Page semi-protected


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search



The earliest roots of science can be traced to Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia in around 3500 to 3000 BCE.[5][6] Their contributions to mathematics, astronomy, and medicine entered and shaped Greek natural philosophy of classical antiquity, whereby formal attempts were made to provide explanations of events in the physical world based on natural causes.[5][6] After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, knowledge of Greek conceptions of the world deteriorated in Western Europe during the early centuries (400 to 1000 CE) of the Middle Ages[7] but was preserved in the Muslim world during the Islamic Golden Age.[8] The recovery and assimilation of Greek works and Islamic inquiries into Western Europe from the 10th to 13th century revived "natural philosophy",[7][9] which was later transformed by the Scientific Revolution that began in the 16th century[10] as new ideas and discoveries departed from previous Greek conceptions and traditions.[11][12][13][14] The scientific method soon played a greater role in knowledge creation and it was not until the 19th century that many of the institutional and professional features of science began to take shape;[15][16][17] along with the changing of "natural philosophy" to "natural science."[18]

Modern science is typically divided into three major branches that consist of the natural sciences (e.g., biology, chemistry, and physics), which study nature in the broadest sense; the social sciences (e.g., economics, psychology, and sociology), which study individuals and societies; and the formal sciences (e.g., logic, mathematics, and theoretical computer science), which study abstract concepts. There is disagreement,[19][20] however, on whether the formal sciences actually constitute a science as they do not rely on empirical evidence.[21] Disciplines that use existing scientific knowledge for practical purposes, such as engineering and medicine, are described as applied sciences.[22][23][24][25]



Science in a broad sense existed before the modern era and in many historical civilizations.[26] Modern science is distinct in its approach and successful in its results, so it now defines what science is in the strictest sense of the term.[3][5][27] Science in its original sense was a word for a type of knowledge, rather than a specialized word for the pursuit of such knowledge. In particular, it was the type of knowledge which people can communicate to each other and share. For example, knowledge about the working of natural things was gathered long before recorded history and led to the development of complex abstract thought. This is shown by the construction of complex calendars, techniques for making poisonous plants edible, public works at national scale, such as those which harnessed the floodplain of the Yangtse with reservoirs,[28] dams, and dikes, and buildings such as the Pyramids. However, no consistent conscious 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. Metallurgy was known in prehistory, and the Vinča culture was the earliest known producer of bronze-like alloys. It is thought that early experimentation with heating and mixing of substances over time developed into alchemy.

Early cultures


Neither the words nor the concepts "science" and "nature" were part of the conceptual landscape in the ancient near east.[29] The ancient Mesopotamians used knowledge about the properties of various natural chemicals for manufacturing pottery, faience, glass, soap, metals, lime plaster, and waterproofing;[30] they also studied animal physiology, anatomy, and behavior for divinatory purposes[30] and made extensive records of the movements of astronomical objects for their study of astrology.[31] The Mesopotamians had intense interest in medicine[30] and the earliest medical prescriptions appear in Sumerian during the Third Dynasty of Ur (c. 2112 BCE – c. 2004 BCE).[32] Nonetheless, the Mesopotamians seem to have had little interest in gathering information about the natural world for the mere sake of gathering information[30] and mainly only studied scientific subjects which had obvious practical applications or immediate relevance to their religious system.[30]

Classical antiquity

In classical antiquity, there is no real ancient analog of a modern scientist. Instead, well-educated, usually upper-class, and almost universally male individuals performed various investigations into nature whenever they could afford the time.[33] 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,[34] 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."[35]:209 Natural philosophy, the precursor of natural science, was thereby distinguished as the knowledge of nature and things which are true for every community, and the name of the specialized pursuit of such knowledge was philosophy – the realm of the first philosopher-physicists. They were mainly speculators or theorists, particularly interested in astronomy. In contrast, trying to use knowledge of nature to imitate nature (artifice or technology, Greek technē) was seen by classical scientists as a more appropriate interest for artisans of lower social class.[36]

The early Greek philosophers of the Milesian school, which was founded by Thales of Miletus and later continued by his successors Anaximander and Anaximenes, were the first to attempt to explain natural phenomena without relying on the supernatural.[37] The Pythagoreans developed a complex number philosophy[38]:467–68 and contributed significantly to the development of mathematical science.[38]:465 The theory of atoms was developed by the Greek philosopher Leucippus and his student Democritus.[39][40] The Greek doctor Hippocrates established the tradition of systematic medical science[41][42] and is known as "The Father of Medicine".[43]




The Greek astronomer Aristarchus of Samos (310–230 BCE) was the first to propose a heliocentric model of the universe, with the Sun at the center and all the planets orbiting it.[49] Aristarchus's model was widely rejected because it was believed to violate the laws of physics.[49] The inventor and mathematician Archimedes of Syracuse made major contributions to the beginnings of calculus[50] and has sometimes been credited as its inventor,[50] although his proto-calculus lacked several defining features.[50] Pliny the Elder was a Roman writer and polymath, who wrote the seminal encyclopedia Natural History,[51][52][53] dealing with history, geography, medicine, astronomy, earth science, botany, and zoology.[51] Other scientists or proto-scientists in Antiquity were Theophrastus, Euclid, Herophilos, Hipparchus, Ptolemy, and Galen.

Medieval science

De potentiis anime sensitive, Gregor Reisch (1504) Margarita philosophica. Medieval science postulated a ventricle of the brain as the location for our common sense,[54]:189 where the forms from our sensory systems commingled.

Because of the collapse of the Western Roman Empire due to the Migration Period an intellectual decline took place in the western part of Europe in the 400s. In contrast, the Byzantine Empire resisted the attacks from invaders, and preserved and improved upon the learning. John Philoponus, a Byzantine scholar in the 500s, questioned Aristotle's teaching of physics and to note its flaws.[55]:pp.307, 311, 363, 402 John Philoponus' criticism of Aristotelian principles of physics served as an inspiration to medieval scholars as well as to Galileo Galilei who ten centuries later, during the Scientific Revolution, extensively cited Philoponus in his works while making the case for why Aristotelian physics was flawed.[55][56]


During late antiquity, in the Byzantine empire many Greek classical texts were preserved. Many Syriac translations were done by groups such as the Nestorians and Monophysites.[59] They played a role when they translated Greek classical texts into Arabic under the Caliphate, during which many types of classical learning were preserved and in some cases improved upon.[59][a] In addition, the neighboring Sassanid Empire established the medical Academy of Gondeshapur where Greek, Syriac and Persian physicians established the most important medical center of the ancient world during the 6th and 7th centuries.[60]

The House of Wisdom was established in Abbasid-era Baghdad, Iraq,[61] where the Islamic study of Aristotelianism flourished. Al-Kindi (801–873) was the first of the Muslim Peripatetic philosophers, and is known for his efforts to introduce Greek and Hellenistic philosophy to the Arab world.[62] The Islamic Golden Age flourished from this time until the Mongol invasions of the 13th century. Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen), as well as his predecessor Ibn Sahl, was familiar with Ptolemy's Optics, and used experiments as a means to gain knowledge.[b][63][64]:463–65 Alhazen disproved Ptolemy's theory of vision,[65] but did not make any corresponding changes to Aristotle's metaphysics. Furthermore, doctors and alchemists such as the Persians Avicenna and Al-Razi also greatly developed the science of Medicine with the former writing the Canon of Medicine, a medical encyclopedia used until the 18th century and the latter discovering multiple compounds like alcohol. Avicenna's canon is considered to be one of the most important publications in medicine and they both contributed significantly to the practice of experimental medicine, using clinical trials and experiments to back their claims.[66]



By 1088, the first university in Europe (the University of Bologna) had emerged from its clerical beginnings. Demand for Latin translations grew (for example, from the Toledo School of Translators); western Europeans began collecting texts written not only in Latin, but also Latin translations from Greek, Arabic, and Hebrew. Manuscript copies of Alhazen's Book of Optics also propagated across Europe before 1240,[69]:Intro. p. xx as evidenced by its incorporation into Vitello's Perspectiva. Avicenna's Canon was translated into Latin.[70] In particular, the texts of Aristotle, Ptolemy,[c] and Euclid, preserved in the Houses of Wisdom and also in the Byzantine Empire,[71] were sought amongst Catholic scholars. The influx of ancient texts caused the Renaissance of the 12th century and the flourishing of a synthesis of Catholicism and Aristotelianism known as Scholasticism in western Europe, which became a new geographic center of science. An experiment in this period would be understood as a careful process of observing, describing, and classifying.[72] One prominent scientist in this era was Roger Bacon. Scholasticism had a strong focus on revelation and dialectic reasoning, and gradually fell out of favour over the next centuries, as alchemy's focus on experiments that include direct observation and meticulous documentation slowly increased in importance.

Renaissance and early modern science





Galileo Galilei, regarded as the father of modern science.[77]: Vol. 24, No. 1, p. 36



Age of Enlightenment




Science during the Enlightenment was dominated by scientific societies[81] and academies, which had largely replaced universities as centres of scientific research and development. Societies and academies were also the backbone of the maturation of the scientific profession. Another important development was the popularization of science among an increasingly literate population. Philosophes introduced the public to many scientific theories, most notably through the Encyclopédie and the popularization of Newtonianism by Voltaire as well as by Émilie du Châtelet, the French translator of Newton's Principia.

Some historians have marked the 18th century as a drab period in the history of science;[82] however, the century saw significant advancements in the practice of medicine, mathematics, and physics; the development of biological taxonomy; a new understanding of magnetism and electricity; and the maturation of chemistry as a discipline, which established the foundations of modern chemistry.


19th century





Both John Herschel and William Whewell systematized methodology: the latter coined the term scientist.[84] When Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species he established evolution as the prevailing 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.

The laws of conservation of energy, conservation of momentum and conservation of mass suggested a highly stable universe where there could be little loss of resources. With the advent of the steam engine and the industrial revolution, there was, however, an increased understanding that all forms of energy as defined in physics were not equally useful： they did not have the same energy quality. This realization led to the development of the laws of thermodynamics, in which the free energy of the universe is seen as constantly declining: the entropy of a closed universe increases over time.


20th century








21st century




Branches of science

Modern science is commonly divided into three major branches that consist of the natural sciences, social sciences, and formal sciences. Each of these branches comprise various specialized yet overlapping scientific disciplines that often possess their own nomenclature and expertise.[90] Both natural and social sciences are empirical sciences[91] as their knowledge are based on empirical observations and are capable of being tested for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions.[92]

There are also closely related disciplines that use science, such as engineering and medicine, which are sometimes described as applied sciences. The relationships between the branches of science are summarized by the following table.

Formal science Empirical sciences
Natural science Social science
Foundation Logic; Mathematics; Statistics Physics; Chemistry; Biology;
Earth science; Space science
Economics; Political science;
Sociology; Psychology
Application Computer science Engineering; Agricultural science;
Medicine; Dentistry; Pharmacy
Business administration;
Jurisprudence; Pedagogy

Natural science



Social science



Formal science

Formal science is involved in the study of formal systems. It includes mathematics,[96][97] systems theory, and theoretical computer science. The formal sciences share similarities with the other two branches by relying on objective, careful, and systematic study of an area of knowledge. They are, however, different from the empirical sciences as they rely exclusively on deductive reasoning, without the need for empirical evidence, to verify their abstract concepts.[21][98][92] The formal sciences are therefore a priori disciplines and because of this, there is disagreement on whether they actually constitute a science.[19][20] Nevertheless, the formal sciences play an important role in the empirical sciences. Calculus, for example, was initially invented to understand motion in physics.[99] Natural and social sciences that rely heavily on mathematical applications include mathematical physics, mathematical chemistry, mathematical biology, mathematical finance, and mathematical economics.

Scientific research


Scientific method


Scientific research involves using the scientific method, which seeks to objectively explain the events of nature in a reproducible way.[102] An explanatory thought experiment or hypothesis is put forward as explanation using principles such as parsimony (also known as "Occam's Razor") and are generally expected to seek consilience – fitting well with other accepted facts related to the phenomena.[103] 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.[e][f][102][104] 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).


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.[107][108] This can be achieved by careful experimental design, transparency, and a thorough peer review process of the experimental results as well as any conclusions.[109][110] 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.[111] Taken in its entirety, the scientific method allows for highly creative problem solving while minimizing any effects of subjective bias on the part of its users (especially the confirmation bias).[112]


John Ziman points out that intersubjective verifiability is fundamental to the creation of all scientific knowledge.[113] Ziman shows how scientists can identify patterns to each other across centuries; he refers to this ability as "perceptual consensibility."[113] He then makes consensibility, leading to consensus, the touchstone of reliable knowledge.[114]

Role of mathematics




Philosophy of science




There are different schools of thought in philosophy of science. The most popular position is empiricism,[h] which holds that knowledge is created by a process involving observation and that scientific theories are the result of generalizations from such observations.[117] Empiricism generally encompasses inductivism, a position that tries to explain the way general theories can be justified by the finite number of observations humans can make and hence the finite amount of empirical evidence available to confirm scientific theories. This is necessary because the number of predictions those theories make is infinite, which means that they cannot be known from the finite amount of evidence using deductive logic only. Many versions of empiricism exist, with the predominant ones being Bayesianism[118] and the hypothetico-deductive method.[117]


Empiricism has stood in contrast to rationalism, the position originally associated with Descartes, which holds that knowledge is created by the human intellect, not by observation.[119] Critical rationalism is a contrasting 20th-century approach to science, first defined by Austrian-British philosopher Karl Popper. Popper rejected the way that empiricism describes the connection between theory and observation. He claimed that theories are not generated by observation, but that observation is made in the light of theories and that the only way a theory can be affected by observation is when it comes in conflict with it.[120] Popper proposed replacing verifiability with falsifiability as the landmark of scientific theories and replacing induction with falsification as the empirical method.[120] Popper further claimed that there is actually only one universal method, not specific to science: the negative method of criticism, trial and error.[121] It covers all products of the human mind, including science, mathematics, philosophy, and art.[122]

Another approach, instrumentalism, colloquially termed "shut up and multiply,"[123] emphasizes the utility of theories as instruments for explaining and predicting phenomena.[124] It views scientific theories as black boxes with only their input (initial conditions) and output (predictions) being relevant. Consequences, theoretical entities, and logical structure are claimed to be something that should simply be ignored and that scientists shouldn't make a fuss about (see interpretations of quantum mechanics). Close to instrumentalism is constructive empiricism, according to which the main criterion for the success of a scientific theory is whether what it says about observable entities is true.



Certainty and science

A scientific theory is empirical[h][129] 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.[j] The philosopher of science Karl Popper sharply distinguished truth from certainty. He wrote that scientific knowledge "consists in the search for truth," but it "is not the search for certainty ... All human knowledge is fallible and therefore uncertain.[130]

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.[101] 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.[101] Theories vary in the extent to which they have been tested and verified, as well as their acceptance in the scientific community.[k] 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.[131] 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. Therefore, scientists adhering to proper scientific approaches will doubt themselves even once they possess the truth.[132] 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[133] – but also that the inquirer should try to attain genuine doubt rather than resting uncritically on common sense.[134] 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.[135]

Stanovich also asserts that science avoids searching for a "magic bullet"; it avoids the single-cause fallacy. This means a scientist would not ask merely "What is the cause of ...", but rather "What are the most significant causes of ...". This is especially the case in the more macroscopic fields of science (e.g. psychology, physical cosmology).[101] Research often analyzes few factors at once, but these are always added to the long list of factors that are most important to consider.[101] For example, knowing the details of only a person's genetics, or their history and upbringing, or the current situation may not explain a behavior, but a deep understanding of all these variables combined can be very predictive.

Scientific literature


Scientific research is published in an enormous range of scientific literature.[136] Scientific journals communicate and document the results of research carried out in universities and various other research institutions, serving as an archival record of science. The first scientific journals, Journal des Sçavans followed by the Philosophical Transactions, began publication in 1665. Since that time the total number of active periodicals has steadily increased. In 1981, one estimate for the number of scientific and technical journals in publication was 11,500.[137] 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.[138]




Practical impacts


Research Impact
Static electricity and magnetism (c. 1600)
Electric current (18th century)
The strange orbit of Mercury (1859) and other research
leading to special (1905) and general relativity (1916)
Satellite-based technology such as GPS (1973), satnav and satellite communications.[l]
Crystallography and quantum mechanics (1900) Semiconductor devices (1906), hence modern computing and telecommunications including the integration with wireless devices: the mobile phone,[l] LED lamps and lasers.


Replication crisis

The replication crisis is an ongoing methodological crisis primarily affecting parts of the social and life sciences in which scholars have found that the results of many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to replicate or reproduce on subsequent investigation, either by independent researchers or by the original researchers themselves.[140][141] The crisis has long-standing roots; the phrase was coined in the early 2010s[142] as part of a growing awareness of the problem. The replication crisis represents an important body of research in metascience, which aims to improve the quality of all scientific research while reducing waste.[143]

Fringe science, pseudoscience, and junk science



Scientific community




Scientists are individuals who conduct scientific research to advance knowledge in an area of interest.[147][148] The term scientist was coined by William Whewell in 1833. In modern times, many professional scientists are trained in an academic setting and upon completion, attain an academic degree, with the highest degree being a doctorate such as a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD),[149] Doctor of Medicine (MD), or Doctor of Engineering (DEng). Many scientists pursue careers in various sectors of the economy such as academia, industry, government, and nonprofit organizations.[150][151][152]

Scientists exhibit a strong curiosity about reality, with some scientists having a desire to apply scientific knowledge for the benefit of health, nations, environment, or industries. Other motivations include recognition by their peers and prestige. The Nobel Prize, a widely regarded prestigious award,[153] is awarded annually to those who have achieved scientific advances in the fields of medicine, physics, chemistry, and economics.

Women in science




Learned societies


Learned societies for the communication and promotion of scientific thought and experimentation have existed since the Renaissance.[159] Many scientists belong to a learned society that promotes their respective scientific discipline, profession, or group of related disciplines.[160] Membership may be open to all, may require possession of some scientific credentials, or may be an honor conferred by election.[161] Most scientific societies are non-profit organizations, and many are professional associations. Their activities typically include holding regular conferences for the presentation and discussion of new research results and publishing or sponsoring academic journals in their discipline. Some also act as professional bodies, regulating the activities of their members in the public interest or the collective interest of the membership. Scholars in the sociology of science[who?] argue that learned societies are of key importance and their formation assists in the emergence and development of new disciplines or professions.

The professionalization of science, begun in the 19th century, was partly enabled by the creation of distinguished academy of sciences in a number of countries such as the Italian Accademia dei Lincei in 1603,[162] the British Royal Society in 1660, the French Académie des Sciences in 1666,[163] the American National Academy of Sciences in 1863, the German Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in 1911, and the Chinese Academy of Sciences in 1928. International scientific organizations, such as the International Council for Science, have since been formed to promote cooperation between the scientific communities of different nations.

Science and the public

Science policy





Funding of science



Public awareness of science

Dinosaur exhibit in the Houston Museum of Natural Science


Science journalism

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.[168] 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.[169][170]

Politicization of science


Politicization of science occurs when government, business, or advocacy groups use legal or economic pressure to influence the findings of scientific research or the way it is disseminated, reported, or interpreted. Many factors can act as facets of the politicization of science such as populist anti-intellectualism, perceived threats to religious beliefs, postmodernist subjectivism, and fear for business interests.[171] Politicization of science is usually accomplished when scientific information is presented in a way that emphasizes the uncertainty associated with the scientific evidence.[172] Tactics such as shifting conversation, failing to acknowledge facts, and capitalizing on doubt of scientific consensus have been used to gain more attention for views that have been undermined by scientific evidence.[173] Examples of issues that have involved the politicization of science include the global warming controversy, health effects of pesticides, and health effects of tobacco.[173][174]

See also


  4. ^ Kepler, Johannes (1604) Ad Vitellionem paralipomena, quibus astronomiae pars opticae traditur (Supplements to Witelo, in which the optical part of astronomy is treated) as cited in Smith, A. Mark (January 1, 2004). "What Is the History of Medieval Optics Really about?". Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 148 (2): 180–94. JSTOR 1558283. PMID 15338543.
  9. ^ 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.".
  11. ^ Fleck, Ludwik (1979). Trenn, Thaddeus J.; Merton, Robert K (eds.). Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-25325-1. Claims that before a specific fact "existed", it had to be created as part of a social agreement within a community. Steven Shapin (1980) "A view of scientific thought" Science ccvii (Mar 7, 1980) 1065–66 states "[To Fleck,] facts are invented, not discovered. Moreover, the appearance of scientific facts as discovered things is itself a social construction: a made thing. "


  3. ^ a b c "... modern science is a discovery as well as an invention. It was a discovery that nature generally acts regularly enough to be described by laws and even by mathematics; and required invention to devise the techniques, abstractions, apparatus, and organization for exhibiting the regularities and securing their law-like descriptions."— p.vii Heilbron, J.L. (editor-in-chief) (2003). "Preface". The Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. vii–X. ISBN 978-0-19-511229-0.
  9. ^ Lindberg, David C. (2007). "The recovery and assimilation of Greek and Islamic science". The beginnings of Western science: the European Scientific tradition in philosophical, religious, and institutional context (2nd ed.). Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. pp. 225–53. ISBN 978-0-226-48205-7.
  11. ^ Lindberg, David C. (1990). "Conceptions of the Scientific Revolution from Baker to Butterfield: A preliminary sketch". In David C. Lindberg; Robert S. Westman (eds.). Reappraisals of the Scientific Revolution (First ed.). Chicago, Illinois: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–26. ISBN 978-0-521-34262-9.
  18. ^ Harrison, Peter (2015). The Territories of Science and Religion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 164–165. ISBN 9780226184517. The changing character of those engaged in scientific endeavors was matched by a new nomenclature for their endeavors. The most conspicuous marker of this change was the replacement of "natural philosophy" by "natural science". In 1800 few had spoken of the "natural sciences" but by 1880, this expression had overtaken the traditional label "natural philosophy". The persistence of "natural philosophy" in the twentieth century is owing largely to historical references to a past practice (see figure 11). As should now be apparent, this was not simply the substitution of one term by another, but involved the jettisoning of a range of personal qualities relating to the conduct of philosophy and the living of the philosophical life.
  25. ^ "Engineering Technology :: Engineering Technology :: Purdue School of Engineering and Technology, IUPUI". Retrieved September 7, 2018.
  26. ^ Grant, Edward (January 1, 1997). "History of Science: When Did Modern Science Begin?". The American Scholar. 66 (1): 105–113. JSTOR 41212592.
  27. ^ Pingree, David (December 1992). "Hellenophilia versus the History of Science". Isis. 83 (4): 554–63. Bibcode:1992Isis...83..554P. doi:10.1086/356288. JSTOR 234257.
  34. ^ See the quotation in Homer (8th century BCE) Odyssey 10.302–03
  41. ^ Margotta, Roberto (1968). vFZrAAAAMAAJ The Story of Medicine Check |url= value (help). New York City, New York: Golden Press.
  42. ^ Touwaide, Alain (2005). Glick, Thomas F.; Livesey, Steven; Wallis, Faith (eds.). Medieval Science, Technology, and Medicine: An Encyclopedia. New York City, New York and London, England: Routledge. p. 224. ISBN 978-0-415-96930-7.
  48. ^ Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics (H. Rackham ed.). Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0054%3Abekker%20page%3D1139b Archived Check |archiveurl= value (help) from the original on March 17, 2012. 1139b
  55. ^ a b Lindberg, David C. (2007). "Roman and early medieval science". The beginnings of Western science: the European Scientific tradition in philosophical, religious, and institutional context (Second ed.). Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. pp. 132–162. ISBN 978-0-226-48205-7.
  57. ^ Aristotle, Physics II, 3, and Metaphysics V, 2
  60. ^ The Cambridge history of Iran. Fisher, W.B. (William Bayne). Cambridge: University Press. 1968–1991. ISBN 978-0521200936. OCLC 745412.CS1 maint: others (link)
  65. ^ Smith 2001:Book I, [6.54]. p. 372
  67. ^ Numbers, Ronald (2009). 9780674057418 Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion Check |url= value (help). Harvard University Press. p. 45. ISBN 978-0-674-03327-6.
  68. ^ Shwayder, Maya (April 7, 2011). "Debunking a myth". The Harvard Gazette. Retrieved May 11, 2019.
  69. ^ Smith 2001
  74. ^ a b Smith, A. Mark (1981). "Getting the Big Picture in Perspectivist Optics". Isis. 72 (4): 568–89. doi:10.1086/352843. JSTOR 231249.
  79. ^ MacTutor Archive, Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz
  81. ^ Thomas G. Bergin (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Renaissance (Oxford and New York: New Market Books, 1987).
  92. ^ a b Popper, Karl R. (2002a) [1959]. "A survey of some fundamental problems". The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York, New York: Routledge Classics. pp. 3–26. ISBN 978-0-415-27844-7. OCLC 59377149.
  93. ^ Gauch Jr., Hugh G. (2003). "Science in perspective". Scientific Method in Practice. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. pp. 21–73. ISBN 978-0-52-101708-4.
  94. ^ Oglivie, Brian W. (2008). "Introduction". The Science of Describing: Natural History in Renaissance Europe (Paperback ed.). Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. pp. 1–24. ISBN 978-0-226-62088-6.
  99. ^ Mujumdar, Anshu Gupta; Singh, Tejinder (2016). "Cognitive science and the connection between physics and mathematics". In Anthony Aguirre; Brendan Foster (eds.). Trick or Truth?: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics. The Frontiers Collection (1st ed.). Switzerland: SpringerNature. pp. 201–218. ISBN 978-3-319-27494-2.
  101. ^ a b c d e Stanovich, Keith E. (2007). How to Think Straight About Psychology. Boston: Pearson Education. pp. 106–147. ISBN 978-0-205-68590-5.
  102. ^ a b "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)}} —di Francia, Giuliano Toraldo (1976). "The method of physics". The Investigation of the Physical World. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–52. ISBN 978-0-521-29925-1.
  104. ^ Fara, Patricia (2009). "Decisions". Science: A Four Thousand Year History. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. p. 408. ISBN 978-0-19-922689-4.
  105. ^ Nola, Robert; Irzik, Gürol (2005k). "naive inductivism as a methodology in science". Philosophy, science, education and culture. Science & technology education library. 28. Springer. pp. 207–230. ISBN 978-1-4020-3769-6.
  106. ^ Nola, Robert; Irzik, Gürol (2005j). "The aims of science and critical inquiry". Philosophy, science, education and culture. Science & technology education library. 28. Springer. pp. 207–230. ISBN 978-1-4020-3769-6.
  113. ^ a b Ziman, John (1978c). "Common observation". Reliable knowledge: An exploration of the grounds for belief in science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 42–76. ISBN 978-0-521-22087-3.
  114. ^ Ziman, John (1978c). "The stuff of reality". Reliable knowledge: An exploration of the grounds for belief in science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 95–123. ISBN 978-0-521-22087-3.
  115. ^ Popper, Karl R. (2002e) [1959]. "The problem of the empirical basis". The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York, New York: Routledge Classics. pp. 3–26. ISBN 978-0-415-27844-7. OCLC 59377149.
  117. ^ a b Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2003c). "Induction and confirmation". Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (1st ed.). Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago. pp. 39–56. ISBN 978-0-226-30062-7.
  118. ^ Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2003o). "Empiricism, naturalism, and scientific realism?". Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (1st ed.). Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago. pp. 219–232. ISBN 978-0-226-30062-7.
  119. ^ Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2003b). "Logic plus empiricism". Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (1st ed.). Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago. pp. 19–38. ISBN 978-0-226-30062-7.
  120. ^ a b Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2003d). "Popper: Conjecture and refutation". Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (1st ed.). Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago. pp. 57–74. ISBN 978-0-226-30062-7.
  121. ^ Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2003g). "Lakatos, Laudan, Feyerabend, and frameworks". Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (1st ed.). Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago. pp. 102–121. ISBN 978-0-226-30062-7.
  122. ^ Popper, Karl (1972). Objective Knowledge.
  125. ^ Bird, Alexander (2013). Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). "Thomas Kuhn". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved October 26, 2015.
  127. ^ Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2003j). "Naturalistic philosophy in theory and practice". Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (1st ed.). Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago. pp. 149–162. ISBN 978-0-226-30062-7.
  130. ^ Popper, Karl Raimund (1996). In Search of a Better World: Lectures and Essays From Thirty Years. New York, New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-13548-1.
  141. ^ Smith, Noah. "Why 'Statistical Significance' Is Often Insignificant". Bloomberg. Retrieved November 7, 2017.
  143. ^ Ioannidis, John P. A.; Fanelli, Daniele; Dunne, Debbie Drake; Goodman, Steven N. (October 2, 2015). "Meta-research: Evaluation and Improvement of Research Methods and Practices". PLOS Biology. 13 (10): –1002264. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002264. ISSN 1545-7885. PMC 4592065. PMID 26431313.
  147. ^ "Eusocial climbers" (PDF). E.O. Wilson Foundation. Retrieved September 3, 2018. But he’s not a scientist, he’s never done scientific research. My definition of a scientist is that you can complete the following sentence: ‘he or she has shown that...’,” Wilson says.
  148. ^ "Our definition of a scientist". Science Council. Retrieved September 7, 2018. A scientist is someone who systematically gathers and uses research and evidence, making a hypothesis and testing it, to gain and share understanding and knowledge.
  152. ^ Lee, Adrian; Dennis, Carina; Campbell, Phillip (2007). "Graduate survey: A love–hurt relationship". Nature. 550 (7677): 549–52. doi:10.1038/nj7677-549a.
  153. ^ Stockton, Nick (October 7, 2014), "How did the Nobel Prize become the biggest award on Earth?", Wired, retrieved September 3, 2018
  156. ^ Rosser, Sue V. (March 12, 2012). Breaking into the Lab: Engineering Progress for Women in Science. New York: New York University Press. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-8147-7645-2.
  160. ^ "The Environmental Studies Association of Canada - What is a Learned Society?". Archived from the original on May 29, 2013. Retrieved May 10, 2013.
  161. ^ "Learned societies & academies". Archived from the original on June 3, 2014. Retrieved May 10, 2013.
  169. ^ Mooney, Chris (November–December 2004). "Blinded By Science, How 'Balanced' Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality". Columbia Journalism Review. Vol. 43 no. 4. Archived from the original on January 17, 2010. Retrieved February 20, 2008.
  171. ^ Goldberg, Jeanne (2017). "The Politicization of Scientific Issues: Looking through Galileo's Lens or through the Imaginary Looking Glass". Skeptical Inquirer. 41 (5): 34–39. Archived from the original on August 16, 2018. Retrieved August 16, 2018.
  174. ^ van der Linden, Sander; Leiserowitz, Anthony; Rosenthal, Seth; Maibach, Edward (2017). "Inoculating the Public against Misinformation about Climate Change" (PDF). Global Challenges. 1 (2): 1. doi:10.1002/gch2.201600008.

Further reading

External links