Difference between revisions of "Science"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Reverted edits by RobSmith (talk) to last revision by Conservative)
 
(194 intermediate revisions by 91 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
{{sprotect2}}
+
[[File:ScientificMethodflowchart.jpg|450px|right|thumb|Flow chart illustrating the steps to the [[scientific method]].]]
−
{{otheruses}}
+
'''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]]).
−
[[Image:Meissner effect p1390048.jpg|thumb|200px|right|The [[Meissner effect]] causes a [[magnet]] to levitate above a [[high-temperature superconductor]].]]
+
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.
−
[[Image:Apollo Moonwalk2.jpg|thumb|right|200px|A human protected by high technology during the first lunar landing, demonstrates knowledge developed through study of the natural sciences.]]
 
−
'''Science''' (from the [[Latin]] ''scientia'', meaning "[[knowledge]]" or "knowing") is the effort to [[Discovery (observation)|discover]], and increase human understanding of how the [[physical]] [[world]] works. Through controlled methods, [[scientists]] use [[observable]] [[physical evidence]] of [[natural]] [[phenomena]] to collect data, and analyze this [[information]] to explain what and how things work. Such methods include [[experimentation]] that tries to [[simulate]] natural phenomena under controlled conditions and thought experiments. [[Knowledge]] in science is gained through [[research]].
 
  
−
==Etymology==
+
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.
−
[[Image:DNA Overview2.png|thumb|right|upright|[[DNA]] determines the genetic structure of all life on earth]]
+
In addition, [[Christianity]] played a pivotal role in the development of modern science (see [[Christianity and Science]]). With further scientific advancement, the scientific approach has become increasingly [[atheism|atheistic]],<ref>http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm</ref> rejecting the supernatural. Scientific fields of study observing a clear atheistic bent include [[Counterexamples to Evolution|evolution]], [[global warming]] and much of [[cosmology]] and [[geology]], which are based on a [[Counterexamples to an Old Earth|time frame]] which predates the Christian time of [[creation]]. There are hubs of real scientific research, however, in places like the Institute for Creation Research and the Heartland Institute.
−
The word '''science''' is derived from the [[Latin]] word {{lang|la|''scientia''}} for [[knowledge]], the nominal form of the verb {{lang|la|''scire''}}, "to know". The [[Proto-Indo-European root|Proto-Indo-European]] (PIE) root that yields ''scire'' is ''*skei-'', meaning to "cut, separate, or discern". Other words from the same root include [[Sanskrit]] {{transl|sa|''chyati''}}, "he cuts off", [[Ancient Greek|Greek]] {{transl|grc|''schizo''}}, "I split" (hence English ''schism'', ''schizophrenia''), Latin {{lang|la|''scindo''}}, "I split" (hence English ''rescind'').<ref>[http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=science&searchmode=none Etymology of "science" at Etymology Online]. See also details of the PIE root at [http://www.bartleby.com/61/roots/IE464.html American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language'', 4th edition, 2000.].</ref> From the [[Middle Ages]] to the [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]], ''science'' or ''scientia'' meant any systematic recorded knowledge.<ref>{{cite book | first=Neville | last=MacMorris | year=1989 | title=The Natures of Science | pages=pp. 31&ndash;33 | publisher=Fairleigh Dickinson University Press | location=New York | isbn=0838633218 }}</ref> ''Science'' therefore had the same sort of very broad meaning that ''[[philosophy]]'' had at that time. In other languages, including French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Polish and Russian, the word corresponding to ''science'' also carries this meaning.
 
  
−
==History of science==
+
Science differs from other methodologies of classifying knowledge in that a scientific theory is a description of the world which in principle is capable of being disproved; this is known as [[falsifiability]].  It is this property which distinguishes science from other possible methods of discovering knowledge.
−
{{main|History of science}}
 
−
While [[empiricism|empirical]] investigations of the natural world have been described since [[Ancient history|antiquity]] (for example, by [[Aristotle]], [[Theophrastus]] and [[Pliny the Elder]]), and [[scientific method]]s have been employed since the [[Middle Ages]] (for example, by [[Ibn al-Haytham]], [[Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī]] and [[Roger Bacon]]), the dawn of [[modern science]] is generally traced back to the [[early modern period]], during what is known as the [[Scientific Revolution]] of the [[16th century|16th]] and [[17th century|17th centuries]]. The word ''scientist'' was first coined by [[William Whewell]] in the 19th century. Previously, people investigating nature called themselves [[natural philosophers]].
 
  
−
==History of usage of the word science==
+
[[Epicurus]] is an important figure in the development of the [[scientific method]]. He insisted that nothing should be accepted except that which has been sufficiently tested through direct observation and logical deduction. [[Roger Bacon]] is hailed by many as the father of modern science. His focus on empirical approaches to science was influential. He wrote an encyclopedia, his ''Opus Majus''.   
−
Well into the [[18th century|eighteenth century]], science and natural [[philosophy]] were not quite synonymous, but only became so later with the direct use of what would become known formally as the [[scientific method]], which was earlier developed during the [[Middle Ages]] and [[early modern period]] in Europe and the [[Islamic science|Middle East]] (see [[History of scientific method]]). Prior to the 18th century, however, the preferred term for the study of nature was [[natural philosophy]], while English speakers most typically referred to the study of the human mind as [[moral philosophy]]. By contrast, the word "science" in English was still used in the 17th century to refer to the [[Aristotelianism|Aristotelian]] concept of knowledge which was secure enough to be used as a sure prescription for exactly how to do something. In this differing sense of the two words, the philosopher [[John Locke]] in ''[[An Essay Concerning Human Understanding]]'' wrote that "natural philosophy [the study of nature] is not capable of being made a science".<ref name=Locke1838>{{cite book
 
−
  | last=Locke | first=J. | authorlink=John Locke | year = 1838
 
−
| title = [[An Essay Concerning Human Understanding]]
 
−
| publisher = Printed by Thomas Davison }}</ref>
 
  
−
By the early 1800s, natural philosophy had begun to separate from philosophy, though it often retained a very broad meaning. In many cases, ''science'' continued to stand for reliable knowledge about any topic, in the same way it is still used in the broad sense (see the introduction to this article) in modern terms such as [[library science]], [[political science]], and [[computer science]]. In the more narrow sense of ''science'', as natural philosophy became linked to an expanding set of well-defined laws (beginning with Galileo's laws, Kepler's laws, and Newton's laws for motion), it became more popular to refer to natural philosophy as natural science. Over the course of the nineteenth century, moreover, there was an increased tendency to associate science with study of the natural world (that is, the non-human world). This move sometimes left the study of human thought and society (what would come to be called [[social science]]) in a linguistic limbo by the end of the century and into the next.<ref name = Thurs>{{cite book | first=Daniel Patrick | last=Thurs | year=2007 | title=Science Talk: Changing Notions of Science in American Popular Culture| publisher=Rutgers University Press | location=New Brunswick, NJ | isbn = 978-0813540733 | oclc=170031241}}</ref><!-- p. 22-55 -->
+
== Principles of science ==
  
−
Through the 19th century, many English speakers were increasingly differentiating science (meaning a combination of what we now term natural and biological sciences) from all other forms of knowledge in a variety of ways. The now-familiar expression “[[scientific method]],” which refers to the ''prescriptive'' part of how to make discoveries in natural philosophy, was almost unused during the early part of the 19th century, but became widespread after the 1870s, though there was rarely totally agreement about just what it entailed.<ref name = Thurs/><!-- p. 74-79 --> The word "scientist," meant to refer to a systematically-working natural philosopher, (as opposed to an intuitive or empirically-minded one) was coined in 1833 by William Whewell.<ref name=Ross1962>{{cite journal | format = PDF | author = Ross, S. | year = 1962 | title = Scientist: The story of a word | journal = Annals of Science | volume = 18 | issue = 2 | pages = 65–85 | url = http://www.informaworld.com/index/739364907.pdf | accessdate = 2008-02-08 | doi = 10.1080/00033796200202722 <!--Retrieved from CrossRef by DOI bot-->}}</ref> Discussion of [[scientist]]s as a special group of people who did science, even if their attributes were up for debate, grew in the last half of the 19th century.<ref name = Thurs/><!-- p. 69-74, 79-84 --> Whatever people actually meant by these terms at first, they ultimately depicted science, in the narrow sense of the habitual use of the scientific method and the knowledge derived from it, as something deeply distinguished from all other realms of human endeavor.
+
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.  
  
−
By the twentieth century, the modern notion of science as a special brand of information about the world, practiced by a distinct group and pursued through a unique method, was essentially in place. It was used to give legitimacy to a variety of fields through such titles as "scientific" medicine, engineering, advertising, or motherhood.<ref name = Thurs/><!-- p. 95 --> Over the 1900s, links between science and [[technology]] also grew increasingly strong.
+
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]
  
−
===Distinguished from technology===
+
The [[scientific method]] consists of two stages, theory formation and theory testing. In the early 20th Century the scientific method was commonly understood to follow the [[inductive reasoning|inductive]] procedure, whereby general statements are derived from a collection of singular observations. It was thought that through this method theories were constructed; a collection of observations led to the formation of a general theory to explain them. Secondly, at the testing stage, it was considered that a hypothesis could be verified through a collection of singular observations.
−
By the end of the century, it is arguable that technology had even begun to eclipse science as a term of public attention and praise. Scholarly studies of science have begun to refer to "[[technoscience]]" rather than science or technology separately. Meanwhile, such fields as [[biotechnology]] and [[nanotechnology]] are capturing the headlines. One author has suggested that, in the coming century, "science" may fall out of use, to be replaced by technoscience or even by some more exotic label such as "techknowledgy."<ref name = Thurs/><!-- p. 142-144, 180-181 -->
+
[[Image:Image014.jpg|thumbnail|175px|left|[[Karl Popper]] ]]
 +
[[Karl Popper]], considered by many to be the most important contributor to the philosophy of science in recent times, put forward a damning critique of induction, going so far is to claim that it did not exist. Popper argued that general theories cannot ever be conclusively verified by singular observations, but that such a theory could be conclusively [[Falsifiable|falsified]] by such means.
  
−
==Scientific method==
+
The consensus today is based in large part upon the work of Popper, although in general induction is believed to play a part. The modern view is that the scientific method employs both inductive and [[deductive reasoning|deductive]] methods and is characterized by the principle of falsification:
−
{{main|Scientific method}}
 
  
−
[[Image:Bohr model.svg|thumb|The [[Bohr model]] of the [[atom]], like many ideas in the [[history of science]], was at first prompted by and later partially disproved by experiment.]]
+
* 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.
 +
* 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.
 +
* 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 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, part of a continuing process..
  
−
The [[scientific method]] seeks to explain the events of [[nature]] in a [[reproducible]] way, and to use these reproductions to make useful [[prediction]]s. It is done through observation of natural phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate natural events under controlled conditions. It provides an objective process to find solutions to problems in a number of scientific and technological fields.<ref name=backer>{{cite web
+
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.
−
| last=Backer | first=Patricia Ryaby
 
−
| date=[[October 29]], [[2004]]
 
−
| url=http://www.engr.sjsu.edu/pabacker/scientific_method.htm
 
−
| title=What is the scientific method?
 
−
| publisher=San Jose State University
 
−
| accessdate=2008-03-28 }}</ref>
 
  
−
Based on observations of a phenomenon, a scientist may generate a [[Scientific modeling|model]]. This is an attempt to describe or depict the phenomenon in terms of a logical physical or mathematical representation. As empirical evidence is gathered, a scientist can suggest a [[hypothesis]] to explain the phenomenon. This description can be used to make predictions that are testable by experiment or observation using the scientific method. When a hypothesis proves unsatisfactory, it is either modified or discarded.
+
==Naturalism and science==
  
−
While performing experiments, [[Scientist]]s may have a preference for one outcome over another, and it is important that this tendency does not bias their interpretation.<ref>{{cite web
+
''See also:'' [[Atheism and science]] and [[Philosophical naturalism]]
−
| last=van Gelder | first=Tim | year=1999
 
−
| url=http://www.philosophy.unimelb.edu.au/tgelder/papers/HeadsIWin.pdf
 
−
| format=PDF
 
−
| title="Heads I win, tails you lose": A Foray Into the Psychology of Philosophy
 
−
| publisher=University of Melbourne
 
−
| accessdate=2008-03-28
 
−
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
 
−
| last=Pease | first=Craig
 
−
| date=[[September 6]], [[2006]]
 
−
| url=http://law-and-science.net/Science4BLJ/Scientific_Method/Deliberate.bias/Text.htm
 
−
| title=Chapter 23. Deliberate bias: Conflict creates bad science
 
−
| work=Science for Business, Law and Journalism
 
−
| publisher=Vermont Law School
 
−
| accessdate=2008-03-28
 
−
}}</ref> A strict following of the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of a scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. This can be achieved by correct [[Design of experiments|experimental design]], and a thorough [[peer review]] of the experimental results as well as conclusions of a study.<ref>{{cite book
 
−
| first=David | last=Shatz | year=2004
 
−
| title=Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry
 
−
| publisher=Rowman & Littlefield | isbn=074251434X
 
−
| oclc=54989960
 
−
}}</ref><ref>{{cite book
 
−
| first=Sheldon | last=Krimsky | year=2003
 
−
| title=Science in the Private Interest: Has the Lure of Profits Corrupted the Virtue of Biomedical Research
 
−
| publisher=Rowman & Littlefield | isbn=074251479X
 
−
| oclc=185926306 }}</ref> Once the experiment results are announced or published, an important cross-check can be the need to validate the results by an independent party.<ref>{{cite book
 
−
| first=Ruth Ellen | last=Bulger | year=2002
 
−
| coauthors=Heitman, Elizabeth; Reiser, Stanley Joel
 
−
| title=The Ethical Dimensions of the Biological and Health Sciences
 
−
| edition=2nd edition | isbn=0521008867
 
−
| publisher=Cambridge University Press
 
−
| oclc=47791316 }}</ref>
 
  
−
Once a hypothesis has survived testing, it may become adopted into the framework of a [[theory (science)|scientific 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. These broader theories may be formulated using principles such as [[parsimony]] (e.g., "[[Occam's Razor]]"). They are then repeatedly tested by analyzing how the collected evidence ([[fact]]s) compares to the theory. When a theory survives a sufficiently large number of empirical observations, it then becomes a scientific generalization that can be taken as fully verified.
+
Since the beginning of modern science, scientists have worked under the assumption that their subjects of study have been controlled by consistent natural laws.
 +
There is good evidence that this assumption was based on the [[Christianity|Christian]] view that the laws were created by a consistent creator Who didn't change those laws on a whim.<ref>See [[Natural science#Beginnings]]</ref>
 +
This assumption is seen as a prerequisite for logical deduction to act on the observations made. Without the assumption that the universe is consistent we cannot apply the lessons drawn from an observation to any area other than the observations themselves. If a [[chemical reaction]] occurs in a given solution in a laboratory in one city it is assumed that the same reaction can occur in a different laboratory in a different city on a different day because the chemical [[solution]] and situations will be the same.
  
−
Despite the existence of well-tested theories, science cannot claim absolute knowledge of nature or the behavior of the subject or of the field of study due to [[Epistemology|epistemological]] problems that are unavoidable and preclude the discovery or establishment of absolute [[truth]]. Unlike a mathematical proof, a scientific theory is [[empirical]], and is always open to [[falsifiability|falsification]], if new evidence is presented. Even the most basic and fundamental theories may turn out to be imperfect if new observations are inconsistent with them. Critical to this process is making every relevant aspect of research publicly available, which allows ongoing review and repeating of experiments and observations by multiple researchers operating independently of one another. Only by fulfilling these expectations can it be determined how reliable the experimental results are for potential use by others.
+
If a capricious supernatural force was to enter the equation they could not be controlled for and could not be studied.
  
−
Isaac Newton's Newtonian [[mechanics|law of gravitation]] is a famous example of an established law that was later found not to be universal—it does not hold in experiments involving motion at speeds close to the speed of light or in close proximity of strong gravitational fields. Outside these conditions, Newton's Laws remain an excellent model of motion and gravity. Since general relativity accounts for all the same phenomena that Newton's Laws do and more, general relativity is now regarded as a more comprehensive theory.<ref>{{cite book
+
The physical sciences largely concern themselves with questions involving the natural, not the supernatural, but this is not the same as assuming that the supernatural does not exist.  In addition, there are also the social sciences like [[history]].  [[Christian apologetics|Christian apologists]] maintain that history testifies to the supernatural existing and that the physical sciences (such as [[Biblical archaeology]]) can aid in historical determinations and testify to the existence of God and the truth of biblical Christianity.   
−
| first=Bernard F. | last=Schutz | year=2003
 
−
| title=Gravity from the ground up
 
−
| publisher=Cambridge University Press
 
−
| isbn=0521455065
 
−
  | oclc=239632969 }}</ref>
 
  
−
=== Mathematics ===
+
Three broad philosophies have developed in the scientific community.
−
[[Image:Michelsonmorley-boxplot.svg|thumb|Data from the famous [[Michelson–Morley experiment]]]]
+
* "[[Methodological naturalism]]" adheres to [[naturalism]] insofar as it concerns scientific experiments and observations, but does not rule out a personal deity. It does, however, ''[[a priori]]'' rule out the supernatural being an explanation for observations.
−
[[Mathematics]] is essential to many 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 and mathematical models. [[Calculus]] may be the branch of mathematics most often used in science, but virtually every branch of mathematics has applications in science, including "pure" areas such as [[number theory]] and [[topology]]. Mathematics is fundamental to the understanding of the natural sciences and the social sciences, many of which also rely heavily on [[statistics]].
+
* "[[Philosophical naturalism]]" adheres to the belief that there is no beings or forces beyond what can be observed; this [[atheism|atheistic]] view rejects the supernatural, or is skeptical of such beliefs.
 +
* The third approach is to follow the inference to the best explanation regarding whether or not a supernatural or natural cause best explains a past or present observation.<ref>http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1315/</ref><ref>http://www.cgst.edu/publication/journal/43/J43_203_Forum04Abstract.pdf</ref>  For example, this third approach is advocated by [[creation science|creation scientists]] and [[intelligent design]] theorists when it comes to the origins of the natural world. Creation scientists and intelligent design theorists rightfully maintain the falsity of the [[evolution]]ary position given the lack of evidence for evolutionary position and the many lines of evidence against the evolutionary position. Another example is that the [[First Law of Thermodynamics|first]] and [[Second law of thermodynamics|second]] laws of thermodynamics argue against an eternal [[universe]], and [[creation science|creation scientists]] claim that these laws point to the universe being supernaturally created.<ref>[http://godevidences.net/space/lawsofscience.php Evidences for God From Space&mdash;Laws of Science]</ref><ref>Thompson, Bert, [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2329 So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!], 2001 (Apologetics Press)</ref><ref>http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html</ref>  But in other respects, such as why [[Krakatoa]] exploded, a natural explanation would be considered the best explanation.
  
−
Statistical methods, comprised of mathematical techniques for summarizing and exploring data, allow scientists to assess the level of reliability and the range of variation in experimental results. Statistical thinking also plays a fundamental role in many areas of science.
+
==Religious cultivation of early modern science==
 +
''See also:'' [[Christianity and Science]], [[Atheism and the suppression of science]]
  
−
[[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 the [[Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics]], computation is now as important as theory and experiment in advancing scientific knowledge.<ref>[http://www.siam.org/students/resources/report.php Graduate Education for Computational Science and Engineering], SIAM Working Group on CSE Education. Accessed [[2008-04-27]].</ref>
+
According to the historian [[H. Floris Cohen]], there exists two distinct levels of argument along this line of historical scholarship.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=wu8b2NAqnb0C The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry], [[H. Floris Cohen]], University of Chicago Press 1994, 680 pages, ISBN 0-2261-1280-2, pages 308-321</ref>  The first to be proposed was the [[Merton thesis]] in the late 1930s, which parallels the [[The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism|Weber thesis]] in suggesting that the rise of science was due, at first, to a [[protestant work ethic]] but later extended to a more general biblical ethic. The second to be proposed was that of [[Reijer Hooykaas]], who held the rise of early modern science was due to a unique combination of Greek and biblical thought.  One of the main aspects of Hooykaas's argument was that the Greek disrespect for manual work prevented an experimental science from truly developing until the biblical view of honoring work with one's hands was socially sanctioned.  Hooykaas reaches the conclusion that "Metaphorically speaking, whereas the bodily ingredients of science may have been greek, its vitamins and hormones were biblical." <ref>* [https://books.google.com/books?id=c6TEDHvAbXAC ''Religion and the Rise of Modern Science''], Regent College Publishing, 2000. ISBN 1-5738-3018-6</ref>
  
−
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 [[theorem]]s and [[formula]]s are obtained by [[Mathematical logic|logical]] derivations which presume [[axiom]]atic systems, rather than the combination of [[empirical]] 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.<ref>{{cite book | title = Philosophy of Science: From Problem to Theory | author = Bunge, Mario Augusto | year = 1998 | publisher = Transaction Publishers | page 24 | isbn = 0-765-80413-1}}</ref>
+
Historian and professor of religion [[Eugene Marion Klaaren|Eugene M Klaaren]] holds that "a belief in divine creation" was central to an emergence of science in seventeenth century England. The philosopher [[Michael B. Foster]] has published influential analytical philosophy connecting Christian doctrines of creation with empiricism. Historian William B. Ashworth has argued against the historical notion of distinctive mind-sets and the idea of Catholic and Protestant sciences in "Catholicism and early modern science."<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=hs2edDIGCqEC ''God and nature''], Lindberg and Numbers Ed., 1986, pp. 136-66; see also [http://cas.umkc.edu/history/faculty/AshworthW/pub.html William B. Ashworth Jr.'s publication list]; this is noted on page 366 of ''Science and Religion'', [[John Hedley Brooke]], 1991, [[Cambridge University Press]]</ref> Historians James R. Jacob and Margaret C. Jacob have published the paper "The Anglican Origins of Modern Science," which endeavors to show a linkage between seventeenth century [[Anglican]] intellectual transformations and influential English scientists (e.g., [[Robert Boyle]] and [[Isaac Newton]]).<ref>[http://www.compilerpress.atfreeweb.com/Anno%20Jacob%20&%20Jacob%20Anglican%20Fdn%20of%20Modern%20Science.htm The Anglican Origins of Modern Science], [[Isis (journal)|Isis]], Volume 71, Issue 2, June 1980, 251-267; this is also noted on page 366 of ''Science and Religion'', [[John Hedley Brooke]], 1991, [[Cambridge University Press]]</ref>
  
−
== Philosophy of science==
+
Two well-respected theological surveys, which also illustrate other historical interactions between religion and science occurring in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, are [[John Dillenberger]]'s ''Protestant Thought and Natural Science'' ([[Doubleday]], 1960) and [[Christopher B. Kaiser]]'s ''Creation and the History of Science'' ([[Eerdmans]], 1991).
−
[[Image:Bose Einstein condensate.png|right|thumb|Velocity-distribution data of a gas of [[rubidium]] atoms, confirming the discovery of a new phase of matter, the [[Bose–Einstein condensate]].]]
 
−
{{main|Philosophy of science}}
 
  
−
The philosophy of science seeks to understand the nature and justification of scientific knowledge. It has proven difficult to provide a definitive [[Scientific method#Philosophical issues|account of the scientific method]] that can decisively serve to distinguish science from non-science. Thus there are legitimate arguments about exactly where the borders are, leading to the [[problem of demarcation]]. There is nonetheless a set of core precepts that have broad consensus among published philosophers of science and within the [[scientific community]] at large.
+
{{quotation|When natural philosophers referred to ''laws'' of nature, they were not glibly choosing that metaphor. Laws were the result of legislation by an intelligent deity. Thus the philosopher Rene Descartes (1596-1650) insisted that he was discovering the "laws that God has put into nature." Later Newton would declare that the regulation of the solar system presupposed the "counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."<ref>[[John Hedley Brooke]], ''Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives'', 1991, [[Cambridge University Press]], ISBN 0-521-23961-3, page 19</ref>
 +
|Historian and [[Oxford University]] [[Science and Religion]] theologian [[John Hedley Brooke]]}}
  
−
Science is reasoned-based analysis of [[sensation]] upon our awareness. As such, the scientific method cannot deduce anything about the realm of [[reality]] that is beyond what is observable by existing or theoretical means.<ref>{{cite book
+
[[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>
−
| first=Lawrence A. | last=Kuznar | year=1997
 
−
| title=Reclaiming a Scientific Anthropology
 
−
| publisher=Rowman Altamira | isbn=076199114X
 
−
| oclc=231704464 }}</ref> When a manifestation of our reality previously considered [[supernatural]] is understood in the terms of causes and consequences, it acquires a scientific explanation.<ref>{{cite book
 
−
| first=Christopher B. | last=Kaiser | year=2007
 
−
| title=Toward a Theology of Scientific Endeavour: The Descent of Science
 
−
| publisher=Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. | isbn=0754641597
 
−
| oclc=74964819 }}</ref>
 
  
−
Some of the findings of science can be very [[counter-intuitive]]. [[Atomic theory]], for example, implies that a granite boulder which appears a heavy, hard, solid, grey object is actually a combination of subatomic [[Particle physics|particles]] with none of these properties, moving very rapidly in space where the mass is concentrated in a very small fraction of the total volume. Many of humanity's [[folk physics|preconceived notions]] about the workings of the [[universe]] have been challenged by new scientific discoveries. [[Quantum mechanics]], particularly, examines phenomena that seem to defy our most basic postulates about causality and fundamental understanding of the world around us. Science is the branch of knowledge dealing with people and the understanding we have of our environment and how it works.
+
== Science denialism ==
  
−
There are different schools of thought in the philosophy of scientific method. [[Methodological naturalism]] maintains that scientific investigation must adhere to [[empirical]] study and independent verification as a process for properly developing and evaluating natural explanations for [[observation|observable]] phenomena. Methodological naturalism, therefore, rejects [[supernatural]] explanations, [[Appeal to authority|arguments from authority]] and biased [[observational studies]]. [[Critical rationalism]] instead holds that unbiased observation is not possible and a demarcation between natural and supernatural explanations is arbitrary; it instead proposes [[falsifiability]] as the landmark of empirical theories and falsification as the universal empirical method. Critical rationalism argues for the ability of science to increase the scope of testable knowledge, but at the same time against its [[authority]], by emphasizing its inherent [[fallibilism|fallibility]]. It proposes that science should be content with the rational elimination of errors in its theories, not in seeking for their verification (such as claiming [[Certainty|certain]] or probable proof or disproof; both the proposal and falsification of a theory are only of methodological, conjectural, and tentative character in critical rationalism). [[Instrumentalism]] rejects the concept of truth and emphasizes merely the utility of theories as instruments for explaining and predicting phenomena.
+
''See also:'' [[Science denialism]]
  
−
==Critiques==
+
[[Science denialism]] happens when people argue that established scientific laws/theories are wrong based on their subjective ideology or subjective personal beliefs and preferences.
−
===Science, pseudoscience and nonscience===
 
−
{{main|Cargo cult science|Fringe science|Junk science|Pseudoscience|Scientific misconduct}}
 
−
Any established body of [[knowledge]] which masquerades as science in an attempt to claim a legitimacy which it would not otherwise be able to achieve on its own terms is not science; it is often known as [[fringe science|fringe]]- or alternative science. The most important of its defects is usually the lack of the carefully controlled and thoughtfully interpreted experiments which provide the foundation of the natural sciences and which contribute to their advancement. Another term, [[junk science]], is often used to describe scientific theories or data which, while perhaps legitimate in themselves, are believed to be mistakenly used to support an opposing position. There is usually an element of political or ideological bias in the use of the term. Thus the arguments in favor of limiting the use of fossil fuels in order to reduce global warming are often characterized as junk science by those who do not wish to see such restrictions imposed, and who claim that other factors may well be the cause of global warming. A wide variety of commercial advertising (ranging from hype to outright fraud) would also fall into this category. Finally, there is just plain bad science, which is commonly used to describe well-intentioned but incorrect, obsolete, incomplete, or over-simplified expositions of scientific ideas.
 
  
−
The status of many bodies of knowledge as true sciences, has been a matter of debate. Discussion and debate abound in this topic with some fields like the [[social sciences|social]] and [[behavioural sciences]] accused by critics of being unscientific. Many groups of people from academicians like Nobel Prize physicist [[Percy W. Bridgman]],<ref>{{cite journal | last = Siepmann | first = J. P. | title=What is Science? (Editorial) | journal=Journal of Theoretics | year=1999 | volume=3 | url=http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998RPPh...61...77K | accessdate=2007-07-23 }}</ref> or Dick Richardson, Ph.D.—Professor of Integrative Biology at the [[University of Texas at Austin]],<ref>{{cite web | last=Richardson | first=R. H. (Dick) | date=January 28, 2001 | url=http://www.sbs.utexas.edu/resource/onlinetext/Definitions/economicsNOTscience.htm | title=Economics is NOT Natural Science! (It is technology of Social Science.) | publisher=The University of Texas at Austin | accessdate=2007-07-23 }}</ref> to politicians like U.S. Senator [[Kay Bailey Hutchison]] and other co-sponsors,<ref>{{cite web | author=Staff | date=May 19, 2006 | url=http://www.asanet.org/page.ww?section=Advocacy&name=Social+Sciences+Under+Attack | title=Behavioral and Social Science Are Under Attack in the Senate | publisher=American Sociological Association | accessdate=2007-07-23 }}</ref> oppose giving their support or agreeing with the use of the label "science" in some fields of study and knowledge they consider non-scientific, ambiguous, or scientifically irrelevant compared with other fields. [[Karl Popper]] denied the existence of evidence<ref>''Logik der Forschung'', new appendix ''*XIX'' (not yet available in the English edition ''Logic of scientific discovery'')</ref> and of scientific method.<ref>{{cite book
+
==See also==
−
| first=Karl | last=Popper | authorlink=Karl Popper
+
* [[Atheism and science]]
−
| chapter=Preface, On the non-existence of scientific method
+
* [[Branches of science]]
−
| title=Realism and the Aim of Science
 
−
| year=1983 | edition=1st edition
 
−
| publisher=Rowman and Littlefield
 
−
| location=Totowa, New Jersey }}</ref> Popper holds that there is only one universal method, the negative method of [[trial and error]]. It covers not only all products of the human mind, including science, mathematics, philosophy, art and so on, but also the evolution of life.<ref>Karl Popper: ''Objective Knowledge'' (1972)</ref> He also contributed to the [[Positivism dispute]], a philosophical dispute between [[Critical rationalism]] ([[Popper]],[[Albert]]) and the [[Frankfurt School]] ([[Adorno]], [[Habermas]]) about the methodology of the social sciences.<ref>Critical examination of various positions on this issue can be found in [[Karl R. Popper]]'s ''The Poverty of Historicism''.</ref>
 
−
 
 
−
===Philosophical focus===
 
−
Historian [[Jacques Barzun]] termed science "a [[faith]] as [[fanaticism|fanatical]] as any in [[history]]" and warned against the use of scientific thought to suppress considerations of [[meaning]] as integral to [[humanity|human]] existence.<ref>Jacques Barzun, ''Science: The Glorious Entertainment'', Harper and Row: 1964. p. 15. (quote) and Chapters II and XII.</ref> Many recent thinkers, such as [[Carolyn Merchant]], [[Theodor Adorno]] and [[E. F. Schumacher]] considered that the 17th century [[scientific revolution]] shifted science from a focus on understanding [[nature]], or [[wisdom]], to a focus on manipulating nature, i.e. [[power (sociology)|power]], and that science's emphasis on manipulating nature leads it inevitably to manipulate people, as well.<ref name=UW>Fritjof Capra, ''Uncommon Wisdom'', ISBN 0-671-47322-0, p. 213</ref> Science's focus on quantitative measures has led to critiques that it is unable to recognize important qualitative aspects of the world.<ref name=UW/> It is not clear, however, if this kind of criticism is adequate to a vast number of non-experimental scientifics fields like [[Astronomy]], [[Cosmology]], [[Evolutionary Biology]], [[Complexity Theory]], [[Paleontology]], [[Paleoanthropology]], [[Archeology]], [[Earth Sciences]], [[Climatology]], [[Ecology]] and other sciences, like [[Statistical Physics]] of irreversible [[non-linear]] systems, that emphasize systemic and historically contingent frozen accidents. Considerations about the philosophical impact of science to the discussion of the (or lack of) meaning in human existence are not supressed but strongly discussed in the literature of science divulgation, a movement sometimes called [[The Third Culture]].
 
−
 
 
−
The implications of the ideological denial of [[ethics]] for the practice of science itself in terms of fraud, plagiarism, and data falsification, has been criticized by several academics. In "Science and Ethics", the philosopher [[Bernard Rollin]] examines the ideology that denies the relevance of ethics to science, and argues in favor of making education in ethics part and parcel of scientific training.<ref>{{cite book
 
−
| first=Bernard E. | last=Rollin | year=2006
 
−
| title=Science and Ethics
 
−
| publisher=Cambridge University Press
 
−
| isbn=0521857546
 
−
| oclc=238793190 }}</ref>
 
−
 
 
−
===The media and the scientific debate===
 
−
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 requires considerable expertise on the issue at hand.<ref>{{cite web
 
−
| last=Dickson | first=David | date=[[October 11]], [[2004]]
 
−
| url=http://www.scidev.net/Editorials/index.cfm?fuseaction=readEditorials&itemid=131&language=1
 
−
| title=Science journalism must keep a critical edge
 
−
| publisher=Science and Development Network
 
−
| accessdate=2008-02-20
 
−
}}</ref> Few journalists have real scientific knowledge, and even beat reporters who know a great deal about certain scientific issues may know little about other ones they are suddenly asked to cover.<ref>{{cite web
 
−
| last=Mooney | first=Chris | year=2007
 
−
| url=http://cjrarchives.org/issues/2004/6/mooney-science.asp
 
−
| title=Blinded By Science, How 'Balanced' Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality
 
−
| publisher=Columbia Journalism Review
 
−
| accessdate=2008-02-20
 
−
}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal
 
−
| last=McIlwaine | first=S. | coauthors=Nguyen, D. A.
 
−
| title=Are Journalism Students Equipped to Write About Science?
 
−
| journal=Australian Studies in Journalism
 
−
| year=2005 | volume=14 | pages=41–60
 
−
| url=http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:8064
 
−
| accessdate=2008-02-20 }}</ref>
 
−
 
 
−
===Epistemological inadequacies===
 
−
Psychologist [[Carl Jung]] believed that though science attempted to understand all of nature, the experimental method used would pose artificial, conditional questions that evoke only partial answers.<ref>{{cite book | isbn = 0691017948 | title = Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle | pages = 35 | publisher = Princeton University Press | last = Jung | first = Carl | year = 1973 | authorlink = Carl Jung}}</ref> [[Robert Anton Wilson]] criticized science for using instruments to ask questions that produce answers only meaningful in terms of the instrument, and that there was no such thing as a completely objective vantage point from which to view the results of science.<ref>{{cite video|
 
−
| people=Wilson, Robert Anton
 
−
| title=[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lO7tGOr2NU0 Real Reality]
 
−
| medium=Adobe Flash video | publisher=YouTube
 
−
| year2=[[2007]] }}</ref>
 
−
 
 
−
== Scientific community ==
 
−
{{main|Scientific community}}
 
−
The scientific community consists of the total body of scientists, its relationships and interactions. It is normally divided into "sub-communities" each working on a particular field within science.
 
−
 
 
−
=== Fields ===
 
−
{{main|Fields of science}}
 
−
<!-- The organizational tables have been moved to the main article "Fields of science" -->
 
−
Fields of science are commonly classified along two major lines: [[natural science]]s, which study [[natural]] phenomena (including [[Biology|biological life]]), and [[social sciences]], which study [[human behavior]] and [[Society|societies]]. These groupings are [[empirical]] sciences, which means the knowledge must be based on [[Observation|observable]] [[phenomena]] and capable of being [[experiment]]ed for its [[validity]] by other researchers working under the same conditions.<ref name=Popper>{{cite book | last = Popper | first = Karl | authorlink = Karl Popper | title = The Logic of Scientific Discovery | origyear = 1959 | edition = 2nd English edition | year = 2002 | publisher = Routledge Classics | location = New York, NY | isbn = 0-415-27844-9 | oclc =59377149 }}</ref><!-- p. 20 --> There are also related disciplines that are grouped into interdisciplinary and applied sciences, such as [[engineering]] and [[health science]]. Within these categories are specialized scientific fields that can include elements of other scientific disciplines but often possess their own terminology and body of expertise.<ref>See: {{cite web | author=Editorial Staff | date=March 7, 2007 | url=http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2007/03/scientific_method_relationship.php | title=Scientific Method: Relationships among Scientific Paradigms | publisher=Seed magazine | accessdate=2007-09-12 }}</ref>
 
−
 
 
−
[[Mathematics]], which is sometimes classified within a third group of science called [[formal science]], has both similarities and differences with the natural and social sciences.<ref name=Popper/><!-- p. 3 --> 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 priori and a posteriori (philosophy)|''a priori'']] rather than empirical methods.<ref name=Popper/><!-- p. 10-11 --> [[Formal science]], which also includes [[statistics]] and [[logic]], is vital to the empirical sciences. Major advances in formal science have often led to major advances in the physical and biological sciences. The formal sciences are essential in the formation of [[hypotheses]], [[theories]], and [[physical law|laws]],<ref name=Popper/><!-- p. 79-82 --> both in discovering and describing how things work (natural sciences) and how people think and act (social sciences).
 
−
 
 
−
=== Institutions ===
 
−
[[Image:Académie des Sciences 1671.jpg|thumb|150px|[[Louis XIV]] visiting the {{lang|fr|[[French Academy of Sciences|Académie des sciences]]}} in 1671.]]
 
−
 
 
−
[[Learned society|Learned societies]] for the communication and promotion of scientific thought and experimentation have existed since the [[Renaissance]] period.<ref>{{cite web | last=Parrott | first=Jim | date=August 9, 2007 | url=http://www.scholarly-societies.org/1599andearlier.html | title=Chronicle for Societies Founded from 1323 to 1599 | publisher=Scholarly Societies Project | accessdate=2007-09-11}}</ref> The oldest surviving institution is the {{lang|it|''[[Accademia dei Lincei]]''}} in [[Italy]].<ref>{{cite web | year=2006 | url=http://positivamente.lincei.it/ | title=Benvenuto nel sito dell'Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei | language=Italian | publisher=Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei | accessdate=2007-09-11}}</ref> National [[Academy of Sciences]] are distinguished institutions that exist in a number of countries, beginning with the British ''[[Royal Society]]'' in 1660<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=2176 | title=Brief history of the Society | publisher=The Royal Society | accessdate=2007-09-11}}</ref> and the French {{lang|fr|''[[Académie des Sciences]]''}} in 1666.<ref>{{cite web | first=G.G. | last=Meynell | url=http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=2176 | title=The French Academy of Sciences, 1666-91: A reassessment of the French Académie royale des sciences under Colbert (1666-83) and Louvois (1683-91) | publisher=Topics in Scientific & Medical History | accessdate=2007-09-11}}</ref>
 
−
 
 
−
International scientific organizations, such as the ''[[International Council for Science]]'', have since been formed to promote cooperation between the scientific communities of different nations. More recently, influential government agencies have been created to support scientific research, including the ''[[National Science Foundation]]'' in the [[United States|U.S.]]
 
−
 
 
−
Other prominent organizations include the [[academy of Sciences|academies of science]] of many nations, [[CSIRO]] in Australia, {{lang|fr|[[Centre national de la recherche scientifique]]}} in France, [[Max Planck Society]] and {{lang|de|[[Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft]]}} in Germany, and in Spain, [[CSIC]].
 
−
 
 
−
=== Literature ===
 
−
{{main|Scientific literature}}
 
−
 
 
−
An enormous range of [[scientific literature]] is published.<ref>{{cite journal
 
−
| last=Ziman | first=Bhadriraju
 
−
| journal=Science
 
−
| title=The proliferation of scientific literature: a natural process
 
−
| year=1980 | volume=208 | issue=4442
 
−
| pages=369&ndash;371
 
−
| doi= 10.1126/science.7367863
 
−
| pmid=7367863 }}</ref> [[Scientific journal]]s 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 of the Royal Society|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.<ref>{{cite book
 
−
| first=Krishna | last=Subramanyam
 
−
| coauthors=Subramanyam, Bhadriraju | year=1981
 
−
| title=Scientific and Technical Information Resources
 
−
| publisher=CRC Press | isbn=0824782976
 
−
| oclc=232950234 }}</ref> While [[Pubmed]] lists almost 40,000, related to the medical sciences only.<ref> ftp://ftp.ncbi.nih.gov/pubmed/J_Entrez.txt</ref>
 
−
 
 
−
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 magazine]]s such as [[NewScientist|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 book]]s 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]].<ref>{{cite web
 
−
| first=Mario | last=Petrucci
 
−
| url=http://writeideas.org.uk/creativescience/index.htm
 
−
| title=Creative Writing <-> Science
 
−
| accessdate=2008-04-27 }}</ref>
 
−
 
 
−
== See also ==
 
−
{{Portal|Science|Nuvola apps kalzium.png}}
 
−
: ''Main lists: [[List of basic science topics]] and [[List of science topics]]''
 
−
{| class="wikitable" style="float:left; margin-left:.5em; font-size:90%;"
 
−
!Application
 
−
|
 
−
* [[Military funding of science]]
 
−
* [[Scientific computing]]
 
−
* [[Scientific enterprise]]
 
−
* [[Science and technology]]
 
−
|-
 
−
!Controversy
 
−
|
 
−
* [[Fringe science]]
 
−
* [[Junk science]]
 
−
* [[Pathological science]]
 
−
* [[Pseudoscience]]
 
−
* [[Relationship between religion and science]]
 
−
* [[Creation-evolution controversy]]
 
−
* [[Scientific misconduct]]
 
−
* [[Scientific skepticism]]
 
−
|-
 
−
!History
 
−
|
 
−
* [[History of science and technology]]
 
−
* [[Historiography of science]]
 
−
* [[Protoscience]]
 
−
* [[Scientific constants named after people]]
 
−
* [[Scientific laws named after people]]
 
−
* [[Scientific phenomena named after people]]
 
−
* [[Scientific revolution]]
 
−
* [[Scientific units named after people]]
 
−
* [[Scientometry]]
 
−
|-
 
−
!Philosophy
 
−
|
 
−
* [[Naturalism (philosophy)]]
 
−
* [[Philosophy of science]]
 
−
* [[Rhetoric of science]]
 
 
* [[Scientific method]]
 
* [[Scientific method]]
−
* [[Antiscience]]
+
* [[Computing]]
−
|-
+
* [[Anti-science]]
−
!Media
+
* [[Science and speculation]]
−
|
+
* [[Science and bias]]
−
* [[List of publications in science]]
+
* [[Science and dogma]]
−
* [[Science.tv]]
+
* [[Science and faith]]
−
|}
+
* [[Science and engineering]]
−
{{-}}
+
* [[Science and the church]]
 +
*[[Science evolves]]
 +
* [[Scientific ignorance]]
 +
* [[Scientific integrity]]
 +
* [[Scientific testing]]
 +
* [[Scientific virtues]]
 +
* [[Scientific uncertainty]]
 +
* [[Observation skills]]
  
 +
==Further reading==
 +
*http://www.music-cog.ohio-state.edu/Music220/Bloch.lectures/3.Methodology.html -
 +
(Systematic Musicology in a Postmodern Age, 1999 Lecture by David Huron, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Music)
 
==Notes==
 
==Notes==
 +
 
{{reflist}}
 
{{reflist}}
  
−
==References==
 
−
* [[Paul Feyerabend|Feyerabend, Paul]] (2005). ''Science, history of the philosophy'', as cited in {{cite book |author=Honderich, Ted |title=The Oxford companion to philosophy |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=Oxford [[Oxfordshire]] |year=2005 |pages= |isbn=0199264791 |oclc= 173262485|doi=}} of.'' Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford.
 
−
*[[David Papineau|Papineau, David]]. (2005). ''Science, problems of the philosophy of.'', as cited in {{cite book |author=Honderich, Ted |title=The Oxford companion to philosophy |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=Oxford [[Oxfordshire]] |year=2005 |pages= |isbn=0199264791 |oclc= 173262485|doi=}}
 
−
*{{cite book | author = Feynman, R.P. | year = 1999 | title = The Pleasure of Finding Things Out: The Best Short Works of Richard P. Feynman | publisher = Perseus Books Group | isbn = 0465023959 | oclc = 181597764 }}
 
−
 
−
==Further reading==
 
−
* Augros, Robert M., Stanciu, George N., "The New Story of Science: mind and the universe", Lake Bluff, Ill.: Regnery Gateway, c1984. ISBN 0895268337
 
−
* [http://lipas.uwasa.fi/~ts/popsci.html A Book List of Popularized Natural and Behavioral Sciences]
 
−
* Baxter, Charles {{PDFlink|[http://www.adihome.org/phpshop/pdf/articles/DIN_02_01_10.pdf "Myth versus science in educational systems"]|66.4&nbsp;KB}}
 
−
*{{cite book|last=Becker|first=Ernest|title=The structure of evil; an essay on the unification of the science of man|location=New York|publisher=G. Braziller|year=1968|authorlink=Ernest Becker}}
 
−
* "''[http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-57 Classification of the Sciences]''". Dictionary of the History of Ideas.
 
−
* Cole, K. C., ''Things your teacher never told you about science: Nine shocking revelations'' [[Newsday]], [[Long Island, New York]], March 23, 1986, pg 21+
 
−
* Feynman, Richard [http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/02/CargoCult.pdf "Cargo Cult Science"]
 
−
* Gopnik, Alison, [http://www.amacad.org/publications/winter2004/gopnik.pdf "Finding Our Inner Scientist"], [[Daedalus (journal)|Daedalus]], Winter 2004.
 
−
* Krige, John, and Dominique Pestre, eds., ''Science in the Twentieth Century'', Routledge 2003, ISBN 0-415-28606-9
 
−
* [[Thomas Samuel Kuhn|Kuhn, Thomas]], ''[[The Structure of Scientific Revolutions]]'', 1962.
 
−
* MacComas, William F. {{PDFlink|[http://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/roe/Knowability_590/Week2/Myths%20of%20Science.pdf "The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myths"]|189&nbsp;KB}} Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California. Direct Instruction News. '''Spring 2002''' 24–30.
 
−
* [http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/nature/index.shtml "Nature of Science"] University of California Museum of Paleontology
 
−
* {{cite book| last = Obler | first = Paul C. | coauthors = Estrin, Herman A. | title = The New Scientist: Essays on the Methods and Values of Modern Science | publisher = Anchor Books, Doubleday | date = 1962}}
 
−
* {{cite book | first=Daniel Patrick | last=Thurs | year=2007 | title=Science Talk: Changing Notions of Science in American Popular Culture| pages=pp. 22&ndash;52 | publisher=Rutgers University Press | location=New Brunswick, NJ | isbn=978-0-8135-4073-3 }}
 
−
 
−
==External links==
 
−
{{sisterlinks|Science}}
 
−
'''Publications''':
 
−
* "''[[b:GCSE Science|GCSE Science textbook]]''". [[Wikibooks]].org
 
−
 
−
'''News''':
 
−
* [http://www.newscientist.com Current Events]. [[New Scientist]] Magazine, Reed Business Information, Ltd.
 
−
* [http://www.sciencedaily.com ScienceDaily]
 
−
* [http://www.discovermagazine.com Discover Magazine]
 
−
 
−
'''Resources''':
 
−
* [http://www.science.gov United States Science Initiative]. Selected science information provided by U.S. Government agencies, including research and development results.
 
−
* [http://www.euroscience.org/ Euroscience]:
 
−
** [http://www.euroscience.org/esof.html Euroscience Open Forum] (ESOF)
 
−
[[Category:Science|Science]]
 
−
* [http://www.scienceresourceonline.com Science Resources]
 
  
−
{{Link FA|nl}}
+
[[Category:Science]] [[Category:Methodology of Science]]
−
{{Link FA|tr}}
 
−
[[af:Wetenskap]]
 
−
[[ar:علم]]
 
−
[[an:Zenzia]]
 
−
[[as:বিজ্ঞান]]
 
−
[[ast:Ciencia]]
 
−
[[ay:Yatxatawi]]
 
−
[[az:Elm]]
 
−
[[bn:বিজ্ঞান]]
 
−
[[zh-min-nan:Kho-ha̍k]]
 
−
[[ba:Фән]]
 
−
[[be:Навука]]
 
−
[[be-x-old:Навука]]
 
−
[[bar:Wissnschåft]]
 
−
[[bs:Nauka]]
 
−
[[br:Skiant]]
 
−
[[bg:Наука]]
 
−
[[ca:Ciència]]
 
−
[[cv:Ăслăлăх]]
 
−
[[ceb:Siyensiya]]
 
−
[[cs:Věda]]
 
−
[[cy:Gwyddoniaeth]]
 
−
[[da:Videnskab]]
 
−
[[de:Wissenschaft]]
 
−
[[et:Teadus]]
 
−
[[el:Επιστήμη]]
 
−
[[es:Ciencia]]
 
−
[[eo:Scienco]]
 
−
[[eu:Zientzia]]
 
−
[[fa:علم]]
 
−
[[fr:Science]]
 
−
[[fur:Sience]]
 
−
[[ga:Eolaíocht]]
 
−
[[gd:Saidheans]]
 
−
[[gl:Ciencia]]
 
−
[[gan:科學]]
 
−
[[gu:વિજ્ઞાન]]
 
−
[[zh-classical:格致]]
 
−
[[hak:Khô-ho̍k]]
 
−
[[ko:과학]]
 
−
[[hi:विज्ञान]]
 
−
[[hr:Znanost]]
 
−
[[io:Cienco]]
 
−
[[bpy:বিজ্ঞান]]
 
−
[[id:Ilmu]]
 
−
[[ia:Scientia]]
 
−
[[is:Vísindi]]
 
−
[[it:Scienza]]
 
−
[[he:מדע]]
 
−
[[jv:Èlmu]]
 
−
[[kn:ವಿಜ್ಞಾನ]]
 
−
[[ka:მეცნიერება]]
 
−
[[csb:Ùczba]]
 
−
[[kk:Ғылым]]
 
−
[[kw:Godhonieth]]
 
−
[[sw:Sayansi]]
 
−
[[kg:Kizabu]]
 
−
[[ht:Syans]]
 
−
[[ku:Zanist]]
 
−
[[la:Scientia]]
 
−
[[lv:Zinātne]]
 
−
[[lb:Wëssenschaft]]
 
−
[[lt:Mokslas]]
 
−
[[li:Weitesjap]]
 
−
[[jbo:saske]]
 
−
[[hu:Tudomány]]
 
−
[[mk:Наука]]
 
−
[[ml:ശാസ്ത്രം]]
 
−
[[mt:Xjenza]]
 
−
[[ms:Sains]]
 
−
[[mn:Шинжлэх ухаан]]
 
−
[[nah:Tlamatiliztli]]
 
−
[[nl:Wetenschap]]
 
−
[[ne:विज्ञान]]
 
−
[[ja:科学]]
 
−
[[pih:Saiens]]
 
−
[[no:Vitenskap]]
 
−
[[nn:Vitskap]]
 
−
[[nrm:Scienche]]
 
−
[[uz:Fan]]
 
−
[[pap:Siensia]]
 
−
[[pms:Siensa]]
 
−
[[nds:Wetenschop]]
 
−
[[pl:Nauka]]
 
−
[[pt:Ciência]]
 
−
[[crh:İlim]]
 
−
[[ro:Ştiinţă]]
 
−
[[ru:Наука]]
 
−
[[sm:Saienisi]]
 
−
[[sco:Science]]
 
−
[[sq:Shkenctari]]
 
−
[[scn:Scienza]]
 
−
[[simple:Science]]
 
−
[[ss:Isayensi]]
 
−
[[sk:Veda]]
 
−
[[sl:Znanost]]
 
−
[[sr:Наука]]
 
−
[[sh:Nauka]]
 
−
[[su:Élmu]]
 
−
[[fi:Tiede]]
 
−
[[sv:Naturvetenskap]]
 
−
[[tl:Agham]]
 
−
[[ta:அறிவியல்]]
 
−
[[th:วิทยาศาสตร์]]
 
−
[[vi:Khoa học]]
 
−
[[tr:Bilim]]
 
−
[[uk:Наука]]
 
−
[[ur:سائنس]]
 
−
[[vec:Sienzsa]]
 
−
[[wa:Syince]]
 
−
[[yi:וויסנשאפט]]
 
−
[[yo:Sáyẹ́nsì]]
 
−
[[zh-yue:科學]]
 
−
[[bat-smg:Muokslos]]
 
−
[[zh:科学]]
 

Latest revision as of 19:26, May 14, 2026

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 can be divided into two areas: natural science, dealing with the physical, natural world,[1] and social science, dealing with society and human nature.

People who study science are called scientists. 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. In addition, Christianity played a pivotal role in the development of modern science (see Christianity and Science). With further scientific advancement, the scientific approach has become increasingly atheistic,[2] rejecting the supernatural. Scientific fields of study observing a clear atheistic bent include evolution, global warming and much of cosmology and geology, which are based on a time frame which predates the Christian time of creation. There are hubs of real scientific research, however, in places like the Institute for Creation Research and the Heartland Institute.

Science differs from other methodologies of classifying knowledge in that a scientific theory is a description of the world which in principle is capable of being disproved; this is known as falsifiability. It is this property which distinguishes science from other possible methods of discovering knowledge.

Epicurus is an important figure in the development of the scientific method. He insisted that nothing should be accepted except that which has been sufficiently tested through direct observation and logical deduction. Roger Bacon is hailed by many as the father of modern science. His focus on empirical approaches to science was influential. He wrote an encyclopedia, his Opus Majus.

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.

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." [1]

The scientific method consists of two stages, theory formation and theory testing. In the early 20th Century the scientific method was commonly understood to follow the inductive procedure, whereby general statements are derived from a collection of singular observations. It was thought that through this method theories were constructed; a collection of observations led to the formation of a general theory to explain them. Secondly, at the testing stage, it was considered that a hypothesis could be verified through a collection of singular observations.

Karl Popper

Karl Popper, considered by many to be the most important contributor to the philosophy of science in recent times, put forward a damning critique of induction, going so far is to claim that it did not exist. Popper argued that general theories cannot ever be conclusively verified by singular observations, but that such a theory could be conclusively falsified by such means.

The consensus today is based in large part upon the work of Popper, although in general induction is believed to play a part. The modern view is that the scientific method employs both inductive and deductive methods and is characterized by the principle of falsification:

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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 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, part of a continuing process..

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

See also: Atheism and science and Philosophical naturalism

Since the beginning of modern science, scientists have worked under the assumption that their subjects of study have been controlled by consistent natural laws. There is good evidence that this assumption was based on the Christian view that the laws were created by a consistent creator Who didn't change those laws on a whim.[3] This assumption is seen as a prerequisite for logical deduction to act on the observations made. Without the assumption that the universe is consistent we cannot apply the lessons drawn from an observation to any area other than the observations themselves. If a chemical reaction occurs in a given solution in a laboratory in one city it is assumed that the same reaction can occur in a different laboratory in a different city on a different day because the chemical solution and situations will be the same.

If a capricious supernatural force was to enter the equation they could not be controlled for and could not be studied.

The physical sciences largely concern themselves with questions involving the natural, not the supernatural, but this is not the same as assuming that the supernatural does not exist. In addition, there are also the social sciences like history. Christian apologists maintain that history testifies to the supernatural existing and that the physical sciences (such as Biblical archaeology) can aid in historical determinations and testify to the existence of God and the truth of biblical Christianity.

Three broad philosophies have developed in the scientific community.

  • "Methodological naturalism" adheres to naturalism insofar as it concerns scientific experiments and observations, but does not rule out a personal deity. It does, however, a priori rule out the supernatural being an explanation for observations.
  • "Philosophical naturalism" adheres to the belief that there is no beings or forces beyond what can be observed; this atheistic view rejects the supernatural, or is skeptical of such beliefs.
  • The third approach is to follow the inference to the best explanation regarding whether or not a supernatural or natural cause best explains a past or present observation.[4][5] For example, this third approach is advocated by creation scientists and intelligent design theorists when it comes to the origins of the natural world. Creation scientists and intelligent design theorists rightfully maintain the falsity of the evolutionary position given the lack of evidence for evolutionary position and the many lines of evidence against the evolutionary position. Another example is that the first and second laws of thermodynamics argue against an eternal universe, and creation scientists claim that these laws point to the universe being supernaturally created.[6][7][8] But in other respects, such as why Krakatoa exploded, a natural explanation would be considered the best explanation.

Religious cultivation of early modern science

See also: Christianity and Science, Atheism and the suppression of science

According to the historian H. Floris Cohen, there exists two distinct levels of argument along this line of historical scholarship.[9] The first to be proposed was the Merton thesis in the late 1930s, which parallels the Weber thesis in suggesting that the rise of science was due, at first, to a protestant work ethic but later extended to a more general biblical ethic. The second to be proposed was that of Reijer Hooykaas, who held the rise of early modern science was due to a unique combination of Greek and biblical thought. One of the main aspects of Hooykaas's argument was that the Greek disrespect for manual work prevented an experimental science from truly developing until the biblical view of honoring work with one's hands was socially sanctioned. Hooykaas reaches the conclusion that "Metaphorically speaking, whereas the bodily ingredients of science may have been greek, its vitamins and hormones were biblical." [10]

Historian and professor of religion Eugene M Klaaren holds that "a belief in divine creation" was central to an emergence of science in seventeenth century England. The philosopher Michael B. Foster has published influential analytical philosophy connecting Christian doctrines of creation with empiricism. Historian William B. Ashworth has argued against the historical notion of distinctive mind-sets and the idea of Catholic and Protestant sciences in "Catholicism and early modern science."[11] Historians James R. Jacob and Margaret C. Jacob have published the paper "The Anglican Origins of Modern Science," which endeavors to show a linkage between seventeenth century Anglican intellectual transformations and influential English scientists (e.g., Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton).[12]

Two well-respected theological surveys, which also illustrate other historical interactions between religion and science occurring in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, are John Dillenberger's Protestant Thought and Natural Science (Doubleday, 1960) and Christopher B. Kaiser's Creation and the History of Science (Eerdmans, 1991).

When natural philosophers referred to laws of nature, they were not glibly choosing that metaphor. Laws were the result of legislation by an intelligent deity. Thus the philosopher Rene Descartes (1596-1650) insisted that he was discovering the "laws that God has put into nature." Later Newton would declare that the regulation of the solar system presupposed the "counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."[13]

University of California at Berkeley-educated historian Ronald L. Numbers has stated that this thesis "received a boost" from mathematician and philosopherAlfred 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—most glaringly, it ignores or minimizes the contributions of ancient Greeks and medieval Muslims—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.'"[14]

Science denialism

See also: Science denialism

Science denialism happens when people argue that established scientific laws/theories are wrong based on their subjective ideology or subjective personal beliefs and preferences.

See also

Further reading

(Systematic Musicology in a Postmodern Age, 1999 Lecture by David Huron, University of California, Berkeley, Department of Music)

Notes

  1. ↑ 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.
  2. ↑ http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm
  3. ↑ See Natural science#Beginnings
  4. ↑ http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/1315/
  5. ↑ http://www.cgst.edu/publication/journal/43/J43_203_Forum04Abstract.pdf
  6. ↑ Evidences for God From Space—Laws of Science
  7. ↑ Thompson, Bert, So Long, Eternal Universe; Hello Beginning, Hello End!, 2001 (Apologetics Press)
  8. ↑ http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences14.html
  9. ↑ The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry, H. Floris Cohen, University of Chicago Press 1994, 680 pages, ISBN 0-2261-1280-2, pages 308-321
  10. ↑ * Religion and the Rise of Modern Science, Regent College Publishing, 2000. ISBN 1-5738-3018-6
  11. ↑ God and nature, Lindberg and Numbers Ed., 1986, pp. 136-66; see also William B. Ashworth Jr.'s publication list; this is noted on page 366 of Science and Religion, John Hedley Brooke, 1991, Cambridge University Press
  12. ↑ The Anglican Origins of Modern Science, Isis, Volume 71, Issue 2, June 1980, 251-267; this is also noted on page 366 of Science and Religion, John Hedley Brooke, 1991, Cambridge University Press
  13. ↑ John Hedley Brooke, Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives, 1991, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-23961-3, page 19
  14. ↑ 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
Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Science&oldid=2194831"