Changes

[[File:ScientificMethodflowchart.jpg|300px|right|thumb|Flow chart illustrating the steps to the [[scientific method]].]]

[[File:ScientificMethodflowchart.jpg|450px|right|thumb|Flow chart illustrating the steps to the [[scientific method]].]]

'''Science''' consists of three aspects: first, it provides systematic descriptions of everything in the world and all of human experience, generally considered as scientific [[knowledge]]. Second, there are the men (and in more recent times, women) of science who have amassed these descriptions and communicate them to everyone else. Third, there are the methods by which they carry out this work (see [[scientific method]]).

'''Science''' consists of three aspects: first, it provides systematic descriptions of everything in the world and all of human experience, generally considered as scientific [[knowledge]]. Second, there are the people of science who have amassed these descriptions and communicate them to everyone else. Third, there are the methods by which they carry out this work (see [[scientific method]]).

Science can be divided into two areas: [[natural science]], dealing with the [[physical]], [[natural]] world,<ref>Soanes and Stevenson called science "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."Soanes,C. and Stevenson, A. (eds.) (2005) 'The Oxford Dictionary of English (revised edition)' Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K.</ref> and [[social science]], dealing with society and human nature.

Science can be divided into two areas: [[natural science]], dealing with the [[physical]], natural world,<ref>Soanes and Stevenson called science "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."Soanes,C. and Stevenson, A. (eds.) (2005) 'The Oxford Dictionary of English (revised edition)' Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K.</ref> and [[social science]], dealing with society and human nature.

People who study science are called [[scientist]]s. Most of the early scientists who started many of the scientific fields, and some of history's greatest thinkers, such as [[Galileo Galilei]] and [[Isaac Newton]], believed in [[God]], or some other higher power, and many were [[creationists]], although the ideas of [[evolutionism]] or [[Darwinism]] were not yet popular.

People who study science are called [[scientist]]s. Most of the early scientists who started many of the scientific fields, and some of history's greatest thinkers, such as [[Galileo Galilei]] and [[Isaac Newton]], believed in [[God]], or some other higher power, and many were [[creationists]], although the ideas of [[evolutionism]] or [[Darwinism]] were not yet popular.

== Principles of science ==

== Principles of science ==

The basis of modern science is observation and hypothesis.  It involves constructing the best theory to explain an occurrence based on the evidence at the time.  

The basis of modern science is [[Observation skills|observation]] and [[hypothesis]].  It involves constructing the best [[theory]] to explain an occurrence based on the evidence at the time.  

Economist [[Milton Friedman]] said, "In all of science, progress comes through people proposing hypotheses which are subject to test and rejected and replaced by better hypotheses." [https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/int_miltonfriedman.html#10]

Economist [[Milton Friedman]] said, "In all of science, progress comes through people proposing hypotheses which are subject to test and rejected and replaced by better hypotheses." [https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/int_miltonfriedman.html#10]

* A theory is put forward (Popper argues that this is not inductive, but the consensus is that people are led to invent theories based upon previous observations)

* A theory is put forward (Popper argues that this is not inductive, but the consensus is that people are led to invent theories based upon previous observations)

* This theory is provisionally assumed to be true for the purposes of testing it.

* This theory is provisionally assumed to be true for the purposes of testing it.

* Assuming the theory is true, we can logically follow it through to a specific and inevitable outcome, a prediction, which becomes the hypothesis. In order for the hypothesis to be considered scientific it must be falsifiable.

* Assuming the theory is true, we can logically follow it through to a specific and inevitable outcome, a prediction, which becomes the hypothesis. In order for the hypothesis to be considered scientific it must be tested

* The hypothesis is repeatedly tested empirically.

* The hypothesis is repeatedly tested empirically.

* If the observations do not falsify the hypothesis then we accept the theory provisionally (note, we cannot say that it is now 'fact', nor that is has been 'proven')

* If the observations prove the hypothesis then the theory can, provisionally, be accepted (note, we cannot say that it is now 'fact', nor that is has been 'proven')

* If the observations do falsify the hypothesis then we reject it in its current form.

* If the observations do show that the hypothesis is false then we reject it in its current form.

* The theory, or at least parts of it, can then be modified, or a new theory proposed, which takes us back to the beginning of the process.

* The theory, or at least parts of it, can then be modified, or a new theory proposed, part of a continuing process..

Since verification of general theories is logically impossible, science is not, as many believe, a body of accumulated 'facts', but rather a collection of theories that have yet to be falsified. Via falsification we can move closer and closer to the truth, but since verification is not possible, we can never know if we ever reach the goal of 'ultimate truth' itself.

Since verification of general theories is logically impossible, science is not, a body of accumulated 'facts', but rather a collection of theories that move closer and closer to the truth, but, since verification may not always be possible, we may never know of 'ultimate truth' itself.

==Naturalism and science==

==Naturalism and science==

[[University of California at Berkeley]]-educated historian [[Ronald L. Numbers]] has stated that this thesis "received a boost" from mathematician and philosopher[[Alfred North Whitehead]]'s ''[[Science and the Modern World]]'' (1925). Numbers has also claimed "Despite the manifest shortcomings of the claim that Christianity gave birth to science&mdash;most glaringly, it ignores or minimizes the contributions of ancient Greeks and medieval Muslims&mdash;it too, refuses to succumb to the death it deserves. The sociologist [[Rodney Stark]] at [[Baylor University]], a [[Southern Baptist]] institution, is only the latest in a long line of Christian apologists to insist that 'Christian theology was essential for the rise of science.'"<ref>''Science and Christianity in pulpit and pew'', [[Oxford University Press]], 2007, [[Ronald L. Numbers]], p. 4, and p.138 n. 3 where Numbers specifically raises his concerns with regards to the works of [[Michael B. Foster]], [[Reijer Hooykaas]], [[Eugene M. Klaaren]], and [[Stanley L. Jaki]]</ref>

[[University of California at Berkeley]]-educated historian [[Ronald L. Numbers]] has stated that this thesis "received a boost" from mathematician and philosopher[[Alfred North Whitehead]]'s ''[[Science and the Modern World]]'' (1925). Numbers has also claimed "Despite the manifest shortcomings of the claim that Christianity gave birth to science&mdash;most glaringly, it ignores or minimizes the contributions of ancient Greeks and medieval Muslims&mdash;it too, refuses to succumb to the death it deserves. The sociologist [[Rodney Stark]] at [[Baylor University]], a [[Southern Baptist]] institution, is only the latest in a long line of Christian apologists to insist that 'Christian theology was essential for the rise of science.'"<ref>''Science and Christianity in pulpit and pew'', [[Oxford University Press]], 2007, [[Ronald L. Numbers]], p. 4, and p.138 n. 3 where Numbers specifically raises his concerns with regards to the works of [[Michael B. Foster]], [[Reijer Hooykaas]], [[Eugene M. Klaaren]], and [[Stanley L. Jaki]]</ref>

==See also==

==See also==

* [[Science and engineering]]

* [[Science and engineering]]

* [[Science and the church]]

* [[Science and the church]]

* [[Scientific ignorance]]

* [[Scientific ignorance]]

* [[Scientific integrity]]

* [[Scientific integrity]]

* [[Scientific virtues]]

* [[Scientific virtues]]

* [[Scientific uncertainty]]

* [[Scientific uncertainty]]

==Further reading==

==Further reading==