Talk:Science: Difference between revisions
Popups-assisted reversion to revision 33465030 |
Astrology |
||
Line 122: | Line 122: | ||
To say "the apple fell" is to state a fact, whereas [[gravity|Newton's theory of universal gravitation]] is a body of ideas that explain ''why'' the apple fell. Thus a multitude of falling objects are reduced to a few [[concept]]s or [[abstraction]]s interacting according to a small set of laws, allowing a scientist to make predictions about the behaviour of falling objects in general. |
To say "the apple fell" is to state a fact, whereas [[gravity|Newton's theory of universal gravitation]] is a body of ideas that explain ''why'' the apple fell. Thus a multitude of falling objects are reduced to a few [[concept]]s or [[abstraction]]s interacting according to a small set of laws, allowing a scientist to make predictions about the behaviour of falling objects in general. |
||
An especially fruitful theory that has withstood the test of time and has an overwhelming quantity of evidence supporting it is considered to be "proven" in the scientific sense. Some universally accepted models such as [[heliocentric theory]], [[evolution|biological evolution]], and [[atomic theory]] are so well-established that it is nearly impossible to imagine them ever being falsified. Others, such as [[relativity]] and [[electromagnetism]] have survived rigorous empirical testing without being contradicted, but it is nevertheless conceivable that they will some day be supplanted. Younger theories such as [[string theory]] may provide promising ideas, but have yet to receive the same level of scrutiny. |
An especially fruitful theory that has withstood the test of time and has an overwhelming quantity of evidence supporting it is considered to be "proven" in the scientific sense. Some universally accepted models such as [[heliocentric theory]], [[evolution|biological evolution]], and [[atomic theory]] are so well-established that it is nearly impossible to imagine them ever being falsified. Others, such as [[relativity]] and [[electromagnetism]] have survived rigorous empirical testing without being contradicted, but it is nevertheless conceivable that they will some day be supplanted. Younger theories such as [[string theory]] may provide promising ideas, but have yet to receive the same level of scrutiny. |
||
==Astrology== |
|||
I just reverted an edit that made one sentence read: |
|||
:Mathematical branches most often used in science include [[algebra]], [[geometry]], and [[trigonometry]], interestingly, invented by [[astrologers]]. |
|||
I'm not sure what exactly this sentence claims astrologers invented, but none of the linked articles support that assertion. Many of the early roots of science go indeed back to philosophers (e.g. [[Thales]], [[Pythagoras]], [[Aristotle]]) and polymaths (e.g. [[Isaac Newton]], [[Gottfried Leibniz]]) who dabbled in several fields at the same time. You could say (without lying) that the laws of gravity were discovered by an alchemist. At least when looking at ancient Greece, philosophers can claim many of these guys their own – except pretty much everything was philosophy then. |
|||
That said, if there is some solid evidence that whoever laid the foundations for a scientific field like trigonometry did it just to make better horoscopes, that deserves being pointed out in an encyclopedia, and it wouldn't be surprising at all. Some of humankind's most brilliant minds have conducted science of dubious merits at times, some because they were a tad crazy, some because it was much harder to recognize crackpot science without the benefit of hindsight. |
|||
So basically what I'm saying is: Write sentences that are not ambiguous. And source your claims. Well, duh. [[User:Algae|Algae]] 13:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:37, 7 January 2006
Module:WikiProject banner/doc
This page is a soft redirect.
![]() | This template has been replaced by Module:WikiProject banner |
Archives:
- Archive 1 (archived on January 1, 2006)
Weaselspeak in Goals of science
The following text is found in the secton titled "goals of science":
- "It has been said that it is virtually impossible to make inferences from human senses which actually describe what “is.”"
The phrase "it has been said" smells like weaselspeak. Who said it? Does anybody know a source for a statement like this? This could be important because the statement seems fairly profound. --InformationalAnarchist 15:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
- John Locke said it, see
Locke's gapfact-value gap. --Oldak Quill 01:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Testing evolution
The article claims:
- relativity, electromagnetism and biological evolution have survived rigorous empirical testing without being contradicted
Could someone please show me exactly where in Wikipedia I can find out how biological evolution has undergone "rigorous empirical testing?" I'm particularly interested in how one can design and perform a test (in the here and now) of something which may have happened 2 million or 400 million years ago. Uncle Ed 14:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- The theory predicts nested hierarchies. ALL molecular genetic data points to nested hierarchies. If one can prove that nested hierarchies are the exception the theory of evolution will have to be modified. As yet, no one has shown that the predicted nest hierarchies do not exist. Why do you have a problem with that type of analysis? So far the theory of evolution is consistent with the ALL the available data. David D. (Talk) 15:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- Try reading some scientific magazines, notably ones where we have observed speciation due to environmental stimuli, exactly as predicted.
Perhaps I have not made myself clear. I always use the word predict in terms of a future event. I also think of testing in terms of "I do X to it, and observe that Y happens".
To me there's a difference between the following two formulations:
- biological evolution has survived rigorous empirical testing without being contradicted; and,
- the theory of evolution is consistent with the ALL the available data.
Is it the same for you, or do you see a difference here? Uncle Ed 18:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
With regard to predict there is an element of the future in there. In the future the predicition may turn out to be false. As yet the data to falsify the theory has not been found. That does not mean it cannot be found. However, until the falsification is found why would you doubt the theory? Sorry but I'm not sure what you are asking with rtegard to the two statements above? David D. (Talk) 21:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I assume his point is that biological evolution is not tested by means of constructing experimental scenarios in which evolution predicts a certain (future) outcome. However, that does not disqualify it from being an empirically-tested theory, as every theory implicitly predicts that no data will ever be found that is inconsistent with it. If evolution is not empirically tested because its most interesting aspects happened in the past, then the Big Bang theory is in exactly the same position. – Smyth\talk 14:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Confusing
The article is very confusing. It says "Empiricist philosopher, Karl Popper", yet Popper is not even mentioned at Empiricism and Karl Popper#Popper's philosophy claims the opposite: "Popper coined the term critical rationalism to describe his philosophy. This designation is significant, and indicates his rejection of classical empiricism." Interesting to note also that the article does not mention at all said critical rationalism which as far as I understood provides just the definition of science that has widely become accepted nowadays. --Rtc 19:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- I think it is not useful for the wikipedia Science article to say that Popper is an "empiricist philosopher". It would be more constructive to just label him as a philosopher of science, as is done at Karl Popper. More radical corrective surgery would be to move out of the Science article all of the analysis of science in terms of philosophical theory (it belongs in Philosophy of science). --JWSchmidt 19:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- Just deleting those two words doesn't seem to hurt much - or adding PoS instead. BTW I don't see why critical rationalism is exactly the oposite of empirisism, although former was used to reject the latter. Almost all religions reject each other but that doesn't mean that every religion is the opposite of all others. Greenleaf 10:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
The Truth
The article starts out by saying that science is the search for the truth. But surely this is the biggest misnomer about science that there is. The "truth" of Newton was only truth until Einstein came along. The entire reason scientific theories are called theories is that they cannot be proven, only disproven. Mattopia 19:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Do you therefore think that Newton's laws are false? Karol 06:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- They are false and often a very good approximation of the truth. --MarSch 10:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- Is not what you just wrote here a contradiction? :-) Karol 12:19, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- They are false and often a very good approximation of the truth. --MarSch 10:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
- You said yourself that "science is the search for the truth". The ideas that Newton put forward were a very good approximation to the truth and Einstein's ideas are an even better approximation. Progress is being made towards better models of "the truth" or in other words our external (and internal) environment, is this not a good description of the search for the truth?
- Samuel Mindel 16:09, 30 October 2005 (GMT)
- You said yourself that "science is the search for the truth". The ideas that Newton put forward were a very good approximation to the truth and Einstein's ideas are an even better approximation. Progress is being made towards better models of "the truth" or in other words our external (and internal) environment, is this not a good description of the search for the truth?
Science only deals with consistant systems. Therefore it produces formal systems and questions their validity with the real word, seeking paradoxes more than truth.
If one system appears to avoid paradoxes, we just can expect it to be rationnal. Not true, litteraly speaking. --Kubrick 908 18:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
conservative wiki
It appears that people involved in wikipedia are very conservative; although it is said that anyone can edit or make useful additions, but my experience is that some people just do not tolerate any changes whatsoever, they act dictatorialy, and keep on reverting changing and their only response is "put your ideas somewhere else not on wikipedia. I stongly feel, it against the awoed policy of wikipedia, people should not be so possesive and intolerant, let others also express their opinion before changes are rejected. 202.141.141.10 11:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- Useful additions. This from the person who created List of cocepts [sic] in science. If you have contructive edits to make, please do. But don't expect the community to fix your spelling mistakes, and your haphazzard inclusions. Yes, 'concepts' are part of science. What's your point? Should we include a disconnected sentence into the article, or should we find a better stop to make that point, if it needs to be made at all? -- Ec5618 11:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- As for this edit of yours, heat is not a form of energy. It is the transfer of energy. Why did you change correct wording into something false? -- Ec5618 11:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- Similar situation with the definition of molecule as well as a few other paragraphs from that article. While not interested in discouraging contributions from new users, I sometimes wish there was some sort of initiation or training required before one such user were allowed to contribute to an existing article --just reviewing some of the last major edits should well enough help the novice understand how things work and at what level the contributions go.--Unconcerned 22:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
publication
would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
== Is Paleontology a Science? == --Kubrick 908 18:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Of course paleontology is a science. It's slightly controversial, though, whether archaeology is one.--Pharos 05:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Both are dealing with History. I am a little bit confused with the fact that History, because it uses advanced scientifical technics more and more, could be a Science too. I don't see the link.
When you study the evolution of life on earth, that is Science. When you focuse on the humans, it is not. That seems paradoxal to me.--Kubrick 908 09:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, this is a big debate in anthropology, and the idea that it is properly a science has been particularly popular in the U.S. with what's called processual archaeology.--Pharos 09:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Following that logic, many would argue that History itself is Scientifical... which is not the case. ;) --Kubrick 908 15:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, at various times historians, archaeologists, sociologists and economists have all claimed that what they do is science, or at least uses scientific methodology. –Joke 03:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Literature of science
I have tried to introduce this topic n this page. I plan to improve it in coming days. Any comments and editing is welcome.Charlie 07:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- I spruced it up a bit. Karol 22:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Economics of Science
I have tried to make the content of this pge a bit interdisciplinary. Any comments? Charlie 08:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Soil Science
I have added soil science. I have posted my views on the hierarchical placement of soil science on my user talk page. I have further stated them on my blog Paleorthid 18:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Section "The Scientific Method"
This section mentions nothing about computation. Consider:
"Now I am going to discuss how we would look for a new law. In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science."
- The Character of Physical Law, Richard Feynman, page 156
Scrapping scientific method section
I am cutting out the content added to the scientific method section. A separate article exists so that this section doesn't grow too big. I guess someone could scrap some material from this onto that page, if useful, although I notice some of the content overlaps and is contradictory... Karol 09:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
FIVE STEPS IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD 1. Observation: The scientific method starts with observations and descriptions of a phenomenon or group of phenomena. The scientist then raises a question about the observations. The question raised must have a concrete answer that can be obtained by performing an experiment. 2. Hypothesis: A hypothesis is an educated guess. It forms a feasible explanation for the phenomena. It will make a prediction as to the expected results if the hypothesis and other underlying assumptions and principles are true and an experiment is done to test that hypothesis. The hypothesis will many times describe a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation. 3. Testing: Experiments that are repeatable and confirmable will be developed to support the hypothesis. If results from the experiments disprove the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is ruled out. At times, the failure of an experiment may not disprove a hypothesis, but will itself have defects that need to be resolved. If the hypothesis holds up under an experiment, then the experiment becomes evidence that supports the hypothesis, but is not proof that the hypothesis is true. 4. Peer Review: Experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments will either support or discredit the hypothesis. 5. Conclusion: Based on the experiments conducted, a conclusion will be reached regarding the reliability and ramifications of the hypothesis. If sufficient experimental evidence supports a hypothesis to become generally accepted in the scientific community, then it either becomes a theory or modifies an existing theory. TERMINOLOGY RELATED TO THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD A theory is a generalization based on many observations and experiments; a well-tested, verified hypothesis that fits existing data and explains how processes or events are thought to occur. It is a basis for predicting future events or discoveries. Theories may be modified as new information is gained. This is in contrast to the common usage of the word that refers to ideas that have no firm proof or support. To say "the apple fell" is to state a fact, whereas Newton's theory of universal gravitation is a body of ideas that explain why the apple fell. Thus a multitude of falling objects are reduced to a few concepts or abstractions interacting according to a small set of laws, allowing a scientist to make predictions about the behaviour of falling objects in general. An especially fruitful theory that has withstood the test of time and has an overwhelming quantity of evidence supporting it is considered to be "proven" in the scientific sense. Some universally accepted models such as heliocentric theory, biological evolution, and atomic theory are so well-established that it is nearly impossible to imagine them ever being falsified. Others, such as relativity and electromagnetism have survived rigorous empirical testing without being contradicted, but it is nevertheless conceivable that they will some day be supplanted. Younger theories such as string theory may provide promising ideas, but have yet to receive the same level of scrutiny.
Astrology
I just reverted an edit that made one sentence read:
- Mathematical branches most often used in science include algebra, geometry, and trigonometry, interestingly, invented by astrologers.
I'm not sure what exactly this sentence claims astrologers invented, but none of the linked articles support that assertion. Many of the early roots of science go indeed back to philosophers (e.g. Thales, Pythagoras, Aristotle) and polymaths (e.g. Isaac Newton, Gottfried Leibniz) who dabbled in several fields at the same time. You could say (without lying) that the laws of gravity were discovered by an alchemist. At least when looking at ancient Greece, philosophers can claim many of these guys their own – except pretty much everything was philosophy then.
That said, if there is some solid evidence that whoever laid the foundations for a scientific field like trigonometry did it just to make better horoscopes, that deserves being pointed out in an encyclopedia, and it wouldn't be surprising at all. Some of humankind's most brilliant minds have conducted science of dubious merits at times, some because they were a tad crazy, some because it was much harder to recognize crackpot science without the benefit of hindsight.
So basically what I'm saying is: Write sentences that are not ambiguous. And source your claims. Well, duh. Algae 13:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)