality of evidence.
Physicist Richard Feynman coined the term "cargo
cult science" in reference to pursuits that have the formal
trappings of science but lack "a principle of scientific thought that
corresponds to a kind of utter honesty" that allows their results to be
rigorously evaluated.[45] Various types of commercial
advertising, ranging from hype to fraud, may fall into these categories.
There also can be an
element of political or ideological bias on all sides of such debates.
Sometimes, research may be characterized as "bad science", research
that is well-intentioned but is seen as incorrect, obsolete, incomplete, or
over-simplified expositions of scientific ideas. The term "scientific misconduct" refers to situations such
as where researchers have intentionally misrepresented their published data or
have purposely given credit for a discovery to the wrong person.[46]
Scientific practice
Astronomy became much more accurate after Tycho Brahedevised
his scientific
instrumentsfor measuring angles between two celestial bodies,
before the invention of the telescope.Brahe's observations were the basis for Kepler's laws.
"If
a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be
content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties." —Francis Bacon (1605) The Advancement of Learning, Book 1, v, 8
A skeptical point of view,
demanding a method of proof, was the practical position taken as early as 1000
years ago, withAlhazen, Doubts
Concerning Ptolemy, through Bacon (1605), and C. S. Peirce (1839–1914), who note that
a community will then spring up to
address these points of uncertainty. The methods of inquiry into a problem have been
known for thousands of years,[47] and extend beyond theory to
practice. The use of measurements, for
example, is a practical approach to settle disputes in the community.
John Ziman points out that intersubjective pattern recognition is fundamental to the
creation of all scientific knowledge.[48]Ziman
shows how scientists can identify patterns to each other across centuries: Needham 1954 (illustration facing page 164)
shows how today's trained Western botanist can identify Artemisia
alba from images taken from a 16th-century Chinese
pharmacopia,[49] and Ziman refers to this
ability as 'perceptual consensibility'.[50] Ziman then makes
consensibility, leading to consensus, the touchstone of reliable knowledge.[51]
The
scientific method
The scientific method seeks to explain the events
of nature in a reproducible way.[52] An explanatory thought
experiment orhypothesis is put forward, as
explanation, using principles such as parsimony (also known as "Occam's Razor")
and are generally expected to seek consilience—fitting
well with other accepted facts related to the phenomena.[53] This new explanation is
used to make falsifiable predictions that are
testable by experiment or observation. The predictions are to be posted before
a confirming experiment or observation is sought, as proof that no tampering
has occurred. Disproof of a prediction is evidence of progress.[54][55] This is done partly through
observation of natural phenomena, but also through experimentation, that tries
to simulate natural events under controlled conditions, as appropriate to the
discipline (in the observational sciences, such as astronomy or geology, a
predicted observation might take the place of a controlled experiment).
Experimentation is especially important in science to help establish causal relationships (to avoid the correlation fallacy).
When a hypothesis proves
unsatisfactory, it is either modified or discarded.[56] If the hypothesis survived
testing, it may become adopted into the framework of ascientific theory.
This is a logically reasoned, self-consistent model or framework for describing
the behavior of certain natural phenomena. A theory typically describes the
behavior of much broader sets of phenomena than a hypothesis; commonly, a large
number of hypotheses can be logically bound together by a single theory. Thus a
theory is a hypothesis explaining various other hypotheses. In that vein,
theories are formulated according to most of the same scientific principles as
hypotheses. In addition to testing hypotheses, scientists may also generate a model based on observed
phenomena. This is an attempt to describe or depict the phenomenon in terms of
a logical, physical or mathematical representation and to generate new
hypotheses that can be tested.[57]
While performing experiments
to test hypotheses, scientists may have a preference for one outcome over
another, and so it is important to ensure that science as a whole can eliminate
this bias.[58][59] This can be achieved by
careful experimental design, transparency, and a thorough peer review process of the experimental
results as well as any conclusions.[60][61] After the results of an
experiment are announced or published, it is normal practice for independent
researchers to double-check how the research was performed, and to follow up by
performing similar experiments to determine how dependable the results might
be.[62] Taken in its entirety, the
scientific method allows for highly creative problem solving while minimizing
any effects of subjective bias on the part of its users (namely the confirmation bias).[63]
Mathematics
and formal sciences
Mathematics is essential to the
sciences. One important function of mathematics in science is the role it plays
in the expression of scientific models. Observing and collecting measurements, as
well as hypothesizing and predicting, often require extensive use of
mathematics. Arithmetic, algebra, geometry,trigonometry and calculus, for
example, are all essential to physics. Virtually
every branch of mathematics has applications in science, including "pure"
areas such as number theory and topology.
Statistical methods,
which are mathematical techniques for summarizing and analyzing data, allow
scientists to assess the level of reliability and the range of variation in
experimental results. Statistical analysis plays a fundamental role in many
areas of both the natural sciences and social sciences.
Computational science applies computing power to
simulate real-world situations, enabling a better understanding of scientific
problems than formal mathematics alone can achieve. According to theSociety for Industrial and Applied Mathematics,
computation is now as important as theory and experiment in advancing
scientific knowledge.[64]
Whether mathematics itself
is properly classified as science has been a matter of some debate. Some
thinkers see mathematicians as scientists, regarding physical experiments as
inessential or mathematical proofs as equivalent to experiments. Others do not
see mathematics as a science, since it does not require an experimental test of
its theories and hypotheses. Mathematical theorems and formulas are obtained by logical derivations which presume axiomatic systems, rather than the
combination ofempirical observation and logical
reasoning that has come to be known as the scientific method.
In general, mathematics is classified as formal science,
while natural and social sciences are classified as empirical sciences.[65]
Basic
and applied research
Although some scientific
research is applied research into specific problems, a
great deal of our understanding comes from the curiosity-driven undertaking ofbasic research. This
leads to options for technological advance that were not planned or sometimes
even imaginable. This point was made by Michael Faraday when, allegedly in
response to the question "what is the use of basic research?" he
responded "Sir, what is the use of a new-born child?".[66] For example, research into
the effects of red light on the human eye's rod cells did not seem to have any
practical purpose; eventually, the discovery that our night vision is not troubled by red
light would lead search and rescue teams (among others) to
adopt red light in the cockpits of jets and helicopters.[67] In a nutshell: Basic
research is the search for knowledge. Applied research is the search for
solutions to practical problems using this knowledge. Finally, even basic
research can take unexpected turns, and there is some sense in which the
scientific method is built to harness
luck.
Research
in practice
Due to the increasing
complexity of information and specialization of scientists, most of the
cutting-edge research today is done by well funded groups of scientists, rather
than individuals.[68] D.K. Simonton notes that
due to the breadth of very precise and far reaching tools already used by
researchers today and the amount of research generated so far, creation of new
disciplines or revolutions within a discipline may no longer be possible as it
is unlikely that some phenomenon that merits its own discipline has been
overlooked. Hybridizing of disciplines and finessing knowledge is, in his view,
the future of science.[68]
Practical
impacts of scientific research
Discoveries in fundamental
science can be world-changing. For example:
|
Research
|
Impact
|
|
The strange orbit of Mercury (1859) and other research
leading to special (1905) and general relativity (1916) |
|
|
Cancer treatment (1896), nuclear reactors (1942) and weapons (1945), PET
scans (1961), and medical research (viaisotopic
labeling)
|
|
|
Vaccination,
leading to the elimination of most infectious diseases from developed
countries and the worldwide eradication of smallpox; hygiene,
leading to decreased transmission of infectious diseases; antibodies,
leading to techniques for disease diagnosis and targeted anticancer therapies.
|
|
|
Semiconductor devices (1906), hence modern computing and telecommunications including the integration with wireless
devices: the mobile phone [69]
|
|
|
Optics, hence fiberoptic cable (1840s), modern intercontinental communications, and cable
TV and internet
|
|
|
Radio had become used in innumerable ways beyond its
better-known areas of telephony, and broadcast television(1927)
and radio (1906) entertainment.
Other uses included - emergency
services, radar (navigation and weather
prediction), sonar, medicine, astronomy, wireless communications, and networking. Radio waves also led researchers to
adjacent frequencies such as microwaves, used
worldwide for heating and cooking food.
|
Scientific community
Johannes Hevelius and wife Elisabethamaking
observations, 1673. The Royal Society numbers Hevelius among its
first foreign members.
The scientific community is
the group of all interacting scientists. It includes many sub-communities
working on particular scientific fields, and within particular institutions;
interdisciplinary and cross-institutional activities are also significant.
Branches and fields
Scientific fields are commonly
divided into two major groups: natural sciences,
which study natural phenomena (including biological life),
and social sciences,
which study human behavior and societies. These
groupings areempirical sciences, which means the
knowledge must be based on observable phenomena and capable of being tested
for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions.[70] There are also related
disciplines that are grouped into interdisciplinary and applied sciences, such
as engineering and medicine. Within
these categories are specialized scientific fields that can include parts of
other scientific disciplines but often possess their own nomenclature and expertise.[71]
Mathematics, which
is classified as a formal science,[72][73] has both similarities and
differences with the empirical sciences (the natural and social sciences). It is
similar to empirical sciences in that it involves an objective, careful and
systematic study of an area of knowledge; it is different because of its method
of verifying its knowledge, using a priorirather than empirical methods.[74] The formal sciences, which
also include statistics and logic, are vital to the empirical sciences.
Major advances in formal science have often led to major advances in the
empirical sciences. The formal sciences are essential in the formation of hypotheses, theories, and laws,[75] both in discovering and
describing how things work (natural sciences) and how people think and act
(social sciences).
Institutions
Learned societies for the communication and
promotion of scientific thought and experimentation have existed since the Renaissance period.[76] The oldest surviving
institution is the Italian Accademia
dei Lincei which was established in
1603.[77] The respective National Academies
of Science are distinguished institutions that exist in
a number of countries, beginning with the British Royal Society in 1660[78] and the French Académie des Sciences in 1666.[79]
International scientific
organizations, such as the International Council for Science, have since been
formed to promote cooperation between the scientific communities of different
nations. Many governments have dedicated agencies to support scientific
research. Prominent scientific organizations include, the National Science Foundation in the U.S., the National Scientific and
Technical Research Council in Argentina, the academies
of science of many nations, CSIRO in Australia, Centre national de la recherche scientifique in France, Max
Planck Society and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft in Germany, and in Spain, CSIC.
Literature
An enormous range of scientific literature is published.[80] Scientific
journals communicate and document the results of
research carried out in universities and various other research institutions,
serving as an archival record of science. The first scientific journals, Journal
des Sçavans followed by the Philosophical Transactions, began publication in
1665. Since that time the total number of active periodicals has steadily
increased. As of 1981, one estimate for the number of scientific and technical
journals in publication was 11,500.[81] The United States National Library of Medicine currently indexes 5,516
journals that contain articles on topics related to the life sciences. Although
the journals are in 39 languages, 91 percent of the indexed articles are
published in English.[82]
Most scientific journals
cover a single scientific field and publish the research within that field; the
research is normally expressed in the form of a scientific paper.
Science has become so pervasive in modern societies that it is generally
considered necessary to communicate the achievements, news, and ambitions of
scientists to a wider populace.
Science magazines such as New Scientist, Science & Vie, and Scientific
American cater to the needs of a much wider readership
and provide a non-technical summary of popular areas of research, including
notable discoveries and advances in certain fields of research. Science books engage the interest of many
more people. Tangentially, the science fiction genre, primarily fantastic
in nature, engages the public imagination and transmits the ideas, if not the
methods, of science.
Recent efforts to intensify
or develop links between science and non-scientific disciplines such as Literature or, more specifically, Poetry, include the Creative Writing Science resource developed through
the Royal
Literary Fund.[83]
Science and society
Women in science
Vera Rubin, the
first astronomer to infer galactic clumping from astronomical data in 1953, was
not allowed to use the telescope at Palomar until 1965, with the given reason
that the facility did not have a women's restroom.
Science is largely a
male-dominated field, with notable exceptions.[84] A large majority of male
scientists are the ones who have made the discoveries, written the books and
thus have written the rules of what to study and how to study it. There is
evidence suggesting that this is a product of stereotypes (e.g. science as
"manly") as well as self-fulfilling prophecies.[85][86] Experiments have shown that
parents challenge and explain more to boys than girls, asking them to reflect
more deeply and logically.[87] Physicist Evelyn Fox Keller argues that science has masculine stereotypes causing ego and
competitiveness to obstruct progress, and that these tendencies prevent
collaboration and sharing of information.[88]
Women have faced a lot of
discrimination getting not only credit for their scientific discoveries but
also getting opportunities.[89] Both in research and
professorship the quantity of females are very limited in comparison to their
male counterparts.[90] The lack of females in
science can be directly associated with the social atmosphere which has always
treated science as a more masculine area of study.[91] Beginning with boys being
pushed more towards academia and girls being confined to the domestic sphere,
females have faced both discrimination and difficulty entering into science.
Those who are a part of the scientific community find it difficult to break the
"glass ceiling" which thus limits how far they can advance within the
field. The barrier between work and home has also been an obstacle that women
have had to overcome to succeed in the sciences. The achievements of women in science
are attributed to their defiance of traditional status of being a laborer
within the domestic sphere.[92]
Feminist authors and
leaders who hail from various educational backgrounds such as Londa Schiebinger, Anne
Fausto-Sterling, Bonnie Spanier, and Evelyn Fox Keller[93] have published many works
interpreting and critiquing science from a feminist perspective. Some
criticisms include the gendered metaphors in science, the lack of
representation of females in the sciences, how science is used to back up the
ideals of patriarchy, and sex/gender dichotomies. Feminist Science Studies as a sub-genre of Women's Studies or Gender Studies are available as areas of
study in many universities as a method of activism to promote and encourage
awareness of social issues as well as promoting women and intersex individuals
to contribute more to the sciences.
Although it has been
difficult for women to break into the field of science as credible
contributors, many new discoveries have been a result of work by female
scientists. Some of the most famous females in the field include Marie Curie, who
made discoveries relating to radioactivity, Rosalind Franklin,
who worked with x-ray diffraction, Caroline Herschel,
who was the first woman to be paid for her scientific work and Jane Goodall, who is
currently the world's foremost primatologist.[94] These women helped
establish a place for women in a heavily male dominated field.[90] Most female scientists have
only gained fame and authority in the 20th century although there have been
advancements in the natural sciences made by women since the early 15th
century. Christine
de Pizanwrote the first encyclopedia in which she gave credit to
these 15th-century women for the scientific discoveries of bread making, wool
dyeing, grain cultivation and many other day to day inventions.
Science policy
Main articles: Science policy, History of science policy, Funding
of science, and Economics
of science
Science policy is an area
of public policy concerned with the policies
that affect the conduct of the scientific enterprise, including research funding,
often in pursuance of other national policy goals such as technological
innovation to promote commercial product development, weapons development,
health care and environmental monitoring. Science policy also refers to the act
of applying scientific knowledge and consensus to the development of public
policies. Science policy thus deals with the entire domain of issues that
involve the natural sciences. In accordance with public policy being concerned about the
well-being of its citizens, science policy's goal is to consider how science
and technology can best serve the public.
State policy has influenced the funding
of public works and science for thousands
of years, dating at least from the time of the Mohists, who
inspired the study of logic during the period of the Hundred Schools of Thought, and the study of
defensive fortifications during the Warring States Period in China. In Great Britain,
governmental approval of the Royal Society in the 17th century
recognized a scientific
community which exists to this day. The
professionalization of science, begun in the 19th century, was partly enabled
by the creation of scientific organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences, the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, and State funding of
universities of their respective nations. Public policy can directly affect the
funding of capital equipment,
intellectual infrastructure for industrial research, by providing tax
incentives to those organizations that fund research. Vannevar Bush,
director of the office of scientific research and development for the United
States government, the forerunner of the National Science Foundation, wrote in July 1945 that
"Science is a proper concern of government" [95]
Science and technology research is often funded
through a competitive process, in which potential research projects are
evaluated and only the most promising receive funding. Such processes, which
are run by government, corporations or foundations, allocate scarce funds.
Total research funding in most developed countries is between 1.5% and 3% of GDP.[96] In the OECD, around two-thirds of research and development in scientific and technical
fields is carried out by industry, and 20% and 10% respectively by universities and government. The
government funding proportion in certain industries is higher, and it dominates
research in social science and humanities.
Similarly, with some exceptions (e.g. biotechnology)
government provides the bulk of the funds for basic scientific research.
In commercial research and development, all but the most research-oriented
corporations focus more heavily on near-term commercialisation possibilities
rather than "blue-sky"
ideas or technologies (such as nuclear fusion).
Media perspectives
The mass media face a number of pressures
that can prevent them from accurately depicting competing scientific claims in
terms of their credibility within the scientific community as a whole. Determining
how much weight to give different sides in a scientific debate may require considerable
expertise regarding the matter.[97] Few journalists have real
scientific knowledge, and even beat reporters who know a great deal about
certain scientific issues may be ignorant about other scientific issues that
they are suddenly asked to cover.[98][99]
Political usage
Many issues damage the
relationship of science to the media and the use of science and scientific
arguments by politicians. As a
very broad generalisation, many politicians seek certainties and facts whilst scientists typically
offer probabilities and caveats. However, politicians' ability to be heard in
the mass media frequently distorts the
scientific understanding by the public. Examples in Britain include the controversy over
the MMR inoculation, and the
1988 forced resignation of a Government Minister, Edwina Currie for revealing the high
probability that battery farmed eggs were
contaminated with Salmonella.[100]
John Horgan, Chris Mooney, and researchers from the US and Canada
have described Scientific Certainty Argumentation Methods (SCAMs), where an
organization or think tank makes it their only goal to cast doubt on supported
science because it conflicts with political agendas.[101][102][103][104] Hank Campbell and
microbiologist Alex Berezow have described "feel-good fallacies" used
in politics, where politicians frame their positions in a way that makes people
feel good about supporting certain policies even when scientific evidence shows
there is no need to worry or there is no need for dramatic change on current
programs.[105]
See also
 |
·
Research
Notes
1. ^ Wilson, Edward O.
(1998). Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge (1st ed.). New
York, NY: Vintage Books. pp. 49–71. ISBN 0-679-45077-7.
2. ^ "...
modern science is a discovery as well as an invention. It was a discovery that
nature generally acts regularly enough to be described by laws and even bymathematics; and required invention to devise
the techniques, abstractions, apparatus, and organization for exhibiting the
regularities and securing their law-like descriptions." —p.vii, J. L. Heilbron,(2003, editor-in-chief). The
Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science. New York: Oxford
University Press. ISBN 0-19-511229-6.
·
"science". Merriam-Webster
Online Dictionary. Merriam-Webster, Inc. Retrieved 2011-10-16.
"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"
3. ^ David C. Lindberg (2007), The
beginnings of Western science: the European Scientific tradition in
philosophical, religious, and institutional context, Second ed. Chicago:
Univ. of Chicago Press ISBN 978-0-226-48205-7, p.3
4. ^ Isaac
Newton's Philosophiae
Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687), for example, is
translated "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy", and
reflects the then-current use of the words "natural philosophy",
akin to "systematic study of nature"
7. ^ "The
historian ... requires a very broad definition of "science" — one
that ... will help us to understand the modern scientific enterprise. We need
to be broad and inclusive, rather than narrow and exclusive ... and we should
expect that the farther back we go [in time] the broader we will need to
be." — David Pingree (1992), "Hellenophilia versus the History of
Science" Isis 83 554-63, as cited on
p.3, David C. Lindberg (2007), The
beginnings of Western science: the European Scientific tradition in
philosophical, religious, and institutional context, Second ed. Chicago:
Univ. of Chicago Press ISBN 978-0-226-48205-7
9. ^ "Progress
or Return" in An Introduction to Political Philosophy: Ten Essays by Leo
Strauss. (Expanded version of Political Philosophy: Six Essays by Leo Strauss,
1975.) Ed. Hilail Gilden. Detroit: Wayne State UP, 1989.
11. ^ "... [A] man
knows a thing scientifically when he possesses a conviction arrived at in a
certain way, and when the first principles on which that conviction rests are
known to him with certainty—for unless he is more certain of his first
principles than of the conclusion drawn from them he will only possess the
knowledge in question accidentally." — Aristotle, Nicomachean
Ethics 6 (H. Rackham, ed.) Aristot. Nic. Eth. 1139b
12. ^ Grant, Edward
(2007). A History of Natural Philosophy: From the Ancient World to the
Nineteenth Century. Cambridge University Press. pp. 62–67.ISBN 978-0-521-68957-1.
13. ^ "Galileo and the
Birth of Modern Science, by Stephen Hawking, American Heritage's Invention
& Technology, Spring 2009, Vol. 24, No. 1, p. 36
16. ^ Griffith J.
2011. What is Science?. In The Book of Real Answers to
Everything!, ISBN 9781741290073. http://www.worldtransformation.com/what-is-science/ accessed
November 20, 2012.
17. ^ This realization is
the topic of intersubjective
verifiability, as recounted, for example, by Max Born (1949, 1965) Natural Philosophy of Cause and Chance,
who points out that all knowledge, including natural or social science, is also
subjective. Page 162: "Thus it dawned upon me that fundamentally
everything is subjective, everything without exception. That was a shock."
18. ^ "...[T]he
logical empiricists thought that the great aim of science was to discover and
establish generalizations." —Godfrey-Smith 2003, p. 41
19. ^ "Bayesianism
tries to understand evidence using probability theory." —Godfrey-Smith 2003, p. 203
21. ^ Engraving after 'Men of Science Living in 1807-8', John Gilbert engraved
by George Zobel and William
Walker, ref. NPG 1075a, National Portrait Gallery, London, accessed
February 2010
22. ^ Smith, HM (May
1941). "Eminent men of science living in 1807-8". J.
Chem. Educ 18 (5): 203. doi:10.1021/ed018p203.
29. ^ Newton-Smith, W. H.
(1994). The Rationality of Science. London: Routledge.
p. 30. ISBN 0-7100-0913-5.
32. ^ Godfrey-Smith 2003, p. 151 credits Willard Van Orman
Quine (1969) "Epistemology Naturalized" Ontological
Relativity and Other Essays New York: Columbia University Press, as
well as John Dewey, with the
basic ideas of naturalism — Naturalized
Epistemology, but Godfrey-Smith diverges from Quine's position:
according to Godfrey-Smith, "A naturalist can think that science can
contribute to answers to philosophical questions, without
thinking that philosophical questions can be replaced by science
questions.".
33. ^ Brugger, E. Christian
(2004). "Casebeer, William D. Natural Ethical Facts: Evolution,
Connectionism, and Moral Cognition". The Review of Metaphysics 58(2).
37. ^ Fleck, Ludwik (1979). In Trenn, Thaddeus
J.; Merton, Robert K. Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.ISBN 0-226-25325-2. Claims
that before a specific fact "existed", it had to be created as part
of a social agreement within a community. Steven Shapin (1980) "A view of
scientific thought" Science ccvii (7 Mar 1980) 1065-66
states "[To Fleck,] facts are invented, not discovered. Moreover, the
appearance of scientific facts as discovered things is itself a social
construction: a made thing. "
40. ^ Peirce (1877),
"The Fixation of Belief", Popular Science Monthly, v. 12, pp. 1–15,
see §IV on p. 6–7. Reprinted Collected Papers v.
5, paragraphs 358–87 (see 374–6), Writings v. 3, pp. 242–57
(see 247–8), Essential Peirce v. 1, pp. 109–23 (see 114–15),
and elsewhere.
41. ^ Peirce (1905),
"Issues of Pragmaticism", The Monist, v. XV, n. 4, pp.
481–99, see "Character V" on p. 491. Reprinted in Collected Papers v.
5, paragraphs 438–63 (see 451), Essential Peirce v. 2, pp.
346–59 (see 353), and elsewhere.
42. ^ Peirce (1868),
"Some Consequences of Four Incapacities", Journal of
Speculative Philosophy v. 2, n. 3, pp. 140–57, see p. 141. Reprinted inCollected Papers,
v. 5, paragraphs 264–317, Writings v. 2, pp. 211–42,Essential
Peirce v. 1, pp. 28–55, and elsewhere.
44. ^ "Pseudoscientific —
pretending to be scientific, falsely represented as being scientific",
from the Oxford American Dictionary, published by the Oxford English
Dictionary; Hansson, Sven Ove (1996)."Defining
Pseudoscience", Philosophia Naturalis, 33: 169–176, as cited in "Science and Pseudo-science" (2008)
in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The Stanford article states: "Many
writers on pseudoscience have emphasized that pseudoscience is non-science
posing as science. The foremost modern classic on the subject (Gardner 1957)
bears the title Fads
and Fallacies in the Name of Science. According to Brian Baigrie
(1988, 438), "[w]hat is objectionable about these beliefs is that they
masquerade as genuinely scientific ones." These and many other authors
assume that to be pseudoscientific, an activity or a teaching has to satisfy
the following two criteria (Hansson 1996): (1) it is not scientific, and (2)
its major proponents try to create the impression that it is scientific".
·
For example, Hewitt et al. Conceptual
Physical Science Addison Wesley; 3 edition (July 18, 2003) ISBN 0-321-05173-4, Bennett et al. The
Cosmic Perspective 3e Addison Wesley; 3 edition (July 25, 2003) ISBN 0-8053-8738-2; See also,
e.g., Gauch HG Jr. Scientific Method in Practice (2003).
·
A 2006 National
Science Foundation report on Science and engineering indicators
quoted Michael Shermer's
(1997) definition of pseudoscience: '"claims presented so that they appear
[to be] scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and
plausibility"(p. 33). In contrast, science is "a set of methods
designed to describe and interpret observed and inferred phenomena, past or
present, and aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection
or confirmation"(p. 17)'.Shermer M. (1997). Why People Believe
Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time.
New York: W. H. Freeman and Company. ISBN 0-7167-3090-1. as
cited by National Science Board. National
Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics
(2006). "Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and
Understanding". Science and engineering indicators 2006.
·
"A pretended or spurious science; a collection of
related beliefs about the world mistakenly regarded as being based on
scientific method or as having the status that scientific truths now
have," from the Oxford English Dictionary, second edition 1989.
46. ^ "Coping with fraud" (PDF). The
COPE Report 1999: 11–18. Archived fromthe original on 2007-09-28. Retrieved
2011-07-21. "It is 10 years, to the month, since Stephen Lock ...
Reproduced with kind permission of the Editor, The Lancet."
47. ^ In mathematics, Plato's Meno demonstrates
that it is possible to know logical propositions, such as the Pythagorean theorem,
and even to prove them, as cited by Crease 2009, pp. 35–41
52. ^ di Francia 1976, p. 13: "The amazing
point is that for the first time since the discovery of mathematics, a method
has been introduced, the results of which have an intersubjective
value!" (Author's punctuation)
53. ^ Wilson, Edward
(1999). Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. New York:
Vintage. ISBN 0-679-76867-X
54. ^ di Francia 1976, pp. 4–5: "One
learns in a laboratory; one learns how to make experiments only by
experimenting, and one learns how to work with his hands only by using them.
The first and fundamental form of experimentation in physics is to teach young
people to work with their hands. Then they should be taken into a laboratory
and taught to work with measuring instruments — each student carrying out
real experiments in physics. This form of teaching is indispensable and cannot
be read in a book."
55. ^ Fara 2009, p. 204: "Whatever their
discipline, scientists claimed to share a common scientific method that ...
distinguished them from non-scientists."
58. ^ van Gelder, Tim
(1999). ""Heads I win, tails you lose": A Foray
Into the Psychology of Philosophy" (PDF). University of
Melbourne. Archived from the original on 2008-04-09. Retrieved
2008-03-28.
59. ^ Pease, Craig
(September 6, 2006). "Chapter 23. Deliberate bias: Conflict creates bad
science". Science for Business, Law and Journalism.
Vermont Law School. Archived from the original|archiveurl= requires |url= (help)on
19 June 2010.
60. ^ Shatz, David
(2004). Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry. Rowman & Littlefield.ISBN 0-7425-1434-X. OCLC 54989960.
61. ^ Krimsky, Sheldon
(2003). Science in the Private Interest: Has the Lure of Profits
Corrupted the Virtue of Biomedical Research. Rowman & Littlefield.ISBN 0-7425-1479-X. OCLC 185926306.
62. ^ Bulger, Ruth Ellen;
Heitman, Elizabeth; Reiser, Stanley Joel (2002). The Ethical Dimensions
of the Biological and Health Sciences (2nd ed.). Cambridge University
Press. ISBN 0-521-00886-7. OCLC 47791316.
63. ^ Backer, Patricia
Ryaby (October 29, 2004). "What is the scientific method?".
San Jose State University. Retrieved 2008-03-28.
64. ^ Graduate Education for Computational Science and
Engineering, SIAM Working Group on CSE Education. Retrieved
2008-04-27.
65. ^ Bunge, Mario Augusto
(1998). Philosophy of Science: From Problem to Theory. Transaction
Publishers. p. 24. ISBN 0-7658-0413-1.
66. ^ "To
Live at All Is Miracle Enough — Richard Dawkins".
RichardDawkins.net. 2006-05-10. Retrieved 2012-02-05.
68. ^ a b Simonton, Dean Keith.
"After Einstein: Scientific genius is extinct". Nature493 (7434):
602–602. doi:10.1038/493602a.
69. ^ a b Evicting Einstein, March 26, 2004, NASA. "Both
[relativity and quantum mechanics] are extremely successful. The Global
Positioning System (GPS), for instance, wouldn't be possible without the theory
of relativity. Computers, telecommunications, and the Internet, meanwhile, are
spin-offs of quantum mechanics."
71. ^ See: Editorial
Staff (March 7, 2008). "Scientific Method: Relationships among Scientific
Paradigms". Seed magazine. Retrieved 2007-09-12.
72. ^ "Marcus Tomalin (2006) ''Linguistics and the Formal
Sciences''". Cambridge.org. doi:10.2277/0521854814.
Retrieved 2012-02-05.
76. ^ Parrott, Jim (August
9, 2007). "Chronicle for Societies Founded from 1323 to
1599". Scholarly Societies Project. Retrieved 2007-09-11.
79. ^ Meynell, G.G. "The French Academy of Sciences, 1666–91: A
reassessment of the French Académie royale des sciences under Colbert (1666–83)
and Louvois (1683–91)". Retrieved 2011-10-13.
80. ^ Ziman, J.M. (1980). "The
proliferation of scientific literature: a natural process". Science 208 (4442):
369–371. doi:10.1126/science.7367863.PMID 7367863.
81. ^ Subramanyam, Krishna;
Subramanyam, Bhadriraju (1981). Scientific and Technical Information
Resources. CRC Press. ISBN 0-8247-8297-6.OCLC 232950234.
82. ^ "MEDLINE Fact Sheet". Washington
DC: United
States National Library of Medicine. Retrieved 2011-10-15.
·
Christine
Ladd-Franklin, a doctoral student of C. S. Peirce, who published
Wittgenstein's proposition 5.101 in her dissertation, 40 years before
Wittgenstein's publication of Tractatus
Logico-Philosophicus.
·
Henrietta Leavitt, a professional human
computer and astronomer, who first published the significant relationship
between the luminosity of Cepheid variable stars and their distance
from Earth. This allowed Hubble to make the discovery of the expanding
universe, which led to the Big Bang theory.
·
Nina Byers notes that after 1976, women
in science became much more prevalent in science, than the exceptions
85. ^ Summers, L. H. (2005). Remarks at NBER
Conference on Diversifying the Science & Engineering Workforce. The office
of the President. Harvard University.
86. ^ Nosek, B.A., et al.
(2009). National differences in gender–science stereotypes predict national sex
differences in science and math achievement. PNAS, June 30, 2009, 106,
10593–10597.
87. ^ Crowley, K. Callanan,
M.A., Tenenbaum, H. R., & Allen, E. (2001). Parents explain more often to
boys than to girls during shared scientific thinking. Psychological Science,
258–261.
89. ^ Nina Byers,Contributions
of 20th Century Women to Physics which details and 83 female
physicists of the 20th century, By 1976, more women were physicists, and the 83
who were detailed were joined by other women in noticeably larger numbers.
90. ^ a b Londa Schiebinger, Has
Feminism Changed Science (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999)
92. ^ Bonnie Spanier, From
Molecules to Brains, Normal Science Supports Sexist Beliefs About Differences,
The Gender and Science Reader ( New York: Routledge 2001)
94. ^ Sarah Zielinski, Ten
Historic Female Scientists You Should Know, web.http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Ten-Historic-Female-Scientists-You-Should-Know.html.
96. ^ "Main
Science and Technology Indicators - 2008-1" (pdf). OECD.
Retrieved 20 April 2012. 50.8 KB
97. ^ Dickson, David
(October 11, 2004). "Science journalism must keep a critical edge".
Science and Development Network. Archived from the original|archiveurl= requires |url= (help) on
21 June 2010.
98. ^ Mooney, Chris
(Nov/Dec 2004). Blinded By Science, How 'Balanced' Coverage Lets the
Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality 43 (4).
Columbia Journalism Review. Retrieved 2008-02-20.
99. ^ McIlwaine, S.;
Nguyen, D. A. (2005). "Are
Journalism Students Equipped to Write About Science?". Australian
Studies in Journalism 14: 41–60. Retrieved 2008-02-20.
101.^ "Original
"Doubt is our product..." memo". University of
California, San Francisco. 21 August 1969. Retrieved 3 October 2012. The
memo reads "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing
with the 'body of fact' that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also
the means of establishing a controversy."
102.^ "'THE REPUBLICAN WAR ON SCIENCE,' BY CHRIS
MOONEY", Political Science, Review by JOHN HORGAN, Published: December 18
2005
104.^ William R. Freudenburg, Robert Gramling, Debra J.
Davidson (2008)"Scientific Certainty Argumentation Methods
(SCAMs): Science and the politics of doubt". Sociological Inquiry.
Vol. 78, No. 1. 2–38
105.^ Hank Campbell, Alex
Berezow,. Science Left Behind : Feel-good Fallacies and the Rise
of the Anti-Scientific Left (1st ed.). New York: PublicAffairs.ISBN 9781610391641.
References
·
Crease, Robert P. (2009). The
Great Equations. New York: W.W. Norton. p. 317.ISBN 978-0-393-06204-5
·
Crease, Robert P. (2011). World in
the Balance: the historic quest for an absolute system of measurement. New
York: W.W. Norton. p. 317. ISBN 978-0-393-07298-3.
·
di Francia, Giuliano Toraldo (1976). The
Investigation of the Physical World. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press. ISBN 0-521-29925-X Originally published in
Italian as L'Indagine del Mondo Fisico by Giulio Einaudi editore
1976; first published in English by Cambridge University Press 1981.
·
Fara, Patricia (2009). Science :
a four thousand year history. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
p. 408. ISBN 978-0-19-922689-4.
·
Feyerabend, Paul (2005). Science, history of the
philosophy,
as cited in Honderich, Ted (2005). The
Oxford companion to philosophy. Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-926479-1. OCLC 173262485.
·
Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2003). Theory
and Reality. Chicago 60637: University of Chicago. p. 272. ISBN 0-226-30062-5
·
Feynman, R.P. (1999). The Pleasure of
Finding Things Out: The Best Short Works of Richard P. Feynman. Perseus
Books Group. ISBN 0-465-02395-9.OCLC 181597764.
·
Needham, Joseph (1954). Science
and Civilisation in China: Introductory Orientations 1.
Cambridge University Press
·
Nola, Robert; Irzik, Gürol (2005). Philosophy, science, education and culture. Science
& technology education library 28. Springer. ISBN 1-4020-3769-4.
·
Papineau,
David. (2005). Science, problems of the
philosophy of.,
as cited inHonderich, Ted (2005). The Oxford
companion to philosophy. Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-926479-1. OCLC 173262485.
·
Parkin, D. (1991). "Simultaneity and
Sequencing in the Oracular Speech of Kenyan Diviners". In Philip M.
Peek. African Divination Systems: Ways of Knowing. Indianapolis,
IN: Indiana University Press..
·
Polanyi, Michael (1958). Personal
Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. University of Chicago
Press. ISBN 0-226-67288-3
·
Popper, Karl Raimund (1996) [1984]. In search of a better world: lectures and essays from thirty years.
New York, NY: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-13548-6.
·
Popper, Karl R. (2002) [1959]. The Logic
of Scientific Discovery. New York, NY: Routledge Classics. ISBN 0-415-27844-9. OCLC 59377149.
·
Stanovich, Keith E. (2007). How to
Think Straight About Psychology. Boston: Pearson Education. ISBN 978-0-205-68590-5.
·
Ziman, John (1978). Reliable
knowledge: An exploration of the grounds for belief in science. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. p. 197. ISBN 0-521-22087-4
Further reading
·
Augros, Robert M., Stanciu, George N., "The New
Story of Science: mind and the universe", Lake Bluff, Ill.: Regnery
Gateway, c1984. ISBN 0-89526-833-7
·
Becker, Ernest (1968). The
structure of evil; an essay on the unification of the science of man. New
York: G. Braziller.
·
Cole, K. C., Things your teacher never
told you about science: Nine shocking revelations Newsday, Long Island, New York, March 23, 1986, pg 21+
·
Gaukroger, Stephen (2006). The
Emergence of a Scientific Culture: Science and the Shaping of Modernity
1210–1685. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-929644-8.
·
Krige, John, and Dominique Pestre, eds., Science in the Twentieth
Century,
Routledge 2003, ISBN 0-415-28606-9
·
Levin,
Yuval (2008). Imagining the Future:
Science and American Democracy. New York, Encounter Books. ISBN 1-59403-209-2
·
William F., McComas (1998). "The principal elements of the nature of science:
Dispelling the myths". In McComas, William F. The
nature of science in science education: rationales and strategies.
Springer. ISBN 978-0-7923-6168-8
·
Obler, Paul C.; Estrin, Herman A.
(1962). The New Scientist: Essays on the Methods and Values of Modern
Science. Anchor Books,
Doubleday.
·
Russell, Bertrand (1985) [1952]. The
Impact of Science on Society. London: Unwin.ISBN 0-04-300090-8.
·
Rutherford, F. James; Ahlgren, Andrew
(1990). Science for all Americans. New York, NY: American Association for the Advancement of Science,
Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-506771-1.
·
Thurs, Daniel Patrick (2007). Science
Talk: Changing Notions of Science in American Popular Culture. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. pp. 22–52. ISBN 978-0-8135-4073-3.
External links
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
Publications
News
·
Sciencia
Resources
·
Euroscience:
·
"ESOF: Euroscience Open Forum".
Archived from the original|archiveurl= requires |url= (help) on
10 June 2010.
·
Classification of the Sciences in Dictionary of the History
of Ideas.
(Dictionary's new electronic format is badly botched, entries after
"Design" are inaccessible. Internet Archive old version).
·
United States Science Initiative Selected science
information provided by US Government agencies, including research &
development results
No comments:
Post a Comment