Science

Science (from the Latin word scientia, meaning

"knowledge")[1] is a systematic enterprise that builds and
organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and
predictions about the universe.[2][3][4]

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 Universe represented as multiple disk-
the fall of the Western Roman Empire, knowledge of Greek shaped slices across time, which passes
from left to right
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][21] however, on whether the formal sciences actually constitute a science as they do not
rely on empirical evidence.[22][20] Disciplines that use existing scientific knowledge for practical purposes,
such as engineering and medicine, are described as applied sciences.[23][24][25][26]

Science is based on research, which is commonly conducted in academic and research institutions as well as in
government agencies and companies. The practical impact of scientific research has led to the emergence of
science policies that seek to influence the scientific enterprise by prioritizing the development of commercial
products, armaments, health care, and environmental protection.

Contents
History
Early cultures
Classical antiquity
Medieval science
Renaissance and early modern science
Age of Enlightenment
19th century
 20th century
21st century
Branches of science
Natural science
Social science
Formal science
Scientific research
Scientific method
Verifiability
Role of mathematics
Philosophy of science
Certainty and science
Scientific literature
Practical impacts
Challenges
Replication crisis
Fringe science, pseudoscience, and junk science
Scientific community
Scientists
Women in science
Learned societies
Science and the public
Science policy
Funding of science
Public awareness of science
Science journalism
Politicization of science
See also
Notes
References
Further reading
External links

History
Science in a broad sense existed before the modern era and in many historical civilizations.[27] 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][28] 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 that 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 a
national scale, such as those which harnessed the floodplain of the Yangtse with reservoirs,[29] 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.[30] The ancient Mesopotamians used knowledge
about the properties of various natural chemicals for manufacturing pottery, faience,
glass, soap, metals, lime plaster, and waterproofing;[31] they also studied animal
physiology, anatomy, and behavior for divinatory purposes[31] and made extensive
records of the movements of astronomical objects for their study of astrology.[32] The
Mesopotamians had intense interest in medicine[31] and the earliest medical
prescriptions appear in Sumerian during the Third Dynasty of Ur (c. 2112 BCE – c.
2004 BCE).[33] Nonetheless, the Mesopotamians seem to have had little interest in
gathering information about the natural world for the mere sake of gathering
information[31] and mainly only studied scientific subjects which had obvious practical
applications or immediate relevance to their religious system.[31]

Classical antiquity

In classical antiquity, there is no real ancient analog of a modern scientist. Instead, well- Clay models of
educated, usually upper-class, and almost universally male individuals performed animal livers
various investigations into nature whenever they could afford the time.[34] Before the dating between
invention or discovery of the concept of "nature" (ancient Greek phusis) by the Pre- the nineteenth
Socratic philosophers, the same words tend to be used to describe the natural "way" in and eighteenth
which a plant grows, [35] and the "way" in which, for example, one tribe worships a centuries BCE,
particular god. For this reason, it is claimed these men were the first philosophers in the found in the royal
strict sense, and also the first people to clearly distinguish "nature" and palace in Mari,
"convention."[36]:209 Natural philosophy, the precursor of natural science, was thereby Syria
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.[37]

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.[38] The Pythagoreans developed a complex number
philosophy[39]:467–68 and contributed significantly to the development of mathematical science.[39]:465 The
theory of atoms was developed by the Greek philosopher Leucippus and his student Democritus.[40][41] The
Greek doctor Hippocrates established the tradition of systematic medical science[42][43] and is known as "The
Father of Medicine".[44]

A turning point in the history of early philosophical science was Socrates' example of applying philosophy to
the study of human matters, including human nature, the nature of political communities, and human
knowledge itself. The Socratic method as documented by Plato's dialogues is a dialectic method of hypothesis
elimination: better hypotheses are found by steadily identifying and eliminating those that lead to
contradictions. This was a reaction to the Sophist emphasis on rhetoric. The
Socratic method searches for general, commonly held truths that shape beliefs
and scrutinizes them to determine their consistency with other beliefs.[46]
Socrates criticized the older type of study of physics as too purely speculative
and lacking in self-criticism. Socrates was later, in the words of his Apology,
accused of corrupting the youth of Athens because he did "not believe in the
gods the state believes in, but in other new spiritual beings". Socrates refuted
these claims,[47] but was sentenced to death.[48]:30e

Aristotle later created a systematic programme of teleological philosophy:

Motion and change is described as the actualization of potentials already in
things, according to what types of things they are. In his physics, the Sun goes
around the Earth, and many things have it as part of their nature that they are
for humans. Each thing has a formal cause, a final cause, and a role in a Aristotle, 384–322 BCE, one
cosmic order with an unmoved mover. The Socratics also insisted that of the early figures in the
philosophy should be used to consider the practical question of the best way development of the
to live for a human being (a study Aristotle divided into ethics and political scientific method[45]
philosophy). Aristotle maintained that man knows a thing scientifically "when
he possesses a conviction arrived at in a certain way, and when the first
principles on which that conviction rests are known to him with certainty".[49]

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.[50] Aristarchus's model was widely
rejected because it was believed to violate the laws of physics.[50] The inventor and mathematician
Archimedes of Syracuse made major contributions to the beginnings of calculus[51] and has sometimes been
credited as its inventor,[51] although his proto-calculus lacked several defining features.[51] Pliny the Elder was
a Roman writer and polymath, who wrote the seminal encyclopedia Natural History,[52][53][54] dealing with
history, geography, medicine, astronomy, earth science, botany, and zoology.[52] Other scientists or proto-
scientists in Antiquity were Theophrastus, Euclid, Herophilos, Hipparchus, Ptolemy, and Galen.

Medieval science

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.[56]: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.[56][57]

During late antiquity and the early Middle Ages, the Aristotelian approach to inquiries on natural phenomena
was used. Aristotle's four causes prescribed that the question "why" should be answered in four ways in order
to explain things scientifically.[58] Some ancient knowledge was lost, or in some cases kept in obscurity,
during the fall of the Western Roman Empire and periodic political struggles. However, the general fields of
science (or "natural philosophy" as it was called) and much of the general knowledge from the ancient world
remained preserved through the works of the early Latin encyclopedists like Isidore of Seville.[59] However,
Aristotle's original texts were eventually lost in Western Europe, and only one text by Plato was widely
known, the Timaeus, which was the only Platonic dialogue, and one of the few original works of classical
natural philosophy, available to Latin readers in the early Middle Ages. Another original work that gained
influence in this period was Ptolemy's Almagest, which contains a geocentric description of the solar system.
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.[60] 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.[60][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.[61]

The House of Wisdom was established in Abbasid-era Baghdad,

Iraq,[62] 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.[63] The Islamic Golden Age flourished
from this time until the Mongol invasions of the 13th century. Ibn al- De potentiis anime sensitive, Gregor
Haytham (Alhazen), as well as his predecessor Ibn Sahl, was familiar Reisch (1504) Margarita
with Ptolemy's Optics, and used experiments as a means to gain philosophica. Medieval science
knowledge. [b][64][65]:463–65 Alhazen disproved Ptolemy's theory of postulated a ventricle of the brain as
the location for our common
vision,[66] but did not make any corresponding changes to Aristotle's
sense,[55]:189 where the forms from
metaphysics. Furthermore, doctors and alchemists such as the Persians
our sensory systems commingled.
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.[67]

In Classical antiquity, Greek and Roman taboos had meant that dissection was usually banned in ancient times,
but in Middle Ages it changed: medical teachers and students at Bologna began to open human bodies, and
Mondino de Luzzi (c. 1275–1326) produced the rst known anatomy textbook based on human
dissection.[68][69]

By the eleventh century, most of Europe had become Christian; stronger monarchies emerged; borders were
restored; technological developments and agricultural innovations were made which increased the food supply
and population. In addition, classical Greek texts started to be translated from Arabic and Greek into Latin,
giving a higher level of scientific discussion in Western Europe.[7]

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,[70]:Intro. p. xx as
evidenced by its incorporation into Vitello's Perspectiva. Avicenna's Canon was translated into Latin.[71] In
particular, the texts of Aristotle, Ptolemy,[c] and Euclid, preserved in the Houses of Wisdom and also in the
Byzantine Empire,[72] 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.[73] 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

New developments in optics played a role in the inception of the

Renaissance, both by challenging long-held metaphysical ideas on
perception, as well as by contributing to the improvement and
development of technology such as the camera obscura and the
telescope. Before what we now know as the Renaissance started,
Roger Bacon, Vitello, and John Peckham each built up a scholastic
ontology upon a causal chain beginning with sensation, perception,
and finally apperception of the individual and universal forms of
Aristotle.[74] A model of vision later known as perspectivism was
exploited and studied by the artists of the Renaissance. This theory
uses only three of Aristotle's four causes: formal, material, and
final.[75]

In the sixteenth century, Copernicus formulated a heliocentric model

of the solar system unlike the geocentric model of Ptolemy's
Almagest. This was based on a theorem that the orbital periods of the
planets are longer as their orbs are farther from the centre of motion,
which he found not to agree with Ptolemy's model.[76] Astronomy became more accurate
after Tycho Brahe devised his
Kepler and others challenged the notion that the only function of the scientific instruments for measuring
eye is perception, and shifted the main focus in optics from the eye to angles between two celestial bodies,
the propagation of light.[75][77]:102 Kepler modelled the eye as a before the invention of the telescope.
water-filled glass sphere with an aperture in front of it to model the Brahe's observations were the basis
entrance pupil. He found that all the light from a single point of the for Kepler's laws.
scene was imaged at a single point at the back of the glass sphere. The
optical chain ends on the retina at the back of the eye.[d] Kepler is best
known, however, for improving Copernicus' heliocentric model through the discovery of Kepler's laws of
planetary motion. Kepler did not reject Aristotelian metaphysics and described his work as a search for the
Harmony of the Spheres.

Galileo made innovative use of experiment and mathematics.

However, he became persecuted after Pope Urban VIII blessed
Galileo to write about the Copernican system. Galileo had used
arguments from the Pope and put them in the voice of the simpleton in
the work "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems",
which greatly offended Urban VIII.[79]

In Northern Europe, the new technology of the printing press was

widely used to publish many arguments, including some that
disagreed widely with contemporary ideas of nature. René Descartes
and Francis Bacon published philosophical arguments in favor of a
new type of non-Aristotelian science. Descartes emphasized
individual thought and argued that mathematics rather than geometry
should be used in order to study nature. Bacon emphasized the
importance of experiment over contemplation. Bacon further
questioned the Aristotelian concepts of formal cause and final cause,
Galileo Galilei, regarded as the father
and promoted the idea that science should study the laws of "simple"
of modern
natures, such as heat, rather than assuming that there is any specific
science[78]:Vol. 24, No. 1, p. 36
nature, or "formal cause", of each complex type of thing. This new
science began to see itself as describing "laws of nature". This updated approach to studies in nature was seen
as mechanistic. Bacon also argued that science should aim for the first time at practical inventions for the
improvement of all human life.

Age of Enlightenment

As a precursor to the Age of Enlightenment, Isaac Newton and

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz succeeded in developing a new physics,
now referred to as classical mechanics, which could be confirmed by
experiment and explained using mathematics (Newton (1687),
Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica). Leibniz also
incorporated terms from Aristotelian physics, but now being used in a
new non-teleological way, for example, "energy" and "potential"
(modern versions of Aristotelian "energeia and potentia"). This
implied a shift in the view of objects: Where Aristotle had noted that
objects have certain innate goals that can be actualized, objects were
now regarded as devoid of innate goals. In the style of Francis Bacon,
Leibniz assumed that different types of things all work according to
the same general laws of nature, with no special formal or final causes
for each type of thing.[80] It is during this period that the word
"science" gradually became more commonly used to refer to a type of
pursuit of a type of knowledge, especially knowledge of nature –
Isaac Newton, shown here in a 1689 coming close in meaning to the old term "natural philosophy."
portrait, made seminal contributions
to classical mechanics, gravity, and During this time, the declared purpose and value of science became
optics. Newton shares credit with producing wealth and inventions that would improve human lives, in
Gottfried Leibniz for the development the materialistic sense of having more food, clothing, and other things.
of calculus.
In Bacon's words, "the real and legitimate goal of sciences is the
endowment of human life with new inventions and riches", and he
discouraged scientists from pursuing intangible philosophical or
spiritual ideas, which he believed contributed little to human happiness beyond "the fume of subtle, sublime, or
pleasing speculation".[81]

Science during the Enlightenment was dominated by scientific societies[82] and academies, which had largely
replaced universities as centres of scientific research and development. Societies and academies were also the
backbones 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;[83] 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.

Enlightenment philosophers chose a short history of scientific predecessors – Galileo, Boyle, and Newton
principally – as the guides and guarantors of their applications of the singular concept of nature and natural law
to every physical and social field of the day. In this respect, the lessons of history and the social structures built
upon it could be discarded.[84]

19th century
The nineteenth century is a particularly important period in the history of
science since during this era many distinguishing characteristics of
contemporary modern science began to take shape such as: transformation
of the life and physical sciences, frequent use of precision instruments,
emergence of terms like "biologist", "physicist", "scientist"; slowly moving
away from antiquated labels like "natural philosophy" and "natural history",
increased professionalization of those studying nature lead to reduction in
amateur naturalists, scientists gained cultural authority over many
dimensions of society, economic expansion and industrialization of
numerous countries, thriving of popular science writings and emergence of
science journals.[17]

Early in the 19th century, John Dalton suggested the modern atomic theory,
based on Democritus's original idea of indivisible particles called atoms. Charles Darwin in 1854, by
then working towards
Both John Herschel and William Whewell systematized methodology: the publication of On the Origin of
latter coined the term scientist.[85] When Charles Darwin published On the Species
Origin of Species in 1859 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 Session of a National Irrigation
and the industrial revolution, there Congress in Los Angeles, California,
Combustion and chemical
was, however, an increased in 1893, with a banner reading
reactions were studied by understanding that all forms of "Science, Not Chance"
Michael Faraday and reported energy as defined in physics were
in his lectures before the not equally useful: they did not
Royal Institution: The have the same energy quality. This realization led to the development of the
Chemical History of a Candle, laws of thermodynamics, in which the free energy of the universe is seen as
1861. constantly declining: the entropy of a closed universe increases over time.

The electromagnetic theory was also established in the 19th century, and
raised new questions which could not easily be answered using Newton's framework. The phenomena that
would allow the deconstruction of the atom were discovered in the last decade of the 19th century: the
discovery of X-rays inspired the discovery of radioactivity. In the next year came the discovery of the first
subatomic particle, the electron.

20th century

Albert Einstein's theory of relativity and the development of quantum mechanics led to the replacement of
classical mechanics with a new physics which contains two parts that describe different types of events in
nature.
In the first half of the century, the development of antibiotics and artificial
fertilizer made global human population growth possible. At the same time,
the structure of the atom and its nucleus was discovered, leading to the
release of "atomic energy" (nuclear power). In addition, the extensive use of
technological innovation stimulated by the wars of this century led to
revolutions in transportation (automobiles and aircraft), the development of
ICBMs, a space race, and a nuclear arms race.

The molecular structure of DNA was discovered in 1953. The discovery of

the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964 led to a rejection of the
Steady State theory of the universe in favour of the Big Bang theory of
Georges Lemaître.

The development of spaceflight in the second half of the century allowed

the first astronomical measurements done on or near other objects in space,
including six manned landings on the Moon. Space telescopes lead to
numerous discoveries in astronomy and cosmology.

Widespread use of integrated circuits in the last quarter of the 20th century The DNA double helix is a
molecule that encodes the
combined with communications satellites led to a revolution in information
genetic instructions used in
technology and the rise of the global internet and mobile computing,
the development and
including smartphones. The need for mass systematization of long,
functioning of all known living
intertwined causal chains and large amounts of data led to the rise of the
organisms and many viruses.
fields of systems theory and computer-assisted scientific modelling, which
are partly based on the Aristotelian paradigm.[86]

Harmful environmental issues such as ozone depletion, acidification, eutrophication and climate change came
to the public's attention in the same period, and caused the onset of environmental science and environmental
technology.

21st century

The Human Genome Project was completed in 2003, determining the

sequence of nucleotide base pairs that make up human DNA, and
identifying and mapping all of the genes of the human genome.[87] Induced
pluripotent stem cells were developed in 2006, a technology allowing adult
cells to be transformed into stem cells capable of giving rise to any cell type
found in the body, potentially of huge importance to the field of regenerative
medicine.[88]

With the discovery of the Higgs boson in 2012, the last particle predicted by
the Standard Model of particle physics was found. In 2015, gravitational A simulated event in the CMS
detector of the Large Hadron
waves, predicted by general relativity a century before, were first
Collider, featuring a possible
observed.[89][90]
appearance of the Higgs
boson
Branches of science
Modern science is commonly divided into three major branches: natural science, social science, and formal
science. Each of these branches comprises various specialized yet overlapping scientific disciplines that often
possess their own nomenclature and expertise.[91] Both natural and social sciences are empirical sciences,[92]
as their knowledge is based on empirical observations and is capable of being tested for its validity by other
researchers working under the same conditions.[93]

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.

Science
Empirical sciences
Formal science
Natural science Social science
Anthropology, economics, political
Physics, chemistry, biology,
science, Logic, mathematics, and
Basic earth science, and space
sociology, human geography, and statistics
science
psychology
Engineering, agricultural Business administration, public policy,
science, marketing,
Applied Computer science
medicine, and materials law, pedagogy, and international
science development

Natural science

Natural science is concerned with

the description, prediction, and
understanding of natural
phenomena based on empirical
evidence from observation and
experimentation. It can be
divided into two main branches:
life science (or biological
science) and physical science.
These two branches may be
further divided into more
specialized disciplines. Physical
science is subdivided into
branches, including physics,
chemistry, astronomy and earth
science. Modern natural science
is the successor to the natural The scale of the Universe mapped to branches of science and showing how
one system is built atop the next through the hierarchy of the sciences
philosophy that began in Ancient
Greece. Galileo, Descartes,
Bacon, and Newton debated the
benefits of using approaches which were more mathematical and more experimental in a methodical way. Still,
philosophical perspectives, conjectures, and presuppositions, often overlooked, remain necessary in natural
science.[94] Systematic data collection, including discovery science, succeeded natural history, which emerged
in the 16th century by describing and classifying plants, animals, minerals, and so on.[95] Today, "natural
history" suggests observational descriptions aimed at popular audiences.[96]

Social science
Social science is concerned with society and the relationships among
individuals within a society. It has many branches that include, but are
not limited to, anthropology, archaeology, communication studies,
economics, history, human geography, jurisprudence, linguistics,
political science, psychology, public health, and sociology. Social
scientists may adopt various philosophical theories to study
individuals and society. For example, positivist social scientists use
methods resembling those of the natural sciences as tools for
understanding society, and so define science in its stricter modern
sense. Interpretivist social scientists, by contrast, may use social
critique or symbolic interpretation rather than constructing empirically
falsifiable theories, and thus treat science in its broader sense. In
modern academic practice, researchers are often eclectic, using In economics, the supply and
multiple methodologies (for instance, by combining both quantitative demand model describes how prices
and qualitative research). The term "social research" has also acquired vary in a market economy as a result
a degree of autonomy as practitioners from various disciplines share in of a balance between product
its aims and methods. availability and consumer demand.

Formal science

Formal science is involved in the study of formal systems. It includes mathematics,[97][98] 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.[22][99][93] The formal sciences are therefore a priori disciplines and because of
this, there is disagreement on whether they actually constitute a science.[19][21] Nevertheless, the formal
sciences play an important role in the empirical sciences. Calculus, for example, was initially invented to
understand motion in physics.[100] 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 research can be labeled as either basic or applied research. Basic research is the search for
knowledge and applied research is the search for solutions to practical problems using this knowledge.
Although some scientific research is applied research into specific problems, a great deal of our understanding
comes from the curiosity-driven undertaking of basic research. This leads to options for technological
advances that were not planned or sometimes even imaginable. This point was made by Michael Faraday
when allegedly in response to the question "what is the use of basic research?" he responded: "Sir, what is the
use of a new-born child?".[101] For example, research into the effects of red light on the human eye's rod cells
did not seem to have any practical purpose; eventually, the discovery that our night vision is not troubled by
red light would lead search and rescue teams (among others) to adopt red light in the cockpits of jets and
helicopters.[102] Finally, even basic research can take unexpected turns, and there is some sense in which the
scientific method is built to harness luck.

Scientific method

Scientific research involves using the scientific method, which seeks to objectively explain the events of nature
in a reproducible way.[103] 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.[104] 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][103][105] 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). The central star IRAS 10082-5647
was captured by the Advanced
When a hypothesis proves unsatisfactory, it is either modified or Camera for Surveys aboard the
discarded.[106] If the hypothesis survived testing, it may become Hubble Space Telescope.
adopted into the framework of a scientific theory, a logically
reasoned, self-consistent model or framework for describing the
behavior of certain natural phenomena. A theory typically describes the behavior of much broader sets of
phenomena than a hypothesis; commonly, a large number of hypotheses can be logically bound together by a
single theory. Thus a theory is a hypothesis explaining various other hypotheses. In that vein, theories are
formulated according to most of the same scientific principles as hypotheses. In addition to testing hypotheses,
scientists may also generate a model, an attempt to describe or depict the phenomenon in terms of a logical,
physical or mathematical representation and to generate new hypotheses that can be tested, based on
observable phenomena.[107]

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.[108][109] This can be
achieved by careful experimental design, transparency, and a thorough peer review process of the experimental
results as well as any conclusions.[110][111] 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.[112] 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).[113]

Verifiability

John Ziman points out that intersubjective verifiability is fundamental to the creation of all scientific
knowledge.[114] Ziman shows how scientists can identify patterns to each other across centuries; he refers to
this ability as "perceptual consensibility."[114] He then makes consensibility, leading to consensus, the
touchstone of reliable knowledge.[115]

Role of mathematics

Mathematics is essential in the formation of hypotheses, theories, and laws[116] in the natural and social
sciences. For example, it is used in quantitative scientific modeling, which can generate new hypotheses and
predictions to be tested. It is also used extensively in observing and collecting measurements. Statistics, a
branch of mathematics, is used to summarize and analyze data, which allow scientists to assess the reliability
and variability of their experimental results.
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.[117]

Philosophy of science

Scientists usually take for granted a set of basic assumptions that are
needed to justify the scientific method: (1) that there is an objective
reality shared by all rational observers; (2) that this objective reality is Calculus, the mathematics of
continuous change, underpins many
governed by natural laws; (3) that these laws can be discovered by
of the sciences.
means of systematic observation and experimentation.[3] The
philosophy of science seeks a deep understanding of what these
underlying assumptions mean and whether they are valid.

The belief that scientific theories should and do represent

metaphysical reality is known as realism. It can be contrasted with
anti-realism, the view that the success of science does not depend on it
being accurate about unobservable entities such as electrons. One
form of anti-realism is idealism, the belief that the mind or
consciousness is the most basic essence, and that each mind generates
its own reality.[g] In an idealistic world view, what is true for one
mind need not be true for other minds.

There are different schools of thought in the 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 English philosopher and physician
observations.[118] Empiricism generally encompasses inductivism, a John Locke (1632–1704), a leading
position that tries to explain the way general theories can be justified philosopher of British empiricism
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[119] and the hypothetico-deductive
method.[118]

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.[120] 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.[121] Popper proposed replacing
verifiability with falsifiability as the landmark of scientific theories and replacing induction with falsification as
the empirical method.[121] Popper further claimed that there is actually only one universal method, not specific
to science: the negative method of criticism, trial and error.[122] It covers all products of the human mind,
including science, mathematics, philosophy, and art.[123]
 Another approach, instrumentalism, colloquially termed "shut up and
multiply,"[124] emphasizes the utility of theories as instruments for
explaining and predicting phenomena.[125] 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 should not 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.

The Austrian-British philosopher of Thomas Kuhn argued that the process of observation and evaluation
science Karl Popper (1902–1994) in takes place within a paradigm, a logically consistent "portrait" of the
1990. He is best known for his work world that is consistent with observations made from its framing. He
on empirical falsification. characterized normal science as the process of observation and
"puzzle solving" which takes place within a paradigm, whereas
revolutionary science occurs when one paradigm overtakes another in
a paradigm shift.[126] Each paradigm has its own distinct questions, aims, and interpretations. The choice
between paradigms involves setting two or more "portraits" against the world and deciding which likeness is
most promising. A paradigm shift occurs when a significant number of observational anomalies arise in the old
paradigm and a new paradigm makes sense of them. That is, the choice of a new paradigm is based on
observations, even though those observations are made against the background of the old paradigm. For Kuhn,
acceptance or rejection of a paradigm is a social process as much as a logical process. Kuhn's position,
however, is not one of relativism.[127]

Finally, another approach often cited in debates of scientific skepticism against controversial movements like
"creation science" is methodological naturalism. Its main point is that a difference between natural and
supernatural explanations should be made and that science should be restricted methodologically to natural
explanations.[128][i] That the restriction is merely methodological (rather than ontological) means that science
should not consider supernatural explanations itself, but should not claim them to be wrong either. Instead,
supernatural explanations should be left a matter of personal belief outside the scope of science.
Methodological naturalism maintains that proper science requires strict adherence to empirical study and
independent verification as a process for properly developing and evaluating explanations for observable
phenomena.[129] The absence of these standards, arguments from authority, biased observational studies and
other common fallacies are frequently cited by supporters of methodological naturalism as characteristic of the
non-science they criticize.

Certainty and science

A scientific theory is empirical[h][130] 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."[131]

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.[102] 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.[102] 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.[132] 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.[133] 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[134] –
but also that the inquirer should try to attain genuine doubt rather than resting uncritically on common
sense.[135] 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.[136]

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).[102] Research often analyzes few factors at once, but these are always added to the long
list of factors that are most important to consider.[102] 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.[137] 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.[138] 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.[139]

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 Cover of the first volume of the
societies that it is generally considered necessary to communicate the scientific journal Science in 1880
achievements, news, and ambitions of scientists to a wider populace.

Science magazines such as New Scientist, Science & Vie, and Scientific American cater to the needs of a much
wider readership and provide a non-technical summary of popular areas of research, including notable
discoveries and advances in certain fields of research. Science books engage the interest of many more people.
Tangentially, the science fiction genre, primarily fantastic in nature, engages the public imagination and
transmits the ideas, if not the methods, of science.

Recent efforts to intensify or develop links between science and non-scientific disciplines such as literature or
more specifically, poetry, include the Creative Writing Science resource developed through the Royal Literary
Fund.[140]
Practical impacts

Discoveries in fundamental science can be world-changing. For example:

 Research Impact
All electric appliances, dynamos, electric
power stations, modern electronics,
including electric lighting, television,
Static electricity and magnetism (c. 1600)
electric heating, transcranial magnetic
Electric current (18th century)
stimulation, deep brain stimulation,
magnetic tape, loudspeaker, and the
compass and lightning rod.
Optics, hence fiber optic cable (1840s),
Diffraction (1665) modern intercontinental communications,
and cable TV and internet.
Hygiene, leading to decreased
transmission of infectious diseases;
Germ theory (1700) antibodies, leading to techniques for
disease diagnosis and targeted
anticancer therapies.
Leading to the elimination of most
infectious diseases from developed
Vaccination (1798)
countries and the worldwide eradication
of smallpox.
Solar cells (1883), hence solar power,
Photovoltaic effect (1839) solar powered watches, calculators and
other devices.
Satellite-based technology such as GPS
The strange orbit of Mercury (1859) and other research
(1973), satnav and satellite
leading to special (1905) and general relativity (1916)
communications.[l]
Radio had become used in innumerable
ways beyond its better-known areas of
telephony, and broadcast television
(1927) and radio (1906) entertainment.
Other uses included – emergency
services, radar (navigation and weather
Radio waves (1887)
prediction), medicine, astronomy, wireless
communications, geophysics, and
networking. Radio waves also led
researchers to adjacent frequencies such
as microwaves, used worldwide for
heating and cooking food.
Cancer treatment (1896), Radiometric
dating (1905), nuclear reactors (1942)
Radioactivity (1896) and antimatter (1932) and weapons (1945), mineral exploration,
PET scans (1961), and medical research
(via isotopic labeling).
Medical imaging, including computed
X-rays (1896)
tomography.
Semiconductor devices (1906), hence
modern computing and
Crystallography and quantum mechanics (1900) telecommunications including the
integration with wireless devices: the
mobile phone,[l] LED lamps and lasers.
Starting with Bakelite, many types of
Plastics (1907) artificial polymers for numerous
applications in industry and daily life.
 Antibiotics (1880s, 1928) Salvarsan, Penicillin, doxycycline etc.
Nuclear magnetic resonance
spectroscopy (1946), magnetic
Nuclear magnetic resonance (1930s)
resonance imaging (1971), functional
magnetic resonance imaging (1990s).

Challenges

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.[141][142] The crisis has long-standing roots; the phrase was coined in the early
2010s[143] 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.[144]

Fringe science, pseudoscience, and junk science

An area of study or speculation that masquerades as science in an attempt to claim a legitimacy that it would
not otherwise be able to achieve is sometimes referred to as pseudoscience, fringe science, or junk science.[m]
Physicist Richard Feynman coined the term "cargo cult science" for cases in which researchers believe they
are doing science because their activities have the outward appearance of science but actually lack the "kind of
utter honesty" that allows their results to be rigorously evaluated.[145] Various types of commercial advertising,
ranging from hype to fraud, may fall into these categories. Science has been described as "the most important
tool" for separating valid claims from invalid ones.[146]

There can also be an element of political or ideological bias on all sides of scientific debates. Sometimes,
research may be characterized as "bad science," research that may be well-intended but is actually incorrect,
obsolete, incomplete, or over-simplified expositions of scientific ideas. The term "scientific misconduct" refers
to situations such as where researchers have intentionally misrepresented their published data or have
purposely given credit for a discovery to the wrong person.[147]

Scientific community
The scientific community is a group of all interacting scientists, along with their respective societies and
institutions.

Scientists

Scientists are individuals who conduct scientific research to advance knowledge in an area of interest.[148][149]
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).[150] Many scientists pursue careers in various sectors of the
economy such as academia, industry, government, and nonprofit organizations.[151][152][153]
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,[154] is awarded annually to those who
have achieved scientific advances in the fields of medicine, physics,
chemistry, and economics.

Women in science

Science has historically been

a male-dominated field, with
some notable exceptions.[n]
Women faced considerable
discrimination in science,
much as they did in other German-born scientist Albert
areas of male-dominated Einstein (1879–1955) developed the
societies, such as frequently theory of relativity. He also won the
being passed over for job Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921 for
opportunities and denied his work in theoretical physics.
credit for their work.[o] For
example, Christine Ladd
(1847–1930) was able to enter a Ph.D. program as "C. Ladd";
Christine "Kitty" Ladd completed the requirements in 1882, but was
awarded her degree only in 1926, after a career which spanned the
algebra of logic (see truth table), color vision, and psychology. Her
Marie Curie was the first person to
work preceded notable researchers like Ludwig Wittgenstein and
be awarded two Nobel Prizes:
Charles Sanders Peirce. The achievements of women in science have
Physics in 1903 and Chemistry in
been attributed to the defiance of their traditional role as laborers
1911.[155]
within the domestic sphere.[156]

In the late 20th century, active recruitment of women and elimination

of institutional discrimination on the basis of sex greatly increased the number of women scientists, but large
gender disparities remain in some fields; in the early 21st century over half of the new biologists were female,
while 80% of PhDs in physics are given to men. In the early part of the 21st century, women in the United
States earned 50.3% of bachelor's degrees, 45.6% of master's degrees, and 40.7% of PhDs in science and
engineering fields. They earned more than half of the degrees in psychology (about 70%), social sciences
(about 50%), and biology (about 50–60%) but earned less than half the degrees in the physical sciences, earth
sciences, mathematics, engineering, and computer science.[157] Lifestyle choice also plays a major role in
female engagement in science; women with young children are 28% less likely to take tenure-track positions
due to work-life balance issues,[158] and female graduate students' interest in careers in research declines
dramatically over the course of graduate school, whereas that of their male colleagues remains unchanged.[159]

Learned societies

Learned societies for the communication and promotion of scientific thought and experimentation have existed
since the Renaissance.[160] Many scientists belong to a learned society that promotes their respective scientific
discipline, profession, or group of related disciplines.[161] Membership may be open to all, may require
possession of some scientific credentials, or may be an honor conferred by election.[162] 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 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 Physicists in front of the Royal Society building in London
Accademia dei Lincei in 1603,[163] the British (1952)
Royal Society in 1660, the French Académie
des Sciences in 1666,[164] 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

Science policy is an area of public policy concerned with the policies

that affect the conduct of the scientific enterprise, including research
funding, often in pursuance of other national policy goals such as
technological innovation to promote commercial product
development, weapons development, health care, and environmental
monitoring. Science policy also refers to the act of applying scientific
knowledge and consensus to the development of public policies.
Science policy thus deals with the entire domain of issues that involve
The United Nations Global Science-
the natural sciences. In accordance with public policy being
Policy-Business Forum on the
concerned about the well-being of its citizens, science policy's goal is
Environment in Nairobi, Kenya (2017)
to consider how science and technology can best serve the public.

State policy has influenced the funding of public works and science
for thousands of years, particularly within civilizations with highly organized governments such as imperial
China and the Roman Empire. Prominent historical examples include the Great Wall of China, completed over
the course of two millennia through the state support of several dynasties, and the Grand Canal of the Yangtze
River, an immense feat of hydraulic engineering begun by Sunshu Ao ( 孫叔敖 7th c. BCE), Ximen Bao ( ⻄
⾨豹 5th c.BCE), and Shi Chi (4th c. BCE). This construction dates from the 6th century BCE under the Sui
Dynasty and is still in use today. In China, such state-supported infrastructure and scientific research projects
date at least from the time of the Mohists, who inspired the study of logic during the period of the Hundred
Schools of Thought and the study of defensive fortifications like the Great Wall of China during the Warring
States period.
Public policy can directly affect the funding of capital equipment and intellectual infrastructure for industrial
research by providing tax incentives to those organizations that fund research. Vannevar Bush, director of the
Office of Scientific Research and Development for the United States government, the forerunner of the
National Science Foundation, wrote in July 1945 that "Science is a proper concern of government."[165]

Funding of science

Scientific research is often funded through a competitive process in

which potential research projects are evaluated and only the most
promising receive funding. Such processes, which are run by
government, corporations, or foundations, allocate scarce funds. Total
research funding in most developed countries is between 1.5% and
3% of GDP.[166] In the OECD, around two-thirds of research and
development in scientific and technical fields is carried out by
industry, and 20% and 10% respectively by universities and
The Commonwealth Scientific and
government. The government funding proportion in certain industries
Industrial Research Organisation
is higher, and it dominates research in social science and humanities.
(CSIRO) Main Entomology Building
Similarly, with some exceptions (e.g. biotechnology) government
in Australia
provides the bulk of the funds for basic scientific research. Many
governments have dedicated agencies to support scientific research.
Prominent scientific organizations include the National Science Foundation in the United States, the National
Scientific and Technical Research Council in Argentina, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research
Organisation (CSIRO) in Australia, Centre national de la recherche scientifique in France, the Max Planck
Society and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft in Germany, and CSIC in Spain. In commercial research and
development, all but the most research-oriented corporations focus more heavily on near-term
commercialisation possibilities rather than "blue-sky" ideas or technologies (such as nuclear fusion).

Public awareness of science

The public awareness of science relates to the attitudes,

behaviors, opinions, and activities that make up the relations
between science and the general public. it integrates various
themes and activities such as science communication, science
museums, science festivals, science fairs, citizen science, and
science in popular culture. Social scientists have devised various
metrics to measure the public understanding of science such as
factual knowledge, self-reported knowledge, and structural
knowledge.[167][168]
Dinosaur exhibit in the Houston Museum
Science journalism of Natural Science

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.[169] 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.[170][171]

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.[172] Politicization of science is usually
accomplished when scientific information is presented in
a way that emphasizes the uncertainty associated with the
Results of seven papers from 2004–2015
scientific evidence.[173] Tactics such as shifting
assessing the overwhelming scientific consensus
conversation, failing to acknowledge facts, and
on man-made global warming (see Surveys of
capitalizing on doubt of scientific consensus have been scientists' views on climate change), in contrast to
used to gain more attention for views that have been the political controversy over this issue,
undermined by scientific evidence.[174] Examples of particularly in the United States
issues that have involved the politicization of science
include the global warming controversy, health effects of
pesticides, and health effects of tobacco.[174][175]

See also
Antiquarian science books
Antiscience
Criticism of science
Index of branches of science
List of scientific occupations
Normative science
Outline of science
Pathological science
Protoscience
Science in popular culture
Science wars
Scientific dissent
Scientism
Sociology of scientific knowledge
Wissenschaft – all areas of scholarly study

Notes
a. Alhacen had access to the optics books of Euclid and Ptolemy, as is shown by the title of his
lost work A Book in which I have Summarized the Science of Optics from the Two Books of
Euclid and Ptolemy, to which I have added the Notions of the First Discourse which is Missing
from Ptolemy's Book From Ibn Abi Usaibia's catalog, as cited in (Smith 2001):91(vol .1), p. xv
b. "[Ibn al-Haytham] followed Ptolemy's bridge building ... into a grand synthesis of light and
vision. Part of his effort consisted in devising ranges of experiments, of a kind probed before but
now undertaken on larger scale."— Cohen 2010, p. 59
c. The translator, Gerard of Cremona (c. 1114–1187), inspired by his love of the Almagest, came
to Toledo, where he knew he could find the Almagest in Arabic. There he found Arabic books of
every description, and learned Arabic in order to translate these books into Latin, being aware
of 'the poverty of the Latins'. —As cited by Burnett, Charles (2002). "The Coherence of the
Arabic-Latin Translation Program in Toledo in the Twelfth Century" (http://pdfs.semanticscholar.
org/3ad3/9cf6bd0bc13db9e195e51cd650704ee08a40.pdf) (PDF). Science in Context. 14 (1–
2): 249–88. doi:10.1017/S0269889701000096 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2FS02698897010000
96). S2CID 143006568 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:143006568).
d. 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 (https://
www.jstor.org/stable/1558283). PMID 15338543 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15338543).
The full title translation is from p. 60 of James R. Voelkel (2001) Johannes Kepler and the
New Astronomy Oxford University Press. Kepler was driven to this experiment after
observing the partial solar eclipse at Graz, July 10, 1600. He used Tycho Brahe's method of
observation, which was to project the image of the Sun on a piece of paper through a
pinhole aperture, instead of looking directly at the Sun. He disagreed with Brahe's
conclusion that total eclipses of the Sun were impossible because there were historical
accounts of total eclipses. Instead, he deduced that the size of the aperture controls the
sharpness of the projected image (the larger the aperture, the more accurate the image –
this fact is now fundamental for optical system design). Voelkel, p. 61, notes that Kepler's
experiments produced the first correct account of vision and the eye because he realized he
could not accurately write about astronomical observation by ignoring the eye.
e. di Francia 1976, pp. 4–5: "One learns in a laboratory; one learns how to make experiments only
by experimenting, and one learns how to work with his hands only by using them. The first and
fundamental form of experimentation in physics is to teach young people to work with their
hands. Then they should be taken into a laboratory and taught to work with measuring
instruments – each student carrying out real experiments in physics. This form of teaching is
indispensable and cannot be read in a book."
f. Fara 2009, p. 204: "Whatever their discipline, scientists claimed to share a common scientific
method that ... distinguished them from non-scientists."
g. This realization is the topic of intersubjective verifiability, as recounted, for example, by Max
Born (1949, 1965) Natural Philosophy of Cause and Chance (https://archive.org/stream/natural
philosoph032159mbp/naturalphilosoph032159mbp_djvu.txt), who points out that all
knowledge, including natural or social science, is also subjective. p. 162: "Thus it dawned
upon me that fundamentally everything is subjective, everything without exception. That was a
shock."
h. In his investigation of the law of falling bodies, Galileo (1638) serves as an example for
scientific investigation: Two New Sciences "A piece of wooden moulding or scantling, about 12
cubits long, half a cubit wide, and three finger-breadths thick, was taken; on its edge was cut a
channel a little more than one finger in breadth; having made this groove very straight, smooth,
and polished, and having lined it with parchment, also as smooth and polished as possible, we
rolled along it a hard, smooth, and very round bronze ball. Having placed this board in a
sloping position, by lifting one end some one or two cubits above the other, we rolled the ball,
as I was just saying, along the channel, noting, in a manner presently to be described, the time
required to make the descent. We ... now rolled the ball only one-quarter the length of the
channel; and having measured the time of its descent, we found it precisely one-half of the
former. Next, we tried other distances, comparing the time for the whole length with that for the
half, or with that for two-thirds, or three-fourths, or indeed for any fraction; in such experiments,
repeated many, many, times." Galileo solved the problem of time measurement by weighing a
jet of water collected during the descent of the bronze ball, as stated in his Two New Sciences.
 i. 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.".
j. "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me
wrong." —Albert Einstein, noted by Alice Calaprice (ed. 2005) The New Quotable Einstein
Princeton University Press and Hebrew University of Jerusalem, ISBN 978-0-691-12074-4 p.
291. Calaprice denotes this not as an exact quotation, but as a paraphrase of a translation of A.
Einstein's "Induction and Deduction". Collected Papers of Albert Einstein 7 Document 28.
Volume 7 is The Berlin Years: Writings, 1918–1921. A. Einstein; M. Janssen, R. Schulmann, et
al., eds.
k. 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. "
l. Evicting Einstein (https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/26mar_einstei
n), March 26, 2004, NASA. "Both [relativity and quantum mechanics] are extremely successful.
The Global Positioning System (GPS), for instance, wouldn't be possible without the theory of
relativity. Computers, telecommunications, and the Internet, meanwhile, are spin-offs of
quantum mechanics."
m. "Pseudoscientific – pretending to be scientific, falsely represented as being scientific", from the
Oxford American Dictionary, published by the Oxford English Dictionary; Hansson, Sven Ove
(1996)."Defining Pseudoscience", Philosophia Naturalis, 33: 169–76, as cited in "Science and
Pseudo-science" (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/#NonSciPosSci) (2008) in
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The Stanford article states: "Many writers on
pseudoscience have emphasized that pseudoscience is non-science posing as science. The
foremost modern classic on the subject (Gardner 1957) bears the title Fads and Fallacies in the
Name of Science. According to Brian Baigrie (1988, 438), "[w]hat is objectionable about these
beliefs is that they masquerade as genuinely scientific ones." These and many other authors
assume that to be pseudoscientific, an activity or a teaching has to satisfy the following two
criteria (Hansson 1996): (1) it is not scientific, and (2) its major proponents try to create the
impression that it is scientific".
For example, Hewitt et al. Conceptual Physical Science Addison Wesley; 3 edition (July
18, 2003) ISBN 978-0-321-05173-8, Bennett et al. The Cosmic Perspective 3e Addison
Wesley; 3 edition (July 25, 2003) ISBN 978-0-8053-8738-4; See also, e.g., Gauch HG Jr.
Scientific Method in Practice (2003).
A 2006 National Science Foundation report on Science and engineering indicators quoted
Michael Shermer's (1997) definition of pseudoscience: '"claims presented so that they
appear [to be] scientific even though they lack supporting evidence and plausibility" (p. 33).
In contrast, science is "a set of methods designed to describe and interpret observed and
inferred phenomena, past or present, and aimed at building a testable body of knowledge
open to rejection or confirmation" (p. 17)'.Shermer M. (1997). Why People Believe Weird
Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time. New York: W. H.
Freeman and Company. ISBN 978-0-7167-3090-3. as cited by National Science Board.
National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics (2006). "Science
and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding" (https://web.archive.org/web/201302
01220040/https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c7/c7s2.htm). Science and engineering
indicators 2006. Archived from the original (https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c7/c7s2.ht
m) on February 1, 2013.
"A pretended or spurious science; a collection of related beliefs about the world mistakenly
regarded as being based on scientific method or as having the status that scientific truths
now have," from the Oxford English Dictionary, second edition 1989.
n. Women in science have included:
Hypatia (c. 350–415 CE), of the Library of Alexandria.
Trotula of Salerno, a physician c. 1060 CE.
Caroline Herschel, one of the first professional astronomers of the 18th and 19th centuries.
Christine Ladd-Franklin, a doctoral student of C.S. Peirce, who published Wittgenstein's
proposition 5.101 in her dissertation, 40 years before Wittgenstein's publication of Tractatus
Logico-Philosophicus.
Henrietta Leavitt, a professional human computer and astronomer, who first published the
significant relationship between the luminosity of Cepheid variable stars and their distance
from Earth. This allowed Hubble to make the discovery of the expanding universe, which
led to the Big Bang theory.
Emmy Noether, who proved the conservation of energy and other constants of motion in
1915.
Marie Curie, who made discoveries relating to radioactivity along with her husband, and for
whom Curium is named.
Rosalind Franklin, who worked with X-ray diffraction.
Jocelyn Bell Burnell, at first not allowed to study science in her preparatory school,
persisted, and was the first to observe and precisely analyse the radio pulsars, for which
her supervisor was recognized by the 1974 Nobel prize in Physics. (Later awarded a
Special Breakthrough Prize in Physics in 2018, she donated the cash award in order that
women, ethnic minority, and refugee students might become physics researchers.)
In 2018 Donna Strickland became the third woman (the second being Maria Goeppert-
Mayer in 1962) to be awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics, for her work in chirped pulse
amplification of lasers. Frances H. Arnold became the fifth woman to be awarded the Nobel
Prize in Chemistry for the directed evolution of enzymes.
See the project of Jess Wade (Christina Zdanowicz (27 July 2018), (https://www.cnn.com/2018/
07/27/health/scientist-women-wikipedia-entries-trnd/index.html)CNN A physicist is writing one
Wikipedia entry a day to recognize women in science (https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/27/health/
scientist-women-wikipedia-entries-trnd/index.html) )
o. Nina Byers, Contributions of 20th Century Women to Physics (http://cwp.library.ucla.edu/)
which provides details on 83 female physicists of the 20th century. By 1976, more women were
physicists, and the 83 who were detailed were joined by other women in noticeably larger
numbers.

References
1. Harper, Douglas. "science" (https://www.etymonline.com/?term=science). Online Etymology
Dictionary. Retrieved September 20, 2014.
2. Wilson, E.O. (1999). "The natural sciences". Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge (https://archi
ve.org/details/consilienceunity00wils_135) (Reprint ed.). New York, New York: Vintage. pp. 49
(https://archive.org/details/consilienceunity00wils_135/page/n55)–71. ISBN 978-0-679-76867-
8.
3. "... 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.
 4. "science" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science). Merriam-Webster Online
Dictionary. Merriam-Webster, Inc. Retrieved October 16, 2011. "3 a: knowledge or a system of
knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and
tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned
with the physical world and its phenomena."
5. "The historian ... requires a very broad definition of "science" – one that ... will help us to
understand the modern scientific enterprise. We need to be broad and inclusive, rather than
narrow and exclusive ... and we should expect that the farther back we go [in time] the broader
we will need to be." p.3—Lindberg, David C. (2007). "Science before the Greeks". The
beginnings of Western science: the European Scientific tradition in philosophical, religious,
and institutional context (Second ed.). Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. pp. 1–27.
ISBN 978-0-226-48205-7.
6. Grant, Edward (2007). "Ancient Egypt to Plato". A History of Natural Philosophy: From the
Ancient World to the Nineteenth Century (https://archive.org/details/historynaturalph00gran)
(First ed.). New York, New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1 (https://archive.org/details/h
istorynaturalph00gran/page/n16)–26. ISBN 978-052-1-68957-1.
7. Lindberg, David C. (2007). "The revival of learning in the West". The beginnings of Western
science: the European Scientific tradition in philosophical, religious, and institutional context
(Second ed.). Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. pp. 193–224. ISBN 978-0-226-
48205-7.
8. Lindberg, David C. (2007). "Islamic 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. 163–92. ISBN 978-0-226-48205-7.
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.
10. Principe, Lawrence M. (2011). "Introduction". Scientific Revolution: A Very Short Introduction
(First ed.). New York, New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 1–3. ISBN 978-0-199-56741-6.
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.
12. Lindberg, David C. (2007). "The legacy of ancient and medieval 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. 357–368. ISBN 978-0-226-
48205-7.
13. Del Soldato, Eva (2016). Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (http
s://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entries/natphil-ren/) (Fall 2016 ed.). Metaphysics
Research Lab, Stanford University.
14. Grant, Edward (2007). "Transformation of medieval natural philosophy from the early period
modern period to the end of the nineteenth century". A History of Natural Philosophy: From the
Ancient World to the Nineteenth Century (https://archive.org/details/historynaturalph00gran)
(First ed.). New York, New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 274 (https://archive.org/detail
s/historynaturalph00gran/page/n289)–322. ISBN 978-052-1-68957-1.
15. Cahan, David, ed. (2003). From Natural Philosophy to the Sciences: Writing the History of
Nineteenth-Century Science. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-
08928-7.
16. The Oxford English Dictionary dates the origin of the word "scientist" to 1834.
17. Lightman, Bernard (2011). "13. Science and the Public". In Shank, Michael; Numbers, Ronald;
Harrison, Peter (eds.). Wrestling with Nature : From Omens to Science. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press. p. 367. ISBN 978-0-226-31783-0.
18. Harrison, Peter (2015). The Territories of Science and Religion. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press. pp. 164–165. ISBN 978-0-226-18451-7. "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."
19. Bishop, Alan (1991). "Environmental activities and mathematical culture" (https://books.google.
com/books?id=9AgrBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA54). Mathematical Enculturation: A Cultural
Perspective on Mathematics Education. Norwell, Massachusetts: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
pp. 20–59. ISBN 978-0-792-31270-3.
20. Nickles, Thomas (2013). "The Problem of Demarcation". Philosophy of Pseudoscience:
Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. p. 104.
21. Bunge, Mario (1998). "The Scientific Approach". Philosophy of Science: Volume 1, From
Problem to Theory. 1 (revised ed.). New York, New York: Routledge. pp. 3–50. ISBN 978-0-
765-80413-6.
22. Fetzer, James H. (2013). "Computer reliability and public policy: Limits of knowledge of
computer-based systems". Computers and Cognition: Why Minds are not Machines (1st ed.).
Newcastle, United Kingdom: Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 271–308. ISBN 978-1-443-
81946-6.
23. Fischer, M.R.; Fabry, G (2014). "Thinking and acting scientifically: Indispensable basis of
medical education" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4027809). GMS Zeitschrift
für Medizinische Ausbildung. 31 (2): Doc24. doi:10.3205/zma000916 (https://doi.org/10.3205%
2Fzma000916). PMC 4027809 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4027809).
PMID 24872859 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24872859).
24. Abraham, Reem Rachel (2004). "Clinically oriented physiology teaching: strategy for
developing critical-thinking skills in undergraduate medical students" (https://semanticscholar.o
rg/paper/3c0b0e54f94afbbcf003714f5ed8f8db1ecc72b0). Advances in Physiology Education.
28 (3): 102–04. doi:10.1152/advan.00001.2004
(https://doi.org/10.1152%2Fadvan.00001.2004). PMID 15319191 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/15319191). S2CID 21610124 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:21610124).
25. Sinclair, Marius. "On the Differences between the Engineering and Scientific Methods" (https://
www.ijee.ie/contents/c090593.html). The International Journal of Engineering Education.
26. "About Engineering Technology" (https://web.archive.org/web/20190522220533/http://www.eng
r.iupui.edu/departments/ent/about/index.php). Purdue School of Engineering & Technology.
Archived from the original (https://et.iupui.edu/departments/ent/about/index.php) on May 22,
2019. Retrieved September 7, 2018.
27. Grant, Edward (January 1, 1997). "History of Science: When Did Modern Science Begin?". The
American Scholar. 66 (1): 105–113. JSTOR 41212592 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/41212592).
28. Pingree, David (December 1992). "Hellenophilia versus the History of Science". Isis. 83 (4):
554–63. Bibcode:1992Isis...83..554P (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1992Isis...83..554P).
doi:10.1086/356288 (https://doi.org/10.1086%2F356288). JSTOR 234257 (https://www.jstor.or
g/stable/234257). S2CID 68570164 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:68570164).
29. Sima Qian ( 司⾺遷 太史公書
, d. 86 BCE) in his Records of the Grand Historian ( ) covering some
2500 years of Chinese history, records Sunshu Ao ( 孫叔敖 , fl. c. 630–595 BCE – Zhou
dynasty), the first known hydraulic engineer of China, cited in (Joseph Needham et al. (1971)
Science and Civilisation in China 4.3 p. 271) as having built a reservoir which has lasted to this
day.
30. Rochberg, Francesca (2011). "Ch.1 Natural Knowledge in Ancient Mesopotamia". In Shank,
Michael; Numbers, Ronald; Harrison, Peter (eds.). Wrestling with Nature : From Omens to
Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 9. ISBN 978-0-226-31783-0.
31. McIntosh, Jane R. (2005). Ancient Mesopotamia: New Perspectives (https://books.google.com/
books?id=9veK7E2JwkUC&q=science+in+ancient+Mesopotamia). Santa Barbara, California,
Denver, Colorado, and Oxford, England: ABC-CLIO. pp. 273–76. ISBN 978-1-57607-966-9.
32. A. Aaboe (May 2, 1974). "Scientific Astronomy in Antiquity". Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society. 276 (1257): 21–42. Bibcode:1974RSPTA.276...21A (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.e
du/abs/1974RSPTA.276...21A). doi:10.1098/rsta.1974.0007 (https://doi.org/10.1098%2Frsta.19
74.0007). JSTOR 74272 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/74272). S2CID 122508567 (https://api.se
manticscholar.org/CorpusID:122508567).
33. R D. Biggs (2005). "Medicine, Surgery, and Public Health in Ancient Mesopotamia". Journal of
Assyrian Academic Studies. 19 (1): 7–18.
34. Lehoux, Daryn (2011). "2. Natural Knowledge in the Classical World". In Shank, Michael;
Numbers, Ronald; Harrison, Peter (eds.). Wrestling with Nature : From Omens to Science.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 39. ISBN 978-0-226-31783-0.
35. See the quotation in Homer (8th century BCE) Odyssey 10.302–03
36. "Progress or Return" in An Introduction to Political Philosophy: Ten Essays by Leo Strauss
(Expanded version of Political Philosophy: Six Essays by Leo Strauss, 1975.) Ed. Hilail Gilden.
Detroit: Wayne State UP, 1989.
37. Cropsey; Strauss (eds.). History of Political Philosophy (3rd ed.). p. 209.
38. O'Grady, Patricia F. (2016). Thales of Miletus: The Beginnings of Western Science and
Philosophy (https://books.google.com/books?id=ZTUlDwAAQBAJ&q=Thales+of+Miletus+first+
scientist&pg=PA245). New York City, New York and London, England: Routledge. p. 245.
ISBN 978-0-7546-0533-1.
39. Burkert, Walter (June 1, 1972). Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism (https://books.goo
gle.com/books?id=0qqp4Vk1zG0C&q=Pythagoreanism). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-53918-1. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2018012914
5253/https://books.google.com/books?id=0qqp4Vk1zG0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Pythagore
anism&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiX4Y3W9bfXAhXBeSYKHfBxCG4Q6AEIMTAC#v=onepa
ge&q=Pythagoreanism&f=false) from the original on January 29, 2018.
40. Pullman, Bernard (1998). The Atom in the History of Human Thought (https://books.google.co
m/books?id=IQs5hur-BpgC&q=Leucippus+Democritus+atom&pg=PA56). pp. 31–33.
Bibcode:1998ahht.book.....P (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ahht.book.....P). ISBN 978-
0-19-515040-7.
41. Cohen, Henri; Lefebvre, Claire, eds. (2017). Handbook of Categorization in Cognitive Science
(https://books.google.com/books?id=zIrCDQAAQBAJ&q=Leucippus+Democritus+atom&pg=P
A427) (Second ed.). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. p. 427. ISBN 978-0-08-101107-2.
42. Margotta, Roberto (1968). The Story of Medicine (https://books.google.com/books?id=vFZrAAA
AMAAJ). New York City, New York: Golden Press.
43. Touwaide, Alain (2005). Glick, Thomas F.; Livesey, Steven; Wallis, Faith (eds.). Medieval
Science, Technology, and Medicine: An Encyclopedia (https://books.google.com/books?id=77y
2AgAAQBAJ&q=Hippocrates+medical+science&pg=PA224). New York City, New York and
London, England: Routledge. p. 224. ISBN 978-0-415-96930-7.
44. Leff, Samuel; Leff, Vera (1956). From Witchcraft to World Health (https://books.google.com/book
s?id=HjNrAAAAMAAJ). London, England: Macmillan.
45. Mitchell, Jacqueline S. (February 18, 2003). "The Origins of Science" (https://web.archive.org/w
eb/20030303204503/http://www.pbs.org/saf/1307/features/knows.htm). Scientific American
Frontiers. PBS. Archived from the original (https://www.pbs.org/saf/1307/features/knows.htm)
on March 3, 2003. Retrieved November 3, 2016.
46. "Plato, Apology" (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.
0170%3Atext%3DApol.%3Apage%3D17). p. 17. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/201801
29145253/http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0170%
3Atext%3DApol.%3Apage%3D17) from the original on January 29, 2018. Retrieved
November 1, 2017.
47. "Plato, Apology" (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.
0170%3Atext%3DApol.%3Apage%3D27). p. 27. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/201801
29145253/http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0170%
3Atext%3DApol.%3Apage%3D27) from the original on January 29, 2018. Retrieved
November 1, 2017.
48. "Plato, Apology, section 30" (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Plat.+Apol.+30&fro
mdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0170). Perseus Digital Library. Tufts University. 1966.
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20170127102440/http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/te
xt?doc=Plat.+Apol.+30&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0170) from the original on
January 27, 2017. Retrieved November 1, 2016.
49. Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atex
t%3A1999.01.0054%3Abekker%20page%3D1139b) (H. Rackham ed.). Archived (https://web.a
rchive.org/web/20120317140402/http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=) from the
original on March 17, 2012. Retrieved September 22, 2010. 1139b
50. McClellan III, James E.; Dorn, Harold (2015). Science and Technology in World History: An
Introduction (https://books.google.com/books?id=ah1ECwAAQBAJ&q=Aristarchus+heliocentri
sm&pg=PA99). Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 99–100. ISBN 978-1-
4214-1776-9.
51. Edwards, C.H. Jr. (1979). The Historical Development of the Calculus (https://books.google.co
m/books?id=ilrlBwAAQBAJ&q=Archimedes+calculus&pg=PA75) (First ed.). New York City,
New York: Springer-Verlag. p. 75. ISBN 978-0-387-94313-8.
52. Lawson, Russell M. (2004). Science in the Ancient World: An Encyclopedia (https://books.goog
le.com/books?id=1AY1ALzh9V0C&q=Pliny+the+Elder+encyclopedia&pg=PA190). Santa
Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. pp. 190–91. ISBN 978-1-85109-539-1.
53. Murphy, Trevor Morgan (2004). Pliny the Elder's Natural History: The Empire in the
Encyclopedia (https://books.google.com/books?id=6NC_T_tG9lQC&q=Pliny+the+Elder+encyc
lopedia). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-19-926288-5.
54. Doode, Aude (2010). Pliny's Encyclopedia: The Reception of the Natural History (https://books.
google.com/books?id=YoEhAwAAQBAJ&q=Pliny+the+Elder+encyclopedia). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-1-139-48453-4.
55. Smith, A. Mark (June 2004), "What is the History of Medieval Optics Really About?",
Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 148 (2): 180–94, JSTOR 1558283 (https://
www.jstor.org/stable/1558283), PMID 15338543 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15338543)
56. 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. Wildberg, Christian (May 1, 2018). Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/philoponus/). Metaphysics
Research Lab, Stanford University – via Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
58. Falcon, Andrea (2019). "Aristotle on Causality" (https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entr
ies/aristotle-causality/#FouCau). In Zalta, Edward (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
(Spring 2019 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
59. Grant, Edward (1996). The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages: Their
Religious, Institutional and Intellectual Contexts (https://books.google.com/books?id=YyvmEyX
6rZgC). Cambridge Studies in the History of Science. Cambridge University Press. pp. 7–17.
ISBN 978-0521567626.
60. Grant, Edward (2007). "Islam and the eastward shift of Aristotelian natural philosophy". A
History of Natural Philosophy: From the Ancient World to the Nineteenth Century (https://archiv
e.org/details/historynaturalph00gran). Cambridge University Press. pp. 62 (https://archive.org/d
etails/historynaturalph00gran/page/n77)–67. ISBN 978-0-521-68957-1.
61. Fisher, W.B. (William Bayne) (1968–1991). The Cambridge history of Iran. Cambridge:
University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-20093-6. OCLC 745412 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/7454
12).
62. "Bayt al-Hikmah" (https://www.britannica.com/place/Bayt-al-Hikmah). Encyclopædia Britannica.
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20161104043313/https://www.britannica.com/place/Bayt
-al-Hikmah) from the original on November 4, 2016. Retrieved November 3, 2016.
63. Klein-Frank, F. Al-Kindi. In Leaman, O & Nasr, H (2001). History of Islamic Philosophy. London:
Routledge. p. 165. Felix Klein-Frank (2001) Al-Kindi, pp. 166–67. In Oliver Leaman & Hossein
Nasr. History of Islamic Philosophy. London: Routledge.
64. "Science in Islam". Oxford Dictionary of the Middle Ages. 2009.
65. Toomer, G.J. (1964). "Reviewed work: Ibn al-Haythams Weg zur Physik, Matthias Schramm".
Isis. 55 (4): 463–65. doi:10.1086/349914 (https://doi.org/10.1086%2F349914). JSTOR 228328
(https://www.jstor.org/stable/228328). See p. 464: "Schramm sums up [Ibn Al-Haytham's]
achievement in the development of scientific method.", p. 465: "Schramm has demonstrated ..
beyond any dispute that Ibn al-Haytham is a major figure in the Islamic scientific tradition,
particularly in the creation of experimental techniques." p. 465: "only when the influence of ibn
al-Haytam and others on the mainstream of later medieval physical writings has been seriously
investigated can Schramm's claim that ibn al-Haytam was the true founder of modern physics
be evaluated."
66. Smith 2001:Book I, [6.54]. p. 372
67. Selin, H (2006). Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-
Western Cultures (https://archive.org/details/encyclopaediahis00seli). pp. 155 (https://archive.or
g/details/encyclopaediahis00seli/page/n168)–156. Bibcode:2008ehst.book.....S (https://ui.adsa
bs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ehst.book.....S). ISBN 978-1-4020-4559-2.
68. Numbers, Ronald (2009). Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion (htt
p://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674057418). Harvard University Press. p. 45.
ISBN 978-0-674-03327-6.
69. Shwayder, Maya (April 7, 2011). "Debunking a myth" (https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/20
11/04/debunking-a-myth/). The Harvard Gazette. Retrieved May 11, 2019.
70. Smith 2001
71. McGinnis, Jon (2010). The Canon of Medicine. Oxford University. p. 227.
72. Lindberg, David (1992). The Beginnings of Western Science (https://books.google.com/books?i
d=dPUBAkIm2lUC&pg=PA162). University of Chicago Press. p. 162. ISBN 978-0-226-48204-
0.
73. "St. Albertus Magnus | German theologian, scientist, and philosopher" (https://www.britannica.c
om/biography/Saint-Albertus-Magnus). Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2017102804542
4/https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Albertus-Magnus) from the original on October
28, 2017. Retrieved October 27, 2017.
74. Smith 2001:Book I
75. Smith, A. Mark (1981). "Getting the Big Picture in Perspectivist Optics". Isis. 72 (4): 568–89.
doi:10.1086/352843 (https://doi.org/10.1086%2F352843). JSTOR 231249 (https://www.jstor.or
g/stable/231249). PMID 7040292 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7040292). S2CID 27806323
(https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:27806323).
76. Goldstein, Bernard R (2016). "Copernicus and the Origin of his Heliocentric System" (http://pdf
s.semanticscholar.org/e610/194b7b608cab49e034a542017213d827fb70.pdf) (PDF). Journal
for the History of Astronomy. 33 (3): 219–35. doi:10.1177/002182860203300301 (https://doi.or
g/10.1177%2F002182860203300301). S2CID 118351058 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/Cor
pusID:118351058).
77. Cohen, H. Floris (2010). How modern science came into the world. Four civilizations, one 17th-
century breakthrough (Second ed.). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. ISBN 978-90-
8964-239-4.
78. "Galileo and the Birth of Modern Science". American Heritage of Invention and Technology. 24.
79. van Helden, Al (1995). "Pope Urban VIII" (http://galileo.rice.edu/gal/urban.html). The Galileo
Project. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20161111033150/http://galileo.rice.edu/gal/urba
n.html) from the original on November 11, 2016. Retrieved November 3, 2016.
80. MacTutor Archive, Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz (https://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Bio
graphies/Leibniz.html)
81. Freudenthal, Gideon; McLaughlin, Peter (May 20, 2009). The Social and Economic Roots of
the Scientific Revolution: Texts by Boris Hessen and Henryk Grossmann (https://books.google.
com/books?id=PgmbZIybuRoC&pg=PA162). Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 978-
1-4020-9604-4.
82. Thomas G. Bergin (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Renaissance (Oxford and New York: New Market
Books, 1987).
83. see Hall (1954), iii; Mason (1956), 223.
84. Cassels, Alan. Ideology and International Relations in the Modern World. p. 2.
85. Ross, Sydney (1962). "Scientist: The story of a word" (http://www.informaworld.com/index/7393
64907.pdf) (PDF). Annals of Science. 18 (2): 65–85. doi:10.1080/00033796200202722 (https://
doi.org/10.1080%2F00033796200202722). Retrieved March 8, 2011. To be exact, the person
who coined the term scientist was referred to in Whewell 1834 only as "some ingenious
gentleman." Ross added a comment that this "some ingenious gentleman" was Whewell
himself, without giving the reason for the identification. Ross 1962, p. 72.
86. von Bertalanffy, Ludwig (1972). "The History and Status of General Systems Theory". The
Academy of Management Journal. 15 (4): 407–26. doi:10.2307/255139 (https://doi.org/10.230
7%2F255139). JSTOR 255139 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/255139).
87. Naidoo, Nasheen; Pawitan, Yudi; Soong, Richie; Cooper, David N.; Ku, Chee-Seng (October
2011). "Human genetics and genomics a decade after the release of the draft sequence of the
human genome" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3525251). Human Genomics.
5 (6): 577–622. doi:10.1186/1479-7364-5-6-577 (https://doi.org/10.1186%2F1479-7364-5-6-57
7). PMC 3525251 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3525251). PMID 22155605
(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22155605).
88. Rashid, S. Tamir; Alexander, Graeme J.M. (March 2013). "Induced pluripotent stem cells: from
Nobel Prizes to clinical applications" (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.jhep.2012.10.026). Journal
of Hepatology. 58 (3): 625–629. doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2012.10.026 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.jh
ep.2012.10.026). ISSN 1600-0641 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1600-0641). PMID 23131523
(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23131523).
89. Abbott, B.P.; Abbott, R.; Abbott, T.D.; Acernese, F.; Ackley, K.; Adams, C.; Adams, T.; Addesso,
P.; Adhikari, R.X.; Adya, V.B.; Affeldt, C.; Afrough, M.; Agarwal, B.; Agathos, M.; Agatsuma, K.;
Aggarwal, N.; Aguiar, O.D.; Aiello, L.; Ain, A.; Ajith, P.; Allen, B.; Allen, G.; Allocca, A.; Altin,
P.A.; Amato, A.; Ananyeva, A.; Anderson, S.B.; Anderson, W.G.; Angelova, S.V.; et al. (2017).
"Multi-messenger Observations of a Binary Neutron Star Merger". The Astrophysical Journal.
848 (2): L12. arXiv:1710.05833 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.05833).
Bibcode:2017ApJ...848L..12A (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..12A).
doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 (https://doi.org/10.3847%2F2041-8213%2Faa91c9).
S2CID 217162243 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:217162243).
90. Cho, Adrian (2017). "Merging neutron stars generate gravitational waves and a celestial light
show". Science. doi:10.1126/science.aar2149 (https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.aar2149).
91. "Scientific Method: Relationships Among Scientific Paradigms" (https://web.archive.org/web/20
161101001155/http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/scientific_method_relationships_amon
g_scientific_paradigms/). Seed Magazine. March 7, 2007. Archived from the original (http://see
dmagazine.com/content/article/scientific_method_relationships_among_scientific_paradigms/)
on November 1, 2016. Retrieved November 4, 2016.
92. Bunge, Mario Augusto (1998). Philosophy of Science: From Problem to Theory. Transaction
Publishers. p. 24. ISBN 978-0-7658-0413-6.
93. Popper, Karl R. (2002a) [1959]. "A survey of some fundamental problems". The Logic of
Scientific Discovery (https://archive.org/details/logicscientificd00popp_574). New York, New
York: Routledge Classics. pp. 3 (https://archive.org/details/logicscientificd00popp_574/page/n1
33)–26. ISBN 978-0-415-27844-7. OCLC 59377149 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/59377149).
94. Gauch Jr., Hugh G. (2003). "Science in perspective" (https://books.google.com/books?id=iVkug
qNG9dAC&pg=PA71). Scientific Method in Practice. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge
University Press. pp. 21–73. ISBN 978-0-52-101708-4.
95. 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.
96. "Natural History" (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=natural+history). Princeton
University WordNet. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20120303173506/http://wordnetwe
b.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=natural+history) from the original on March 3, 2012. Retrieved
October 21, 2012.
97. Tomalin, Marcus (2006). Linguistics and the Formal Sciences. doi:10.2277/0521854814 (http
s://doi.org/10.2277%2F0521854814).
98. Löwe, Benedikt (2002). "The Formal Sciences: Their Scope, Their Foundations, and Their
Unity". Synthese. 133: 5–11. doi:10.1023/a:1020887832028 (https://doi.org/10.1023%2Fa%3A
1020887832028). S2CID 9272212 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:9272212).
99. Bill, Thompson (2007), "2.4 Formal Science and Applied Mathematics", The Nature of
Statistical Evidence, Lecture Notes in Statistics, 189 (1st ed.), Springer, p. 15
00. 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.
01. Richard Dawkins (May 10, 2006). "To Live at All Is Miracle Enough" (https://web.archive.org/we
b/20120119113522/http://richarddawkins.net/articles/91). RichardDawkins.net. Archived from
the original (http://richarddawkins.net/articles/91) on January 19, 2012. Retrieved February 5,
2012.
02. Stanovich, Keith E. (2007). How to Think Straight About Psychology. Boston: Pearson
Education. pp. 106–147. ISBN 978-0-205-68590-5.
03. "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.
04. Wilson, Edward (1999). Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. New York: Vintage. ISBN 978-0-
679-76867-8.
05. Fara, Patricia (2009). "Decisions" (https://archive.org/details/sciencefourthous00fara/page/408).
Science: A Four Thousand Year History. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
p. 408 (https://archive.org/details/sciencefourthous00fara/page/408). ISBN 978-0-19-922689-4.
06. 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.
07. 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.
08. van Gelder, Tim (1999). " "Heads I win, tails you lose": A Foray Into the Psychology of
Philosophy" (https://web.archive.org/web/20080409054240/http://www.philosophy.unimelb.ed
u.au/tgelder/papers/HeadsIWin.pdf) (PDF). University of Melbourne. Archived from the original
(http://www.philosophy.unimelb.edu.au/tgelder/papers/HeadsIWin.pdf) (PDF) on April 9, 2008.
Retrieved March 28, 2008.
09. Pease, Craig (September 6, 2006). "Chapter 23. Deliberate bias: Conflict creates bad science"
(https://web.archive.org/web/20100619154617/http://law-and-science.net/Science4BLJ/Scientif
ic_Method/Deliberate.bias/Text.htm). Science for Business, Law and Journalism. Vermont Law
School. Archived from the original (http://law-and-science.net/Science4BLJ/Scientific_Method/
Deliberate.bias/Text.htm) on June 19, 2010.
10. Shatz, David (2004). Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-0-7425-
1434-8. OCLC 54989960 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/54989960).
11. Krimsky, Sheldon (2003). Science in the Private Interest: Has the Lure of Profits Corrupted the
Virtue of Biomedical Research (https://archive.org/details/scienceinprivate0000krim). Rowman
& Littlefield. ISBN 978-0-7425-1479-9. OCLC 185926306 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/18592
6306).
12. Bulger, Ruth Ellen; Heitman, Elizabeth; Reiser, Stanley Joel (2002). The Ethical Dimensions of
the Biological and Health Sciences (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-
00886-0. OCLC 47791316 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/47791316).
13. Backer, Patricia Ryaby (October 29, 2004). "What is the scientific method?" (https://web.archiv
e.org/web/20080408082917/http://www.engr.sjsu.edu/pabacker/scientific_method.htm). San
Jose State University. Archived from the original (http://www.engr.sjsu.edu/pabacker/scientific_
method.htm) on April 8, 2008. Retrieved March 28, 2008.
14. Ziman, John (1978c). "Common observation" (https://archive.org/details/reliableknowledg00joh
n/page/42). Reliable knowledge: An exploration of the grounds for belief in science.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 42–76 (https://archive.org/details/reliableknowled
g00john/page/42). ISBN 978-0-521-22087-3.
15. Ziman, John (1978c). "The stuff of reality" (https://archive.org/details/reliableknowledg00john/p
age/95). Reliable knowledge: An exploration of the grounds for belief in science. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. pp. 95–123 (https://archive.org/details/reliableknowledg00john/pa
ge/95). ISBN 978-0-521-22087-3.
16. Popper, Karl R. (2002e) [1959]. "The problem of the empirical basis". The Logic of Scientific
Discovery (https://archive.org/details/logicscientificd00popp_574). New York, New York:
Routledge Classics. pp. 3 (https://archive.org/details/logicscientificd00popp_574/page/n133)–
26. ISBN 978-0-415-27844-7. OCLC 59377149 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/59377149).
17. "SIAM: Graduate Education for Computational Science and Engineering" (http://www.siam.org/
students/resources/report.php). Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. Archived (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20161228083134/https://www.siam.org/students/resources/report.php)
from the original on December 28, 2016. Retrieved November 4, 2016.
18. Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2003c). "Induction and confirmation". Theory and Reality: An Introduction
to the Philosophy of Science (https://archive.org/details/theoryrealityint00godf) (1st ed.).
Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago. pp. 39 (https://archive.org/details/theoryrealityint00god
f/page/n53)–56. ISBN 978-0-226-30062-7.
19. Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2003o). "Empiricism, naturalism, and scientific realism?". Theory and
Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (https://archive.org/details/theoryrealityint
00godf) (1st ed.). Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago. pp. 219 (https://archive.org/details/the
oryrealityint00godf/page/n233)–232. ISBN 978-0-226-30062-7.
20. Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2003b). "Logic plus empiricism". Theory and Reality: An Introduction to
the Philosophy of Science (https://archive.org/details/theoryrealityint00godf) (1st ed.). Chicago,
Illinois: University of Chicago. pp. 19 (https://archive.org/details/theoryrealityint00godf/page/n3
3)–38. ISBN 978-0-226-30062-7.
21. Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2003d). "Popper: Conjecture and refutation". Theory and Reality: An
Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (https://archive.org/details/theoryrealityint00godf) (1st
ed.). Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago. pp. 57 (https://archive.org/details/theoryrealityint0
0godf/page/n71)–74. ISBN 978-0-226-30062-7.
22. Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2003g). "Lakatos, Laudan, Feyerabend, and frameworks". Theory and
Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (https://archive.org/details/theoryrealityint
00godf) (1st ed.). Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago. pp. 102 (https://archive.org/details/the
oryrealityint00godf/page/n116)–121. ISBN 978-0-226-30062-7.
23. Popper, Karl (1972). Objective Knowledge.
24. "Shut up and multiply" (https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Shut_up_and_multiply). LessWrong
Wiki. September 13, 2015. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20161019082101/https://wiki.
lesswrong.com/wiki/Shut_up_and_multiply) from the original on October 19, 2016. Retrieved
November 4, 2016.
25. Newton-Smith, W.H. (1994). The Rationality of Science (https://archive.org/details/rationalityofs
ci0000newt). London: Routledge. p. 30 (https://archive.org/details/rationalityofsci0000newt/pag
e/30). ISBN 978-0-7100-0913-5.
26. Bird, Alexander (2013). Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). "Thomas Kuhn" (http://plato.stanford.edu/archiv
es/fall2013/entries/thomas-kuhn/). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved October 26,
2015.
27. T.S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd. ed., Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Pr.,
1970, p. 206. ISBN 978-0-226-45804-5
28. Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2003j). "Naturalistic philosophy in theory and practice". Theory and
Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (https://archive.org/details/theoryrealityint
00godf) (1st ed.). Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago. pp. 149 (https://archive.org/details/the
oryrealityint00godf/page/n163)–162. ISBN 978-0-226-30062-7.
29. Brugger, E. Christian (2004). "Casebeer, William D. Natural Ethical Facts: Evolution,
Connectionism, and Moral Cognition". The Review of Metaphysics. 58 (2).
30. Winther, Rasmus Grønfeldt (2015). "The Structure of Scientific Theories" (http://plato.stanford.e
du/entries/structure-scientific-theories/). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved
November 4, 2016.
31. Popper, Karl Raimund (1996). In Search of a Better World: Lectures and Essays From Thirty
Years (https://archive.org/details/insearchofbetter00karl). New York, New York: Routledge.
ISBN 978-0-415-13548-1.
32. Dawkins, Richard; Coyne, Jerry (September 2, 2005). "One side can be wrong" (https://www.th
eguardian.com/science/2005/sep/01/schools.research). The Guardian. London. Archived (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20131226232200/http://www.theguardian.com/science/2005/sep/01/sc
hools.research) from the original on December 26, 2013.
33. "Barry Stroud on Scepticism" (http://philosophybites.com/2007/12/barry-stroud-on.html).
philosophy bites. December 16, 2007. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20120123175047/
http://philosophybites.com/2007/12/barry-stroud-on.html) from the original on January 23, 2012.
Retrieved February 5, 2012.
34. Peirce (1877), "The Fixation of Belief", Popular Science Monthly, v. 12, pp. 1–15, see §IV on
pp. 6–7 (https://books.google.com/books?id=ZKMVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA6) Archived (https://we
b.archive.org/web/20160415043128/https://books.google.com/books?id=ZKMVAAAAYAAJ&pg
=PA6) April 15, 2016, at the Wayback Machine. Reprinted Collected Papers v. 5, paragraphs
358–87 (see 374–76), Writings v. 3, pp. 242–57 (see 247–48), Essential Peirce v. 1, pp. 109–
23 (see 114–15), and elsewhere.
35. Peirce (1905), "Issues of Pragmaticism", The Monist, v. XV, n. 4, pp. 481–99, see "Character V"
on p. 491 (https://archive.org/stream/monistquart15hegeuoft#page/491/mode/1up). Reprinted in
Collected Papers v. 5, paragraphs 438–63 (see 451), Essential Peirce v. 2, pp. 346–59 (see
353), and elsewhere.
36. Peirce (1868), "Some Consequences of Four Incapacities", Journal of Speculative Philosophy
v. 2, n. 3, pp. 140–57, see p. 141 (https://books.google.com/books?id=YHkqP2JHJ_IC&pg=RA
1-PA141) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20160415034910/https://books.google.com/bo
oks?id=YHkqP2JHJ_IC&pg=RA1-PA141) April 15, 2016, at the Wayback Machine. Reprinted
in Collected Papers, v. 5, paragraphs 264–317, Writings v. 2, pp. 211–42, Essential Peirce v. 1,
pp. 28–55, and elsewhere.
37. Ziman, J.M. (1980). "The proliferation of scientific literature: a natural process". Science. 208
(4442): 369–71. Bibcode:1980Sci...208..369Z (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980Sci...20
8..369Z). doi:10.1126/science.7367863 (https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.7367863).
PMID 7367863 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7367863).
38. Subramanyam, Krishna; Subramanyam, Bhadriraju (1981). Scientific and Technical Information
Resources. CRC Press. ISBN 978-0-8247-8297-9. OCLC 232950234 (https://www.worldcat.or
g/oclc/232950234).
39. "MEDLINE Fact Sheet" (https://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/medline.html). Washington
DC: United States National Library of Medicine. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2011101
6122141/http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/medline.html) from the original on October 16,
2011. Retrieved October 15, 2011.
40. Petrucci, Mario. "Creative Writing – Science" (https://web.archive.org/web/20090106015539/htt
p://writeideas.org.uk/creativescience/index.htm). Archived from the original (http://writeideas.or
g.uk/creativescience/index.htm) on January 6, 2009. Retrieved April 27, 2008.
41. Schooler, J. W. (2014). "Metascience could rescue the 'replication crisis' " (https://doi.org/10.103
8%2F515009a). Nature. 515 (7525): 9. Bibcode:2014Natur.515....9S (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.
edu/abs/2014Natur.515....9S). doi:10.1038/515009a (https://doi.org/10.1038%2F515009a).
PMID 25373639 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25373639).
42. Smith, Noah. "Why 'Statistical Significance' Is Often Insignificant" (https://www.bloomberg.com/
view/articles/2017-11-02/why-statistical-significance-is-often-insignificant). Bloomberg.
Retrieved November 7, 2017.
43. Pashler, Harold; Wagenmakers, Eric Jan (2012). "Editors' Introduction to the Special Section on
Replicability in Psychological Science: A Crisis of Confidence?" (http://pdfs.semanticscholar.or
g/8d43/72a87cb14ecaa05373a63b9c83e3db7f9d64.pdf) (PDF). Perspectives on
Psychological Science. 7 (6): 528–530. doi:10.1177/1745691612465253 (https://doi.org/10.117
7%2F1745691612465253). PMID 26168108 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26168108).
S2CID 26361121 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:26361121).
44. 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" (http
s://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4592065). PLOS Biology. 13 (10): –1002264.
doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002264 (https://doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1002264).
ISSN 1545-7885 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/1545-7885). PMC 4592065 (https://www.ncbi.nl
m.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4592065). PMID 26431313 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2643
1313).
45. Feynman, Richard (1974). "Cargo Cult Science" (https://web.archive.org/web/2005030403254
4/http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cult.html). Center for Theoretical Neuroscience.
Columbia University. Archived from the original (http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_c
ult.html) on March 4, 2005. Retrieved November 4, 2016.
46. Novella, Steven, et al. The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe: How to Know What's Really Real
in a World Increasingly Full of Fake. Grand Central Publishing, 2018. pp. 162.
47. "Coping with fraud" (https://web.archive.org/web/20070928151119/http://www.publicationethic
s.org.uk/reports/1999/1999pdf3.pdf) (PDF). The COPE Report 1999: 11–18. Archived from the
original (http://www.publicationethics.org.uk/reports/1999/1999pdf3.pdf) (PDF) on September
28, 2007. Retrieved July 21, 2011. "It is 10 years, to the month, since Stephen Lock ...
Reproduced with kind permission of the Editor, The Lancet."
48. "Eusocial climbers" (https://eowilsonfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/the-big-read-e
usocial-climbers.pdf) (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."
49. "Our definition of a scientist" (https://sciencecouncil.org/about-science/our-definition-of-a-scienti
st/). 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."
50. Cyranoski, David; Gilbert, Natasha; Ledford, Heidi; Nayar, Anjali; Yahia, Mohammed (2011).
"Education: The PhD factory" (https://doi.org/10.1038%2F472276a). Nature. 472 (7343): 276–
79. Bibcode:2011Natur.472..276C (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011Natur.472..276C).
doi:10.1038/472276a (https://doi.org/10.1038%2F472276a). PMID 21512548 (https://pubmed.n
cbi.nlm.nih.gov/21512548).
51. Kwok, Roberta (2017). "Flexible working: Science in the gig economy" (https://doi.org/10.103
8%2Fnj7677-549a). Nature. 550: 419–21. doi:10.1038/nj7677-549a (https://doi.org/10.1038%2
Fnj7677-549a).
52. Woolston, Chris (2007). Editorial (ed.). "Many junior scientists need to take a hard look at their
job prospects" (https://www.nature.com/news/many-junior-scientists-need-to-take-a-hard-look-a
t-their-job-prospects-1.22879). Nature. 550: 549–552. doi:10.1038/nj7677-549a (https://doi.org/
10.1038%2Fnj7677-549a).
53. Lee, Adrian; Dennis, Carina; Campbell, Phillip (2007). "Graduate survey: A love–hurt
relationship" (https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fnj7677-549a). Nature. 550 (7677): 549–52.
doi:10.1038/nj7677-549a (https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fnj7677-549a).
54. Stockton, Nick (October 7, 2014), "How did the Nobel Prize become the biggest award on
Earth?" (https://www.wired.com/2014/10/whats-nobel-prize-become-biggest-award-planet),
Wired, retrieved September 3, 2018
55. "Nobel Prize Facts" (https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/facts/). Nobel Foundation.
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20170708135926/https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_priz
es/facts/) from the original on July 8, 2017. Retrieved October 11, 2015.
56. Spanier, Bonnie (1995). "From Molecules to Brains, Normal Science Supports Sexist Beliefs
about Difference". Im/partial Science: Gender Identity in Molecular Biology. Indiana University
Press. ISBN 978-0-253-20968-9.
57. 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.
58. Goulden, Mark; Frasch, Karie; Mason, Mary Ann (2009). Staying Competitive: Patching
America's Leaky Pipeline in the Sciences. University of Berkeley Law.
59. Change of Heart: Career intentions and the chemistry PhD. Royal Society of Chemistry. 2008.
60. Parrott, Jim (August 9, 2007). "Chronicle for Societies Founded from 1323 to 1599" (http://www.
scholarly-societies.org/1599andearlier.html). Scholarly Societies Project. Archived (https://web.
archive.org/web/20140106185404/http://www.scholarly-societies.org/1599andearlier.html) from
the original on January 6, 2014. Retrieved September 11, 2007.
61. "The Environmental Studies Association of Canada - What is a Learned Society?" (https://web.
archive.org/web/20130529163615/http://www.esac.ca/about/what-is-a-learned-society/).
Archived from the original (http://www.esac.ca/about/what-is-a-learned-society/) on May 29,
2013. Retrieved May 10, 2013.
62. "Learned societies & academies" (https://web.archive.org/web/20140603140851/http://www.brit
ishcouncil.org/science-uk-organisations-learned-societies.htm). Archived from the original (htt
p://www.britishcouncil.org/science-uk-organisations-learned-societies.htm) on June 3, 2014.
Retrieved May 10, 2013.
63. "Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei" (http://positivamente.lincei.it/) (in Italian). 2006. Archived (htt
ps://web.archive.org/web/20100228005402/http://positivamente.lincei.it/) from the original on
February 28, 2010. Retrieved September 11, 2007.
64. Meynell, G.G. "The French Academy of Sciences, 1666–91: A reassessment of the French
Académie royale des sciences under Colbert (1666–83) and Louvois (1683–91)" (https://web.a
rchive.org/web/20120118174108/http://www.haven.u-net.com/6text_7B2.htm#Appendix%202).
Archived from the original (http://www.haven.u-net.com/6text_7B2.htm#Appendix%202) on
January 18, 2012. Retrieved October 13, 2011.
65. Bush, Vannevar (July 1945). "Science the Endless Frontier" (https://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/v
bush1945.htm). National Science Foundation. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20161107
221306/https://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/vbush1945.htm) from the original on November 7,
2016. Retrieved November 4, 2016.
66. "Main Science and Technology Indicators – 2008-1" (https://web.archive.org/web/20100215172
528/http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/49/45/24236156.pdf) (PDF). OECD. Archived from the
original (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/49/45/24236156.pdf) (PDF) on February 15, 2010.
67. Ladwig, Peter (2012). "Perceived familiarity or factual knowledge? Comparing
operationalizations of scientific understanding" (http://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/d336/4d3d0bdc
9f2799d16be3e0743b3ef4ef5e6d.pdf) (PDF). Science and Public Policy. 39 (6): 761–74.
doi:10.1093/scipol/scs048 (https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fscipol%2Fscs048). S2CID 144610587
(https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:144610587).
68. Eveland, William (2004). "How Web Site Organization Influences Free Recall, Factual
Knowledge, and Knowledge Structure Density". Human Communication Research. 30 (2):
208–33. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00731.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1468-2958.200
4.tb00731.x).
69. Dickson, David (October 11, 2004). "Science journalism must keep a critical edge" (https://web.
archive.org/web/20100621053624/http://www.scidev.net/en/editorials/science-journalism-must-
keep-a-critical-edge.html). Science and Development Network. Archived from the original (htt
p://www.scidev.net/en/editorials/science-journalism-must-keep-a-critical-edge.html) on June 21,
2010.
70. Mooney, Chris (November–December 2004). "Blinded By Science, How 'Balanced' Coverage
Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality" (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/
01/15/blinded-by-science-how-balanced-coverage-lets-the-scientific-fringe-hijack-reality/).
Columbia Journalism Review. Vol. 43 no. 4. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/201001171
81240/http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/01/15/blinded-by-science-how-bal
anced-coverage-lets-the-scientific-fringe-hijack-reality/) from the original on January 17, 2010.
Retrieved February 20, 2008.
71. McIlwaine, S.; Nguyen, D.A. (2005). "Are Journalism Students Equipped to Write About
Science?" (http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:8064). Australian Studies in Journalism. 14:
41–60. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20080801163322/http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/
view/UQ:8064) from the original on August 1, 2008. Retrieved February 20, 2008.
72. Goldberg, Jeanne (2017). "The Politicization of Scientific Issues: Looking through Galileo's
Lens or through the Imaginary Looking Glass" (https://web.archive.org/web/20180816182350/h
ttps://www.csicop.org/si/show/politicization_of_scientific_issues). Skeptical Inquirer. 41 (5): 34–
39. Archived from the original (https://www.csicop.org/si/show/politicization_of_scientific_issue
s) on August 16, 2018. Retrieved August 16, 2018.
73. Bolsen, Toby; Druckman, James N. (2015). "Counteracting the Politicization of Science".
Journal of Communication (65): 746.
74. Freudenberg, William F.; Gramling, Robert; Davidson, Debra J. (2008). "Scientific Certainty
Argumentation Methods (SCAMs): Science and the Politics of Doubt" (http://sciencepolicy.color
ado.edu/students/envs_5720/freudenberg_etal_2008.pdf) (PDF). Sociological Inquiry. 78: 2–
38. doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.2008.00219.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1475-682X.2008.0021
9.x).
75. van der Linden, Sander; Leiserowitz, Anthony; Rosenthal, Seth; Maibach, Edward (2017).
"Inoculating the Public against Misinformation about Climate Change" (https://www.repository.c
am.ac.uk/bitstream/1810/270860/1/global%20challenges.pdf) (PDF). Global Challenges. 1 (2):
1. doi:10.1002/gch2.201600008 (https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fgch2.201600008). PMC 6607159
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6607159). PMID 31565263 (https://pubmed.ncb
i.nlm.nih.gov/31565263).

Further reading
Augros, Robert M., Stanciu, George N., The New Story of Science: mind and the universe,
Lake Bluff, Ill.: Regnery Gateway, c1984. ISBN 978-0-89526-833-4
Becker, Ernest (1968). The structure of evil; an essay on the unification of the science of man (h
ttps://archive.org/details/structureofevila00beck). New York: G. Braziller.
Burguete, Maria, and Lam, Lui, eds.(2014). All About Science: Philosophy, History, Sociology &
Communication. World Scientific: Singapore. ISBN 978-981-4472-92-0
Cole, K.C., Things your teacher never told you about science: Nine shocking revelations
Newsday, Long Island, New York, March 23, 1986, pp. 21+
Crease, Robert P. (2011). World in the Balance: the historic quest for an absolute system of
measurement. New York: W.W. Norton. p. 317. ISBN 978-0-393-07298-3.
Lydia Denworth, "A Significant Problem: Standard scientific methods are under fire. Will
anything change?", Scientific American, vol. 321, no. 4 (October 2019), pp. 62–67. "The use of
p values for nearly a century [since 1925] to determine statistical significance of experimental
results has contributed to an illusion of certainty and [to] reproducibility crises in many scientific
fields. There is growing determination to reform statistical analysis... Some [researchers]
suggest changing statistical methods, whereas others would do away with a threshold for
defining "significant" results." (p. 63.)
Feyerabend, Paul (2005). Science, history of the philosophy, as cited in Honderich, Ted (2005).
The Oxford companion to philosophy. Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-
0-19-926479-7. OCLC 173262485 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/173262485).
Feynman, Richard P. (1999). Robbins, Jeffrey (ed.). The pleasure of finding things out the best
short works of Richard P. Feynman (https://archive.org/details/pleasureoffindin00rich).
Cambridge, Massachusetts: Perseus Books. ISBN 978-0-465-01312-8.
Feynman, R.P. (1999). The Pleasure of Finding Things Out: The Best Short Works of Richard
P. Feynman (https://archive.org/details/pleasureoffindin00feyn). Perseus Books Group.
ISBN 978-0-465-02395-0. OCLC 181597764 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/181597764).
Feynman, Richard "Cargo Cult Science" (http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/02/CargoCult.p
df)
Gaukroger, Stephen (2006). The Emergence of a Scientific Culture: Science and the Shaping
of Modernity 1210–1685. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-929644-6.
Gopnik, Alison, "Finding Our Inner Scientist" (http://www.amacad.org/publications/winter2004/g
opnik.pdf), Daedalus, Winter 2004.
Krige, John, and Dominique Pestre, eds., Science in the Twentieth Century, Routledge 2003,
ISBN 978-0-415-28606-0
 Levin, Yuval (2008). Imagining the Future: Science and American Democracy. New York,
Encounter Books. ISBN 978-1-59403-209-7
Lindberg, D.C. (1976). Theories of Vision from al-Kindi to Kepler. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Kuhn, Thomas, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1962.
William F., McComas (1998). "The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the
myths" (http://earthweb.ess.washington.edu/roe/Knowability_590/Week2/Myths%20of%20Scie
nce.pdf) (PDF). In McComas, William F. (ed.). The nature of science in science education:
rationales and strategies. Springer. ISBN 978-0-7923-6168-8.
Needham, Joseph (1954). Science and Civilisation in China: Introductory Orientations. 1.
Cambridge University Press.
Obler, Paul C.; Estrin, Herman A. (1962). The New Scientist: Essays on the Methods and
Values of Modern Science (https://archive.org/details/newscientistessa00oble). Anchor Books,
Doubleday.
Papineau, David. (2005). Science, problems of the philosophy of., as cited in Honderich, Ted
(2005). The Oxford companion to philosophy. Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press.
ISBN 978-0-19-926479-7. OCLC 173262485 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/173262485).
Parkin, D. (1991). "Simultaneity and Sequencing in the Oracular Speech of Kenyan Diviners".
In Philip M. Peek (ed.). African Divination Systems: Ways of Knowing. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana
University Press.
Riskin, Jessica, "Just Use Your Thinking Pump!" (review of Henry M. Cowles, The Scientific
Method: An Evolution of Thinking from Darwin to Dewey, Harvard University Press, 372 pp.),
The New York Review of Books, vol. LXVII, no. 11 (2 July 2020), pp. 48–50.
Russell, Bertrand (1985) [1952]. The Impact of Science on Society. London: Unwin. ISBN 978-
0-04-300090-8.
Rutherford, F. James; Ahlgren, Andrew (1990). Science for all Americans (https://archive.org/de
tails/scienceforallame00ruth). New York, NY: American Association for the Advancement of
Science, Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-506771-2.
Smith, A. Mark (2001). Alhacen's Theory of Visual Perception: A Critical Edition, with English
Translation and Commentary, of the First Three Books of Alhacen's De Aspectibus, the
Medieval Latin Version of Ibn al-Haytham's Kitāb al-Manāẓir, 2 vols. Transactions of the
American Philosophical Society. 91. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society. ISBN 978-
0-87169-914-5. OCLC 47168716 (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/47168716).
Smith, A. Mark (2001). "Alhacen's Theory of Visual Perception: A Critical Edition, with
English Translation and Commentary, of the First Three Books of Alhacen's "De
aspectibus", the Medieval Latin Version of Ibn al-Haytham's "Kitāb al-Manāẓir": Volume
One". Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. 91 (4): i–337. JSTOR 3657358
(https://www.jstor.org/stable/3657358).
Smith, A. Mark (2001). "Alhacen's Theory of Visual Perception: A Critical Edition, with
English Translation and Commentary, of the First Three Books of Alhacen's "De
aspectibus", the Medieval Latin Version of Ibn al-Haytham's "Kitāb al-Manāẓir": Volume
Two". Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. 91 (5): 339–819.
doi:10.2307/3657357 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2F3657357). JSTOR 3657357 (https://www.j
stor.org/stable/3657357).
Thurs, Daniel Patrick (2007). Science Talk: Changing Notions of Science in American Popular
Culture (https://archive.org/details/sciencetalkchang00thur). ISBN 978-0-8135-4073-3.

External links
Publications
 GCSE Science at Wikibooks

Resources

Euroscience (http://www.euroscience.org/)
Classification of the Sciences (http://xtf.lib.virginia.edu/xtf/view?docId=DicHist/uvaBook/tei/Dic
Hist1.xml;chunk.id=dv1-57;toc.depth=1;toc.id=dv1-57;brand=default) in Dictionary of the
History of Ideas. (Dictionary's new electronic format is badly botched, entries after "Design" are
inaccessible. Internet Archive old version (https://web.archive.org/web/20080619205103/http://
etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-57)).
United States Science Initiative (https://www.science.gov/) Selected science information
provided by US Government agencies, including research & development results
How science works (http://undsci.berkeley.edu/index.php) University of California Museum of
Paleontology

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Science&oldid=990161801"

This page was last edited on 23 November 2020, at 03:53 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this
site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.