Talk:Science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Science (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital / Core
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Science:

You might start with talk:science/Archive 5#Prior discussion, October 2011, for a group effort at a Good Article.

  • add criticism
  • add inline citations
  • achieve NPOV in method and philosophical sections
  • "The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myth" reference to Direct instruction news as a source is false. The source cannot be found in the 2002 Spring release.YesY RockMagnetist (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • achieve consistency with other science related pages of Wikipedia Question? RockMagnetist (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Science brief definitions:
    • Science=Logic+Observations
    • Empirical Sciences = Observations OR Experiments OR Mathematical Modeling OR Computational Modeling = partial evidence for supporting or rejecting ideas, with strong effort to avoid logical or statistical falacies in this supporting process.
    • Formal Sciences = Deductive reasoning from formal systems of axioms and definitions: Mathematics, Logics and Theoretical Computation
  • Add discussion to Literature section on ownership, copyright, Creative Commons
  • Add UC Berkeley's "How Science Works" as a "Resource" - http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_01 YesY RockMagnetist (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

List of academic disciplines[edit]

Hello,

i would like to request to place a link or list of academic disciplines into the Head of the article. Academic disciplines are essential for the meaning of science and an oversight for them is missing in the article. I would suggest to place a link inside an infobox at the start of the article or a placement where it is easy to recognize. The infobox that is already placed does not give a good overwiev related to a structured list. It should also be placed above the picture. Thank you.

Reader feedback: dont understand[edit]

202.45.119.56 posted this comment on 21 October 2013 (view all feedback).

dont understand

I think this article can improve only if there is a clear decision on what the article is meant to be about. (See also Science (disambiguation)) Some paragraphs refer to science as a very broad term (from the Latin word scientia), the disambiguation hint lets the reader expect experimental science and the illustration draws yet another view of science. This article is not the disambiguation page, so this page should describe one meaning of the word science. If there is enough material for more than one of the meanings of "science", there should be distinct pages. --Hokanomono 10:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The Simple English edition takes the stance you advocate. Does that article suffice for one of those meanings? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 12:14, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
It may be simpler to direct the anon to the Simple English edition. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs)
This article is inconsistent in itself. Replacing the article by a redirection to simple:science would be an improvement, but we should quest for an even better solution. --Hokanomono 10:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't be, as simple:science is wrong. Simple:science is actually about natural science, not science in general. Simple science is not about library science, computer science, political science, or the formal sciences. If you read the SIMPLE article you will question whether library science and computer science are "really" sciences, which is what simple people do. At Wikipedia, we try not to reduce the world to simple, but wrong, ideas.

As for the idea that this article expands a dab page, it doesn't. There exists of course a science (disambiguation) page that includes many other meanings besides the "discipline" meanings covered in science. The idea that this page should be reduced to a dab because it covers different types of science that have their own pages, is akin to suggesting that the article on animals should be reduced to a dab, because all the different type of animals described have their own pages already. Dab'ing and deleting and redirecting pages about different members of a category (kinds of animals, kinds of science) is not the WP:SS style.

Now, having said that, I think the present science article is overbalanced in favor of natural science material that should be moved to the natural science article, and summarized here. Once the present article explains the divisions and history, the discussions of the separate disciplines (starting with natural science) should be summaries, each with appropriate main articles, and no more. SBHarris 20:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

How Should Science be Learned in an Orderly Sequence?[edit]

One of the users has a very interesting way of putting science into various orders. I came across this while I was researching some of the users here on Wikipedia. Does anyone have any suggestions as to if this would be a viable way to study science? Refer to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NormaGehring — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.198.51 (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The program that NormaGehring's page exemplifies can be modelled by a string rewriting system, also called a semi-Thue system in mathematics. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 19:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2014[edit]

I request that the first sentence of this article: "Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe." be removed. And instead be replaced with "Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[1]) is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge by systematically testing logical explanations and predictions about the universe."

My reasoning: While the current wording is not incorrect, it can be misinterpreted by the reader as meaning to convey the idea that "only explanations which hold up in the face testing are considered to be part of the scientific enterprise", which is clearly not the intended meaning, as explanations and predictions made during the process of science are continually tested, and refined based on the outcomes of those tests, but subsequent, more accurate predictions do not exclude prior iterations or precursory predictions from the overall enterprise of "science", and indeed logical hypothesis subjected to the scientific method which turn out to lack evidence-based support should not be designated an "unscientific", but rather as hypothesis disproved by science. The currently listed references for this sentence should sufficiently support this change in wording. Morahed18 (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Sam Sailor Sing 11:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

John Locke's picture[edit]

I would like to restore John Locke's picture to the section on philosophy of science, as an adherent of the philosophy behind science. It should be easy enough to add text to show his relationship to the spirit of his time, and the Enlightenment which followed. OK?

For example,

  • Locke 1689 A Letter Concerning Toleration: "For the truth certainly would do well enough if she were once left to shift for herself."

shows his viewpoint, which does not require centralized authority for a law of nature. All one has to do is discover it. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 06:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

While searching for citation needed tags, I found a weaselly sentence which I tagged 'discuss', and propose to strike. Additionally, there is a claim about Lakatos which I also propose striking. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)