Jump to content

Talk:Science/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Shut up and calculate

This phrase was popularized by N. David Mermin, who played a part in its misattribution to R.P. Feynman; such misattributions are the Matthew effect.[1] --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 17:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ N. David Mermin Physics Today 57, 5, 10 (2004) Could Feynman Have Said This?
But is it used as a synonym for instrumentalism? danielkueh (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics (QM) is more operationalism than instrumentalism.
Mermin's suggestion that we calculate, rather than posture, is a reminder for us to use the QM machinery (the equations) instead of qualitative theory to get probability amplitudes (say for the electronic configuration of the chemical bonds of a molecule). For me, it means I am better off to use pictorial renderings of (a mathematical model obtained from) calculation in order to communicate some argument. An animated model would communicate more of an argument's pros & cons to the interested parties.
(For many people, verbal statement of theoretical pros & cons of the stability of a material is just not as compelling as a working model of a solution.) --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 08:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Interesting. Thanks for the clarification. So it was in the wrong section to begin with. Also, appreciate the explanation. danielkueh (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Formal empiricism

There is disagreement, however, on whether the formal sciences actually constitute a science as they do not rely on empirical evidence.

This will be news to Stephen Wolfram as his book, A New Kind of Science (2002), is nothing if not formal empiricism.

Additionally, we now have computer chess championships where various competitors are bootstrapped on the 'zero' principle: nothing but the rules and machine learning due to self-play. 100% formal systems, and yet we still play the games because we can't predict the outcomes.

This was Wolfram's central point, and it would now be universally understood if only he hadn't buried his lead under that audacious, millstone title. — MaxEnt 02:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Fascinating. danielkueh (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

'Applied science' and 'Technology'

The main section (currently para 4) reads, 'Disciplines that use existing scientific knowledge for practical purposes, such as engineering and medicine, are described as applied sciences.'

I'm not at all sure this is correct, look at it like this. 'Disciplines that use the scientific method for practical purposes...' is probably more accurate. Take applied biology as an example, this does not just use existing scientific knowledge, it uses the scientific method to discover information on, say, the best levels of nitrogen in the soil to achieve the maximum production of a specific crop. The scientific method is used to increase knowledge in ways that will inform a practical purpose. That's applied science.

On the other hand, 'Disciplines that use existing scientific knowledge for practical purposes...' are technology, not applied science. (Though bear in mind that developing a new technology always requires applied science.)

Perhaps another example will help. The manufacture of Portland cement is a technology, follow the recipe and out comes cement, no new knowledge is required. Developing an improved type of cement is applied science and will lead to a new, improved recipe. That applied science will draw on existing knowledge on chemistry and the physics of crystal growth.

Applied science is science, applying existing knowledge on it's own is not.

I don't know if I'm making this properly clear; it's a subtle difference, but a rather fundamental and important one. I don't want to make any changes without leaving this note on the talk page first. Maybe we'll need to take a vote on it in order to decide if a change is needed, but at the moment I'm just looking for comment to see if there's a consensus.

Interesting point. Not disagreeing. We would have to scrutinize the current cited sources to see what they say. danielkueh (talk) 04:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Apologies - I forgot to sign my original thoughts above Chris Jefferies (talk) 08:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The first ref (Fischer and Fabry) is almost self-contradictory on this point. At one point they write, Medicine is an applied science that uses and combines insights from natural, life and social sciences for the benefit of the patient, and then later, Pure basic research is characterized by its primary goal of advancing scientific understanding of natural and social phenomena, regardless of its usefulness in one or more fields of practice. In contrast, pure applied research emphasizes the use of scientific knowledge without the aim of advancing theory building and understanding, and then, There is a second kind of scientific thinking that applies scientific concepts, methods and findings to achieve goals of problem solving in practice. The second statement uses a similar phrase to the Wikipedia article: applied research - use of knowledge. And the third statement mentions the application of scientific concepts and methods, not just knowledge.
I'm short of time right now, so can't continue until later. Thanks for your support and suggestion. Chris Jefferies (talk) 08:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the quote. I took a look at the third reference by Sinclair (2003), which I think is the most instructive of the four. In it, he mentions that the "difference between an applied science and a 'pure' science lies not in the method employed, but in the final goals of the activities (p. 360)." All four references appear to agree that the applied sciences use the "insights, reasoning skills, principles, and methods" of the pure sciences. In that respect, I don't think the current lead sentence is necessarily misleading per se, but it could be modified to be more precise. danielkueh (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
@Chris Jefferies & of course danielkueh, There are some clear projections by the applied scientists for nuclear fusion. The development is projected to begin to pay off in 2040, with multiple possible approaches.[1][2][3] Does it make sense to mention them in a link to Big science? Or just hold off? There are clear projections of results versus cash expenses going forward. The projects are on a global scale. It will take all nations. I mention ITER for example.[4] This is not pressing; We've got 20 years. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 22:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
@Ancheta Wis: I don't see why not. It would be interesting. danielkueh (talk) 23:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Nick Lavars (3 Apr 2021) Four ways to fusion: The pros and pitfalls of our nuclear power pursuit
  2. ^ Carol A. Clark (13 May 2020) General Atomics Makes Advancement In Physics Understanding … Key Step Toward Practical Fusion Energy
  3. ^ Caroline Delbert (5 Apr 2021) This Is the First Fusion Power Plant to Generate Net Electricity
  4. ^ Nuclear Engineering International (10 Nov 2020) General Atomics wins ITER contract

Regarding the addition of deductive

My addition of "valid deductive" was reverted by Danielkueh for the following reason.

Unnecessarily wordy and redundant (See wikilink for testability). Plus, it appears to excludes inductive reasoning


The thing is:

1) It's not unnecessary, since science is about making statements its important to classify what kind of statements are they.

2) In testability it doesn't distinguish it

3) So the final statements that scientists make aren't inductive, they may use induction to formulate a hypothesis but the final statements they make are deductive.


For example:


For the hypothesis they may do this kind of induction:

We've seen 50 swans all of them are black -> All swans are black


But their final conclusions are always deductive:

Is swan -> is black.

--Uni3993 (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Uni3993:, here are my responses to your questions above:
  1. Yes, and the key ingredient here is that they be testable. If you're going to add unnecessary verbiage, then why stop there? Why not include the following: readable, understandable, experimented, analyzed, preferably quantitative, replicable, peer-reviewed, data-driven, statistically significant, preferably real-world (or empirical) but mathematical models or simulations are also ok, published, thoughtful, etc.
  2. What are you talking about? The testability article makes clear that "a hypothesis is testable if there is a possibility of deciding whether it is true or false based on experimentation."
  3. Not true. There are two issues here. First, you're assuming that all scientific knowledge is created using a standard cookie cutter approach called the scientific method (Question > Hypothesis > Experiment > etc). Unfortunately, that is not the case. Two, it is not just the final conclusion that matters or is scientific. It is every step of the way, from the conception of the problem to experimentation to data analysis. Every step of that process is science.
Finally, you need to provide reliable sources (wp:rs). Every once in a while, someone comes in here with an opinion or an assertion as to what they think science or should not be. That's fine, but without reliable sources that we all can independently verify, there is really nothing to discuss or to build on. danielkueh (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

We're a bit heavy on pics and stories of dead white men

To explain the basis for a few edits I'm going to be making and stuff to consider going forward: We're currently framing science in terms of the stories of dead white men, which is accurate but not helpful. It makes science seem both dead and also a story that "belongs" to European white males. We obviously shouldn't apply a false equity lens, but we should focus more on the universal importance of scientific theories and less on who first figured those theories out. Efbrazil (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

"which is accurate but not helpful" is a contradiction. The history of science was disproportionally influenced by European white men. That's a fact, and simply reflects that society in the 17th-20th century, when huge advances in science have been made, favoured European men being in positions of scientific power. Which is way different than saying the story "belongs" to European white men. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Point just being one of focus. Should the article on science be all pictures of dead people or should it feature images that convey scientific information? I'm just arguing we need to shift towards the latter. Efbrazil (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I think we need some perspective here before proceeding to make large changes. Science is not just a type of knowledge. It is also a process, one that is driven by the creativity and ingenuity of scientists. So it is perfectly natural, inevitable even, to mention these scientists and their contributions. Right now, there are twenty five pictures in this article. Only ten of them depict scientists/philosophers. So it is not "all pictures of dead people." Many of the scientists/philosophers mentioned or shown are household names (e.g., Darwin, Newton, Einstein, Aristotle, etc.) that are often used synonymously with the ideas that they formulated (e.g., Newtonian physics, Darwinian evolution, pasteurization, etc). As Headbomb pointed out earlier, these scientists made tremendous contributions during a time that was very different from our own. So to dismiss them all as nothing more than just "dead White men" is somewhat unfair and diminishes their contributions and who they were as individuals. danielkueh (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe that wasn't a delicate way to say it, but I still think we need to shift focus. For instance, instead of showing a picture of a guy, show a drawing they made of their discovery. That way we're representing the discovery and giving them credit, rather than showing what the person happened to look like. Efbrazil (talk) 20:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
In general, I am open to changes on a case-by-case basis provided that the new images add more value than the previous ones such by being more educational, are of higher quality, or helps illustrate the text better. I would not be in favor of purging images of scientists/philosophers just to conceal their demographic identity. That would be unacceptable. danielkueh (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Another tack might be to depict the discoverers sympathetically: for example, Newton's view of himself on the seashore of the Ocean of Truth, or Humphrey Davy likening a candle to a life, or Darwin's dad showing how plants have sex lives, or Aristotle and Theophrastus discovering the octopuses in the lagoon on Lesbos, or Ibn al-Haytham measuring the straightness of light rays using the glimmers from dust particles in the rooms of Iraq, or Brouwer discovering the method of the Creating Subject in intuitionistic mathematics, or Semmelweis learning the need for prophylaxis from midwives, or Kepler viewing an eclipse indirectly, by projecting its image out of a pinhole onto a sheet of paper, or Galileo measuring the period of a pendulum with his pulse, and so forth. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 21:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I see that since user Efbrazil's comments, the article has largely been purged of images of dead white men. We know thanks to observation (science) that the color of one's skin is not a reflection of the content of one's character (or intelligence or inquisitiveness, or perspicacity etc etc). Why does the color of their skin matter? It played no role in their discoveries. Supressing images based on skin color sets a bad precedent. Anastrophe (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Anastrophe: I agree that the demographic identity of the scientists should not be a factor. That said, the changes made by EfBrazil and Ancheta Wis were done individually, and they appear to add more value in terms of being more educational. Hence, I have no objections to these changes. Plus, the WP article on Scientist have similar images. A bit of differentiation between the two articles [science (systematic enterprise and knowledge) vs scientist (practitioner)] may not be a bad thing. However, if you feel that portraits of certain scientists/philosophers should be restored, by all means, feel free to discuss them. danielkueh (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding a concept to the lead

Currently, in the lead, the social sciences study "individuals and societies"; I propose "individuals, institutions, and societies". OK? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 11:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. Not true of all social sciences (e.g., psychology, linguistics) danielkueh (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Based on the encyclopedia article,
  • Some linguistic institutions:
    1. a mora is a subunit of a syllable, whose usage is learned from infancy
    2. a tone is a way to distinguish or disambiguate meaning based on the pitch of a syllable
    3. click consonants do not exist in some languages
  • Some psychological institutions:
    1. Guilt versus shame versus face are conveyed quite differently based on nation or culture
    2. Training can materially influence effective/dysfunctional behavior
  • Some mathematical institutions:
    1. Proof
    2. Intuitionism
--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 19:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
With all due respect, none of this proves anything. There needs to be reliable sources that explicitly define social science as the study of institutions. So far, I’ve not found any. danielkueh (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
I did a quick Google search and this what I have found so far:
  • Investopedia [1]
”Social sciences are a group of academic disciplines dedicated to examining society. This branch of science studies how people interact with each other, behave, develop as a culture, and influence the world.”
  • Britannica Encyclopedia [2]
”Social science, any branch of academic study or science that deals with human behaviour in its social and cultural aspects.”
  • UK Research and Innovation [3]
”Social science is, in its broadest sense, the study of society and the manner in which people behave and influence the world around us.”
  • Merrill-Webster [4]
”a branch of science that deals with the institutions and functioning of human society and with the interpersonal relationships of individuals as members of society”
”a science (such as economics or political science) dealing with a particular phase or aspect of human society”
  • Colander and Hunt (2019) [5]
"Social science is the name given to our knowledge about the nature, growth, and functioning of human society"
As you can see, with one exception, none of the other definitions mentions the word institution. danielkueh (talk) 19:51, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Aristotle, really?

We have in the article "The scientific method originated with Aristotle's idea that knowledge came from careful observation, and was brought into modern form by Galileo's collection of empirical evidence".

Okay, I understand that some authors have a very high opinion of Aristotle, but he believed that men have more teeth than women. This invalidates the idea that we need to observe nature to learn about it, which is the basis of science.

It would be scientific for editors to exercise their discretion and downgrade Aristotle's contributions to science. If there are other examples of Aristotle forming and testing theories based on precise observations (not vague generalizations about human nature), then I can change my mind.

His physics was simply awful. It is impossible that any of this physics would have been validated by precise observations. If anything his physics is a great example of pseudo-science, with lots of speculation without bothering to any sort of experimentation.

Galileo + ancient mathematicians like Pythagorus, Euclid, Aryabhata etc. are pretty much the starting point of science.

JS (talk) 02:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Provide reliable sources and propose text on this page, with citations.
John von Neumann (1956) noted that even after Aristotle's musings, "natural science took 1000 years to get anywhere" (von Neumann, Collected Works 6 p.101).--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 04:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Not something I want to spend time on, rather something for editors to consider and make changes if they deem fit. Aristotle was simply awful when it came to science. The description of Aristotle's Physics in the Wiki article is "To Aristotle, 'physics' was a broad field that included subjects that would now be called the philosophy of mind, sensory experience, memory, anatomy and biology. It constitutes the foundation of the thought underlying many of his works." That is really very bad as far as real science goes. It is just the sort of speculative thinking that is a hindrance to real science. I am not aware of one single actual scientific achievement of Aristotle (not just "musings"), if someone supplies examples I will be happy to change my mind. JS (talk) 05:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Congratulations on espousing viewpoints from the Age of Enlightenment. This is a historical article, and prior to the Age of Enlightenment, Aristotle was a big shot. Not so much after. The article reflects this. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
If this is a "historical" article rather than an "Age of Enlightenment" then the first line of the article should be changed. It currently reads "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." This is pretty much description of the kind of science that Aristotle fails. JS (talk) 04:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Fun fact, protoscience isn't science. However, it did lead to science. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
I would say that "protoscience" (if that was what Aristotle was doing) didn't lead to science, rather scientists like Galileo had to overcome "protoscience" to get to science. You may remember that Aristotle was much respected by the Catholic Church which threatened Galileo if he didn't stop publicizing his scientific beliefs. Anyway, if "protoscience" differs from science, then Aristotle should be not be given such prominence in this article which is about science and not "protoscience". I am not arguing that Aristotle didn't make respectable intellectual contributions, for example his logic, but unless I am provided evidence to the contrary I will keep believing that Aristotle shouldn't be considered a major figure in the development of science. JS (talk) 06:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Greek conceptions

Saying that new ideas and discoveries completely departed from the Ancient Greek conceptions is false. That's how it looks like at least. (which was later transformed by the Scientific Revolution that began in the 16th century as new ideas and discoveries departed from previous Greek conceptions and traditions). Mathematics, Astronomy, Medicine and tons of others branches of science which the Greeks started (or at least made better) for example we talk about Galen when it comes to medicine, but not about Hippocrates. We still use his methods. We talk about mathematics when Galileo himself called Archimedes his master, and we still learn everything about Euclidean geometry/and the other great Greek mathematicians. We talk about astronomy when Kepler himself called Pythagoras the grandfather of all Copernicans. We talk about astronomy when Copernicus was influenced by Aristarchus' heliocentric model. We talk about Newton when his studies were based on Aristotle and was certainly influenced by him a lot (Although Newton is a beast and made completely new things, but I think you know how I mean it). I just point out these 3 because I think that they're core of the scientific revolution. Adding many would be much better. I'm sure you didn't want to mean "all" or whatever, but im repeating, that's how it looks like. Holloman123 (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

See H. Floris Cohen (2010) How modern science came into the world: four civilizations, one 17th century breakthrough ISBN 9789089642394 . H. Floris Cohen is a Dutchman and historiographer. He might serve as a secondary or tertiary source for the article. He also wrote (1994) The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry. The 1994 book started with 60 ideas which he reviewed for their influence on Scientific Revolutions. Its last chapter served as the basis for his 2010 book, which he began in 1994. There are multiple sources for science, and the Greeks were only a part of the story. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 16:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I never said the opposite. What you replied has nothing to do with my basic statement sir (that science never got completely departed from Greek conceptions). Thanks. Holloman123 (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
@Holloman123: We're talking about new ideas and discoveries. When we say depart, we mean to move away or to deviate [6]. No comment is made on "how much" deviation there was. The problem is if you were to add many, then you're implying that at least one or some "new" ideas/discoveries (e.g., heliocentrism, scientific method, Boyle's Law) did not depart from earlier Greek conceptions (e.g., Geocentric model, Classical elements)? That's a different issue entirely from the one you raise, which is "they deviated but not completely." You see the difference here? danielkueh (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Alright. I understand the difference of the deviation you are referring to here, (even tho I still have some notes, but anyway). You can delete this section if you wish. Cheers. Holloman123 (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2021

Citation [109] refers to a web archive and a dead link. The dead link has now been redirected to a new unrelated site using 301. The original source can no longer be accessed anywhere on the web because of the redirect. It is causing confusion and it appears to be a spammy practice. HarrisonFisher1982 (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Link_rot/URL_change_requests#seedmagazine.com_-_defunct_site_with_unexpected_link_redirects. Melmann 19:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2021 (2)

From:

Each of these branches comprises various specialized yet overlapping scientific disciplines that often possess their own nomenclature and expertise.[1]

To:

Each of these branches comprises various specialized yet overlapping scientific disciplines that often possess their own nomenclature and expertise.[2] HarrisonFisher1982 (talk) 12:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: I have requested that these links be mass fixed. See Wikipedia:Link_rot/URL_change_requests#seedmagazine.com_-_defunct_site_with_unexpected_link_redirects. Please avoid taking action on this until the request is dealt with there. Melmann 19:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Scientific Method: Relationships Among Scientific Paradigms". Seed Magazine. March 7, 2007. Archived from the original on November 1, 2016. Retrieved November 4, 2016.
  2. ^ Archived November 1, 2016, at the Wayback Machine
 Note: Links to old Seed Magazine's website have been cleaned up sitewide by GreenC. Melmann 21:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Science in India is missing

In this article, there is absolutely no mention of scientific achievements in India. There is another article for scientific achievements of India- but this article should have at least the major scientific achievements of India in brief- to present a neutral view. I once added scientific achievements in India with sources but somebody deleted it and said that it was "fringe". Subhobrata Chakravorti (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

This article currently has no specific sections about any national achievements because it's topic is the current western science which is now globally "science". It is not meant to be a collection of achievements. The historical sections therefore tend to focus only on "achievements" in as far as they were leading towards that type of science which we all use today. This does raise concerns sometimes, but are there specific achievements you think were important in leading to science as it exists today? I am not sure it makes sense to just insert sentences saying "India is notable".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Well Aryabhatta is quite an important figure when it comes to astronomy. 223.184.77.204 (talk) 12:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC) Jain theory is also of great importance in the history of progress of mathematics in our country. Jains like Vedic scholars. The motivation to study mathematics did not come from performing religious rituals, as the Jains had a strong hatred of religious practices. His inspiration was a deep practice about the universe. The Jains made maps of the universe on a large scale where mathematics was closely related. In Jain philosophy also, in many cases, mathematical discussion is reflected. Particular attention was paid to early Jain studies (5th century BC to 2nd century AD) geometry of circles, arithmetic, permutations and a large number of 10, 978 pics classifications (infinite) 978 pics (infinite as understood by many). could have).

Like the customs formula in the middle of the first millennium BC, the Jains also realized that the ratio of circumference and diameter is not 3. In a work from the 4th century BCE, Suryapragyapati, the author of a Jain text, revised the traditional value of this ratio to 3 and proposed a square root of 10 as the new standard, which is much closer to the actual value. This value of the ratio of circumference to diameter has long been influential in India and was often referred to as the 'Jain standard'. This 'Jain value' has been in use for a long time even after Aryabhata introduced the famous value '3.1416' of this ratio. There are also some unique formulas in Jain texts, such as the formula for expressing a circular arc with its corresponding chord and its height over the chord, and finding the area of ​​a circle and its two chords. formula to do. Although the method of determining the exact value of the zodiac has been discovered at this time since the advent of calculus, how ancient Jaina scholars spoke of all these sutras that are very close to the next standard is still unknown. The subject of research.

There is a citation needed in history of optics#Early history; perhaps you might be able to provide one for light as one of the tanmatras of the Samkhya or Vaisheshika schools. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 10:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I think the challenge is to state (properly sourced) in what way important Indian contributions actually fed into what can be considered modern mainstream science. E.g., if zero entered mathematics through India, then all Indian maths that led to the discovery/invention of zero did in fact feed into modern mainstream science. Similarly, cases may be made for other things - and they should be made, I believe.--Nø (talk) 12:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Science

"Science is a system that organizes and orders knowledge through verifiable questions and a structured method that studies and interprets natural, social and artificial phenomena" or at least that is what wikipedia says in other languages, for example wikipedia in Spanish, I thought science was a universal concept, I would like it to be revised again Hastengeims (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The current lead is well-sourced and has been discussed extensively (see archive [7]). Also, we don't rely on other WP pages as references (see WP:UGC), regardless of the language. danielkueh (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I have a question, what is a systematic enterprise in this context? Hastengeims (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
An enterprise is a project, undertaking, or venture, usually a complicated or risky one.([8],[9]) danielkueh (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

oh I understand, I was confused because in my language enterprise is just a business (activity in order to have an economic benefit) but now I see that it is only a translation dilemma Hastengeims (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

obviously science does not seek economic benefit as the ultimate goal, and that is why it seemed strange to me before but now I see it from another perspective on the meaning in English Hastengeims (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 March 2021 and 4 June 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shady2021.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Science no longer goes to philosophy?

if you were familiar with the phenomenon of the first link of every page going back to philosophy, it's broken now. Is science a self-referential subject, or is it based on philosophy? 88.252.199.156 (talk) 09:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The word philosophy appears 72 times in this article. I'm not sure why you think it's a 'self-referential subject', whatever that means. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
While the "get to Philosophy" thing was always more of a quirk of Wikipedia than an actual goal, and I'm not sure what the original user was talking about, the chain here seems to have been broken by preceding the link to Knowledge with one to the scientific method via a disguised link in the word "builds." It seems out of place and possibly done specifically to stop the Philosophy thing rather than as an actual improvement to the article. I think it would be better to remove the link and more explicitly describe the scientific method elsewhere in the article if the current state is unsatisfactory- edits done solely to break the Philosophy thing are just as unproductive as edits done solely to continue it. Thoughts? Hi529 (talk) 07:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Regardless of the philosophy quirk, the current link to the scientific method in "builds" seems unhelpful, and it is already well-covered and linked to in both the lead section, and in the rest of the article. I'll remove it. Thrownfootfalls (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Etymology

@Rima:, per WP:BRD, we have a process for resolving issues of this kind. Instead of re-reverting, please discuss it here first. Gain consensus from the other editors, and then make changes. Thank you. danielkueh (talk) 18:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The giant plan to track diversity in research journals

Hi, I think this is worthy to mention on Wikipedia. But Iḿ not sure in what section. Should we create a section "people of colours in academia" in this article (as women)? https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00426-7 Karlaz1 (talk) 10:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

This Nature news article was just published today (February 23). Much too early to claim noteworthiness for inclusion. Also see WP:NOTNEWS danielkueh (talk) 13:09, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Bacon's New Organon

Bacon predated a mechanistic view of the universe. It's a stretch to seek a citation for that view from Bacon. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 07:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Ancheta Wis, I found that (as always) the ancient Greeks has thought of that before, though slightly different in that the world is deterministic. Maybe we can copy citations from the article too. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Good article

This article has a lot of potential to get the coveted status. Information is cited, in due proportions, and neutral, as well as tackling the subject directly. What do you think is still missing? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, after looking at the article, it is not true... Lots of uncited statements and original research. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to improving the article but I disagree with removing the citations from the lead.[10] The lead has been a frequent target for inserting unsubstantiated claims. Having citations helps maintain stability and keeps unsourced statements out. danielkueh (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Danielkueh, thanks for pointing it out :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
About the {{globalize}} tag, I found that the Chinese and social sciences' discoveries were rarely mentioned. Also in the 20th and 21st century sections, there are little talks about globalization of science in general. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
If India and China are to be included in the earlier timeline (which I don't think is necessary), then at the very least, it should be organized similarly to the History of Science article and not be given too much undue weight. My fear about such inclusions is that it often invites editors with a more patriotic or nationalistic bent to demand that their countries or civilizations be represented, regardless of whether their contributions are recognized as part of modern day science. Globalization of science is certainly an interesting trend. I myself haven't given it much thought. Which sources do you think would serve as good references for such a section or expansion? danielkueh (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Here a few resources that I can find:
Unfortunately I don't have access to these books, though I'll try my best to get them using "covert" means. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Very interesting. Thanks for sharing. Too bad WP:LIB doesn't provide access to them. danielkueh (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
These sources also highlight the need to mention Big science. danielkueh (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
I haven't knew that that topic existed. The scale of experiments certainly get bigger and bigger over time. We can take the sources from the article itself then. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes, especially in the 20th century. This book by Bowler and Morus touches on that.[11] danielkueh (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Ancheta Wis, thanks for adding citations and copyediting the article, I wish that I've access to these resources that you'd cited. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm still adding sources,such as al-Biruni. Feel free to add more. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 05:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm working on the "Awards" and "Education" section as it is pretty easy to add content :) Anyways, thanks again for your help. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:04, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
You are welcome. If I need to, I'll jump in again. Thank you for working on those sections. (What we are doing reminds me of the early days of the encyclopedia, when we all worked together) --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 06:10, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

al-Biruni

al-Biruni was the first sociologist; by chronicling al-Hind he laid bare its narratives. I learned of him when studying Alhazen (where I found a scholar who spent 40 years of his life on Alhazen). I have the sense that there is a similar scholar for al-Biruni. Is that what you seek? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 06:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

al-Biruni India pp 265, 278, 281 seems to strike more familiar, palatable ground when he discusses Hindu astronomy: the earth is a globe with land in the northern hemisphere, and a southern ocean. He relates the geographic features, and the peoples who inhabit the earth viz. the Greeks, Romans, Slav[onian]s, Turks, Zanj, Chinese, Hindus, and so forth, with their gods, their units of weight, distance, etc. He gives the Hindi value for pi to one or two decimal places.

The motion of the earth is an unsolved issue for him, especially the scope of gravitation.

Pliny

Pliny and al-Biruni are akin in their credulity. Al-Biruni appears to include the obvious fables as side-entertainment. There are truths and fables mixed together in their narratives, which appear to depend on sources which are not vetted. Neither seem to have separated science from magic, which even Kepler did not disavow. Al-Biruni bemoans India's plethora of names for the same thing, al-Biruni attempts to disambiguate with lists and tables.

--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

More measured approach needed

@CactiStaccingCrane: While the effort to clean up this article is very much appreciated, the approach taken needs to be more measured. A lot of content has been cut, with some sections being too watered down and no longer reflective of the richness and complexity of science. Please allow other editors time to review and weigh in. Thanks. danielkueh (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I should have been more cautious about deleting content. Thanks for remind me this. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Needed some grammar fixes. Careful, please. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 02:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

BRD: Hatnotes

User:Danielkueh: You are right about hatnotes not being used in a lot of FA articles. However, they don't have to adhere to the summary style like science because the articles' scope is not nearly as broad. The situation where you need ten headers like you said in the summary is purely hypothetical and not what the summary style meant, you couldn't conceivably summarize ten ideas in one section (I think you may refer to an older version of the article, which hatnote placement made me yuck). Also, in my opinion, (good placement of) hatnotes look nice and are useful both readers and future editors when they want to look up what article we have summarized. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Whether they look nice or not, I suppose, is a matter of taste. Personally, I'm not fan of them unless they serve a particular function as intended (e.g., disambiguation). And if you're accessing Wikipedia from a mobile device, it means more unnecessary lines to scroll through. In response to your other comments:
  • Broad is relative. But since you mentioned it, here are other broader counter examples (e.g., wind, virus).
  • The scenario I gave is hypothetical but not implausible. Suppose we were to expand the natural science section by adding four additional paragraphs, each covering one of the four natural sciences (physics, chemistry, astronomy, and earth science) in a little more detail. Should we then list all four natural sciences as main articles in a hatnote, like in this example (Science#Applied)?
  • I concede that the previous version of this article is not ideal, but at least many of the hatnotes pointed to articles that would otherwise not be wikilinked (e.g., Outline of natural science) or that is somewhat different but still related. Thus, they were not redundant and actually served a useful function.
  • As for looking up information that has been summarized, future readers and editors can do so by clicking on the wikilink in the first (or any) sentence like they normally would. What am I missing?
danielkueh (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree with all of your points. We can make a compromise: if a link can be integrated naturally to an article, then the section does not need a hatnote. However, if it is awkward to integrate like in this section, then a hatnote should be used. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Sure, that's a good example as the linked section is a list of accomplishments, which is not easily wikilinked. Cheers. danielkueh (talk) 04:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Done. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Readability

Checking at [12], the article has a very low readability score. I think this is because a lot of sentences are long and the article uses a lot of jargons. What should be done about it? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Nothing. That score is meaningless but typical of many science articles, even featured ones (e.g., evolution, general relativity, bacteria). It doesn’t tell us which parts are difficult and why. Saying it is hard due to “jargon” is like saying French or Japanese is hard because it has foreign words. danielkueh (talk) 10:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't agree with your view on the readability score, but it's just a matter of opinion. However, about jargon, it is not reasonable to expect readers to understand complicated words, as most of our readers are not scientists or even savvy about science. Per Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable#Avoid overly technical language Explain technical terms and expand acronyms when they are first used, we should at least explain what the word means. For example: [...] both by challenging long-held metaphysical ideas on perception [...] – what does metaphysical mean? Yes, the reader can click on the link to know what does it mean, but it would be better to just explain what is it on the fly. Readers (especially those read in print) shouldn't be expected to click on links all the time. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to providing explanations. If that's the solution, then by all means, do so. I'm just opposed to "dumbing it down." That's what "Simple English Wikipedia" is for.[13] danielkueh (talk) 11:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Components of Scientific Knowledge

There are no direct references to components of scientific knowledge even though some individual components are mentioned in the scientific method of the wiki page on science. The components that I have in mind are (scientific) theories, scientific models, experiments and physical situation (or reality). Scientific modelling is not mentioned in the scientific method. Experiments and scientific theories in the scientific method section do not have the link to wiki pages of experiment and scientific theory. I think it would be good to put these links and mention scientific modelling in the scientific method. You can also say that the scientific method is a kind of scientific study which involves scientific theories, scientific modelling, experiments and reality so that the reader knows what does scientific knowledge consists of. Acdc250 (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

It's important to give the scope of this discussion: the amount of arbitrariness in (scientific) theories, scientific models, experiments and physical situation (or reality) needs to be stated, case by case, in each discussion section (we need to somehow delimit those '(scientific) theories, scientific models, experiments and physical situation (or reality)' in order to serve the reader well). What pops out for me, for example, in the relationship between thermodynamics and statistical mechanics is: what is the system?. Thus Boltzmann's equation is for a specific system (the molecules of a gas), and not systems in general. So there is a combinatoric issue in our (meaning our readership's) understanding that does not serve the article well, if we want to keep the article understandable and concise.
I have a little book (Sander Bais (2005) The Equations: Icons of knowledge, Amsterdam University Press, 96 pages) that surveys about 15 equations that might be the level that you have in mind; might that be the level that you mean for the article? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 06:33, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I am thinking might the science wiki page has a paragraph on the components of scientific knowledge. For each component type, I am just thinking of giving 2 or 3 well known examples rather than an exhaustive list of cases. For instance, the scientific theory can give Newton's law of motion and cell theory as examples listing the laws or principles of these theories. I am trying to give an idea to the reader what the scientific knowledge looks like. Indeed, some of these examples may involve mathematical equations like general relativity. Then, we may have links to those wiki pages for the specific scientific theories if the reader wants to explore further. So, the paragraph that I am thinking of is just a short summary of a few examples of each component type with links to wiki pages for explorations. I think this would help the reader who does not have the science background to quickly appreciate what scientific knowledge looks like. Acdc250 (talk) 13:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Reproducibility or Reliability in experiments?

In the scientific method section, it suggests that experiments are supposed to be reproducible, replicable, etc. It even proposes that reproducibility as a principle. According to Luk (2017) on A theory of scientific study, scientists are only concerned with the reliability of the experiments and reproducibility is only one form of reliability. If we require only reproducibility, according to Cleland (2001) on Historical science, experimental science and the scientific method, we will be excluding the entire chunk of science called historical science of which the Big Bang theory, the evolution theory, etc. are good examples. Should we emphasize reliability of the experiments instead of reproducibility in the scientific method section? Acdc250 (talk) 13:22, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a good point. Experiments that demonstrate a phenomenon need to be replicable, but demonstrations of a phenomenon are not the only kind of conclusion of scientific research. Forensic science is an example of where a scientific process informed by replicable experiments reaches conclusions about specific historical events. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The main page image

I don't think the image (the chronology "graph" is terrible on its own, worse as an icon) captures the icon of science. I would like to see a collage that contains physical actual science, not a graph that is incomplete and describes one of many sciences. When I hover over science, I think, that is out of place - it is not clear what it is. I am not suggesting have an atom with orbits, which would be tacky, I am hoping anyone can think of a better one and boldly put it there, and will have my support. Beakers, telescopes, no. But, someone using them, and suggestions would help. When I think about it, anything but this item which I think is a failure. AggiesNeverLie (talk) 03:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

AggiesNeverLie, the current image is like energy's past image. While it is technically correct, it does not illustrate the problem. I tried to mitigate this by adding in caption how could we have the info to make such timeline (a result from science and obtained knowledge), but this's certainly not ideal. Here's my proposals:
  1. Scientific instruments (worst, due to various reasons)
  2. People doing science (best if done right)
  3. Scientific method's image (bad, duplicate)
  4. No image (bad)
  5. Some old figures doing science (ok, but there must be two images of West and East to counter systematic bias)
  6. A scientific paper (better if done right)
  7. A timeline (bad)
What do you think? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 12:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Following #2, #5, #6 above, I propose a collage of images from the Wu experiment (1956-1957) which confirmed the overthrow of the conservation of parity. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Be bold and do it :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
This needs further discussion. If we were to choose an image, it needs to be broadly representative of science, i.e., the ideas and practice of science. And no, it is not mandatory that we have images of “East and West,” whatever that means. This article is about science, not identity. Stick to the topic. danielkueh (talk) 02:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Comment: the current image is not meant to describe “one of many sciences.” It is there to illustrate the “universe,” which represents the totality of EVERYTHING that can be studied scientifically, consistent with the lead definition. I agree it’s not perfect and is meant to be temporary as the previous image was considered wp:or. Maybe a collage might be better. But context for why the current image is used matters. danielkueh (talk) 02:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

It may be helpful to personalize Chien-Shiung Wu. Her name is Americanized, with Wu, her family name, in the traditional position for the last name, in American style ('Chien-Shiung' includes her generation name as well as her first name in middle position). Wu was on a 2021 'Forever' postage stamp in the US; she is not an obscure scientist, but was well-known in the 1940s, '50s, '60s, finally awarded the Wolf Prize in 1978. She had sons, so she would come home in Manhattan from the lab at Columbia University to a sinkful of dirty dishes (housework not being a boy's role in that era). She said
"If there is anything worse than coming home from the lab to a sinkful of dirty dishes, it's not getting to the lab at all".
The 1957 Nobel Prize in Physics eluded Wu, but her experimental work was essential for the award.
How about rotating the images from the Wu experiment in lieu of a collage? Or ask an editor to assemble one? Or just use the 'Forever stamp'? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
I’m sure Wu is accomplished and notable. But so are many other scientists. Other than personal preference and/or some random criteria set by a WP editor, it’s not clear to me why she deserves the spotlight and not other scientists who are much more notable, recognizable, and accomplished. The way to resolve this issue is to go with how science is generally portrayed or presented in reputable sources. danielkueh (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Then what do you mean by how science is generally portrayed or presented in reputable sources? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Exactly what those words mean. Let me put it to you simply. If I were to flip to the opening pages of any reputable source on science, will I see images and descriptions of Wu and/or her experiments as first examples to describe science?!?! Probably not. Ok, then what/who do they use instead? Once that’s figured out, we will then use those same examples here, consistent with those sources. Kapeesh? danielkueh (talk) 07:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Alright, interesting... I was originally thinking about images in textbook cover stuff, which usually only there to please the eye. Thanks a lot for the clarification. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 07:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
It could be those too. And I suspect the authors of those book have struggled with similar questions such as this. Hence, the generic images on those covers. My point is, as long as we can justify our selection(s) by being able to point to examples used in various sources, then we’re in the clear. danielkueh (talk) 07:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it is also appropriate to start talking about improving the article's lead, as Lee Vilenski has highlighted on Vital article's talk page. History of science takes up way too much space, and there is almost no mention of scientific researches, philosophy of science, and more. What do you think? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

I’m opposed to watering down the history section of the lead further. It’s already watered down to the bare essentials. Plus, science builds on previous knowledge. Anyone who has done science would know that. This version of the lead is the most stable. Previous versions were frequent targets for unsourced claims. I’m open to seeing proposed changes on this talk page. I am vehemently opposed to bold changes without thoughtful discussion and consensus. danielkueh (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2022

Grammar issues

"development of antibiotics and artificial fertilizers have improve human standard of living globally." -> ""development of antibiotics and artificial fertilizers improved human living standards globally."

"During the period, science experiment became increasingly larger in scale and funding." -> "During the period, scientific experimentation increased greatly in scale and funding."

"The extensive technological innovation stimulated by ~~the~~ World War I" JoJoJet (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done (with a few minor changes). Aidan9382 (talk) 06:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

The not a forum tag isn't a vehicle for enforcing your pov.

The editors on this article keep removing valid objectiond and do not tolerate dissenting points of view.(inspite of their privilege on locking the page) 109.245.35.35 (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

What improvements do you suggest should be made to the article.? Graham Beards (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I would actually like to either purge a whole lot of nonsense in the texy or rewrite the whole article, (especially the first sentence) but i'm not enough od an expert to do that. I would however at least insert "demonstrable" or "provable" next to "testable", because it is a orthodox addition. At the very least i would change the very firsy sentence because it is in very bad taste because it excludes mathematics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.245.35.35 (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Saying the sentence is "in very bad taste because it excludes mathematics" is ridiculous. It's not immoral, salacious or rude; it's just an omission (in your view). I think the sentence does include mathematics because a mathematical proof is a test of the accuracy of an hypothesis. "Demonstrable" and "provable" are synonyms in this context. Graham Beards (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not in good sense because mathematics is a proven science. It's in bad taste to doubt it because mathematical truths are very plain and obvious. I do think it's a serious omission and i don't think your next objection is obvious to anyone else other than you.(a mathematical theorem is proven and a physical one is tested, it's a difference in method)(a mathematician tests only in an unusual extended sense of the word, not in any real sense) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.245.35.35 (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Mathematics isn't an empirical science, it is a liberal art. That's why people usually get Master of Arts after studying mathematics. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Either way.. this /isn't/ a forum.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.245.35.35 (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
It's a matter of WP:SCOPE: does science mean empirical science or includes liberal arts? tgeorgescu (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
This is ironic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.245.35.35 (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
I don't have to answer my own question. The Wikipedia Community has to answer it. The WP:SCOPE of this article is something upon which reasonable people may disagree. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2022

Under the section History > 21st Century: “The first induced pluripotent human stem cells were made in 2006, allowing adult cells *into* be transformed into stem cells and turn *to* any cell type found in the body.”

I believe the sentence would make more sense if the “into” and “to” swapped places to become: “The first induced pluripotent human stem cells were made in 2006, allowing adult cells to be transformed into stem cells and turn into any cell type found in the body.” Cleyej (talk) 13:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Oceanic plates and continental plates

None 222.127.53.187 (talk) 02:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

It is not clear what you mean. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:46, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Science

what are the uses of different mixtures? 2001:4455:644:D700:6C7C:DAB1:7E3D:33FB (talk) 01:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

We cannot make heads or tails of what you wrote. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Scientific method

Should add a brief overview of the scientific method to the lead, perhaps the first paragraph DFlhb (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Anti-science attitudes

Gross error in judgment here. The issues presented and the statements of attitude are entirely valid value judgments. It is in fact the case for most people that Covid 19 is not a major threat and similarly it is a personal value judgment how you consider AGW (once you acknowledge it as a fact and its likely cause). The intended purpose would be better served by reference to beliefs which are not in the nature of value judgements consistent with science such as denial of evolution, AGW as a fact, or various religious beliefs which are generally protected from scrutiny. What's there now comes across as a statement of woke scientism. 98.4.112.204 (talk) 08:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

"various religious beliefs which are generally protected from scrutiny"
There is no such protection, neither on Wikipedia, nor in life. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Maybe not in wikipedia, but in real life there certainly are such protections ranging from freedom of religion (as in the USA for example) to established religion which has an entire major world cultural division named after one. It's true the 'nor in life' part will have eventual application but this is not yet that time. Humanity is just, on the whole, not there yet. Which is why this slanted and obvious mischaracterization of legitimate value judgements is particularly harmful. Lycurgus (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Freedom of religion does not mean freedom from scrutiny. You can have the religious belief that peanut butter does not exist, but that doesn't mean peanut butter's existence cannot be scrutinized. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Note: 'AGW' is anthropogenic global warming. See science#Anti-science attitudes for the topic which is under critique here.
I personally cannot see why this topic is in the article. The topic should be discussed in a separate article about opinions, in my view. In 1980, during a trip to Japan, I noticed dozens & dozens of people there, all wearing the same type of ill-styled gray suit (they were scattered about, in separate places— but it was obvious the suits were issued to them, especially when you could see them next to each other on the subway— and compare them to the Japanese, in their well-styled suits). It turns out they were from the PRC on a mission to understand how Japan could be so strong economically. Now that the PRC has implemented their findings, at great cost to the global climate 40 years later, it should obvious that AGW is real, worldwide. Compare to File:20200324 Global average temperature - NASA-GISS HadCrut NOAA Japan BerkeleyE.svg (The PRC has vowed to attain carbon-neutrality in another 40 years.) --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 16:30, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree that the examples there should be replaced or at least re-worded. COVID being a “major health threat” is a little imprecise and not exactly what the cited survey was about, and it seems like it’s partially a political question, not a pure direct result of the scientific method. Evolution and vaccine efficacy seem like better examples, though controversy over the degree of government funding of scientific research might be worth mentioning. Freoh (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

"Scrutiny" has a context sensitive meaning which could be either visible for inspection or subject to criticism/censure, it's the latter sense I meant and it's in this sense that counterfactual beliefs are protected in the case of religion, today's case of the child taken off life support is an example as his parent insisted that God make the decision. Eventually the rational decision was made but not until said protections had run their course. Even at the end those protections were in place, had they not required the expenditure of limited state resources that would be taken from others a different outcome would have been likely. 98.4.112.204 (talk) 17:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Climate change denial

How is That is, if someone on the left would not consider climate change as a threat, this person may face contempt and be rejected in that social group. In fact, people may rather deny a scientifically accepted fact than lose or jeopardize their social status not anti-science propaganda? The two sentences together imply that considering climate change as a threat is denying a scientifically accepted fact, something which someone on the left prefers to facing contempt and being rejected. The opposite is true. Maybe it is just worded badly? --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@User:Headbomb: See [15]. I am trying to WP:BRD here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
What are you asking here? Also, you're misreading that passage. The key thing is not considering climate change as a threat leads to contempt/rejection amongst leftist social groups (the converse is true in right wing circle, where accepting climate change as a threat leads to contempt/rejection). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:20, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
The first sentence says:
  • Not considering CC a threat -> Face contempt
The implication is:
If lefties does not want to lose or jeopardize their social status, they need to consider CC a threat.
The second sentence says:
  • If someone does not want to lose or jeopardize their social status, they need to deny a scientific fact.
The two sentences together imply that considering CC a threat is to to deny a scientific fact. An implication that does not belong in a mainstream encyclopedia.
You say the converse is true in right wing circle, and the whole thing would work if the first sentence started with "if someone on the right would consider climate change as a threat". But I guess that is not what the source says. Therefore, I would rather delete the whole thing. Why would it belong in an article about science in the first place? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree; the "social contagion" aspect is interesting but rather minor. Better to just give an overview of the most notable instances of disbelief in science in various groups. If a more comprehensive source has covered the social contagions aspect, then it could be covered properly. DFlhb (talk) 07:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
The second sentence pertains to a statement that comes before the first sentence. The full passage is Anti-science attitudes seem to be often caused by fear of rejection in social groups. For instance, climate change is perceived as a threat by only 22% of Americans on the right side of the political spectrum, but by 85% on the left. That is, if someone on the left would not consider climate change as a threat, this person may face contempt and be rejected in that social group. In fact, people may rather deny a scientifically accepted fact than lose or jeopardize their social status.
What's in between these two things is an example of polarization of belief and social pressures. If the example is confusing, then just change the example. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
The passage is both factually untrue, and constitutes circular reasoning. "Fear of rejection" cannot be the cause of anti-science attitudes. It could explain why people at the margins of those groups, or undecided people within those groups, would choose to go along with the group. It doesn't explain why beliefs are polarized in the first place, or the causes behind people clustering into those groups. i.e., it plainly doesn't explain the cause behind anti-science attitudes.
Besides, it frames groupthink as a conscious decision. Practically no one says "well, leftists are supposed to believe in climate change, and I just don't want to speak up and risk my reputation." The clustering process is almost entirely subconscious; both left and right think their opinions are the obvious truth, and that the other group is "brainwashed." Pseudoscience#Explanations would be a great basis to completely reword this section, which is IMO extremely poor. DFlhb (talk) 13:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Spelling error

2nd paragraph, "westerm europe" can't edit because vandalism which does somewhat undermine the whole open source community edited libre style thing 1.145.58.188 (talk) 03:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Journal des sçavans by Philosophical Transactions

The first scientific journal, Journal des sçavans by Philosophical Transactions, began publication in 1665. Journal des sçavans by Philosophical Transactions are two unrelated journals, so the usage of "by" here is incorrect. According to the respective articles, Journal des sçavans is the first academic journal, while Philosophical Transactions is the first journal dedicated exclusively to science. I think Journal des sçavans should be removed, while Philosophical Transactions is kept here. I can't access the source, so I' not sure about this. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 10:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@Hanif Al Husaini, thanks for noticing this. It is supposed to read "first scientific journals" and "followed by" instead of "by", but someone changed it. I've fixed this. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Vague fringy sentence in lead

Science may be as old as the human species,[1] and some of the earliest archeological evidence for scientific reasoning is tens of thousands of years old.

Why is cybertracker.org a reliable source? And the next sentence is about ancient Egypt, that is not "as old as human species".

The sentence looks fringy and meaningless, what are this "archeological evidence for scientific reasoning is tens of thousands of years old"?

I removed it, but was reverted. Let's see what others think. Artem.G (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

What makes you say that the information is "fringy"? Sure it's self-published and could probably replaced by a different source, but the author is a published expert in the field and it's been endorsed by established academics. The "tens of thousands of years old" is backed up in the body and doesn't need to be cited in the lead. The next sentence is about written records, which are not as old as scientific reasoning.      — Freoh 14:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
The only place in text that is about prehistoric origins is this sentence with reference by the same author Some of the earliest evidence for scientific reasoning is tens of thousands of years old,[2]
What makes it vague and fringe is that it is, well, too vague. "Some ... evidence ... is tens of thousands of years old" - but what are these evidences? Being a known expert doesn't make all your views a mainstream view on the subject. In my view, this sentence should also be removed, or should be backed by better source, and, of course, should include some actual example of these "evidences". Artem.G (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
It's vague because the true "origin" of science wasn't a specific event; it was a gradual process, and evidence degrades over time. The best understanding of the earliest science is somewhat vague, and I think that a historical introduction that makes this clear is useful. Without it, it sounds like science was invented by "civilized" people in Egypt and Mesopotamia.      — Freoh 18:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Well, no, there is nothing that tells that science was invented by civilized people in Egypt, only that Direct evidence for scientific processes becomes clearer with the advent of writing systems. Let's wait for some more comments; I still think that if somebody says about "ancient evidence of prehistoric science" (not a direct quote), that person should provide at least some evidence, not a vague idea that science is ancient and people did it before written history. Artem.G (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
And also what makes the author an "expert"? His affiliation is stated as "Louis Liebenberg CyberTracker Conservation, South Africa", and the article is just an essay, though peer-reviewed. Artem.G (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
"though peer-reviewed", I'm going to put a big fat [citation needed] on that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Freoh strong statements in Wikipedia voice need very strong sources, such as would demonstrate a high degree of consensus among all published experts. A second point which is important in this case is that the meaning should be clear. Your comments above seem to show that you are arguing this on the basis of the variable meaning of the word "science".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

This is vague wishy wishy at best, and utter nonsense at worse, and the source is terrible. This does not belong in Wikipedia. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Headbomb, Andrew Lancaster, and Artem.G: given that all of you have now challenged the reliability of this peer-reviewed journal, I've posted at WP:RS/N § Citizen Science: Theory and Practice to ask for more input.      — Freoh 20:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
That is not a good way to define the concern though. Reliability is not "black or white". The concerns are also about appropriate balance and wording.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey, Freoh, at least three other editors (including me) said that these sources are not reliable to use, and you silently place them back. Can you find better sources for this claim? Editors in WP:RS/N § Citizen Science: Theory and Practice also think that the source is bad, why use it? Artem.G (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you place source reliability remarks on the RSN discussion, in order to keep everything together. OTOH I honestly think this is a different type of problem. As I remarked there as well, this is a strong simple statement being placed at the top of the second sentence in the article for "Science". It is saying that "Science may be as old as the human species". I believe the concern of some editors is that this implies that what we now call science, modern science, is really just something humans always had. So either this is a potentially controversial statement about a very big topic, or else the meaning of "science" is being used in a fuzzy way and the statement is not interesting. I think this is bad editing. The idea that modern science evolved from earlier forms of science such as medieval science is important of course. The idea that these evolved from much earlier natural behaviour is not necessarily all that interesting, but it could perhaps also be discussed in the body of the article. OTOH the way the statement is written, and the prime place that it is given in our article, implies that what most people call science now, is just the same thing that humans have always had. It implies that we should deny the big differences between modern science and earlier forms of investigation and knowledge. The sourcing reliability is not the only problem, but also questions of due balance, and clear explanation. For one thing I do not think this should be in the lead.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
This was a shot at compromise. It seemed like there were two main problems with the original version: it's a big statement to be backed by a single source written by a non-PhD, and it references archeological evidence without mentioning what the evidence is. I was hoping that this solved the problems, using one of the sources that DIYeditor recommended I use at WP:RS/N § Citizen Science: Theory and Practice. Is the current wording better, Andrew Lancaster? I'm not sure that ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia are any more deserving of the lead.      — Freoh 19:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
@Freoh: you have a point, and probably we need to all be thinking about how to make our lead (and article) more clear about the differences between different kinds of "science". I also have some doubts, to be honest, about the whole second paragraph and particularly this opening sentence: Scientific techniques evolved gradually over tens of thousands of years. Honestly I think it is not controversial to say that science as we now know it was not the result of a gradual "evolution". There were quantum leaps. Can't we bend a bit to that idea? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough, I guess that text could be interpreted as contradicting the whole notion of paradigm shifts. How's this?      — Freoh 21:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't think that change helps. First you had no quantum leaps. Now you have no change at all. Science was the same 10,000 years ago?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC) I think it is important to keep in mind that in modern English science is a word we use in order to distinguish a new thing from the older everyday things. Science might have originally just meant wisdom, but the term today, and what this article is about, is perceived to be something different and new.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it implies that science was the same 10,000 years ago, but I'm open to rewording. My usage of the word science is backed up by reliable sources. Who perceives science to be something different and new?      — Freoh 09:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
The term system may be less loaded than science. This forces the context of a finding to be scrutinized as much as the content of that finding. -- 21:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC) I took a look at Liebenberg and the Lotka-Volterra equations which model predator-prey populations immediately came to mind. Has anyone applied them to the humans who hunt? In this case, the human populations may belong to a culture. The decline of the megafauna currently might serve as data. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 21:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
This is the Science article, so I think we should be talking about science, not systematic reasoning. Your edit seems to me less clear and not as well-supported by the cited sources.      — Freoh 23:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Science is about systematic reasoning, the first sentence. If the mapping to predator-prey is not what you refer to, then why cite Liebenberg? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 00:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
The term science refers to several things. It is a type of knowledge. It is an approach to investigating things. And so on. Being systematic is indeed probably one of the common elements to most meanings, but OTOH I guess not every systematic type of knowledge or investigation is science. (Think of laws and religions.) But in any case we need to make it clear which meanings we are writing about in which places.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
We definitely need to call out the separation of magic from science, which happened only 500 years ago. This contradicts the claim of 10 millennia for an age for scientific reasoning, as opposed to magical reasoning. -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 06:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Which source contradicts the claim of 10 millennia for an age of scientific reasoning?      — Freoh 09:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
See the separation from magic, which occurred only recently. But see Ludwik Fleck (1935) Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact in German, 1935 and English 1979, showing that in science, practitioners of a repeatable, identifiable process communicate results within a population. A success then grows beyond it. Thus a critical mass of ideas and practitioners (a system) arises and propagates in a repeatable way. This creates an institution which can be communicated, scrutinized, used, and accepted by others (or not, as in the case of magic). Thus a successful practice thrives even in the presence of sceptics over time. -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Could you point me to a page number in a recent source?      — Freoh 14:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I am going to go out on a limb and say that this is not a difficult thing to source. If you seriously have never heard of such opinions then please say so, but really? Secondly, the "definition of science" is not a fast moving field like population genetics. Expert sources still cite books from 50 or more years ago in some fields. Age matters, but who decides how much it matters? Us, the Wikipedians. You have to make your case here with us.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I have heard of such opinions, but the sources I've seen have been significantly less reliable than the ones I've cited here. Archeological evidence today is very different than it was fifty years ago, and my sources are based in part on these developments.      — Freoh 17:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
See Giambattista della Porta (1558) Natural Magick. Giambattista della Porta espoused the water-filled glass spheres that Kepler (1604) used to solve the problem of the optical chain needed for astronomical observations. So della Porta still contributed to science in spite of his muddled view on magic. --
Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 18:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Just to vary the process, and to illustrate an institution, here is a citation to a correction to Aristotle, citing a section to a 1000-year-old manuscript: "Twenty-three hundred years ago, Aristotle proposed that a vacuum did not exist in nature; thirteen hundred years later, Alhazen disproved Aristotle's hypothesis, using experiments on refraction,[3] thus deducing the existence of outer space.[4] In 1079 Ibn Mu'adh's Treatise On Twilight was able to infer that Earth's atmosphere was 50 miles thick, based on atmospheric refraction of the sun's rays. The Sun's rays are still visible at twilight in the morning and evening due to atmospheric refraction even when the depression angle of the sun is 18° below the horizon.[5]" illustrating a thousand-year-old process that spanned authors who spanned centuries between their contributions. -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 17:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand what you're trying to illustrate here. How is eleventh century astronomy relevant to modern-day archeological findings of prehistoric science?      — Freoh 18:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
It illustrates an institution that has held up for 1000 years. That should give you a benchmark to hold your field up to. Does it meet the standard? -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
So, I said before, these statements and sources are too vague and fringe, and are very far from current mainstream position held by scientific community. The only sources to prove this "old as human species science" are not reliable, so let's just remove them and move on. Artem.G (talk) 07:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree with the removal. The sources are weak and the claims they back up are uselessly vague. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
What makes you say that this is very far from current mainstream position held by scientific community? It's backed up by three academic sources, so if this isn't reliable, then neither is most of this article.      — Freoh 09:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
At least one of the sources is questioned by everyone in this discussion except for you; I didn't check other sources, but I agree with Andrew Lancaster that the wording is problematic. And what makes you think that something published by CyberTracker is reliable to be included? The argument that it's peer-reviewed is not convincing, you can publish any garbage outputted by neural net if you're persistent enough. Artem.G (talk) 09:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Let's keep discussion of the reliability of that source at WP:RS/N § Citizen Science: Theory and Practice.      — Freoh 10:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes we can keep the detailed discussion there, but as an editing discussion we can say that anything controversial or needing detailed explanation is probably not something for the lead. OTOH I think that the first problem is trying to work out what these words are supposed to be saying.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Is this wording better? And if you want to argue that this information is controversial, could you provide a contradicting source?      — Freoh 14:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
@Freoh: according to WP norms it is relevant if a certain edit can not gain easy consensus among other editors. That is what I primarily meant by controversial.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I have provided several reliable sources that support this change, but Headbomb has reverted it again. I've asked a couple of times now for reliable sources that contradict this information, but I haven't seen any. Could someone explain why you oppose this content in a way that is grounded in Wikipedia's guidelines?      — Freoh 17:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Despite your claims of otherwise, Liebenberg is not a reliable source and should not be used in this article to source anything. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
That source is one of three. If you're going to continue to argue that that peer-reviewed article is unreliable, then could you answer my questions at WP:RS/N § Citizen Science: Theory and Practice?      — Freoh 19:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
The phrasing The earliest roots of scientific reasoning are tens of thousands of years old is hopelessly vague. What are the earliest roots? Wouldn't that include the basic cognitive processes involved in tool use, proto-language, and taming fire? That would push the earliest roots back to Homo erectus days. Moreover, the superficiality with which the main text treats this time period argues against including statements about it prominently in the lede. XOR'easter (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
What do you mean by the superficiality with which the main text treats this time period? These facts are mentioned multiple times in the cited sources.      — Freoh 20:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I mean that the part of the "Earliest roots" subsection that goes back "tens of thousands of years" is a single, short paragraph of four sentences. That's less than what the same subsection spends on Ancient Mesopotamia alone. The article as a whole has more to say about the etymology of the word "science" than it does about prehistoric roots. Spending more words on those roots than the article does now goes against our style guideline for writing introductions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
@Freoh: one question is the strength/reliability of the sources, but on the other hand just because we can source something does not mean we must use it. Your wording proposals are all strong in the sense that they for example imply a consensus among all experts. They are written in WP voice. The implication of the various wordings is that something to do with science has existed since the stone age. Maybe, but what do you mean? For example, given that science is a human endeavour, why do we need to even say that it is something consistent with older human tendencies? It does not say that there are various opinions about this, but simply states it as a fact. It seems to be written in a deliberately simplistic way?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I'll ask the same question I've asked several times now: if there are various opinions about this, then could you provide a reliable source with a contradictory opinion?      — Freoh 09:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Opinion piece in a journal is not an established fact. Encyclopedia shouldn't cover all opinions that were published, it's not the purpose and couldn't be done anyway. And as you can see, you're the only one who think that this claim brings any value, with many editors being against it. Opinion piece can be published by anybody, it can be interesting and appealing, but it doesn't establish any new facts, and doesn't warrants its inclusion into a broad encyclopedia article. If you want better source, check some reputable book on it, like The Oxford Illustrated History of Science or A Companion to the History of Science (just two books I googled right now), and compare what are there on the roots of science. Artem.G (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Cunningham and Williams argue that claiming the scientific enterprise to be a fundamental part of human nature or the expression of an innate human curiosity, a general and universal desire to understand the world anachronistically projects modern values back into the past. Dear says that trying to draw a line between the ancient activities that ought to be called "science" and those that shouldn't is just really hard. Disagreement remains rife, however, about whether the general term 'science' may legitimately be used for earlier periods [than the 19th century] or, indeed, for other cultural regions than the European. It can at first brush seem simpler to focus on the history of specific sciences, like physics or astronomy, but this too risks imposing a systematic distortion on the categories of the past by heedlessly understanding historical activities as having been carried out under the categories of the present. Lloyd's Ancient Worlds, Modern Reflections (Oxford UP, 2004) says that treating what people did in antiquity as the same as modern science is anachronistic, but saying it has no continuity with modern science is also wrong. One might try to define science as involving the ambition to arrive at some understanding of the phenomena of the external, non-social world; but this runs into the problem that In most ancient civilizations the microcosm of human society forms a seamless whole with the microcosm of the human body and the macrocosm of the heavens. All three were believed to be part of a single dispensation, all three indeed exhibiting the same essential structure or exemplifying the same principles. So the gap that we recognize between the study of human social relations and the phenomena of the external world does not necessarily correspond to one marked by the investigators we are studying. Lewis Wolpert, in The Unnatural Nature of Science (1992), argued that science is generally in contradiction with "common sense", and that scientific thinking differs from everyday thinking not only in the concepts used but in what constitutes a satisfactory explanation. He contended that the idea of innate curiosity is a partial myth: man's curiosity extends only to what affects his conduct. Designating certain human activities as "the roots of science" rather than the roots of anything else is, in brief, a choice. It depends on how broadly one wishes to define "science" and how one wishes to contextualize antiquity in relation to modern times. XOR'easter (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks XOR'easter, that's helpful. I guess my biggest problem with the recent changes is that they seem to draw a line at the "civilized" people of Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. I'd be up for rewording my proposal with an attribution if the other pre-modern science is given similar treatment.      — Freoh 14:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The line is drawn there because that's what the earliest written evidence for it is. It's also not very surprising, giving Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia are the oldest civilisations with a written record. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Why do you value the written evidence from ancient civilisations more than archeological evidence from paleolithic Africa?      — Freoh 19:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Because a) written evidence is clear, b) archeological evidence at best hints at and c) no actual expert in the history of science has conclusively linked archeological evidence from paleolithic Africa to an understanding of science/natural philosophy. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Don't the quotes from XOR'easter show that written evidence of ancient science is not clear?      — Freoh 19:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

See Otto Neugebauer (1957), Exact Sciences in Antiquity for Egyptian and Babylonian science. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 19:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Ancheta Wis, are you saying that XOR'easter's sources are unreliable?      — Freoh 19:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
No, the quotes show that "ancient science", i.e. protoscience, is clearly an attempt at science. What is "unclear" is when exactly protoscience becomes science exactly, because that depends on what you're willing to accept as 'true science'. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The heliacal rising of Sirius (Sopdet) marked the yearly flooding of the Nile (that's how the precession of Earth's orbit was discovered -- so we are at some fraction of 26,000 years for the age of measurement of the precession -- meaning we could eventually estimate the error bars in a 10,000 year guess for systematic observation, for the foodgathering society of Egypt). --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 20:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Exactly. None of the sources I quoted dispute that the ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians (Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonians...) did things that are contiguous with modern science, like astronomy-based calendar-keeping. What they do call into question is whether the label "science" should be applied.
I am not convinced that "protoscience" is always intended to be or regarded as a disparaging term, the way the article currently presents it (based on a single source). I'm more familiar with the literature on "early modern" developments, but there, "protoscience" generally has the vibe of being a more dignified and respectful term than the alternatives. One might call alchemy in the 1600's "protoscientific" to recognize that it was systematic, somewhat quantitative and empirical, etc. See the Dear item quoted above, or Smith (2009), or Ball (2015). Or, looking at a different place and time, Light (1995): in the 1100's, the proto-science implicit in Taoist alchemy, medicine, and divination had become so permanent a part of Chinese thinking that any comprehensive worldview had to deal with [it] in one way or another. The term protoscience is less disparaging than pseudoscience, mysticism, etc. Its downside is not that it is an insult, but that as Dear writes, it bears a cast oriented towards the present. The cited source makes the assertion in a brief statement with no analysis of whether different terms actually have different connotations (e.g., traditional versus primitive). This isn't the place to argue that the source is wrong, of course, but by relying only upon that one source, we're giving only one POV. XOR'easter (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Okay, here's the sense that I'm getting:
  • Some draw a distinction between "science" and "protoscience", but others have criticized making this distinction.
  • For those who do make the distinction, there's no consensus on where the line is drawn, and some draw it as late as a few hundred years ago.
  • Some sources put the origins of science tens of thousands of years ago. The sources that disagree would probably describe this as "protoscience".
Given all of this, I don't think that it makes sense to follow Headbomb's preference for the current version of the lead, which attributes the first "science" to ancient writing-based civilizations.      — Freoh 15:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
There is another narrative based on predator-prey populations.
The implication is that controlled hunting, such as that practiced in a Department of Natural Resources (DNR) can preserve a prey population (such as deer or elephant) indefinitely. This can be construed not as science, but animal husbandry (a food production process). -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 16:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
My only preference for the lead is to not have a date that is only supported by an opinion piece of non-experts on entirely unrelated subjects. Or to have that opinion piece cited at all. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
The information is not only supported by an opinion piece of non-experts. As I've now explained to you several times at WP:RS/N § Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, there are three published academic sources written by reputable experts on relevant subjects.      — Freoh 22:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
You have provided zero additional sources beyond the essay at RSN. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
The text you deleted was backed by two other sources:
These are still there and aren't used to back up the claim that "the earliest roots of scientific reasoning are tens of thousands of years old". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Surely the "earliest roots" of every human activity "are tens of thousands of years old". So such a statement about science seems vacuous to me. Paul August ☎ 02:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes. H. erectus might have been cooking 780,000 years ago, for example. One could use that to argue that we have been doing science for longer than we have been human. But that is lofty rhetoric, not an encyclopedic statement. XOR'easter (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Would you say that it is also lofty rhetoric to include Ancient Greece in the history of science?      — Freoh 17:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Freoh, I think this discussion is stuck in a loop because your position is unclear and you keep sliding changing the topic. What is it you are arguing actually? What is your latest proposal? Please try to defend one single clear proposal.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Ancient Greek had subtle grammar that easily covered science.
Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 18:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Going by the sum total of references I have seen, that is at least more defensible. An advocate of a maximalist definition of "science" would include Greek natural philosophy, while a minimalist would exclude it; our job here is not to endorse either POV, but to make as clear as possible what those POVs are and why one might hold them. As a matter of writing organization, I think it is fair to include some topics that a minimalist would exclude from "science" in an article on history of science, just like a textbook on United States history has reason to include Jamestown, Plymouth, the American theatre of the Seven Years' War, etc. Or, a history of the French language would begin at least with Latin. The symphony article discusses predecessors of the classical art form going back to the 1500s. In short, setting context is important. XOR'easter (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Your recent wording change fixes my main problem with the lead: drawing the line between "science" and "protoscience" at the line between "civilization" and "uncivilized". I'll keep working on improving the lead. I think that the first sentence could be expanded a bit into a paragraph that makes it clearer that there's no one definition of science, and the two history of science paragraphs could be consolidated into one that doesn't need to mention Greece three times.      — Freoh 11:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

FWIW I have the impression that most of us with any interest in this topic are sympathetic with the idea of trying to avoid anything which oversimplifies the question of qualitative differences between science and science-like thinking. Indeed this is one of those "permanent" philosophical questions - but not everyone cares about philosophical questions. I think the concern is that we might replace one over-simplification with another. From a practical stand-point we also need to make sure that our article has a clear meaning for normal readers. In a sense, the article's title presumes there is a qualitative difference between science and magical or religious thinking. We CAN mention that this difference is not something everyone would agree on, but the main discussion of this is better handled in philosophical and history-of-ideas articles. (The roping off of "real science" from explanations that are attractive but unobservable is a defining switch that came with modernism. Machiavelli and Bacon are most often credited with this turning point. For many of our readers this is the only approach to the term science they will ever have been exposed to.) In practice, most English speakers are going to call roughly the same things "science" (or "not science"), and our article should reflect that reality.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'll try to find a way to mention that there's not one clear universally-agreed-upon definition without giving too much undue weight to the philosophy of science.      — Freoh 14:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't think you can give too much weight to the philosophy of science. It is absolutely critical here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it seems the question Freoh is concerned about is one where the experts we would need to cite would be historians of ideas, and philosophers of science.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Headbomb, why did you remove the weight I gave to the philosophy of science?      — Freoh 23:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Because you said, in the lead no less, that science is a wishy washy thing that doesn't have a clear definition and it does. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
The demarcation problem is a fundamental part of the philosophy of science, and it doesn't have a single universally agreed-upon answer.      — Freoh 23:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
The boundary of where science starts may be fuzzy, but what it is isn't. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
The demarcation problem is about what it is.      — Freoh 23:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Recent edit warring by Headbomb has reintroduced the neutrality issues by removing Ancheta Wis's content about early roots of systemic reasoning. Why are we mentioning Greece three times in the lead but nothing about origins of science?      — Freoh 23:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
We are covering the origin of science. The statement that systematic reasoning dates back to thousands of years ago is a contextless factoid dropped out of nowhere. It doesn't belong in the lead, but it's perfectly situated in section 2.1.
As for why Ancient Greece is so often mentioned in the early development of science, it's because it is that important to its history. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
It's like listening to music; science was invented by men and women of leisure. One question which immediately pops into mind is why these new concepts or actions arose. If agriculture or some other original thought (such as domestication of animals) just popped up, was it necessity, or free time? Or do I have it backward? What made Kepler spend 20 years calculating the orbit of Mars? He must have believed in it? (The Sleepwalkers [6]) -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 02:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Liebenberg, Louis (2021). The Origin of Science (2 ed.). p. 4.
  2. ^ Liebenberg, Louis; //Ao, /Am; Lombard, Marlize; Shermer, Michael; Xhukwe, /Uase; Biesele, Megan; //Xao, Di; Carruthers, Peter; Kxao, ≠Oma; Hansson, Sven Ove; Langwane, Horekhwe (Karoha); Elbroch, L. Mark; /Ui, N≠Aisa; Keeping, Derek; Humphrey, Glynis; Newman, Greg; g/Aq'o, /Ui; Steventon, Justin; Kashe, Njoxlau; Stevenson, Robert; Benadie, Karel; Du Plessis, Pierre; Minye, James; /Kxunta, /Ui; Ludwig, Bettina; Daqm, ≠Oma; Louw, Marike; Debe, Dam; Voysey, Michael (2021). "Tracking Science: An Alternative for Those Excluded by Citizen Science". Citizen Science: Theory and Practice. 6. doi:10.5334/cstp.284. S2CID 233291257.
  3. ^ Alhacen (c.1035) Treatise on Light (رسالة في الضوء) as cited in Shmuel Sambursky, ed. (1975) Physical thought from the Presocratics to the quantum physicists : an anthology, p.137
  4. ^ Smith, A. Mark, ed. and trans. (2010) Alhacen on Refraction : a critical edition, with English translation and commentary, of Book 7 of Alhacen's De aspectibus, [the Medieval Latin version of Ibn al-Haytham's Kitāb al-Manāzir], Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 2 vols: 100(#3, section 1 — Vol 1, Introduction and Latin text); 100(#3, section 2 — Vol 2 English translation). (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society), 2010. Book 7 (2010) Vol 1 Commentary and Latin text via JSTOR;Vol 2 English translation, Notes, Bibl. via JSTOR Book 7, [4.28] p.270
  5. ^ Goldstein, Bernard R. (1977) Ibn Mu'adh's "(1079) Treatise On Twilight and the Height of the Atmosphere" Archive for History of Exact Sciences Vol. 17, No. 2 (21.VII.1977), pp. 97-118 (22 pages) JSTOR. (Treatise On Twilight was printed by F Risner in Opticae Thesaurus (1572) as Liber de crepusculis, but attributed to Alhazen rather than Ibn Mu'adh.)
  6. ^ Arthur Koestler (1959) The Sleepwalkers

GAN

I've just nominated this article at GAN, I'm open to discuss any edits that other disagree on - - Kevo327 (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@Kevo327 Some societies act as professional bodies, regulating the activities of their members in the public interest or the collective interest of the membership. is missing its sourcing. Etrius ( Us) 23:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
@Etriusus: do you think it needs (WP:GACR#2/WP:MINREF) a citation? If so, please tag it with citation needed so that this is made obvious. For what it's worth, the paragraph was added in 2018 by Danielkueh who copied it from from Learned society where it was added in 2003 by Seglea without a source. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
OK, I'll hold my hand up to the lack of a source (but it was in 2003). What I had in mind was the society I have had most to do with, the British Psychological Society, which is a fairly typical learned society at least as far as the United Kingdom goes. You could extract evidence for the assertions I made from its Charter and Statutes (all readily found at https://www.bps.org.uk, but I don't know how useful that would be, because it would only be a source for the activities of that particular society. What we really need is someone who has surveyed a variety of societies, comparing and contrasting what they get up to. This might be a useful reference, at least as a starting point, though it is country-specific: Hewitt, M., Dingwall, R., & Turkmendag, I. (2017). More than research intermediaries: A descriptive study of the impact and value of learned societies in the uk social sciences. Science and Public Policy, 44, 775-788. doi:10.1093/scipol/scx013 . However, I don't have time to dig into this further now. seglea (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Tagged. I get that it's just a list of generalizations but WP:V is hard to get around (and rightly so!!!). Just to be devils advocate, how do we know Most scientific societies are non-profit organizations is true without a citation to back it up? They could be bankrolled by the cabal for all we know!!!! 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 19:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
@Etriusus: I tagged the same in Learned society and a source was added. What it strictly verifies is the following:

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 societies act as professional bodies, regulating the activities of their members in the public interest or the collective interest of the membership.[1]

Does this source satisfy you or do you think more are needed? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
It seems CactiStaccingCrane was looking at getting this to GA standard not long ago. Would be interested in their views. Aircorn (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
@Aircorn This article is not ready yet for GA, as it hasn't adequately addressed the core issue of "what is science?" and perhaps more importantly, "why science is useful?" There should be a long section of how science is performed and a small section explaining science's benefits to humanity (note that this is different to technology's or engineering's benefits to humanity). CactiStaccingCrane 15:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
@Aircorn I have a better idea: why not collaborate to make this article a GA then? We can invite a lot of editors from various WikiProjects to come here and make this article much better than what it is right now. CactiStaccingCrane 15:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
@Kevo327: There has been a consensus to ban drive-by nominations, which this probably falls into. You started a talk page discussion so I would lean towards you being committed to follow through on the review. This is the main issue. Science is a massive topic and even for seasoned editors it proposes a lot of work. It will also be a massive job for a reviewer and there is nothing worse than writing a review and getting no response for it. From your edits it would appear you have not done a lot to the article so I have a few questions to see how familiar you are with it.
  • Have you read through the article properly to the point that you will understand where and what it means if a reviewer queries a section or sentence?
  • Are you familiar enough with the sources that if you were asked you could confirm information?
  • Have you checked at least some of the sources already in that they are correct, up-to-date and accessible?
  • Are you able to access the sources, or equivalent ones, if required (i.e do you have access to scholarly sources not found just by googling)?
  • Will you be available to respond to questions from a reviewer? This process could take weeks, if not months.
I would actually consider reviewing this, mainly because it was on my list of articles that I wanted to get to GA status at some point. But if you are not committed then I would suggest you remove the GAN nomination as it would probably save us both some time. Aircorn (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Learned Societies, the key to realising an open access future?". Impact of Social Sciences. 2019-06-24. Retrieved 2023-01-22.

Neutral origins in lead

Andrew Lancaster told me elsewhere that I was not being clear enough about the neutrality issues in the lead, so I'll try to be clearer here. The issue is one of systemic bias. The history of science is complex and global, and not everyone agrees on what's science and what's not. Scientific techniques have been developed and refined over the course of tens of thousands of years, and there is no clear line that can be drawn for the origin of science. It was a messy process, and only after the scientific revolution is universal agreement that the work being done was definitively science.

Recent edits by Headbomb have repeatedly oversimplified this narrative to draw the line for history worth including in the lead at the line between civilization and non-civilization. There is no reason for us to prioritize written records over archeological evidence when discussing the origins of science. The lead also gives Western culture too much undue weight, mentioning Greece three times, even though similar things happened all over the world.      — Freoh 12:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The lead in no way gives "Western culture" any undue weight, nor do your edits do anything to 'reduce' any such putative undue weight. So far, extremely little of your positions have gain any traction, let alone consensus. Consider that you are the minority view here.
Also the lead is to summary the body of the article. Not everything needs to be mentioned there, especially half-developed ideas that don't contribute anything to the broader picture. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
But @Freoh: just raising doubts is not really an editing proposal or a clear accusation of bias, and I really don't think this is about written evidence versus archaeology. Am I not right in saying that what the template is really about is the text which everyone already rejected as being more problematic than the current one? If not, then what? Here are the first sentences of your proposal then, compared to the one everyone else seems to think better.
PROPOSAL. Science is a system of knowledge based on observation and experimentation. Scientists use scientific methods to understand the universe through explanations and predictions. While there is no generally agreed-upon definition of science, it usually involves paradigmatic models, falsifiable hypotheses, and adaptable theories.[1][2][3] Systematic reasoning is tens of thousands of years old.[4][5] The earliest written records of identifiable predecessors to modern science come from Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia from around 3000 to 1200 BCE.
EXISTING. Science is a systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[1][2] The earliest written records of identifiable predecessors to modern science come from Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia from around 3000 to 1200 BCE.

Problematic changes:

  • You have switched science from being an endeavour, to being only the knowledge itself which is produced. This article is clearly not only about a type of knowledge.
  • Instead of emphasizing that science is a systematic activity, you say it is a single system of knowledge. So having a systematic approach to building knowledge is no longer a part of the definition, even though it already was for Aristotle. I think this is confused and incorrect. I have no idea how you would justify this.
  • Instead of needing to be built up in a systematic way, science is now defined as being any knowledge based on observation and experimentation. That covers both too much (it covers less systematic, more casual types of knowledge) and too little (it does not cover what scientists do when they use their imagination to think things through, theorize).
  • The use of "scientific methods" is probably trying to narrow down the types of knowledge which are called science. It is however in a second sentence and is not part of the definition, just something scientists typically do. Furthermore in past discussions on this article I seem to recall that we felt that the idea that there are specific scientific methods used in all scientific activity is something one sees in basic courses, but it is not as simple or uncontroversial as it looks. It is something for the body.
  • By the same reasoning, but even more so, the next sentence is trying to be far too specific while at the same time throwing terms around which are not clear in their intended meaning.
  • The third sentence adds no useful information if you look at the (older) sentence which comes after it.

I do not see anything in the proposal which reduces bias. In fact, the general trend of the edits is that they imply (in an unclear way) that you would like a far too narrow definition of science. Ironically, at the same time, the vague wordings you use also weaken the distinction between science and other types of knowledge. Whether or not your ideas are mainstream or fringe seems open to doubt, but I put that aside because for the time being it is not even really clear what you are trying to do, or why. The wordings are too vague and poorly thought out. In any case I see no way to connect anything to the template you have now added!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. I've removed the template as lacking foundation. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm referring to the bias that favors writing-based societies over non-writing-based societies. Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Greece didn't invent science, and I see no reason to start the history of science there.      — Freoh 01:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
First we don't write that Ancient Egypt/Greek/Mesopotamia invented science. We say it's earliest documented roots can be traced to these civilizations. You have no sources establishing otherwise. Stop pushing your fringe views on the article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
How are you defining documented? I've given several sources that say that science is older than those civilizations. Why are you opposed to starting the history earlier?      — Freoh 11:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Documented: Involving a document of sorts. Based on something written down/recorded. I.e. not supposition nor speculation. As for my opposition, it's because the sources don't support a meaningful earlier start. One could argue that science dates back to the origins of the Solar System because without Earth you cannot have life on Earth, without life on Earth you cannot you cannot have sentient life, and without sentient life you cannot have organized thought, and without organized thought you cannot have language, and without language and organized thought you cannot have science. And the first tangible thing that we know of that resembles something that looks like science dates to the first civilisations (Mesopotamia, Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece). Going back further makes no sense, because you can always go further back. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Freoh the main changes you made affected the definition of science in the first sentences. I've not seen any justification of those changes. Concerning the following sentences about the history of science before modern science I'd be open to the idea of removing such sentences from the lead entirely, or making them more minimal in some way. OTOH, in terms of the history of science there are a couple of important historical turning points. One is the modernist argument against metaphysical explanations (Francis Bacon etc), which guides the way most people understand science today. An earlier turning point (and precondition) according to at least some scholars is the development of the concept of a stable "nature" or "natures" which is generally seen as something first found in Greek philosophy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
The main change I'm addressing in this section is in the second paragraph, where Headbomb removed [16] the content that Ancheta Wis added about the pre-writing origins of science but left in references to ancient civilizations, especially Ancient Greece. Andrew Lancaster, I agree that the second and third paragraphs should be condensed into one significantly shorter paragraph. Headbomb, the sources do support a meaningful earlier start. Could you try to follow Wikipedia's edit warring policy and stop removing the maintenance tags until this dispute is resolved?      — Freoh 13:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
An essay by amateurs about how citizen science isn't woke enough is not a reliable source on the history of science. This was covered at WP:RSN. Also, the statement that systematic reasoning dates back to thousands of years ago is a contextless factoid dropped out of nowhere. It doesn't belong in the lead, but it's perfectly situated in section 2.1. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Freoh, Please be patient. In the meantime, there are many other articles to work on. This thread requires more development, but it does not yet belong in the lead. Embodied cognition/situated cognition is not developed enough yet for the needed institutions to seep into the community. For example 10,000 years is about 320 generations of human families. (Questions immediately arise: ? Who would be the players? For example Socrates Plato Aristotle Alexander III of Macedon? .. Hopefully we can learn from this; the descendants of Confucius (only 2500 years ago) are at least in their 77th generation. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 16:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Ancheta Wis, the undue focus on Ancient Greeks is exactly the kind of Eurocentrism and systemic bias that I'm trying to avoid. Headbomb, I don't understand why you view the origins of science as a contextless factoid, but you don't view the fact that the earliest written records of identifiable predecessors to modern science come from Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia from around 3000 to 1200 BCE as a contextless factoid. Could you explain?      — Freoh 11:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
The Socrates,Plato,Aristotle,Alexander application led to murder during Alexander's succession. That shows the Socrates,Plato,Aristotle system has something wrong with it (The defect is probably in Plato's Republic. But the Romans considered themselves Hellenes; Julius Caesar,Augustus,etc spoke Greek to each other). --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. No one cares that you have a personal problem with the Ancient Greeks being particularly influential on early natural philosophy/science. This is what reliable sources back (and keep in mind we don't give exclusive credit to the Greeks, earlier civilization, like the Egyptians and Mesopotamia, also have a claim to early science). And the origins of science isn't contextless factoid, the origins of systematic reasoning is. You can argue that systematic reasoning is necessary for science, but that's by far not the only requirement, and if you want to go back to something as vague as systematic reasoning, you can go back to many many other things (the origin of language, cognition, ...), and that makes it irrelevant for the lead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
I feel like I have asked several times now why you think that Egyptians and Mesopotamians have a claim to early science, but prehistoric Africans do not. I have not really gotten an answer aside from your own personal problem with being more inclusive. I am trying to create a more neutral point of view and address this article's systemic bias, not "right great wrongs".      — Freoh 01:23, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Egypt is part of Africa last I heard. As for why I think that, the reason is simple: We have documents and artefacts showing this is the case. Unlike for "prehistoric Africans sans the Egyptians". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm talking about prehistory, before ancient Egyptian civilization. And as I've tried to explain before, we do have artifacts showing evidence of scientific reasoning from prehistoric Africa.      — Freoh 13:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Sources? That specifically aren't doi:10.5334/cstp.284? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Here you go:

  • "Rather than trying to identify any one particular time or one particular species when the cognitive foundations for science emerged, this chapter has argued that these came about piecemeal over at least 5 million years. ... With the first H.sapiens, and especially those after 50,000 years ago, we find evidence for three further cognitive foundations for science – the use of material culture to extend human perception and cognition, the accumulation of knowledge through time, and the use of metaphor and analogy. By the end of the last ice age the complete cognitive foundations for science appear to have been in place."[1]
  • "I have argued that the cognitive processes of hunter–gatherers and scientists are broadly continuous with one another, and that it did not require any extensive cognitive re-programming of the human mind to make the scientific revolution possible."[2]
  • "Since the evolution of modern humans, possibly more than a hundred thousand years ago, humans have been practicing science."[3]
  • "We suggest that speculative tracking as described by Liebenberg ... shows the ability to draw together domain-specific nodes into inter-domain networks of abstract causal understanding. ... Speculative tracking ... involves a continuous cognitive process of 'conjecture and refutation' to deal with complex, dynamic variables ... This way of thinking (i.e., hypothetico-deductive thinking in tracking behaviour) is similar to scientific reasoning that is congruent with advanced forms of causal grammar. ... Bow hunting is thus far exclusive to H. sapiens and could date to between 70 and 65 thousand years ago in southern Africa ... This technology has been shown to demonstrate complex levels of cognition ..., is currently closely linked with speculative tracking ..., and serves as another perfect example of the human ability for inter-domain causal understanding. In bow hunting, we see how the causal understanding of the advantages of hunting with a sharp projectile is married with the abstract causal understanding that the power of stored mechanical energy can overcome physical challenges, such as the limited reach of a spear, to brace subsistence and/or conflict strategies."[4]
  • "The oldest direct evidence suggests that such integrated abstract thinking was already practiced in Africa more than 60,000 years ago ... forming the basis of modern science."[5]
  • "Here we suggest that bow hunting with poisoned arrows represents a deep network of reasoning similar in complexity to the modern human mind of today. Currently, it is thought that poisoned bone-tipped arrows could have been used from about 43,000 years ago in Southern Africa ... Whereas earlier evidence might yet be revealed, we suggest that this age can now be seen as the probable minimum for enhanced or complex levels of grade 7 causal understanding."[6]

Headbomb, once again, why you think that Egyptians and Mesopotamians have a claim to early science, but prehistoric Africans do not?      — Freoh 02:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Every of those sources (and I'm ignoring the Citizen Science one as flat out unreliable) do not say what you say they say. At best, they says that necessary conditions (i.e. high levels of cognition) for scientific thought to emerge have been met at some point in the past, not that scientific thought actually occurred at the time these conditions were met. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Why do you think that the white men of ancient Greece are so important to the history of science that they deserve three mentions in the lead, even though it's unclear whether scientific thought actually occurred at the time?      — Freoh 11:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Here's an example from outside the box: Use embodied cognition/situated cognition to turn the Peter Gärdenfors and Marlize Lombard paper inside-out: instead of hominins applying the laws of physics to track their prey, think Jumping Spiders: first 3 minutes  evolving to prey on other spiders, using their multiple sets of eyes for situational awareness, their legs' ability to jump long distances, and the use of their spider threads to get into position to overcome their prey. Gärdenfors and Lombard specifically disclaim that "grade 7 causal understanding (relational reasoning)" is restricted to humans. Here the science in physics and biology is framed using today's technology and our appetite for a good narrative. We appear have had these appetites for many generations, at least as far back as the Hellenes. -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 12:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC). Added link to Jumping spider. 12:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
It's a philosophical point: the fact that 'both hominins and jumping spiders have applied advanced cognition' (millions or thousands of years ago) is not the same as identifying that fact. It's a matter of perspective (Knowing Nicomachean ethics implies an obligation to abide by it, ie. that the knower apply the ethic.). --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
I couldn't give a shit about the color of their skin, but yes, the ancient Greeks are that important to the history of science (i.e. natural philosophy). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Postcolonialists would perhaps argue that attributing Science(TM) to prehistoric Africans is a Eurocentric act: a declaration that they have virtue in proportion to how well they prefigure the activities of modern Europeans, and an attempt to understand them only in a Eurocentric framework rather than on their own terms. XOR'easter (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of original research going on in this thread. I'm pointing to several reliable sources that I think deserve better coverage in this article. XOR'easter is referring to arguments that could perhaps be made, Ancheta Wis is comparing African people to animals, and Headbomb is asserting the superior importance of white people while arguing that it's not because they're white. Why are you all acting like science is a European phenomenon, even when reliable sources refute this narrative?      — Freoh 02:09, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
You've accused several people of several inflammatory things right now and are well on your way to earning a block. The issue isn't that "science is a European phenomenon", the issue is that your sources don't refute anything and don't even state what you claim they do. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:33, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Humans are animals. That does not excuse any defects in our social systems. -- Ancheta Wis. A natural nuclear fission reactor existed 1.7 billion years ago. The science consisted in identifying that it happened. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 03:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
The sources provided on this page don't refute that narrative. Either they aren't reliable, or they argue that preconditions for science arose a long time ago, or they say that quite possibly nothing before the 19th century should be called "science", whether it happened in Europe or elsewhere. XOR'easter (talk) 14:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree that these sources don't contradict the lead; I am just saying that scientific origins deserve better coverage and that the lead should be less Western-centric. I can work on a new (more concrete) proposal in the next few days.      — Freoh 14:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
The lede is the wrong place to get into the murk about what people may or may not have done ten thousand years ago and whether that should or should not be designated "science", "the roots of science", "protoscience", or whatever. The lede is there to summarize the main text, and it does that by mentioning ancient Greece a few times, which is entirely fair. Calling that "Western-centric" is itself presentist. Sandra Harding, for example, has argued in several places that our category of "Europe" did not exist before Charlemagne, and calling ancient Greece a "European" culture rather than seeing it in relation to its contemporaries is anachronistic. XOR'easter (talk) 15:44, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I am describing the current presentation of this information as Western-centric, and I agree that the whole idea of "the West" is a modern one. I do not think that we should prioritize populations that are grouped into the history of Western civilization or that would be seen as white in modern society, regardless of whether or not the Western identity existed at that point. § History should be reorganized as well, not just the lead.      — Freoh 02:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
We should prioritize reality, backed by reliable sources, not your revisionist agenda. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
There is simply more to say about the contributions of Egypt, Babylon, and Greece, particularly the latter. We have details about what they did, and decades of scholarly work about them. Inflating the prominence of scattered vagaries about the origin of cognitive abilities would be distorting the literature we are meant to summarize. XOR'easter (talk) 13:24, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
The lead is supposed to provide an accessible overview, not give details about what they did. Aligning the starting point of science with the starting point of civilization seems more like distorting the literature to me. There are other parts of the globe that deserve due weight as well, like the extensive history of science in China.      — Freoh 14:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
And the current lede does provide an accessible overview. (One could make an argument for mentioning China more, but not for mentioning Greece less, and that change would have to start with the body text, not the intro. Indeed, the History of science in China article is a royal mess, which ought to be fixed before trying to summarize it in the "History" section here.) You might want to align the starting point of science with the starting point of civilization, but that is your POV, and one that sources already invoked on this page argue against. Frankly, this seems like the kind of Wikipedia writing that I thought went out of style 15+ years ago, where we sat around and tried to define "science fiction" or wrote up our own thoughts on the meaning of quantum mechanics without going to the library to see if there were already books about it. XOR'easter (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
I do not want to align the starting point of science with the starting point of civilization. That is the point I am trying to make: reliable sources support the idea that people can contribute to science without conforming to Western ideas of what it means to be civilized.      — Freoh 01:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I misread that line of your previous comment. But I am still not clear on how you are getting from the state of the sources we have available to the position you are taking. The sources arguing for a broad view of what should be called "science" are a mix of unreliable (advocacy) and primary, while others call for a narrow view, and the sources that try to offer an overview say that it's an intrinsically hard question with no agreed-upon answers.
For that matter, I don't see how the existing article intro ties the starting point of science with the starting point of civilization. It's talking about developments that happened millennia after the first cities, and well after the invention of writing. XOR'easter (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Joseph Needham bemoans the loss of the school of names (Mo Di) from 2200 years ago as a disaster[7] for Chinese philosophy ever since. -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 15:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Your attempted method of proof is backward. If one fails to use modus ponens then that attempted method is an example of confirmation bias (affirming the consequent), which fails wp:neutrality. You "need to be your own worst enemy" (Alhacen and Feynman). -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 15:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not understand what you are trying to say. What have I said that fails neutrality?      — Freoh 01:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
For example You: comparing African people to animals, me: but Humans are animals. (Knowing Nicomachean ethics means abiding by it. "we become just by doing just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts, brave by doing brave acts. ..." [fill in the parallelism here] --Aristot. Nic. Eth. 1103b)
Science stems from identification of a relation, e.g. p→q (p implies q), given some value p. But if an end q becomes paramount, then asserting q does not guarantee p (that is confirmation bias). C.S. Peirce formulated the relation as ((p→q)→p)→p. Taking 'science' from q instead of from p→q is confirmation bias (tampering). (There is another arrow notation p => q, the 'material conditional' which is also as visually balanced as p→q.) To get to neutrality, think p=>q or p→q, rather than q alone. This compels a search for the p's in p→q for the balanced viewpoint. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 06:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
What are p and q here? How does neutrality favor the focus on ancient Greece?      — Freoh 15:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Even if one starts the story somewhere else, neutrality demands that the chapter on Greece be really, really big. XOR'easter (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
This is an article about science in general, and whether ancient Greeks were scientists is debatable. Ancient Greece should be summarized in this article, not given a really, really big section.      — Freoh 23:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
The p, q, r, s ... are arguments in a form: ((p→q)→r)→s ... ; my reply is sourced from Galileo (1623) The Assayer as translated by Stillman Drake (1957), but I paraphrase
The universe is an open book. The symbols in the book are written in the language of mathematics p→q, p, r, ... "without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it; without these, one is wandering around in a dark labyrinth".
Thus Galileo is warning us of our prospects if we attempt work without the tools we have already. (This is the brief response to your constraint of working without the Ancients, etc.) The atomic theory is their scientific topic. which came into fruition in the 19th c.
(p→q) represents a cause-effect relation, nested within another relation yielding r, nested within another yielding s, and so forth, until the form yields a witness (an observable). As you can see, there is more to be said. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 09:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
I still cannot see how lambda calculus is related to either the origins of science or Wikipedia's neutrality policy.      — Freoh 12:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
It's a matter of application of forms. That means trying out relations; i.e. experimentation, observation, debugging, ... Understanding takes work; unless we share a common experience, I do not know how to transfer my experience into your cognition. This is called intersubjective valuation. We could take this to your talk page in order to hat this thread? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 15:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Mithen, Steve (2002). Carruthers, Peter; Stich, Stephen; Siegal, Michael (eds.). The Cognitive Basis of Science. Cambridge University Press. p. 40. ISBN 0-511-02997-7.
  2. ^ Carruthers, Peter (2002). Carruthers, Peter; Stich, Stephen; Siegal, Michael (eds.). The Cognitive Basis of Science. Cambridge University Press. p. 95. ISBN 0-511-02997-7.
  3. ^ Liebenberg, Louis (2013). The Origin of Science: The Evolutionary Roots of Scientific Reasoning and its Implications for Tracking Science. Cape Town. p. 219. ISBN 978-0-620-57683-3. OCLC 968692639.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  4. ^ Lombard, Marlize; Gärdenfors, Peter (2017). "Tracking the Evolution of Causal Cognition in Humans". Journal of Anthropological Sciences (95): 228–229. doi:10.4436/JASS.95006. ISSN 1827-4765.
  5. ^ Liebenberg, Louis; //Ao, /Am; Lombard, Marlize; Shermer, Michael; Xhukwe, /Uase; Biesele, Megan; //Xao, Di; Carruthers, Peter; Kxao, ≠Oma; Hansson, Sven Ove; Langwane, Horekhwe (Karoha); Elbroch, L. Mark; /Ui, N≠Aisa; Keeping, Derek; Humphrey, Glynis; Newman, Greg; g/Aq'o, /Ui; Steventon, Justin; Kashe, Njoxlau; Stevenson, Robert; Benadie, Karel; Du Plessis, Pierre; Minye, James; /Kxunta, /Ui; Ludwig, Bettina; Daqm, ≠Oma; Louw, Marike; Debe, Dam; Voysey, Michael (2021). "Tracking Science: An Alternative for Those Excluded by Citizen Science". Citizen Science: Theory and Practice. 6. doi:10.5334/cstp.284. S2CID 233291257.
  6. ^ Gärdenfors, Peter; Lombard, Marlize (2018-02-12). "Causal Cognition, Force Dynamics and Early Hunting Technologies". Frontiers in Psychology. 9: 6. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00087. ISSN 1664-1078. PMC 5816055. PMID 29483885.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  7. ^ Sima Qian, Records of the Grand Historian

Coverage too narrow, clear gaps

Having read through the extensive discussion above, I wanted to add a broader comment about the article.

In general, it clearly reads as being written from a very Eurocentric perspective. I understand that Mediterranean-adjacent (Mesopotamian, Greek, Roman, Muslim, Christian) societies have had a serious impact on the history of science, but this article currently contains not a single mention of China, India, Japan, and many other societies. This is not due to a lack of reliable sources to draw from. On Wikipedia we already have a whole series on the history of science and technology in China, including at least one FA and several GAs (Template:History of science and technology in China). We also have a decent article on the History of science and technology in the Indian subcontinent and equivalent articles on numerous other regions.

This article's scope should be expanded to include mention of non-Mediterranean forms of science and contributions to scientific knowledge, especially in the 'History' section. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Be Bold. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 22:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
I'll try my best, but I'm going to wait a few days to let regular contributors to the page weigh in and make suggestions if they so desire. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
I definitely support this, but I am concerned about growing the history section. We have a 5 paragraph lead, 3 paragraphs on etymology, then a whopping 28 paragraphs on history that walls off everything else. My preference would be for the history section to only be about 5 or 10 paragraphs at most.
One thing you could look to do is update the "History of science" article that this article has a synopsis of, then come back here and compress the "History" section down and make it match. Sorry to add even more work, but that's how I see it. Efbrazil (talk) 02:43, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes I agree with Efbrazil, that would be the best approach. Paul August ☎ 02:48, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
This is from history of scientific method: "Similar atomist ideas [as those of Democritus ] emerged independently among ancient Indian philosophers of the Nyaya, Vaisesika and Buddhist schools.[1] In particular, like the Nyaya, Vaisesika, and Buddhist schools, the Cārvāka epistemology was materialist, and skeptical enough to admit perception as the basis for unconditionally true knowledge, while cautioning that if one could only infer a truth, then one must also harbor a doubt about that truth; an inferred truth could not be unconditional.[2]"
At least in China, scientific principles did not survive without a school to propagate them. For example, an astronomical observatory was moved without compensating for the latitude, so it didn't work anymore (I learned this from Needham, Science and Civilisation in China).
Needham had the highest respect for Chinese culture; however Mohism recieved a fatal blow in 221 BCE, so Chinese epistemology fell behind its ethics. There was no Galileo (who was funded to improve the cannon), in part because Chinese military power had centralized in 221 BCE, and the crossbow (a military secret) was so potent that no emperor could survive without armies. But Europe retained its duchies, principalities, etc to further military research. -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 02:59, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Oliver Leaman, Key Concepts in Eastern Philosophy. Routledge, 1999, page 269.
  2. ^ Kamal, M.M. (1998), "The Epistemology of the Carvaka Philosophy", Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies, 46(2): pp.13–16

who invented science

like really who made the idea Pastalavist (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it was made by any particular person, I think it was built on over time by many people (like Francis Bacon). JustOneGuyWithALama (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Education and awareness

Hello, I took into account that the paragraph I had written was too detailed, thank youMartinPoulter. I think it would still be interesting to mention UNESCO, whose work is particularly focused on education and science. Mentioning girls' and women's education in STEM and the UNESCO Science Report might be interesting for this article. I have written a few sentences here, would it be possible to proofread it? Thank you very much for your help. E.poul (talk) 20:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Request edit

  • Specific text to be added :The word {science}comes from Latin word scientist, which means knowledge * Reason for the change: for general knowledge * References supporting change: ADD URL AT LEAST MICHAEL 942006 (talk) 08:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Science

Science is a systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe the earliest explanations and predictions about the universe the earliest written records of identifiable predecessors to modern science come from ancient Egypt Mesopotamia from around 3000 to 1200 BCE their contributions to mathematics 120.28.149.140 (talk) 09:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Further mathematics

Equation of motion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.89.23.239 (talk) 11:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

This article at the Royal Institution

I saw this earlier this week, thought editors of this article might also like to see it. This article being shown at the Royal Institution during a Discourse given by Brian Keating. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Science! Hurray!

Is mathematics a science?

From Bing:

"That’s an interesting question. There is no definitive answer, as different people may have different views on what constitutes a science. However, one possible way to approach this question is to look at how mathematics relates to other fields that are generally considered sciences.

According to Wikipedia, the mathematical sciences are a group of areas of study that includes, in addition to mathematics, those academic disciplines that are primarily mathematical in nature but may not be universally considered subfields of mathematics proper1. Examples of such disciplines include statistics, computer science, physics, chemistry, biology, economics and more. These fields use mathematics as a tool to model, analyze and understand various phenomena in nature and society. According to Britannica, mathematics is the science of structure, order and relation that has evolved from elemental practices of counting, measuring and describing the shapes of objects. It deals with logical reasoning and quantitative calculation, and its development has involved an increasing degree of idealization and abstraction of its subject matter2. Mathematics is based on axioms and theorems that can be logically deduced from them, and it explores the consequences of these assumptions in various domains.

According to Live Science, mathematics is the science that deals with the logic of shape, quantity and arrangement. Math is all around us, in everything we do. It is the building block for everything in our daily lives, including mobile devices, computers, software, architecture (ancient and modern), art, money, engineering and even sports3. Mathematics helps us discover patterns, structure and order in the world.

As you can see, there are different perspectives on what mathematics is and how it relates to other sciences. Some may argue that mathematics is a science because it uses rigorous methods of inquiry, logic and proof to discover truths about abstract concepts and structures that have applications in the real world. Others may argue that mathematics is not a science because it does not deal with empirical observations or experiments that test hypotheses or theories about the natural world. Ultimately, the answer may depend on your own definition and criteria of what a science is." SpicyMemes123 (talk) 00:02, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2023

Eliezer olamide (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)to read
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

"Science is a rigorous, systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about everything."

About ethics and aesthetics too? SpicyMemes123 (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I propose to roll back to the version with 'universe' rather than with 'everything'. Otherwise the sentence is self-contradictory. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 21:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2023

Change definition of science to the pursuit, acquisition, dissemination, and application of novel knowledge.

[1] Knowledgeandexpression (talk) 00:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: proposed definition seems significantly worse, also makes no sense to define science solely on some piece on markets.financialcontent.com Cannolis (talk) 00:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://markets.financialcontent.com/wral/article/getnews-2023-10-20-science-defined-the-robust-and-comprehensive-definition-of-science/

Image

There should be an image at the top of this page. It need not represent all of "science", because an image can't, but it can make the page look better. But take a look at the pages for Religion, or Philosophy, or Language. Can we pick a good image for this page? In my opinion something ancient would be best, because it demonstrates how science has existed for millennia, and it helps with a neutral point of view. What about, say, the Jantar Mantar, Jaipur? Language Boi (talk) 00:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Correction: the Jantar Mantar isn't really "ancient", but I still think it gives a better perspective than, say, an image of Galileo. Language Boi (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
why not CERN, a telescope, or some other instrument? The image should be recognizable, not a portrait or some obscure building. Artem.G (talk) 07:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Actually, I agree. The LHC is probably the best choice. Language Boi (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

The History of Science

Just because history of science is about science doesn’t mean it’s science itself.Science describes studying nature of the universe. 2601:600:C881:6C10:BC2B:559A:3F41:1961 (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

and how is that 41.80.117.28 (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Three main branches and literature science

The article says that there are three main branches: the natural sciences, the social sciences and the formal sciences. Where do the literature sciences https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literaturwissenschaft belong to? 2003:C5:8740:4F00:4D80:D5B8:EBF:82AB (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Science/Archive_10&oldid=1254317357"