Talk:Science/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

First attempts at a rational understanding of nature

As the source cited in the lede (Lindberg) makes clear (and a multitude of sources do as well), it is in classical Greece that the very first explanations of the natural world that do not involve the supernatural (i.e. rational) appear. Specifically, with the Milesians in the 6th century BC. There is a clear break with earlier civilizations in Egypt and Mesopotamia. It is thus not enough to say "a more naturalistic" understanding of nature, as it implies the earlier civilization also made such attempts. However there is no evidence of that. Khirurg (talk) 01:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Khirurg: Fair enough. But to claim that the Ancient Greeks were the first to be "rational" whereas the Ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians didn't try, is an overstatement that goes beyond what the two sources actually say. Plus, I'm not aware of any historical sources that would use the term *rational* to mean "not involve *supernatural*." In fact, by the standards of science today, many of the Greek's non-supernatural ideas would be considered irrational. Plus, Greek Mythology still continued to exists. In fact, if you were to take a gander at p. 8 of the Grant source [[1]], he states the following:

"There can be no doubt that this was a monumental change of outlook. It was a new approach that was added to the mythological explanations of the world that had characterized earlier Greek descriptions of physical phenomena by the likes of Hesiod and Homer. Pre-socratics no longer explained natural phenomena, such as earthquakes, lightning, storms, and eclipses, as the actions of happy and angry gods, but as the actions of natural forces that regularly produced such effects."

I would be satisfied with deleting or changing the word "more" in favor of naturalistic or "entirely naturalistic (as written on p. 27 of Lindberg)," which is still consistent with the source and is actually the word used. But to claim that one was trying to be rational while the other wasn't, that is just not supported by the sources. danielkueh (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I've seen "rational" used in this context in sources before. Regarding "naturalistic", I think many of our readers, especially younger ones, will not now what this means. How about "non-supernatural"? Khirurg (talk) 02:24, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Khirurg:, I too have seen the term used that way, but in atheistic and anti-theist literature, which brings up POV issues. I'm looking at Webster's [[2]] for how the term is generally used and I don't see it being defined that way. Hence, we should avoid doing so. As to your suggestion, non-supernatural is ok but it is neither here nor there. Describing and explaining things in terms of numbers and equations could be an example of non-supernational but it doesn't quite capture the attempt to explain things in terms of natural causes. Hence, my preference for the term entirely naturalistic. And if certain readers don't understand it, this can be turned into a learning opportunity for them by adding a wikilink. danielkueh (talk) 02:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok fair enough, but how about just "naturalistic" instead of "entirely naturalistic"? There is no record of previous, even partially naturalistic explanations, unless I am mistaken. Khirurg (talk) 02:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Khirurg:, I now prefer the phrase "entirely naturalistic" over just "naturalistic" for three reasons. First, it is the phrase used by Lindberg (p. 27), so it is faithful to the source. Second, in the other source, Grant describes the understandings or explanations of the Mesopotamians as an "interplay between natural and supernatural explanations of observed effects in the physical world.. (p. 6 of [[3]], click on the book to preview its contents)" and he provides several examples of this. All the pre-Socratic Greeks did was to remove the supernatural explanations to provide an "entirely naturalistic" explanation. Finally, before the arrival of the pre-Socratics, the Greeks still resorted to supernatural explanations, which Grant documents as follows on p. 8:

"Consequently, although "the idea of the divine often figures in their cosmologies, the supernatural plays no part in their explanations."

There can be no doubt that this was a monumental change of outlook. It was a new approach that was added to the mythological explanations of the world that had characterized earlier Greek descriptions of physical phenomena by the likes of Hesiod and Homer. Pre-socratics no longer explained natural phenomena, such as earthquakes, lightning, storms, and eclipses, as the actions of happy and angry gods, but as the actions of natural forces that regularly produced such effects. Thus, Thales of Miletus, who is regarded as the first of the Greek investigators into nature, is said to have declared that "the world is help up by water and rides like a ship, and when it is said to 'quake' it is actually rocking because of the water's movement. Rather than attribute earthquake to Poseidon, god of the sea, as Greeks had done for centuries, Thales chose to give a natural explanation, as did all the Pre-Socratics who followed him."

danielkueh (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Disagree. On page 3 Grant clearly states Egyptians and Mesopotamians viewed the world as a place where magic was essential for survival. It was used to explain virtually all the phenomena we would regard as natural. I've tried to meet you halfway, I would like some reciprocity. Khirurg (talk) 03:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Khirurg:, not a contradiction. All he is saying is that they believed magic plays an important role and could explain phenomena that “we,” meaning modern science, now considers to occur purely naturally. But it’s still an interplay. danielkueh (talk) 04:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the author could be any clearer in this passage. "Virtually all phenomena" is pretty clear. Khirurg (talk) 04:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

And again on page 6, Grant states ...the Egyptians and Mesopotamians were heavily reliant on explanations rooted in magic, mythology, or the supernatural. Regarding the "interplay" you mention, Grant is referring to the Greeks, not the Mesopotamians: "The interplay between natural and supernatural explanations of observed effects in the natural world took a dramatic turn around 600 BC, when the Greeks appeared on the scene." It's not entirely clear what he means, but it does not suggest to me that the Egyptians and Mesopotamians had natural explanations (in which case he would be contradicting himself). Besides, both sources show supernatural explanations were still common in ancient Greece. What was novel were the non-supernatural explanations. Khirurg (talk) 03:54, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Khirurg:, I agree it wouldn’t be entirely clear if you were to take an all-or-none approach. But historical events are rarely neat like that. It’s a little more nuanced. The Ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians relied *heavily* on supernatural explanations, which is not the same as “entirely” reliant. I concede that the pre-Socratics passed the threshold in the other direction but even then, “world rides on water like a ship?” Come on, man. danielkueh (talk) 04:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Look, Grant says the Egyptians and Mesopotamians relied on supernatural explanations for virtually all phenomena. Second, what's the difference between a "naturalistic" explanation and an "entirely naturalistic" explanation? Is "all is water" a naturalistic or "entirely naturalistic" explanation? To me the "entirely" is needless verbosity (in an already long and verbose sentence). This is the lede of the article, it is not a place for capturing every nuance and detail, but rather one for conciseness. Khirurg (talk) 04:27, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Khirurg:, to your first point, looking at that statement alone would be to take it out of context while completely disregarding "practical interest in the physical world that manifested itself primarily in the areas of astronomy, mathematics, and medicine (p. 2 of Grant)." Lindberg mentions something similar. For example, on p. 18, he talks about diseases (natural) as being the result of invasion by evil spirits (supernatural). There are several issues here with our discussion. It is too focused on an imaginary "hard break" between the Ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians on the one end and the Ancient Greeks on the other, which doesn't exist and frankly is not quite relevant. What's relevant is what is novel about the Greek natural philosophy that began around 600 BC? A look at a simplified timeline as follows might clear it up:

3500 BC onwards in Mesopotamia: No distinction between supernatural and natural. It was very much a "fusion" of the two.

Before 600 BC in Ancient Greece: Mainly supernatural as it appeals to Greek Mythology

600 BC onwards: Entirely natural explanations. The Greek gods were still there but their role was not included in the pre-Socratics' explanations.

Thus, it is a gradual transition. To your second point, you're now presenting a moving target by appealing to concision. I'm all about concision but not at the expense of accuracy and/or involving sloppy language. And certainly not when it is at variance with the sources. danielkueh (talk) 05:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, in your above post it is basically you who is stating there is a "hard break", this time between pre 600 BC Greece and post 600 BC. There are millennia between Mesopotamia and Egypt and the Milesians, and I see no evidence of continuity or a gradual transition. Second, can you please elaborate on the difference between a "naturalistic" explanation and an "entirely naturalistic" explanation? Khirurg (talk) 05:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Khirurg: First, please read my post carefully. I said the hard break between the Mesopotamians and Ancient Greeks does not exist. Plus, the Greeks themselves continued to appeal to their own mythologies to explain the workings of the world, right up until around 600 BC with the arrival of Thales. If you don't see the continuity in knowledge and understand how it evolved over time from the Ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians to the pre-Socratic of Ancient Greece, then you haven't read the sources (and others like them) in their entirety. Because if you have, you would see multiple statements such as this: "I have said enough about creation myths in the preceding section to reveal key features of Egyptian and Mesopotamian cosmogony (concerned with the origins of the universe) and cosmology (concerned with the structure of the universe). Here I will restrict myself to the Egyptians and Mesopotamian contributions to several other disciplines that subsequently found a place within Greek and medieval European science: mathematics, astronomy, and medicine. (p. 12 of Lindberg)"

Second, I'm done elaborating. If you really want to know, you just have to take the time read and understand the sources by Grant and Lindberg in their entirety. I have already explained and presented in great detail several passages from sources that can be verified by anyone reading this thread. In fact, I have both books (among others) right in front of me. Plus, it's not clear at this moment what the remaining objections are. Finally, the burden of proof is not on me but on you to justify why we should not use the terms that are explicitly used and explained by the authors (Grant and Lindberg) of these two sources. danielkueh (talk) 05:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I did read both sources. And I see very little evidence of any sort of naturalistic explanations of the world in both Egyptian and Mesopotamian "science". Specifically page 3 in Grant "Egyptians and Mesopotamians viewed the world as a place where magic was essential for survival. It was used to explain virtually all the phenomena we would regard as natural." You are nitpicking and reading way too much into passages that are vague (e.g. the "interplay" sentence). Based on these sources, it is not inaccurate to say "the first naturalistic explanations of the world appear in 600 BC". As for moving targets, I would like to remind you that at first you were fine with "naturalistic" but now insist on "entirely naturalistic". Khirurg (talk) 05:49, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Khirurg:. Well, if you did read those books carefully AND in their entirety, you won't be:

A) still harping about the Ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians, which are irrelevant to this discussion.

B) committing to the same error about the timeline. It is not Ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians --> pre-socratics. Rather, it is Ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians --> before pre-Socratics, i.e., Homer and Hesiod --> pre-Socratics. Thus, the key distinction here is not between the Mesopotamians and the Ancient Greeks. It is the distinction between Greeks before 600 BC and those after. Bonus points if you can tell me when the "clear distinction between the natural and the supernatural was emerging."

With respect to your accusations about me "nitpicking" and "overreading," with are hardly serious arguments, let me remind you that I've been contributing to Wikipedia with my account since 2007. Thus, in addition to being familiar with the policies here, I have the sources, experience, AND credentials (not the it matters) to carefully read and interpret sources. How about you? danielkueh (talk) 06:42, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, sure. danielkueh (talk) 07:35, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Khirurg (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi folks. Danielkueh, I don't agree to your change above. I believe "naturalistic" better be reversed back to "rational". Terms such as the "first" and the "best" are dubious and not encyclopedic terms, but this is another matter. Among others, the Hindu philosopher Uddalaka is considered both the first-known naturalist and atomist. For example, in: (Birx, H. James (2005). Encyclopedia of Anthropology: FIVE-VOLUME SET. SAGE Publications. p. 2159. ISBN 9781506320038. A credible case can be made for Uddalaka as the first recorded naturalist...Uddalaka provided the first versions of a monistic universe, atomistic physics --Ramadut (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ramadut What if 'materialist' conception of nature rather than "rationalist conception of nature" were the phrase? Would this be compatible with your source? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 19:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC) Upon reading your source, I submit that 'materialist' would also work as the adjective, as Uddalaka preceded the Charvaka school which is materialist etc. Both they and Uddalaka are certainly compatible with Epicurus as well. Francis Crick was a materialist, by the way; he insisted that DNA have a molecular basis during his investigations with Watson. For the encyclopedia, Uddalaka's role in Atomism#Indian_atomism would be strengthened by a citation unifying his identification as Aruni, which is the name in the Aruni article. Might you provide a citation identifying Uddalaka as Aruni? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 20:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC) Oh my, I found a citation from the Mahabharata: Mahabharata (MBh 1.3) Now we need a scholarly source ! Not to imply that the 6 schools of Indian philosophy are not scholarly, but we also could use something from SEP or the like, a university perhaps. --20:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC) I found one: Uddalaka is Aruni: p.180 in Sociological Bulletin Vol. 1, No. 2 (1952) — G. S. Ghurye Ascetic Origins Sociological Bulletin Vol. 1, No. 2 (1952), pp. 162-184 JSTOR login required --20:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Ramadut, could you please add the citation unifying his identification as Uddalaka to the Aruni article. I am assuming you have JSTOR access. Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 21:00, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Materialist seems better than naturalist. Sure, I can add the reference, but I don't have JSTOR access, unfortunately. Here another source explaining how Uddalaka adopted the name Aruni. Anyway there are sources claiming Aruni was different on some instances. For example, in the critical and cultural study of the Śātapatha Brāhmaṇam by Satya Prakash it is said "Aruni said, His Agnihotra-cow, assuredly, is the sky. her calf is that blowing (wind), and the Agnihotra-vessel is this (earth (XII. 4.1.11.) Uddalaka Aruni is a figure obviously different from Aruni described above." The son of Uddalaka Aruni was called Svetaketu Aruni. --Ramadut (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Rationalism is not acceptable for reasons already mentioned above. Materialism, like non-supernatural, doesn’t faithfully convey the main point made by the sources, which is that the pre-Socratics attempted to explain how the world works based exclusively on natural causes. Lindberg described that approach as naturalistic. So it is not a fringe view. But if there is still preferance for words related to materialism, then the correct term you’re looking for is material monism. But for some, that might be too wordy. And if no one likes the word “first,” then by all means, delete it. danielkueh (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with your latest edit, both in terms of the nature of the edit, and also because of verbosity, but added "recorded" as a way to soften it without compromising the sources. Hope you are ok with that. Khirurg (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

It's disputed by the Encyclopedia of Anthropology mentioned above. Even the naturalism page doesn't make that claim. Grant describes it as a "monumental change" and Lindberg uses the phrase, "new and powerful alternative." But I don't recall them stating that it was the "first recorded." danielkueh (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Materialism, rationalism, naturalism, are all modern concepts from the last few centuries (mainly 18th and 19th centuries). So these terms are not useful because they are not historical. Grant and Lindberg do not use such wording and such anachronistic terms should not be in the article. Natural and philosophy are the only terms in the ancient world in common usage. The claim of "first recorded" is also very problematic because no one really knows when the first recordings for any particular topic were made. We only have very few sources that even survive the archaeological record and what historians say is the first (if they even say this), is the first one they have found, not a true first record. It is certainly reasonable to say that Mesopotamian and Egyptians tried to explain things as they saw fit and that they did not live in a world where "nature" (as a thing like "reality") existed. There was no materialism, rationalism, naturalism, or other types of modern terms in the ancient world or the medieval world for that matter. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 01:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, the term supernatural was first used in the 1500s not the ancient world supernatural. There is an excellent academic text on the emergence of the concept "The Natural and the Supernatural in the Middle Ages" by Robert Bartlett by the way. The whole construct of supernatural is modern, not ancient. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 01:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ramos1990:, thanks for the input. Yes, "anachronism" was the term I've been thinking of all day but just couldn't recall. Anyway, the second part of the second sentence, "whereby attempts were made to explain events of nature based on natural causes" may come across as a little clumsy. So if you have suggestions on how to phrase it more elegantly, please share. danielkueh (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

No problem Danielkueh. Maybe you can reworded your phrase to "whereby formal attempts were made to explain events of physical world based on physical causes". I know that the Greeks used the words physis and cosmos for the "world", "universe". Natura was used by the Romans and it meant the behavior of a thing or creature as in "the nature of a dog". I am thinking of Pliny the Elder's "Natural History". Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 02:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, @Ramos1990:. I like that a lot better. But for the sake of prose, perhaps we can be a little more flexible when it comes to natural and physical? Plus, the sources do use them interchangeably, so we won't have to worry about committing an error of synthesis. How about this slight modification with wikilinks and all? "...whereby formal attempts were made to explain events of the physical world based on natural causes." danielkueh (talk) 02:11, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

"Physical world based on physical causes" is still clunky. And it should be "Where" instead of "Whereby" (or maybe "wherein"). Also, new source Thales is the first person about whom we know to propose explanations of natural phenomena which were materialistic rather than mythological or theological.. Hence why I had added "first recorded", although perhaps "first known" would be better. Khirurg (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

It would be helpful to look up the terms. From Merriam-Webster's:

Whereby: by, through, or in accordance with which [[4]]

Where: at, in, or to what place where is the house where are we going [[5]]

Wherein: : in what : in what particular or respect wherein was I wrong [[6]]

As for the *new* source, I'm curious about the way it's phrased: "Thales is the first person about whom we know to propose...." Does O'Grady mean "Thales is the first person whom we know about to do XYZ" or does she mean "We know Thales is the first person to do XYZ?" A subtle but important distinction. I suspect she meant the former. danielkueh (talk) 02:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Very simple. O'Grady basically says "Thales is the first person that we know of who did X, Y, and Z". "About to do X, Y, Z" is odd because Thales is in the past. Khirurg (talk) 03:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

No. "About whom we know" is another way of saying "what we know about her (or him) is..." Look at the same page where she uses the same phrase in another sentence, "There must have been any number of people who visited foreign lands, about whom we know nothing." Meaning? We don't know anything about them. danielkueh (talk) 03:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

So then, what we know about Thales is that he proposed X, Y, Z. But she also says "first". In other words, there may have been others that proposed X, Y, Z, but we know nothing about them, therefore Thales is the first person that we know of who proposed X, Y, Z. Otherwise how do you interpret "first". Khirurg (talk) 03:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

If she had used commas to qualify "about whom we know" as a parenthetical expression, then you might have a point. But she didn't. All she said was that Thales was the first person we know about who proposed XYZ. That doesn't mean she is stating he is the first. Suppose I've never met anyone who sells hot dogs. Then one day you came by and sold me one. To use O'Grady's expression, "you are the first about whom I know to sell hot dogs." Does that mean you are the first person ever to sell hot dogs? No. It just means you're the first hot dog seller I know about. danielkueh (talk) 04:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh come on. O'Grady is not talking about herself, she is talking about the scientific community (i.e. all of us). By your hot dog analogy, Thales is the first that we know about, i.e. the first known, same thing. Speaking of hot dogs, you made me hungry now. Khirurg (talk) 04:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I am well aware that she is referring to an academic community that knows about Thales first. We, me, us, it doesn't matter. Just because she didn't mention anybody else other than Thales in an article about Thales doesn't mean we can infer from her statement that Thales is first. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. danielkueh (talk) 04:17, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Obviously not the "first", but the "first that we know of". Khirurg (talk) 04:33, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Not "of." "About." First person whom we know "about." Hence, she could have said, "we know about him first, we know about her second, we know about them third, etc." But she didn't. And that's fine. Still doesn't prove anything. danielkueh (talk) 04:46, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Another source "...despite the achievements of the Near Easter peoples...it would be reasonable to argue that Thales was the first philosopher scientist" [7]. Khirurg (talk) 03:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, before I start verifying every other source that gets pushed my way, I would like to understand the rationale for the need to proclaim "first-recorded" or something similar in the lead of a science article. Because in terms of content, it really doesn't add much. We have already specified the timeline, and by association the geography, when we mentioned "Classical Antiquity." Plus, there is no support from the other editors. Grant, Lindberg, O'Grady (see my response on her grammar), and the Encyclopedia published by Sage (a reputable publishing company) don't make that claim. So why should we? danielkueh (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Will respond to both here. Hi Danielkueh, the reword you proposed with wikilinks looks fine to me. "Natural" is certainly better and less controversial than materialism or rationalism or other types less anachorisms.

Sounds good. Thanks! danielkueh (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Khirurg, the new source you proposed does not mention much about science in general for the ancient period. I would be careful since the source is philosophical source rather than a historical source - and we are talking about the history of science (natural philosophy - which is different than philosophy) after all. I do not think that the one line from the IEP is sufficient enough change the stuff in this science article because the author of the Thales article is very anachoristic and focuses on only one person. It is also very philosophical in content. Grant and Lindberg on the other hand focus on a wide variety of natural philosophers and beyond to see how these cultures understood the physical world so these are better sources for that context. I would not use even modern philosophers of science for historical claims like this.

G E R Lloyd is a better source, but not much can be said of it. Thales is not the focus of the sentence in the lead that we are trying to reword. Most of the Greeks had all sorts of views with respect to the cosmos and none were purely physical only. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 03:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

But look at what else Lloyd says (same paragraph) "Nevertheless there are two important characteristics that do distinguish the speculation of the Milesian philosophers from those of earlier thinkers, whether Greek or non-Greek. First there is what may be described as the discovery of nature...". Khirurg (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I cannot see the context of that last phrase actually is (google book stops the quote where you stopped). But it does not look significant to mention Thales in the lead either way. The so-called "discovery of nature" sounds weird since obviously the physical world was not "discovered" by anyone and people used physics and mathematics and chemistry well before the "speculations" of Thales or "the Milesian philosophers". I assume you want to refer to natural explanations? If such is the case, most of Greek natural philosophy did not have a demarcation between explanations or causes. They did not have categories of natural/supernatural. None of this is useful for the lead since the article is not a science vs superstition page. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 04:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

A social system

I have noticed that social systems are neglected, somehow. My motivation is the slogan "System creates reality" which can be observed even on this talk page. For example, communication between groups, or even societies seems to ignore that implicit assumptions can divide us. Written policies (for example those of the encyclopedia) can be used to unite us as a system (by spelling out the rules of communication). In physics class, we are taught to isolate the body in order to figure it out (the forces on that body for a mechanical system, or the charge distribution for an instant in an electrodynamic system, etc.), and a framework can be chosen for convenience; but in social systems we seem to need to tie the framework to social concepts. There is even an article about The Social Construction of Reality.

Punchline: the scientific community is a social system. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Polity vs Public

@Ancheta Wis: Polities is too narrow. Webster's defines polity as a "political organization" or "a specific form of political organization". That section also describes public awareness and public outreach of science. Thus, "public" or "society" is more appropriate. I'm open to a other more descriptive terms. danielkueh (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

But the public has no inherent right in some cultures, where their rights stop outside the cities where the jobs are, because they are bound to their land, like serfs. I'm referring to intra-national 'illegal immigration' in today's world, not nineteenth c. Russia. We can't use a term like 'public' when those countries don't even assign universal, public rights. It's stacking the deck in the article. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 00:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Back up a bit. Looking at the definition of public as a noun, Webster's defines it as "1) a place accessible or visible to the public —usually used in the phrase in public, or 2) the people as a whole : POPULACE." Whether or not a public has inherent rights in certain cultures is besides the point and not particularly relevant to this section. This section is focused on the relationship between science and the general public or society. Polity is not the best term for as the dictionary makes clear, it refers to an organization. In fact, the second sense definition defines it as "1) something (such as a country or state) that has a government : a politically organized unit or 2) a form of government." This section is more than just governments or states. Hence, public (or society) is still the better term. Plus, the term public is well-established and we have sources using it as such. danielkueh (talk) 00:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I touched a section heading, using 'polity', but I'm trying to drawn out a more exact phrase. 'Denkkollektiv' is Ludwik Fleck's term for the kind of entity I am groping for, a 'thought collective' Denkkollektiv. Terms that we use are culture-bound, tied up with our local beliefs. 'Living being', for example is such a term. A thinking plant could very well be quite different from a thinking ape. I refer to the Aspen forests of Michigan, which are tens of thousands of years old. And we know that some plants comunicate with chemicals. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 00:03, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Interesting but this section is about the interaction between science and the public (populace as a whole). danielkueh (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

But I'm not tied to the term 'polity'. I'm hoping that 'society' is less loaded a term. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 00:44, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

As a term, public is not loaded. Based on the dictionary sources, it is the most neutral term. A more loaded term would be "people" (see third definition in Webster's [[8]]. Society is more restrictive than public. Looking at Webster's, the first two sentences defined society as "1) : companionship or association with one's fellows : friendly or intimate intercourse : COMPANY or 2) : a voluntary association of individuals for common ends especially : an organized group working together or periodically meeting because of common interests, beliefs, or profession." Plus, we have multiple WP articles that use public, whether in title or in the body, such as public awareness of science, science outreach, and science communication. Hence, we should revert it back. danielkueh (talk) 00:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

There is a hidden assumption. 'Social' refers in its simplest sense to 'one-to-one', and 'one to many' refers to 'one speaking to one's society. But the sense of 'public' refers to 'one speaking to everyone'. That is a myth. Even Wikipedia is not 'one to every being', but to a subset, which is the sense of 'society'. Not 'to everyone', but 'to one's audience'. Whereas 'public' can even refer to 'one talking to no one in particular'. 'Social' in this sense refers to 'Social contract', meaning the sense of a relationship between people, dating back to the Enlightenment. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 01:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

lol, what are you talking about? There's no "hidden assumption." Public does not mean "speaking to everyone." If you were to look at the thesaurus for synonyms or near synonyms of public [[9]], you will find terms such as "open, free-for-all, unrestricted, common, general, majority, etc." In fact, look at examples of how the term is used [[10]]

• The beach is open to the public.
• The general public is in favor of the law.
• Members of the public called for the mayor's resignation.

The above examples are very consistent with how term is used in this section, other WP articles, and cited sources. In fact, here are the titles of some secondary sources that are relevant to this section:

• Speaking in Public About Science [11]
• Science in Public: Communication, Culture, and Credibility [12]
• Science in the Public Sphere: A history of lay knowledge and expertise [13]
• Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology [14]

danielkueh (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

But to lift up the discourse, how about making the section name Rhetoric of science and let its applications such as Politics, Communications, Advertising, etc. follow. After all, rhetoric is about convincing people. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 01:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The lead definition for the Rhetoric of science article is "a body of scholarly literature exploring the notion that the practice of science is a rhetorical activity." A completely different topic. And this section is not just about persuading people about science. It is also about the media coverage of science, politicization of science, etc. In fact, we should probably move science policy back to this section as it is part of public policy.[15][16][17] danielkueh (talk) 01:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

By the way, we even have a category called Science and the public, covering the topics of that section {{Science and the public}} It's settled then. danielkueh (talk) 02:21, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Lede image

The scale of the universe mapped to branches of science.

Location for discussion of the Lede Image. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 16:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The Feynman Lectures on Physics Chapter 5, Volume I, last diagram, maps distances to objects, ranging from the radius of a nucleus to the edge of the universe The previous chapters cover 1: & 2:the nature of things (the atomic theory), time, space, physical phenomena. 3:The relation of physics to other sciences 4:Energy So to me, the disputed image covers all this, and Chapter 5, Volume I, last diagram covers all the objects of the image, versus a distance scale. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 17:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

This is synthesis of material that was never meant to be condensed into one image, and is grossly misleading in general. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Since Feynman named the objects, he already condensed them in his image. But please explain how his image misleads us in general. Might it be that our mental image of manifold objects as one is misguided? Might it be that inclusion of formal objects in a manifold is misleading? Or simply that the image in the lede depicting formal models is bound to human scale? Or that the image in the lede depicting atoms is wrong? ? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 17:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The size of objects is not the same thing as the 'size' of where science applies, or how they are divided/structured. The whole thing is, simply put, not even wrong. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I have been assuming that we have the same kind of background; the article measurement#Standardization of measurement units is meaningful to me, and C. S. Peirce in my view, did fundamental meaningful work. I respect cogent views and would appreciate a statement where you might diverge from the view that scale in physics continues to be a commensurable concept. For example, the Rayleigh criterion of physical optics does not invalidate the measurement of the angular width of a star measured in an optical system and the Airy disk suffices to describe it. Again, where might scale matter to you in a description of the size of physical phenomena? If the realm of physics does not suffice, please state where that realm ceases to apply in your view. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 00:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

To be explicit, the scales I refer to range from the atomic nucleus outward. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 01:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

It would be helpful to give an example to illustrate your objection. Here is an example of an antenna that operates at atomic scale rather than macro scale. How about providing the readers an example to bolster what you mean? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 07:54, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Spatial scale is an example of the form of reasoning used for the disputed image. What is unacceptable about this form of reasoning? How about providing the readers an example to bolster what you mean? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 12:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Here is a citation for "the most important application of science"; might this be what you refer to? 13:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

As you might see, I am trying to understand just what domain of definition to which you might be referring, as in twenty questions. 15:04, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Here is a real-world utilitarian error while modelling school-bus allocation which was intended to save money. But the school superintendent neglected to test the model against the stakeholders. Might this kind of public policy error be what you mean as an example?

You're having a discussion with yourself here. This is simple, this image is pure WP:SYNTH, and is an idiosyncratic mish mash of poorly organized ideas. This does not only concern individual elements of the image (many of which are wrong on their own, like the claim that Chemistry apply to nanometer-and-below scales, but rather its general organization, structure, and accuracy (like claims that it's meaningful to talk about social sciences as 'things that apply to scales of ~1 m' in the first place). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Good, it's tough to discuss without participants. Feynman volume I, chapter 3 discusses the fact of unknowns when discussing the relation of physics to other sciences and acknowledges that he is speaking at a very high level. Even so, he was able to speak to an increasingly large audience of professionals as the lectures proceeded, and his practice was to make his lectures as understandable as possible, with no mysterious gaps. The practice of free and bold estimation of quantities (even just the order of magnitude, when nothing else is known), as in the diagram, was and has been deliberately taught to physicists, as a basis for reasoning, certainly since Kepler and Galileo. I agree that the social sciences need more discussion per the diagram. Feynman's colleague, Murray Gell-mann's take is that complex adaptive systems need discussion, beginning with a measure for complexity. Gell-mann proposes that message-length between parties (in the disputed diagram: 1-2 meters in height, for humans) be considered in that measure.

So it appears that a citation for your view, showing that the scale for chemical structures is wrong is in order, but Feynman I ch.5 shows agreement with his description for DNA (at 35 angstroms for the unit cell i.e. 3.5 nanometers)? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 17:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

There appear to be three arguments here concerning Efbrazil's image. Firstly, is the image original research; secondly, is the image misleading; thirdly, even if the image does not represent original research and is not misleading, is it appropriate for the lead in the Science article?

• Firstly, is it original research? As Ancheta correctly states above, the scale on the left of the image is similar to that in Chapter 5 of the Feynman lectures, so no originality there. The right of the image, listing different branches of science and the scale to which they apply, is to my mind pretty obvious if you link it to the concrete objects on the left - biology relates to cells and organisms and cells are an object marked on the scale. I don't think this counts as a violation of WP:SYNTH as it is not leading to conclusions that other authors have not reached (for the main, with the possible exception of social sciences, the links are a bit of a no-brainer).
• Secondly,is it misleading? I'm not really sure why Headbomb thinks it is misleading. It is a lighthearted arbitrary way to organize the disciplines within science and I don't really see how anyone is going to come to false conclusions by looking at it. You could argue about the precise position that things might appear on the scale, but anyone sensible should realize that positions on a logarithmic scale in essentially a cartoon graphic are going to be approximate. No-one is going to use this image as a concrete guide as to how big something is, surely? I'm happy to change my mind if Headbomb can give convincing reasons why it might mislead people.
• Thirdly, is it appropriate? There are many ways that you could choose to arrange the disciplines of science, and I don't feel that this way is particularly better or worse than any other. It is a cleanly presented attractive graphic that lists many of the fields of science according to one of many logical sequences, and for what it's worth, I like it. PeaBrainC (talk) 09:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

"lighthearted arbitrary way to organize the disciplines within science" exactly. This is an encyclopedia, not a lie to children handwavy "oh it's roughly like this, if you don't ask too much question". And one based on original synthesis of a source that never was intended to be synthesized that way. No one talks of social science at 'something that applies on orders of magnitude ~1m", or that geosciences apply from scales of 10⁶ to 10^∞ m. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Don't see your point really, what is your principal objection - are you saying typical size isn't a good measure? Typical speed would give something similar. Would you prefer something which distinguishes between the 'soft' and 'hard' sciences as in Purity? Dmcq (talk) 12:22, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The principal objections are that this is a) original synthesis, because this organization of sciences isn't backed by reliable sources, it's taking a source and making it say things it didn't say, b) idiosyncratic, because no one organizes sciences in this way, and c) both factually wrong and misleading. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Could someone explain what this diagram has to do with Feynman and his lectures - I have the book on my desk since I'm looking up entropy. There are lots of other sources for the scales in the universe. Second, the diagram has arrows showing the physical sciences as only applying to objects earth size and larger and atomic size and smaller. Physics covers all scales (which is why Feynman has his scale in chapter 5) - think of electrical circuits, thermodynamics, fluid dynamics. Third, the other sciences don't fit neatly into such a scale either. Biological sciences deal with scales from viruses up to ecosystems up to the size of the earth. Social sciences aren't limited to the size of the human mind. Think of anthropologists studying whole societies. While there is an hierarchy of sciences in terms of how they depend on each other, this does not map to the scale of the universe. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

@StarryGrandma, at the scale of geology, I learned from User:Bruce Bathurst, a geologist, that his science is an application of thermodynamics; that when geological predictions are made, they stem from material processes, and can be searched for, as in astronomy. But, time is not the dimension of observation, space is the appropriate dimension, and a geological prediction is for known versus not yet known material objects. (It's not until we get to multi-messenger astronomy that geology has to acknowledge other material processes, not yet observed on Earth, and that the time of observation gets to be a factor.) --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs)

The main problem with the image is WP:UNDUE on the mapping of branch to scale, when a branch doesn't fit in one scale it is omitted i.e. where's physics? Widefox; talk 16:42, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Physics covers all the scales. That is in the citation, and is also noted in the contribution above yours. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 17:00, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

But it ain't in the image. Nor is chemistry and classical mechanics something that apply at scales of 10⁻⁹ m or less. Or any other of the gross inaccuracies of the image. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:43, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

No, it's in the diagram: the atomic theory informs the entire diagram, starting with the atomic nucleus, and we see, at ascending scales, assemblages of material points, as in chemistry, which embody the objects shown, beginning with Feynman I Ch. 1 (The relation to classical mechanics is a theorem of Newton's Principia ( I. Newton, I. B Cohen, A. Whitmann (1999), p. 956 (Proposition 75, Theorem 35), as embodied in Earth-scale objects, where Newton proved it was possible to treat Earth as a point.) --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 19:38, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Ancheta Wis physics isn't in the image. That alone means it doesn't portray the branches of science. A non-starter. Anyhow, the selection of any mapping of branches of science to any property (not just size) would be an arbitrary selection that is UNDUE. i.e. this one is a bad version of Orders of magnitude (length), but we have many to choose from {{Orders of magnitude}}. The image has oversimplifications and is also wrong e.g. classical mechanics ...macroscopic... is incorrectly in small scale. Widefox; talk 19:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Please see above reply 19:38, 30 Sep. The Atomic theory is a better-founded starting point with a history dating back 2500 years. That is Feynman I Ch. 1. ff. "The expression of all scientific knowledge in a single sentence." Also, please keep the ref at the foot of this talk page section. Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs)

Pure WP:SYNTH, and synthesis that is not even wrong too. Physics is not the atomic theory, nor is atomic theory all of science. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:41, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

There is no requirement that images be based on reliable sources, provided they don't imply something that isn't in the article text. You don't give much to work from but I guess your objection the is that the text gives no scale associated with the sciences. I tried a google images on 'science' and the firdt lot I got are straightforward images without text, for instance [18] and [19]. Might something like that be better? Have you any particular proposal? Dmcq (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Leave the image out entirely as irredeemably bad, grossly inaccurate, and grossly misleading. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

That is simply not a constructive comment. We're encouraged to have a picture at the top of articles illustrative of the topic. Did you look at the images I linked to? Are those okay or if not why not? And please try to be a bit more articulate that 'irrdeemably bad' otherwise I rather feel like just ignoring your comments as coming from someone who can't think. Dmcq (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

We're encouraged to have pictures sure, this isn't license to put a factually wrong and grossly misleading picture just for the sake of having a picture. I have already detailed several problems with the image. And I'm not in the UK, so your links don't work. Plenty of accurate images exist to illustrate science (e.g. scientists at work, a famous scientist/philosopher of science, a famous experiment, a famous scientific icon, ...). There are also plenty of hierarchy/classifications of sciences that have been proposed, and this image comes nowhere any acceptable hierachies. The debate is not 'how can we save this image', the image is hopeless. The debate should be how can we accurately illustrate the article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:32, 30 September 2018 (UTC)File

Synth and not even wrong covers it. A quick look at the original version shows where its gone wrong [20] - it had "physics" so it seems to have started at UNDUE and been corrupted, now unusable. Widefox; talk 21:51, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

You were unable to access those images? They were just in the first few I got when I used Google to get images about 'science'. I'm rather surprised. One was on a BBC site and the other on a university site. I'm very surprised that you were blocked from accessing them. Is there a particular problem you can say something about, rather than just that they were in the UK? Anyway thanks for being a bit more expansive about the sort of thing which you miight find okay. Dmcq (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The fact that the image doesn't include physics seems like a pretty serious problem. For me, that completely rules it out as a possible lede image for the Science article. A scheme for organizing the branches of science that doesn't end up including physics as a branch has failed.--Srleffler (talk) 21:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Thinking about it and looking at other images about 'science' I think not having any words in the lead image would be better. If the words and the scale are removed how does that work out? Just the five circles, and remove the words around the formal sciences one. Dmcq (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Here is that image without all the text, is this sort of thing okay, I think I'd want better images but the general idea. Dmcq (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Well that at least has hope of being something appropriate. I'd rather start from a blank slate and decide what the image should contain first, go from there to decide on what the elements of that image should be. The three main divisions we have in the article are a) natural sciences b) social sciences c) formal sciences. So going by that, we need three things

• Natural science -- obvious candidate here is the 3-electron atom (Bohr model), e.g. File:Atom-1222511.jpg (obviously not the only image that could be used)
• Formal science -- something from math or logic. Could be Euler's identity/Pythagoras' theorem, or perhaps a Rubik's cube or a platonic solid. Lots of choices here. (e.g. File:Rubik's_cube.svg)
• Social science -- something that illustrates society in someway. Possibly a handshake File:Hermandad_-_friendship.jpg (not the only handshake).

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

• 1. A Bohr model atom would still need neutrons, and the current Bohr atom image has both neutrons and protons
  2. A DNA molecule embodies the genetic code; DNA could represent a mathematical/logical form and a biological form at the same time
  3. Oxytocin molecules are released during social bonding, both among adults, and between mother and baby. It has been called the moral molecule --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 05:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Or you can shove protons + neutrons in a single thing called the nucleus. The main issue with the version in that image is that it's overlaid on top of File:CMS Higgs-event.jpg a Higgs event which detracts from what is an icon of science. Likewise DNA in no way represents a 'mathematical/logical form', and social sciences go beyond neurobiology, which is more natural science than social science. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think anything is helped by going on about that a lithium atom would have 2 1s and 1 2s electrons rather than the three shown circling around together in those pictures. I think trying for some simple stylized graphics that everyone would recognize easily rather than any sort of accuracy should be the aim. Dmcq (talk) 10:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I see that Sociology has a lead illustration of a network which could equally help for some formal science. Makes me think of an old song by Tom Lehrer ;-) but I think with a brain for the more physical things it works okay. Dmcq (talk) 10:32, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

That's not the lead image, it's just the navbox image. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Do you think that makes a difference? Dmcq (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Maybe, I was just pointing out this image wasn't specifically chosen to illustrate that article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:07, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Indian and Chinese contributions

Should Indian and Chinese contribution to science be included in the 2nd paragraph from the top? Thank you. 2607:9880:4030:15:C43C:F91A:CDA0:E6DD (talk) 15:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. The purpose of the lead is to summarize the basics of the article (see (wp:lead). It’s not meant to be exhaustive by mentioning every detail. That’s what the main body of the article is for. That said, if we do need to add new information, we would ideally add it to the main body of the article first, and then summarize it in the lead if it deserves to be featured more prominently (see wp:undue). As for the second paragraph, it is meant to provide readers with a quick overview of how modern science developed over time. Based on the sources, knowledge of traditional Chinese medicine, for example, has not been critical to the events leading up to the Scientific revolution. Thus, any mention of it would be superfluous. Hope this addresses the question. danielkueh (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Scientific Method Section

The first paragraph of the "Scientific Method" section has a few issues I propose fixing:

• In the second sentence, change "using principles such as..." to "using problem-solving principles such as..." to give additional context.
• In the second sentence, change everything after "Occam's Razor" with "and is generally expected to fit well with other accepted facts related to the phenomena."
  • The change from "are expected" to "is expected" makes the phrase agree with the singular subject.
  • Linking to Consilience rather than including it in the sentence improves concision.
• Remove the fifth sentence, "Disproof of a prediction is evidence of progress." It adds nothing to the paragraph and is discussed in the next one anyway.
• Change the beginning of the sixth sentence from "This is done..." to "Testing is done..." to make it less ambiguous.
• Change the final sentence to "Proper experimentation helps establish causal relationships to avoid the correlation fallacy." This changes the point of the sentence from why experimentation is important (which is not what the section is about) to what experimentation does (which is what the section is about).

Thank you! TechnicallyTrue376 (talk) 00:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding "disproof of a prediction": the disproof can only be valid if the underlying hypothesis does not apply universally; thus the mooted hypothesis would be existential in nature only, if it were to remain a valid 'explanation'. That clarification would be evidence of progress in the investigator's understanding, especially if the investigator had published the purported understanding before its disproof. The succeeding paragraph makes no claim about the applicability of a hypothesis which has not yet been clarified by experimental test. If unstated assumptions are unearthed by a disproof, that is progress. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 01:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Medieval science

This section is in need of a re-write. It is badly ordered historically, somewhat poorly sourced, and contains irrelevant text. Praemonitus (talk) 03:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

How are you propose to solve the problem of citations when manuscripts were the chief resource? Even Alhacen's Book of Optics was copied only a few dozen times. Who were the standard truth-bearers in this time, in your view? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 04:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

To be concrete, when A.Mark Smith (2010) published his translation of Alhacen's Book 7, it represented 40 years of his career. This kind of scholarship is a scarce resource. --05:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Science is

The intro is missing something basic:

Science (Latin: scientia, "knowledge") is human knowledge about nature, and a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes this knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. (ref:Berkeley.edu: What is science?: "Science is both a body of knowledge and a process." https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/whatisscience_01)

-Inowen (nlfte) 00:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Disagree. It's not a categorical statement because there are already robotic observatories. Binary neutron star mergers were first detected in this century, by a robotic observatory for gamma-ray bursts, which led to corroboration by 70 observatories world-wide, and by multi-messenger astronomy with GW170817. That was the sequence: first a robotic optical observation, then optical human corroboration, then gravitationally (machine, then human). Retrospectively, GRB 150101B was also identified to be a neutron star merger. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 03:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

There are no robot scientists yet. When a person writes a paper about an observation you will see no thanks to the observatory only to the person who used the observatory. Observatories are tools. Dmcq (talk) 11:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

If aliens did research, what they do would still be called science even if they aren't human. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any sections in the article about the history of science other than on earth. Shouldn't the lead describe what the article is about? But yes in fact I see no need to include humans in there. If someone wants to include that they need to give a good reason. It really isn't up to people to say why it should not be in there. Dmcq (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The reference to research done by robots is not relevant to the definition of science; robots is just another word for machines, which are programmed but not intelligent and therefore don't collect knowledge. The comment about extraterrestrial aliens doing science is speculative. If such exist, then their research into nature would be called "science." But their existence is not well established. And then if they did not share their science with humans, what they have in terms of knowledge about nature would be firewalled. There don't seem to be any difficulties stating that "science" is a noun for that collected body of knowledge about nature, as well as a noun for the whole enterprise of collecting knowledge about nature. -Inowen (nlfte) 06:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Experimentalist vs Theoretician

@Headbomb: I'm not disagreeing that there are scientists who can be classified as experimentalists and/or theoreticians. I have the following concerns:

• Aside from being overgeneralized and unsourced, it is overly simplistic to assume that all scientists can be neatly classified in this way. Even if we were to do so, it is not necessarily a 50/50 split.
• This classifications captures a subset of scientists, especially those in natural sciences, in particular physics. You won't find this distinction used very often for anthropologists, mathematicians, etc.
• The way it is written (it was taken from the scientists page by the way) seems to suggest that scientific modelling is just quantitative, which is not true.

I do not mind reintroducing the terms such as theoreticians, experimentalists, etc, provided that proper context be given and that it is not phrased as either one or the other. danielkueh (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Science and believe - don't say "I believe in science" but ... pls improve

better is "I stand by that scientific...", and then what?"I stand by that scientific consensus"?

1. I believe that stones will fall on the ground - better: I stand by the scientific consensus that stones nearly always fall on the ground here on Earth? - Acceptable shorter version: ...
2. I think that stone will fall on the ground - better: I stand by the scientific consensus that balls nearly always fall on the ground here on Earth.# I believe a stone will fall on the ground # It is a fact that stones fall on the ground. - Acceptable shorter version: ...

Thy - --SvenAERTS (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you worried that creationists will think there is some equivalence between believing in science and believing in the Bible so all science is a religion? It is in essence a belief that the world is rational rather than it follows the whim of some supernatural being. And all the evidence points to it being rational, but I see little need to concern ourselves with people who think some God planted fossils to test their belief in the Bible! Dmcq (talk) 15:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

About the recent revisions caused by "syntax"

Here are the links of the revisions to be discussed: [21], [22]. The main focus of my editing was actually not whether the attempts were the "first". It is the phrase "based on ..." that confuses me. I cannot determine which word or phrase it modifies.Cswquz (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Not sure I follow. Can you elaborate on what it is you find confusing? danielkueh (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Let me give a draft. Can the 2nd half of that sentence be rewritten as: "...whereby formal attempts were made to give explanation of events of the physical world based on natural causes" ?Cswquz (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Whenever possible, I usually prefer verbs (explain) over nouns (explanation). But if you believe this will add clarity, I'm not opposed to it. My only request is that explanation be made plural (explanations) as I'm sure they gave more than one. :) danielkueh (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

So be it... Done.Cswquz (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Problems with article

Was "Science as a compendium of revelations from God "

There is an idea of science as being exclusively a revelation from nature, but the idea of science as being the revelations of God has some history in philosophy, and in the religionist's accommodating usage of "philosophy" and "science" (note similarity in meaning) as fitting in a Holy perspective. For example, claims and references to claims like "[in] the prolegomena to Aristotle’s Physica, [Girolamo] Zanchi makes the case that philosophy ultimately comes to man by divine revelation"[23].

Some might read that as philsophy and not science, but the connection between science and philosophy is deep, and of late is perhaps misconveyed as distant, such that philosophy connotes soft and unrigourous research which includes the possibility of God, while "science" has become a code word for 'atheistic research only.' I suggested at WP:VP/I that we have articles which ask questions, but first perhaps a single article on the "Big questions" is required. One of the big questions we know by heart and mind is "is there a God?" From that basis, treatment of God as a possibility can be asked as a question, and then the treatment of God as an object for scientific proof. Dear science, can there be some connection between science and philosophy and religion? -Inowen (nlfte) 04:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Please see your talk page; this talk page is WP:NOTAFORUM --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 05:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll be specific. Article seems to need a Science and religion section, as their relationship is not just about "politicization" (only two times is religion mentioned in the article). There is lots of room at the bottom: the history section seems too involved and too long, as such that might best be sent off to make the History of science article deeper (including spin-offs). That said, there is something to be said for telling about science by telling about the history of science, except an article that doesn't even mention the discovery of fire, the invention of the wheel, or the history of paper, (all three missing from current version) is missing some seriously important science. One could say these aren't in science but in engineering, but that would be a bit obtuse. A lot of science is knowledge for sake of doing, not just knowledge without application.-Inowen (nlfte) 06:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

In addition to the above fire, wheel, paper, mentioned, other missing things which are human basics not just "materialistic" things, are clothing/textiles, (mentioned slightly), shelter/living spaces, animal cultivation, (material science) woodworking, agriculture, astro-naming (OK in the article), navigation, concrete, glass, metals.. At the point of civilization, (with agriculture), living becomes easy enough to make working on science (and technology) a priority, with a lot of focus on "the forge" and its secrets, with the beginning of alchemy coming about from smiths trading knowlege. So a section on ancient science, and also material science. Also how scientific knowledge was coveted, as it is today. -Inowen (nlfte) 07:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Introduction

To wit:

"Science (from Latin scientia,meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe."

Is actually not bad. Its emphasis is on systematism and testability about everything. But the use of the "a" has that 'avoid the specific grammatical article' problem. How many such systems are there? Isn't science the name for all such systems? And then, well, the word "science," as borrowed from another language, is a calque is it not? Well, English inherits word ownerships as well as word meanings, and so "science" isn't just the same as the word "knowledge," its got a life of its own in being the name for the vast, systematic, enterprise of knowledge collection about nature, which is now a high-level, fast, global thing. Where then discoveries live either in a domain of open knowledge or else proprietary copyright (a lot of science is done by private for-profit companies), which in the big picture looks a bit obtuse because a lot of really good science gets held up by patent troubles. So those are some thoughts about this article from the ground up. -Inowen (nlfte) 06:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Technically, no, facts and hypotheses which are not the common property of the scientific community aren't science; science is always public/published, see Mertonian norms. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

RFC ... what?

What is the RFC about, specifically? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:49, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Ditto. I've removed the RFC tag (which I also did at Talk:Abiogenesis), as there's no clear question being asked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deacon Vorbis (talk • contribs) 14:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Fundamental Issue

My science education emphasized that science is the study of the universe – not a collection of knowledge. It is a process rather than a collection of things. The term enterprise is, to me, weak and vague.

I would edit the first sentence as:

Science (from the Latin word scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic study and practice which builds and organizes theories and knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. Patrickwooldridge (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Robotics and formal science

@Cswquz: When uncited information is removed, it should not be restored without providing an inline citation to a reliable source per WP:BURDEN. Are you intending to do this? SpinningSpark 21:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it is just a problem of definition. Science can be divided into "fundamental" and "applied", or can be divided into "formal", "natrual" and "social". Those are two dimensions of division. Plus, you mentioned that "there is no clue in article Robotics", which is not a fact. The top section of "Robotics" has said it is related to computer science. Cswquz (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I realized that I'm partly to be blamed for including "robotics" as an example of formal science. It was previously listed as one of the disciplines of formal science and at the time, I didn't think much of it when I included it as one of the examples. I just noticed that robotics was recently removed from the formal science page [[24]]. I agree that if we are to include examples for each of the three major branches of science, we should provide supporting references. Or we could just use another example? There are plenty to choose from. My two cents. danielkueh (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

There is an issue of clarity here as well. The examples should be easily understood and not "edge cases". At least, not without some explanation. SpinningSpark 21:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Fair point. This reminds me, maybe we should create a fourth section under Branches of Sciences called "Applied science," consistent with the categorization of the various branches of science within the science template. Robotics, engineering, medicine, etc, could be listed there. Applied science is summarized in the lead but is not described in some detail in the main body of this article. danielkueh (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

(after edit conflict, replying to Cswquz) No, it is not just a problem of definition, it is a problem of challenged material being restored without an inline cite. This is required of you by policy. Lot's of things are related to, or use, computer science. That does not make them computer science or any kind of "formal" science themselves. In the same way, many things use mathematics, but that does not make them branches of mathematics. In fact, it's hard to think of a branch of science that does not use mathematics in some way. What is the formalism that underlies the formal science of robotics? What are the a priori postulates on which this formalism is supposedly built? Provide sources that answer those questions and I might go along with it, but at the moment it is looking pretty thin. SpinningSpark 21:59, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

(my reply to daniel before conflict):I do not agree with the revision made on April 12 of "formal science" article, especially its reason. As mentioned above, the branch "Applied science" is compatiable with other three. "Applied" is contrast with "fundamental", and robotics is an applied formal science. Cswquz (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

It will on my list of things to do (new section on applied science) in a week or two. Should not be too difficult as it will be just a summary of the main article. danielkueh (talk) 15:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

(Reply to spark) But as mentioned in the article "robotics", it is only computer science that robotics is related within fundamental sciences. The others are all engineering. So it seems robotics can be categoried into formal science. As your words, it is an edge case, which makes it more interesting and valuable. Cswquz (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

A footnote containing a quote was added for robotics in formal science section.([25]) Cswquz (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

So the Robotics Institute is part of the School of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon. That just shows how one university organises its departments. It does nothing to show that Robotics is generally considered a formal science. Sorry, but as a verifying reference that is completely feeble. What is required is a reliable souce that directly and unambiguously makes that statement. It certainly goes nowhere in clarifying what the underlying formalism of robotics is supposed to be. SpinningSpark 12:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, OK... I will translate a table from japanese wiki summarizing the top section of article "Branches of science", which you might like to read before the translation is completed. Cswquz (talk) 13:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, for I've just noticed the table is to some extent different from what that section says. Still, I will translate and post it. Cswquz (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Done. But if you are still unsatisfied, I can inform you that all the outlines and categories in wiki list robotics as a subdivision of computer science, as does C-M university. Cswquz (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

What has been done? You have responded to my request for citations with yet more uncited material. Japanese Wikipedia (or any other Wikipedia) is not considered a reliable source for the purpose of verification. Do you even understand what our verification policy says? I am resisting the urge to edit the article and undo your contributions. I request that you do the same until this discussion has been bottomed out.

The crux of your argument seems to be that robotics is a branch of computer science, and since computer science falls under formal science then robotics does too. This is too simplistic and mechanistic. It is only a certain aspect of computer science that is formal science. That aspect is programming and related activities. But as a multidisciplinary activity, robotics is certainly not a branch of programming. In any case, if that is the totality of the argument (that robotics is a sub-discipline), then there really is no need to list robotics separately. SpinningSpark 17:03, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

What has been done is just the translation, that is all. Of course it is not a "reliable" source according to red tapes. But I think the materials in wiki are ultimately determined by consensus, which in this case has been shown by numerous other pages. I simply ellaborated my syllogism again and again, just as you recited the regulations again and again. As for necessity, I would point out that the benefit of listing robotics here is that it is a counterintuitive example marking the extension of disciplines. Cswquz (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

What I am asking for is not merely red tape. WP:V is one of our core content policies and it represents the consensus of the community on what should be included. Cswquz, can we compromise on "mathematical robotics"? I could go along with that. SpinningSpark 17:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Never heard of "mathematical robotics". Well, if robotics is replaced by "AI", I will not be agaist it. Cswquz (talk) 18:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Really never heard of it? Try reading this book. SpinningSpark 18:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Really. In spite of the book's title, it seems not to be a discipline. How about AI, eh? Cswquz (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

If you can provide a source that says it is. Otherwise, just revert the list to the status quo ante. SpinningSpark 20:22, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the settings of research universities' disciplines are persuasive enough. Cswquz (talk) 20:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

It simply is not sufficient. You are putting an interpretation on those settings that is just the sort of thing WP:OR says we should not do without a reliable source that directly supports the statement. SpinningSpark 22:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

See Systems science. It's definitely a topic with a solid mathematical basis which has been taught as a discipline in California universities for the past 5 decades, and applied to the space program: see Surveyor program, which applied robotics to answer a scientific question: "How deep is the dust on the Moon?". At that time, no one knew the answer. You might examine the course catalogs (see control theory and nonlinear control) from 50 years ago (at, for example University of California, Los Angeles). The textbooks of that era? See Athanasios Papoulis or Norman Balabanian --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 22:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

(Reply to spark)I don't think the manuals of recruitment issued by the universities all over the world are based on my original research. BTW, what is the sense or use of division of science? To direct the organizations of disciplines in univs is perhaps its most apparent application. Cswquz (talk) 22:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I have replaced "robotics" with "AI". Cswquz (talk) 00:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I think Spinningspark's concern raises a very important question, which is "What is formal science?" I was able to find some reliable secondary sources (e.g., [26]) that define the scope and boundaries of formal science, in contrast to the natural and social sciences, but was not able to find a source that provides a simple list of the various disciplines that belong to the formal sciences. It is much easier to find such a list for the natural (e.g., [27]) and social sciences (e.g., [28]). One source ([29]) does provide a list, but it doesn't appear exhaustive, so it is still not clear:

"Perhaps the most important ramification of these considerations within the present context arises from their relations to different kinds of knowledge. A distinction is commonly drawn between the formal sciences, such as set theory, various branches of logic (such as sentential, predicate, and modal logic), and various branches of mathematics (such as algebra, geometry, and calculus), on the one hand, and the empirical sciences (such as physics [classical mechanics, statistical mechanics, quantum mechanics], chemistry, and biology, on the other--where the empirical sciences aim at the discovery of the laws of nature (of physics, of chemistry, of biology)."

Another source ([30]) listed similar disciplines (mathematics, predicate logic, and linguistics) as various individual chapters. If other editors have access to more reliable sources (e.g., [31]), then please chime in. We really need to get a better handle of this issue. danielkueh (talk) 00:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think this question has a standard answer, since it is philosophy. And spsp is a fan of philosophy. Continuing discussion is a waste of time. Cswquz (talk) 02:33, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

It’s not a question of philosophy but a question of presenting encyclopedic information based on reliable sources, consistent with WP:V policy and WP:RS guidelines. Otherwise, Wikipedia becomes nothing more than the Wild West of information. No better than a tabloid. We need to do better. Especially on an article about science. danielkueh (talk) 03:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

It is whether the wiki is a link farm to be concerned, not Wild West. Cswquz (talk) 08:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The change from robotics to artificial intelligence does not resolve this problem. Proper sourcing is still needed for this statement. In the wall of text above, nowhere has a meaningful rationale been put forward explaining in what way this subject is a formalism. It just does not make sense to me, and sources stating that have not been forthcoming. SpinningSpark 11:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Do whatever you like. I am not interested for now. Cswquz (talk) 11:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Taking you at your word, and since no one else has supported your position (I'm not sure I understood the point Ancheta Wis was making), I have removed it as an example of formal science. SpinningSpark 12:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Floris Cohen

In the absence of specific citations, see Floris Cohen (2010) How Modern Science Came into the World: Four Civilizations, One Seventeenth Century Breakthrough. He makes high-level statements which might be used as refs in Science#Age of Enlightenment. -- 22:16, 15 May 2019 (UTC) These syntheses are based on his monograph, The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry (Chicago, 1994). --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 15:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Metascience

I am thinking about merging verifiability to metascience or just deleting it, as I do not think it is not sufficiently independent of metascience to deserve its own subsection. What is the consensus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman2718 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

There needs to be discussion, meaning evidence first. Per WP:BRD the protocol is Bold, Revert, and Discuss. There need to be discussions of WP:UNDUE, for example. Simply creating an article does not suffice. Discussion is the next step. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 15:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, I think that metascience should directly follow the section on the scientific method because of their close association (which I have now discussed in text). On the second issue, now that I think about it I may be conflating intersubjective verifiability and replicability.--Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

There is a 2500 year-old association with history and philosophy of science here, and atomism in particular. What I am cautious about is another 'ism', positivism, taking over methodology. There is no guarantee that proclaiming another 'next big thing' (meaning metascience) will guarantee good things for the future in science. (Atomism finally came through, after 2300 years.)

That 'verifiability' belongs in this article ought not to be in doubt. There is no harm in having the topic elsewhere as well, as long as exclusive rights to it not be claimed there. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 16:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

When I saw that section for the first time, it was in 'Branches of science' section, and I thought it should just be removed. Because it belongs to sociology of science, which is only a tiny subdivision of science. But soon it was moved into 'scientific research' section, where it seems more suitable to stay. But as for the order of placing it at first or even merging other sections into it, I think this goes too far. In fact, following Feynman, I would like to say, the correlation between metascience and science is as that between ornithology and birds. It seems just improper to include a section 'ornithology' in the article 'bird'.--Cswquz (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree on the issues of WP:UNDUE and WP:BRD. Based on the sources (e.g., [32]), I am not convinced that it is so well-established and fundamental that it even deserves its own section, let alone a place at the top within the Scientific Method section or a mention in the lead section. We don’t even have dedicated headings or sections for more fundamental topics such as replication. So I’m not sure why metascience deserves this much coverage. danielkueh (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Metascience is different from the sociology of science. You may be thinking of logology. Metascience really has nothing to do with the sociology of science. The purpose of metascience is to use science to study itself, and in doing so, to improve the scientific method and the quality of all scientific research. As such it is a field of science, and also an major influence on science itself. 'Onithology' does not belong in the article about birds because it is not a bird, but rather, the study of birds. Metascience, however, is both a field of science and the study of science itself. I do not think that metascience is a fad or an 'ism'. If we believe that metascience is a passing trend, we would have to believe that we will one day stop studying things like the most efficient allocation of research funding and the correctness of scientific methodology. I don't see how this can ever happen. While concerns of recentism are merited in an article about a timeless subject like science, I think they are not applicable here. I also agree that verifiability belongs in the article.--Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

As for adding metascience to the into, I think it nicely augments the discussion of science policy. Metascience and science policy are quite intrinsically linked. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

To move this discussion forward, we need a lot of high quality reliable sources that would support the edits that you propose, which is to feature metascience more prominently in the Scientific Method section and in the lead. I agree that metascience is an emerging field and has a role to play. That’s not the issue. The issue is whether it deserves to be featured more prominently in this article. And this is where having reliable sources is important and helpful to the discussion. danielkueh (talk) 17:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I can get right on that. I apologize for the lazyness of my sources. Maybe the solution to this discussion will be more clear after I have improved the quality of the page of metasciece (which is currently quite lacking) and add some better sources. Wikiman2718 (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. danielkueh (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Platt (1964) Strong inference comes to mind here. Why hasn't this idea been more popular? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 18:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Interesting discussion. I agree that the scientific method is still a work in progress, and I think that metascience is leading that progress. Strong inference may be metascientific--it is definitely a study of scientific methodology in attempt to do it better. However, it may be debated weather or not strong inference was scientifically founded. One could argue that this principle was the product of the subjective analysis of one person, and was therefore not built from science. The term 'strong inference' also predates the term 'metascience', so we should not expect to find it labeled as such.--Wikiman2718 (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

OK. Could you interperet 'Science studies'? Seems like metascience and logology.--Cswquz (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Science studies seems to be the study of the interaction between science and things that are not science. This makes it a subfield of logology, which is defined as "the study of all things related to science." However, it is quite distinct from metascience, which concerns itself only with using science to improve upon itself.--Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I propose that the sections be ordered by relevance to the scientific method. Metascience should come first because it has a close and obvious relation to the scientific method, and the role of mathematics should come last because it broaches the subject of non-emperical methods, which separates it from the other sections. That way the order is 1) metascience, 2) verifiability, 3) role of mathematics. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree with proposed position of mathematics but disagree with proposed position of metascience. Still no reliable sources to show that it is a central and indispensable part of the scientific method and/or that it is a widely adopted as a tool in science. In fact, it’s current position as well as it having its own heading/subsection within the Scientific Method section are also open for discussion. danielkueh (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

One of the most downloaded scientific papers of all time is a paper in metascience. Metascientific research is a subject of discussion in nature magazine and the mainstream news. Clearly, metascience is of some importance. Metascientific research has lead to widespread adoption of science policies such as trial registration. These policies constitute changes in the experimental step of the scientific method. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Thanks for the references. Here are my comments for each reference followed by my overall conclusions below:

• The PloS article by Ioannidis (2005) is interesting and I agree with its general assessment on the issues of replication in science. However, the use of this article does raise several concerns. First, it is a primary source. This might seem rather strange to you, but as a general rule, there is a strong preference for secondary sources in Wikipedia (see WP:SECONDARY) as it helps to minimize the possibility of there being original research (see WP:OR and WP:SYNTH). Second, the authors of this article conducted meta-analyses to come to their conclusions, which is very different from a statement that says "metascience" is important or that it is an integral part of the scientific method. This is an important distinction, as we are talking about a tool/approach (scientific method, meta-analysis), and not a field (metascience). This reference would be consistent with a need for a "replication" subsection with the Scientific Method section and maybe a short discussion of meta-analysis of reproducibility of scientific results. But it doesn't support creating a subsection called metascience within the Scientfic Method or to mention metascience in the lead.
• The second reference from painscience.com is a short and positive commentary of the first article and makes no mention of metascience as well. It also doesn't count as a reliable source for the edits being discussed here. If this were an article about the above PloS article, then yes, this article could serve as one of several reliable sources, depending on the context.
• This nature article by Munafò (2017) is a book review that does mention metascience. It provides some details of the book (Rigor Mortis by Richard Harris), which describes the problems of biomedical research, namely reproducibility and that there is a need for a new discipline called metascience. No disagreements there but it doesn't say that metascience is an integral part of the scientific method other than stating there is a "the birth of a new discipline of metascience." This statement alone is not sufficient to warrant mentioning metascience in the lead section. It could, however, be mentioned in a new "replication (or reproducibility)" subsection within the scientific method section. No subheadings necessary.
• This Nature article by Schooler (2014) is an opinion piece and not a statement of fact (see WP:RSOPINION). The article describes metascience as an "emerging field." Even the title itself is revealing, "Metascience could rescue the ‘replication crisis.'" The key word here is "could." The article does not say that we have to use metascience when executing the scientific method. In fact, the author goes on to say, "It has its roots in the philosophy of science and the study of scientific methods, but is distinguished from the former by a reliance on quantitative analysis, and from the latter by a broad focus on the general factors that contribute to the limitations and successes of research." Thus, metascience is not integral part of the scientific method but separate from it and its utility in solving the "replication crisis" has yet to be well-established. Doesn't rise to the level of dedicating much of the last lead paragraph to the influence of metascience [33]. Certainly not at the expense of mentioning "the development of commercial products, armaments, health care, and environmental protection."
• This is a perspective piece or "essay" by Gelman (2018) and is taken from the New York Times. Other than detailing the issue of replication, which clearly supports the need for a section on "replication," it does not mention metascience or meta-analysis. Thus, it doesn't count as a reliable source for the edits being proposed.

My conclusions? The references above do support a need for a new subsection called "replication" within the scientific method section and maybe a short discussion on the problems of replication, particularly with respect to studies in the biomedical and behavioral sciences. The articles' perspectives are interesting but they don't provide support the need for a subsection within the Scientific Method called "metascience" or to mention metascience in the lead. In fact, as the articles above suggest, metascience is a "new field" and it does highlight the problems of replication. But it has not solve these problems and meta-analysis itself is not as widely adopted as it should be. danielkueh (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Wikiman2718: Please don't interpret this reply as an attack; there is a bias here:

• As a physician/clinician Ioannidis has a positivist bias by training. That was the defect of positivism— Iatrogenic healing fixes clinical causes. It does not follow that we must do anything to heal something.
• We intrinsically do not know how long it will take to find our answer when we do not know it. We do have to be skilled enough to possess the judgement to recognize an answer. (Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics)
• It's pretty clear we will have to identify inductive fallacy when we see it. (Hume)
• WP:PRIMARY is not a death knell for a citation per se but it takes skill and judgement to cite it, usually with comment to show others its WP:SECONDARY context.

(FYI, we are not supposed to edit the replies of others. I added markup just below your reply as a quick fix. Here is a sample ref to address the "Missing or empty title" error messages we see above. BTW if we have a reproducibility problem, that's a red flag that we don't understand something that we claimed to understand, such as an experiment which is a signal that we have just lost control of the narrative, and are now part of the story.) --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 21:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the analysis. I have some points to make in rebuttal. I agree that the word "metascience" is not used in some of those sources. However, we would not let a lack of the word "biology" stop us from labeling CRISPR technology as a breakthrough in biology, so why let the lack of the word "metascience" stop us from labeling metascience research as such? The replication crisis is intrinsically metascientific. It arose as a result of some studies finding a low rate of replicability in several fields of scientific research. Most of these studies do not use the word metascience, but there is no clearer example of metascience out there. If we add a section on replication, we will be talking about an issue in metascience whether we use the word or not. I think that we should use the word, as it is not going away. Metascience (much like science policy) is modern, but is now a permanent fixture of science since will never stop studying such metascientific issues as efficient allocation of funding. The word "metascience" is not used because it is not known. Wikipedia can play a role in breaking this circular ignorance by using the word to describe this research. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

For us to make the statement in Wikipedia that "CRISPR technology is a breakthrough in biology," we would still need a reliable source that states it as such (see WP:V). Fortunately, we do. For example, see Blin et al. (2016, [34]), which states that "CRISPR/Cas9-based genome editing has been one of the major achievements of molecular biology." Likewise, we would also need a reference that makes a similarly unambiguous statement about the role of metascience within the scientific method. But as Schooler (2014) clearly points out, metascience is distinct from the scientific method [see the bolded quote from Schooler (2014)]. As for the perspective that "Wikipedia can play a role in breaking this circular ignorance by using the word to describe this research," I'm afraid this is not the role of Wikipedia (see WP:NOTFAQ). Maybe Wikibooks ([35]) or Wikiversity ([36])?

I most certainly can find sources identifying these studies as metascientific, and I would be happy to if you doubt their existence. I know that you did not intend it, but the argument that metascience is distinct from the scientific method is a straw man. My true position is that metascience is important to the scientific method. Here is a qoute from a reputable source to back me up:

"Even though the scientific method has solid theoretical foundations and a long track record of successes, it is a continuing challenge to know how its basic principles (“systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses”, according to the Oxford English Dictionary) should be applied optimally in ways that can lead to faster, better, more accurate, and ultimately more useful results."

This quote was extracted from a section titled "Why Perform Research on Research?". Clearly, metascience can tell us if the scientific method produced the right answer or not. This is one of the ways it relates to the scientific method. I think that a short, but well-written section on metascience would do more for this page than one on replication (as metascience is the larger and more permanent issue). I think that the avoidance of primary sources is quite possible. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 23:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I think this discussion is straying from the two issues at hand, which are:

1. Should there be a subsection within the Scientific Method called "metascience?" And if so, should it be featured as the first subsection?
2. Should metascience be mentioned in the lead?

My objection to having metascience being a subsection of the Scientific Method is that it suggests that it is a component of the Scientific Method, which it is not. The references above clearly made a distinction between the two. Thus, metascience should not be nested within the Scientific Method section. I concede that the same can be said of the "Role of Mathematics" subsection. Thus, both of these two subsections should be decoupled from the Scientific Method section. I object to having metascience mentioned in the lead because to do so would be to give it undue weight (see WP:UNDUE and WP:BALANCE). None of the above references has shown that metascience is so well-established and central to science. All they have done is to reveal that metascience is an emerging discipline and that it has the potential to help correct a perennial problem in some parts of the scientific enterprise. And as you said, 'The word "metascience" is not used because it is not known.' I agree. We should therefore not pretend that it is by giving it more prominence than it deserves. --danielkueh (talk) 00:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

While you can very well argue that metascience and mathematics are not part of the scientific method and therefore do not belong in this subsection, they are relevant to the scientific method and therefor may very well stay there anyway. I, for one, like them where they are. Ancheta Wis's vote will provide consensus. As for metascience in the lede, I would like to postpone that discussion untill the discussion of metascience in the body is decided. While the word "metascience" may not be well known, the subject of metascience is a matter of utmost importance, with discoveries in metascience making headlines in both scientific and mainstream news. Therefor, I think it deserves a mention by name. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

A second point: The man who wrote the 2005 paper (John Ioannidis) is acknowledged as having pioneered the field of metascience. That paper is most certainly an example of metascience, even if it does not use the word. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 22:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The Ioannidis (2005) study is just one paper and its focus is not about the integral role of metascience within the scientific method, which there is none. It's about Ioannidis running simulations that strongly suggest that "most published research findings are false." danielkueh (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

You are right, of course. I displayed the paper only to show that metascience was "a widely adopted as a tool in science," not for use in the main article. Showing that one of the most downloaded papers of all time is in the field of metascience does further this point. Here is a source which describes that article as "one of the foundational pieces of literature in the areas of meta-science." --Wikiman2718 (talk) 23:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The fact that the Ioannidis (2015) paper is "one of the most downloaded" does not mean that it "furthers the point" that "metascience is a widely adopted tool." That would be analogous to saying "archeology is widely practiced" and that point can be furthered by the fact that "millions of viewers have watched Indiana Jones." As for the Berkeley Initiative for Transparency in the Social Sciences, it is an advocacy initiative and its views of the Ionnidis (2015) paper is irrelevant to this discussion. Again, it could be a reliable source for a Wikipedia article about the Ioannidis (2015) paper. But this is an article about the broader topic of science, not just metascience or issues of reproducibility in certain scientific disciplines. danielkueh (talk) 00:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I object that that your metaphor is wildly inaccurate. Additionally, the only reason I cited the Berkeley Initiative for Transparency in the Social Sciences was to answer the objection that the Ioannidis paper was not relevant to metascience. It most certainly is relavent to the discussion in that sense, and the fact that it was published by an advocacy group is not. If you want third party verification of impact, look at the paper's metrics. I get your point. You want proof that metascience is used as well as looked at. Here are some examples of the implementation of metascience: 1) blinding in physics 2) The use of data science to detect scientific fraud 3) The discovery of the replication crisis. While you are free to object that metascience has not solved the replication crisis (and I never said otherwise), metascience is most certainly responsible for it's discovery. Any discussion of the replication crisis is the discussion of an event in metascience. 4) The use of trial registration in medicine. This was prompted by studies showing publication bias. Studies on publication bias are metascientific. 5) CONSORT and other guideline reporting groups take cues from metascientific research to design their recommendations. For example, metascientific studies showing failure of blinding have prompted the recommendation that blinding be assessed in all blinded trials. Metascience is relevant to all fields of science. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Wikiman2718: Well, I will just cite Alhazen, handily provided us by Shmuel Sambursky's anthology: which has an excerpt from Alhazen, Doubts Concerning Ptolemy:

Truth is sought for its own sake ... Finding the truth is difficult, and the road to it is rough. For the truths are plunged in obscurity. ... God, however, has not preserved the scientist from error and has not safeguarded science from shortcomings and faults. If this had been the case, scientists would not have disagreed upon any point of science...

meaning we need only scientists who are willing to own up to their errors. No need for another discipline, however promising metascience may prove to be in the future. As Feynman put it, we need to be our own worst enemies (to become better scientists or scholars). --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 01:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@Wikiman2718:, in agreement with one of your replies above, I will postpone my discussion of issue 2 and just focus on issue 1, which is "Should there be a subsection within the Scientific Method called "metascience?" And if so, should it be featured as the first subsection?" I did a quick search on Google Books on various secondary sources (mainly introductory science textbooks), to see if metascience is consistently mentioned along with the scientific method:

• General books on the scientific method (e.g., [37], [38])
• Physics ([39])
• Chemistry ([40])
• Biology ([41])
• Psychology ([42])
• Biological anthropology ([43])

As you can see from the links above, many of these sources describe the scientific method and list its various components. But none of them have listed metascience (or mathematics) or prescribe its use, let alone emphasize its importance. Thus, I fail to see why we should mention metascience at all within the scientific method. As for your comments on blinding, etc, many of these practices predate the use of the term "metascience." Regarding your decree that "Ancheta Wis's vote will provide consensus," well, I think Ancheta Wis's response above is pretty clear. There's no consensus for metascience. --danielkueh (talk) 02:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I think we have consonances that metascience in not a part of the scientific method. However, I maintain that it is relevant to the scientific method in the same way that mathematics is. as for blinding, it does predate metascience. However, studies like this one do fall into the realm of metascience. Ancheta Wis may do what she likes to the section on metascience. But I do ask her: How will we ever know if scientists are owning up to their mistakes without the help of metascience? --Wikiman2718 (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

There is an ethical component to science: Honesty is fundamental for science work; a reputation for integrity is a side-effect of a lifetime habit of writing things down with truth in mind. We start with our notebooks when we date the entries as we write. If the pages aren't numbered, we number them. These mundane details get taught, from one person to another as witness to the discipline, that the discipline rest within us. But when we have entire communities practicing these details, we see the cumulative effect. It spreads in self-correcting fashion with discussion, correction, and establishment, in an upward cycle, because the concepts interlink.

But our minds can only understand in snippets, wisp by wisp, so it takes years to learn, doesn't it. Eventually we come to see what matters. That is also an ethical finding. If our minds can't grasp it, we have to learn to let it go, to set it aside for later, or for someone else, perhaps much later.

I am reminded of one of my teachers, Kurt Lehovec who found a rock in his US Army desk drawer (he was in Operation Paperclip). He determined that it was silicon carbide and that it had photoelectric properties. This rock affected his later career (he formulated a fundamental equation for solid-state photoelectric diodes) and integrated circuits (which we all use to this day). But the physicist who set aside the puzzle in Lehovec's desk remains unknown. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 15:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad to see there is a consensus on the first point. That's progress. I will decouple the two subsections from the scientific method section. danielkueh (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Nice edit. Now that I see it, I like it better this way :) (haha). --Wikiman2718 (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Glad to hear it! danielkueh (talk) 03:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

References

I insist on putting maths before natural science.

Here's why. When we talk about science, it is true that, as someone above has said, it reminds us of 'natural science'. So natural science must be included in this artcle, without any dispute. In fact, the title can even be redirected to 'natural science', or vice versa. But were it made different from 'natural science', something else has to be included, too. And hereby the troubles begin. What else to be added? According to the scientific methodology or sort of that, a broader definition should be 'empirical sciences', which include social sciences beside natural ones. But please ask yourselves, is it really true that social ones 'look' more like science than mathematical ones? In fact, the verifiability and replication of some theories in social ones (and even some natural ones) are so weak that even that they are scientific is dubious. That means no one would add social ones while exclude maths. Hence the conclusion is, besides natural science, social ones and maths must be inculded both. Now in what orders? Natural - maths - social? But natural should be neighbored by social since they are both empirical. Natural - social - maths? But maths is at least more scientific than social. The only reasonable order left is maths - natural - social, which also coincides with the sequence of their developments in history.

When I first shifted maths above natural, I'd never thought it might cause so many disputes. To me this arrange is just as natural as sunshine, air and water. But later I realized there seems to be some cultural difference. OK, now here I would like to point out, when juxtaposed with natural sciences, if not (and in this article, if) lexiconically, mathematical sciences are usually (if not always) be placed at first, as some distinguished universities do, such as Moscow University, Peking University, and The University of Tokyo.--Cswquz (talk) 06:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I reverted your change because I see no evidence of a consensus in favour, in fact there seems to be a pretty clear consensus for keeping it as it is. You can't "insist" on wikipedia, you have to listen to other arguments. Mikenorton (talk) 09:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

There's not even consensus that formal sciences are sciences. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mikenorton: On verra. @Headbomb: No need to teach me that, as is shown in my words. --Cswquz (talk) 10:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Recently in my talk page the template 3rr was posted twice, by a same person. OK, I surrender, for I have neither interest nor time to appeal or be involved in an editting war. Bonne chance. Au revoir.--Cswquz (talk) 15:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Lead definition

I reverted a recent edit of the lead definition by GliderMaven. I'm not disagreeing on the importance of empirically-supported observations but it appears wordy and redundant. Plus, it seems to go beyond what the sources say and appears to discount or exclude non-empirical approaches (e.g., mathematical modeling). Given that this version of the lead sentence has lasted for nearly a decade, discussions on major revisions of this kind seem warranted. Other folks, please feel free to chime in. Thanks. danielkueh (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary by reverting it, you are disagreeing with what is probably the most important part of all science, that a theory of necessity works when you test it. GliderMaven (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, according to the lead sentence, Scientific explanations don't need to have any kind of empirical support?

So astrology is true science, since it makes testable predictions??? I mean, the predictions never pan out, but according to the lead, astrology is science.

Or at least that seems to be the point that User:Danielkueh is effectively making [44]. I mean, evidence for theories is completely not part of science. Anything that is testable is part of science, apparently. GliderMaven (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, no, that's not science. Science not only has to be testable, while nothing is ever 100% completely provable, it has to be empirically true, i.e. well tested. For example the Higgs boson was tested to 99.999+%

It's not overly wordy to point out a completely essential feature of scientific theories. GliderMaven (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

We already have a section for this discussion. I nested your comments under mine so that editors can follow the thread. Please indent your comments when replying. Now, before I respond to your specific comments, which completely miss the point I was making, I suggest you read this article in its entirety. This article is not just about the natural and social sciences, which together constitute the empirical sciences. This article also covers formal science. Of course, there is controversy as to whether formal science actually constitutes a science but your proposal would exclude them entirely. Finally, in WP, we only include edits based on reliable sources. Regards. danielkueh (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

You're being completely ridiculous, both in detail and in general. The lead is making a non exclusive positive claim about what science is. Failing to include empirical evidence in that claim is making a claim that things like Astrology, which are not empirically supported, or that are even empirically rejected, are part of science. The fact that 'formal science' isn't necessarily empirical means it's not necessarily part of science, but doesn't imply it's necessarily not part of science either. But the lead cannot state or imply that things that are empirically unsupported are definitely a core part of science. GliderMaven (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Adding your edit would exclude the formal science completely because you have already made a defining characteristic of science in the lead definition, which goes beyond what the sources say. Once again, in wikipedia include edits based on sources. Now, if you would like to add a wikilink to the word "testable" to "testability," which includes concepts such as falsifiability, we can certainly do that. As for the straw man that astrology is a part of science simply because its predictions can be tested, that is not the point that I or the Harvard Biologist E.O Wilson is making (the lead definition is based on the one in his book, again read the sources). We can use the scientific method to test the claims of astrology or any other body of knowledge. But that alone is not why it is a pseudoscience. Astrology is a pseudoscience because it does not change its tenets, belief systems, conclusions, practices, etc so that they are consistent with the scientific evidence. Science uses a variety of tools. Empirical tools being the principal ones, but by no means the only ones. Hypotheses are sometimes formulated based on mathematical models and evidence are sometimes cast in doubt based on purely deductive means. In fact, we just had an in-depth discussion on metascience (details above), which has shown that multiple "empirical" studies to be unreplicable and therefore likely to be false. The paper that revealed that came to its conclusions based on mathematical simulations, not empirical evidence. danielkueh (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I doubt you've summarised E.O.Wilson correctly. No, astrology is pseudoscience because IT WAS TESTED AND FAILED THE TESTS, and then they carried on acting as if it hadn't. Meanwhile the lead just claims something is science because it's testable. As I say, astrology is perfectly testable. That's entirely necessary, but not sufficient. GliderMaven (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Even the section on formal science admits it's a borderline part of science. We are not going to fuck up Wikipedia's definition of science to allow formal science in, if it also defines astrology as science. GliderMaven (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Include empirical in the lead. It's exactly the word that distinguishes the developments which gave rise to the "Western scientific method" of the 18th century, and the transition from Bacon and Descartes to the experimentalism from Newton and after. This isn't true of all science, so its use should be clarified and qualified, but it should be in there. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for chiming in. Would you be satisfied if we added a wiki-link to the word “testable” to “testability,” which the page defines as “a property applying to an empirical hypothesis, involves two components:” The lead is getting bloated and I’m just wondering if we can resolve this in the simplest way possible. danielkueh (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

No, because empiricism isn't the same thing as testability. Testability is one form of empiricism, but so are observation and measurement: which pre-dating a hypothesis are encouraging its development, rather than testing a completed one. The point here is to oppose the later empirical methods to the earlier Cartesian ones. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that what you are proposing goes beyond making a simple modification of the lead definition but also includes an extended discussion of this issue (empiricism and Cartesian, etc), which is beyond what is being discussed here. Not against it per se but it is a separate discussion, involving making a major change not just to the lead definition but to the lead itself, in a way that is consistent within the rest of the article, which is about the broader definition of science. danielkueh (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me you're trying to categorically put 'formal science' down as science. I don't have any problem with formal science being in the article, but defining science to encompass it is an extremely problematic thing. For example mathematics describes every possible world but every impossible one as well. Are they all science? They really, really are not. The point of science is to build tested, real-world (falsifiable) models. GliderMaven (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

No, and that you think that would fix it highlights exactly what is the problem with both your thinking, and the lead. Just because something is testable, doesn't mean you've tested it, or even that it was tested successfully! The lead is not particularly bloated, your explanations about why you're sabotaging the definition of science, on the other hand, are. GliderMaven (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Your comments about astrology and testability are sophomoric at best and I won’t address them further. Also, it is so easy to type with such bravado behind a keyboard and under a pseudonym. Other than childish name calling and personal attacks (see [45]), which are very unscientific, I don’t see you being constructive such as providing reliable sources and addressing concerns in a reasonable manner. So until you do, I don’t see a need to further engage with you in this discussion. Rather, I’ll wait for other editors, especially those who are actual scientists, to chime in and move this discussion forward. danielkueh (talk) 20:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Far from being sophomoric, I call into question your academics. I tracked down a relevant E.O.Wilson paragraph and it's far more heavily about experimentation and phenomena:

E.O.Wilson Consilience, The Unity of Knowledge, page 58 reads:

"Science, to put its warrant as concisely as possible, is the organized,systematic enterprise that gathers knowledge about the world and condenses the knowledge into testable laws and principles. The diagnostic features of science that distinguish it from pseudoscience are first, repeatability: The same phenomenon is sought again, preferably by independent investigation, and the interpretation given to it is confirmed or discarded by means of novel analysis and experimentation. Second, economy: Scientists attempt to abstract the information into the form that is both simplest and aesthetically most pleasing—the combination called elegance—while yielding the largest amount of information with the least amount of effort. Third, mensuration: If something can be properly measured, using universally accepted scales, generalizations about it are rendered unambiguous. Fourth, heuristics: The best science stimulates further discovery, often in unpredictable new directions; and the new knowledge provides an additional test of the original principles that led to its discovery. Fifth and finally, consilience: The explanations of different phenomena most likely to survive are those that can be connected and proved consistent with one another."

Seemingly Wikipedia has more or less just taken the first sentence, the rest of it is completely missing. Bereft of the context of the rest of the paragraph it cannot hope to be a complete definition- you've cut away all the stuff about phenomenon, repeatability, experimentation and pseudoscience. But these are things which are generally considered central and crucial to science. So I don't find the current article lead to be in any way an adequate summary, and it is explicitly these areas which relate to evidential issues, that are currently utterly absent, and which I note you are revert warring me from fixing. GliderMaven (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

It's good that you finally read parts of E.O Wilson's 1999 book, even though you're nine years late to the discussion (see [46]). Did you read the other three references?

The lead is first and foremost a summary and it's not meant to be exhaustive. According to WP:LEAD,

"The average Wikipedia visit is a few minutes. The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article. It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on – though not by teasing the reader or hinting at what follows. It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view."

Consistent with the above statement, the present lead covers a broad range of topics and goes over the basics such as the history of sciences, the different branches, science being based on research, and science policy. Issues related to Wilson's "diagnostic features of science" such as repeatability and issues of pseudoscience (for e.g., see Science#Challenges) are covered in great detail within the body of this article.

As to your note on "revert warring me from fixing," we're still in discussion (see WP:BRD). This is Wikipedia where we discuss, provide sources, and try to reach consensus. This process is important, especially for a broad and sometimes challenging topic such as science, which interests a lot of readers and editors. I recommend visiting archives 2, 3, and 4 just to get a sense for how long and involved the discussion was on just coming to consensus on the present lead definition. So if you think the lead definition and the lead itself are inadequate or much needs to be added to it, then fine, follow the process. Start a new discussion and solicit input. Step up and do the hard work of citing multiple reliable sources, point to specific passages to support your arguments, present concrete proposals, wait for input and even pushback from other editors, and engage in potentially long-drawn discussions. Do all this within the bounds of WP policies and guidelines, and you will find that your edits will last. But if you don't do that and instead persist in doing the easy thing of engaging in ad hominem attacks, being dismissive of other editors, etc., then you're not gonna make much progress here. danielkueh (talk) 23:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

There was a note, "... modern science is a discovery as well as an invention. It was a discovery that nature generally acts regularly enough to be described by laws and even by mathematics; and required invention to devise the techniques, abstractions, apparatus, and organization for exhibiting the regularities and securing their law-like descriptions."— Heilbron 2003, p.vii which went missing during the spate of reversions between 9 May and 11 May 2019. The citation survives, but the note went missing. The note is important enough to restore it, or perhaps display in the Lede. OK?

I just noticed the Lindberg note went missing during this time as well. "The historian ... requires a very broad definition of "science" – one that ... will help us to understand the modern scientific enterprise. We need to be broad and inclusive, rather than narrow and exclusive ... and we should expect that the farther back we go [in time] the broader we will need to be."  —Lindberg 2007 p.3" -- 06:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, I restored the notes, but into the ref format, rather than a complete fallback to the efn that was used before. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 11:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@GliderMaven: The footnotes are attempting to depict the evolution in our current understanding of the world. The notes from John Heilbron and David Lindberg cite our current state of understanding (I just restored these notes). If we read, for example, how Aristotle (a naturalistic, but teleological view, 2500 years ago) depicted his science (which was biology), we hit roadblocks when we attempt to transport his views forward, because we know more today. For example, Pliny's science looks ridiculous today (and it was empirical, but the syllogisms he propounded fail). But it is far from clear that we know that much more. Alhazen (a mathematical and experimental view, 1000 years ago), Francisco Sanches (a skeptical empiricist view, 450 years ago), William Jevons (an economic view, 150 years ago) give clear statements of the evolution of a more robust, while still empirical viewpoint.

We might also need to acknowledge what we don't know yet; John R. Platt's strong inference reminds us that we could be more imaginative on our part when we narrate our explanations, to allow for other possibilities which might better explain what we think we understand. What if, for example, a formal science were to admit that its 'guesses' are thought experiments (see Imre Lakatos' examination of how respected mathematicians treated mathematical monsters); or if a social science were to acknowledge that its social institutions (its stakeholders) also need to be critically examined (where do they get their funding, for example, or why is it that women currently get systematically excluded from hierarchy, for another example). We haven't examined these things critically enough, it seems. Perhaps we might better recognize when we erect mythologies rather than sciences? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 11:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The scientific point of view is that advances from Pliny's time has come about via more evidence and the evolution of less obvious, but more general explanations of the world, not from 'critical examination' per se, unless it's based on evidence. You can't create any science without evidence, a completely genius theory is useless if the natural world says 'nice try, but I don't work like that'. Even Einstein's work, something he did in a notebook, required experimental proof, and actually if you look at it closely was based on about 50 years of prior experimental lab work by others. GliderMaven (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The point is, physical evidence is absolutely critical for science, and the Lead completely fails to mention that. If there's no evidence for it, it's just a pretty theory, and not a scientific theory, and that's true of 'formal science' too. GliderMaven (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Going by that standard, string theory must not be part of science then. Is that right? According to theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder, "String theory has to date no experimental evidence speaking for it [47]." danielkueh (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

That's pretty much the position of some scientists, that string theory is simply a conjecture and has not actually become science. Indeed, I believe I saw somewhere recently, but I'd have to check the details, that the current position is that it may have actually been literally discredited by the evidence, so barring some major breakthrough it may well be dead. Whether or not that's true, the point is that whether something is science or not comes down to hard evidence at the end of the day- and that's completely missing from the lead. GliderMaven (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

String theory is far from “dead.” In fact, it is very much alive and is still an active area of study [48], with theoretical physicists such as Brian Greene continuing to popularize and explain the theory [49]. In fact, David Gross, a Nobel Laureate and theoretical physicist ‘classified string theory as testable “in principle” and thus perfectly scientific, because the strings are potentially detectable [50].’ Yes, there are those such as Lawrence Krauss, who might criticize its utility [51]). But Krauss is agnostic about string theory's validity, which is very different from saying it is “discredited” [52]. There are other examples of course such as wormholes where experimental evidence is also lacking [53]. But that doesn’t mean these ideas are not scientific. As this nature article puts it, “For a scientific theory to be considered valid, scientists often require that there be an experiment that could, in principle, rule the theory out — or ‘falsify’ it, as the philosopher of science Karl Popper put it in the 1930s [54].” Thus, science isn’t just about providing a list of already tested answers based on “physical evidence,” it is also about asking the right questions and formulating testable hypotheses/theories and using every available tools at its disposal such as “proof-of-concept” approaches that may be “non-empirical” [55]. No doubt, there will be disagreements among scientists, mathematicians, and philosophers with respect to some ideas such as string theory. But these types of controversies cannot be settled in Wikipedia and we as WP editors cannot arbitrarily create or insert additional criteria that would exclude these ideas from science. danielkueh (talk) 06:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Given that there's no actual positive evidence for String Theory, it's debatable indeed whether it is currently science. String theory is currently simply a conjecture. While falsifiability is absolutely a necessary requirement for something to be science, it's not a sufficient one. There's literally an infinite number of conjectures that are falsifiable but lack any evidence at all either way, and that do not satisfy Ockham's razor. GliderMaven (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

There is AdS/CFT correspondence, which is claimed by string theory; Ads/CFT is another way to look at quantum gravity, quantum chromodynamics, and condensed matter theory. As a framework, it's less ambitious than a particle theory. Gauge and gravity are well-established in physics, and AdS/CFT becomes a tool for experimental physicists as well as for astronomers. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 15:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

GliderMaven, scientists use a variety of terms such as hypothesis, theory, laws, etc. to distinguish the types of statements being discussed such as whether a statement has been repeatedly tested and verified (e.g., hypothesis vs theory) and whether it explains or predicts a phenomena (e.g., theory vs law). There are multiple steps within the scientific method (e.g., [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62]) and each one of these steps is "scientific." Although there are many competing hypotheses and theories in science (e.g., punctuated equilibrium vs gradualism), some statements are likely to be more persuasive than others based on the evidence. Hence, it is possible to describe a statement as being scientific (e.g., a hypothesis or a theory) while still qualifying that it is not persuasive or conclusive, i.e., still a hypothesis. But you don't seem to make that distinction. To you, it is either science because there is evidence or it is not science because there is no evidence. And that is just your personal opinion, which is fine. But unless you can convince the many well-established physicists, mathematicians, etc to say otherwise, the reliable sources are very clear, string theory is part of science. There is really no debate here. danielkueh (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Just chiming in here. I think that I agree GliderMaven to some extent, but I think that focusing quite a bit on the lead about physical evidence may not really be helpful. The article right now has a section on the scientific method and venerability, however, I think that the article is very general about science and it focuses on many social dimensions. Most of science is social and epistemic rather than empirical since most scientists do not go around replicating stuff and they do have families and social matters to attend to, also work is usually teaching in some sense and scientific societies are pretty much clubs. Which is why this article has many social and non-empirical sections on the sciences such as on history, pseudoscience, politics, philosophy of science, scientific societies, women in science, public outreach of science, science journalism, mathematics and science, etc.

Another issue is that talking about physical evidence is redundant since all fields of study whether it is history, language, anthropology, philosophy, sociology, and even theology; use physical evidence. But too many things aside form those use physical evidence too (it is actually inevitable) such as law enforcement, teachers, law, politics, manufacturing, online shopping, prostitution, drug dealing, dating, marriage, etc. Comic book collectors, Pokemon card collectors, and people at the flea market do too - it how you verify that the products you get were legitimate and not fakes.

However, I think that the scientific method section or even the Scientific method article has more room to talk about the importance of physical evidence in the sciences there. Perhaps expand there? Hope this helps. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 04:44, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm reading your good faith edit of 'venerability' as 'verifiability'; true? No big deal, but maybe you were thinking something else and it got turned into another train of thought? (I'm curious if there was some other thread you were almost getting going on, and it went away?) --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 03:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good, however, it's not so much about how much we talk about it, it's about scoping the topic and the article. And things like law enforcement aren't about studying the universe, although some forms of forensics and so forth count. GliderMaven (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

United States

In the US, scientific knowledge has a "special status" as the basis for ethics.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjaminikuta (talk • contribs)

Elaborate, otherwise we cannot understand what you're talking about. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Science informs ethical attitudes and choices, scientific methodology has ethical implications, etc. Benjamin (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Still makes no sense. How do we get from "Science informs ethical attitudes and choices..." to 'In the US, scientific knowledge has a "special status" as the basis...'? There's nothing in the Tolman and Diamond reference ([63]), which is about "theoretical perspectives" of human sexuality, to support that leap. danielkueh (talk) 06:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The relevant quote is: "Sexual facts have profoundly important consequences in a culture (such as that of the United States) that grants special status to scientific knowledge as the basis for ethics, ideology, and social policy and rigorously regulates sexuality." Benjamin (talk) 07:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The authors clearly qualified their statement with "such as that of the United States," meaning the US is just one example. It doesn't support creating a separate "by country" section and listing the US as an exclusive example ([64]). Plus, this chapter on human sexuality from an APA handbook is hardly the best or the most appropriate reference for a much broader claim on how "science informs ethical attitudes and ...." danielkueh (talk) 08:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it would be best if better sources were used, but I do think that it should be mentioned in some form. Would you happen to know of any more appropriate sources? Benjamin (talk) 13:05, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

It seems far-fetched to say that US sexual ethics is science-based. More likely it is based on religious and cultural traditions, plus the ideological domination by classical liberalism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps that is another perspective. Source? Benjamin (talk) 14:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Benjaminikuta, you're going about this backwards. We don't come to a conclusion/position and then find sources to support them. We go through the sources first and from there try to summarize/represent them as best as we can on Wikipedia. Otherwise, you run into problems of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. If this is a topic that greatly interests you, I recommend you comb through the literature on science and ethics, preferably those written by scholars in philosophy of science. Finally, this is a general article about science. Perhaps your edit may be best suited in a more specialized article such as ethics? I'm sure the editors there can provide more guidance. Best, danielkueh (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not the one who made a claim before finding a source for it. I agree that more specific articles would also be relevant, but ethics is also extremely broad. There is also both the general and the specific claim that is being made by Tolman. Benjamin (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you have anything specific to propose that is based on a preponderance of high quality and relevant sources? If not, then there is really nothing more to discuss. danielkueh (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

The argument was made by Prof. David W. Martin at his course from The Great Courses: homosexuality was a mental disorder because it severely violated the US popular morality; it isn't a mental disorder because it no longer does so. So, he says it was the other way around. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that necessarily contradicts what Tolman is saying here. Science was used as a justification for such beliefs. Benjamin (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Let me draw the conclusion: Wikipedia has chosen for mainstream science. Fine, no problem with that. In large chunks of the world "homosexuality good, pedophilia bad" isn't seen as science, but as Western propaganda. Yup, now I understand those people who complain that acupuncture is pseudoscience according to Western science. You see, according to Chinese science, it isn't pseudoscience. I don't have a problem with Wikipedia's choice, but it has to be made explicit. Neither Wikipedia nor science operate in a moral void. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Please WP:Stay on topic. WP:COATRACK: This talk page thread is going off the topic of the article. The article does not need an entry point to WP:TROJAN actions under color of law or torts of false light. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 02:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

About the order of three major branches

The section "Formal science" was established on 2018-09-03([65]), being placed behind "Natural science" and "Social science". But this order was only caused by edit history. Before the sections of the 3 branches was separated, the empirical ones were ellaborated first, before maths. If separated, the more common order should be: maths first, natural second, and social the last, as in the table, the title template, and the main article. Cswquz (talk) 11:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC) Commerce is better than Science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.230.64.208 (talk) 10:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion, "Natural science" should be first because, for most people, that is what science means to them. Some would debate whether the things classified as "Formal science" are actually science at all. SpinningSpark 12:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Spinningspark. This is where reliable sources becomes critical. Currently, there are no reliable sources supporting the order presented in the table or in the template. In fact, "Applied science" is not even a branch. Thus, appealing to the template as a reference is questionable. Plus, following your reasoning, the order in that template could very well be "caused by edit history." Second, this article is about science, not just about branches of science, and most people, scientists included, still associate science more closely with the empirical sciences, particularly the natural science, and not with mathematics. In fact, take a closer look at this article such as the lead definition, history, scientific method, the importance of mathematics to science, the disputed status of the formal science as a science, and the majority of the references, and you will begin to see a pattern. Finally, the formal science article itself is not well sourced or developed. In fact, that article has three "citations needed" tag, equal to the number of references cited. Its contents are still evolving. And as this talk page illustrates, we ourselves are still getting a grip on the subject. That reason alone should give us pause before highlighting one branch as "first," the other as second, and so on. danielkueh (talk) 12:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree, there needs to be some awareness of a thing before statements can be made about that thing (Aristotle). We learn about absolutely new things, undiscovered by others, from nature, step by step. At times, the social setting (a man-made, instituted setting) can present a thing to us so that we learn from others.--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

References

I have a question other than this topic to ask you. In this article, section "Renaissance and early modern science", first paragraph, quote: "Before what we now know as the Renaissance started, Roger Bacon, Vitello, and John Peckham each built up a scholastic ontology upon a causal chain beginning with sensation, perception, and finally apperception of the individual and universal forms of Aristotle." -- Does "individual" here mean "particular"? Cswquz (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

It would seem so [66]. danielkueh (talk) 15:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

It's important to distinguish fact from myth (myths need not be true). The ventricles in the brain were hypothesized to be locations for the forms, which were thought to be physical objects. This was discredited in 1604 by Kepler. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 15:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course I am aware of the strictest definition of science. But now in this article a much more broader definition of science is adopted, even including technology and engineering and business administration and law. Historically, maths' development was far more earlier than modern science(in the strict sense). And the dispute on whether maths' belongs to science has been clearly elaborated in the introduction and its own section. So there seems to be no reason to put maths behind any others. Formal -> natural -> social (->applied) is a more reasonable order, logically. Cswquz (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Cswquz It's a philosophical point, not anything more. The numbers evolved thousands of years ago, from accounting of grain, etc. See History of accounting#Early development of accounting. It's probably best not to make too much of the forms. After all, there have been other forms, such as knots in ropes, or marks on bone. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 15:17, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Again, it's not about "reasonable order." It's about the sources. And what do the sources say? danielkueh (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Let me get straight. You established an order, and I changed it, and then you undid my edit. So according to all those "WP:"s above it seems to be your burden to cite some source to show why must to put natural and social first before maths. Am I not correct? Cswquz (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I, and numerous other editors, have already provided references on a broad range of topics in science, which are listed in this article. The authors' treatment of the subject is consistent with the existing arrangement, whereby the empirical sciences, along with its contents and methods, are described first and in much greater detail. Thus, the burden to demonstrate verifiability has already been fulfilled. And as the comments above show, there is consensus for this arrangement. So unless you are able to provide multiple reliable sources that at the very minimum start the description of science by first discussing math, there is really nothing more to discuss. danielkueh (talk) 15:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The reasoning you used is just what I used when I argued with spsp, but it seems not an acceptable one according to "WP"s. Let's focus on this question: why must put maths behind emprical ones just becuase it is not the latter? Is there any source to show the necessity of this arrange of editing? (If yes, it may be of communication/publication/psychology, rather than philosophy of science). After all, the title of this article is not "Emprical science(s)". Cswquz (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what it is you are referring when it comes to "reasoning." My reasoning is simple, the information on WP needs to be based on reliable sources, which includes what information is being covered, how much of it is being covered, how it is organized, etc. Thus, the information presented in this article is consistent with the way it is presented in the numerous sources cited in this article, which in this case provides greater coverage to the empirical sciences, particularly the natural sciences. Hence, it is featured more prominently in this article. Again, take a look at the article. Read the lead definition. Look at the history section, the philosophy of science section, and the section on the scientific method. Look at the list of scientific discoveries. Ask yourself, which branch of science are these sections most closely related to? The empirical sciences or the formal science? danielkueh (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Just show the causal chain from "prominent" to "be put at first". Cswquz (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Not aware of a distinction. But ok. Not sure what you're getting at. danielkueh (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

If "most important" or "main" means "must be put at the top", then in "History" section we should put Newton above Aristotle. That's the point. Cswquz (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

We don't do that because it's called "history" and there's an expectation that information will be presented in a particular order. Plus, it is consistent with how the history of science is usually presented in the sources. Likewise, we talk about science first because well, this article is about science and readers expect to learn more about science and maybe a little bit about math and how it is related to science. danielkueh (talk) 16:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

So the importance is not the sole consideration of ordering, is it? And in the last reply you were using the substituted meaning of science. And you still have not provided a source to support the assertions in the last reply, such as what the readers want, and to meet these wants, maths must be put below the other two, etc. Cswquz (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm using the definition of science as stated in this article. According to the sources, there is no agreement as to whether math is a science. As for providing sources on what readers would like to read, that's irrelevant. Readers search WP for all sorts of articles. I do not need to provide a source for that. Just like I do not need to provide whenever someone wants to know the definition of a word from a dictionary. I only need to provide sources in what information is being covered and how it is being covered based on WP's policies and guidelines such as WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:Due. Also you may want to review WP:COMMONSENSE. Finally, I think I have said all I need to say in this discussion. I've been very patient with you. Yet, I have not seen a single reliable source from you to support your edit. Moreover, there is no consensus for your proposal. So unless you have multiple high quality sources to provide, I consider this discussion to be over and I will not be responding further. danielkueh (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

My edit was just to exchange the places of three sections. If you undid it, then the obligation of providing a source to show why they must be sorted in that order is up to you, isn't it? Cswquz (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

PS: the first sentence of this article is in fact the strictest definition of science -- natural science, so it is in fact contradictary to the layout of this article. Cswquz (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Cswquz, you are arguing for a particular order of sections, not content. That is not covered by WP:BURDEN. It is perfectly reasonable for editors to reach a consensus on such a matter, and it seems perverse to insist on leading with a section that contains the sourced statement, "there is disagreement on whether they actually constitute a science". Please accept the consensus and stop being disruptive. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Quite right, so it is not my burden to provide a source. Am I not correct? And the consensus which I understand is that logically (and historically) maths should be placed before natural and social sciences, provided "science" includes maths, as things that are in this article.Cswquz (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

PS: I am never disruptive. Cswquz (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

PPS: And "perverse" is quite a personal feeling, not a consensus. Cswquz (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I am speaking of Wikipedia consensus here, and that consensus is clearly in favor of leaving things the way they are. This harping on a burden is an example of repeating the same argument without convincing people, which is a form of tendentious editing. RockMagnetist(talk) 20:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Who's been rehashing, spsp or daniel? Anyway, that is not important, for the discussion has been over. See my talk page. Cswquz (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

There is an article —Carl Hempel's Deductive-nomological model which gets 2300 views per month (compared to 102,000 pageviews/month, for this article). See also James Franklin (philosopher) (1994) THE FORMAL SCIENCES DISCOVER THE PHILOSOPHERS’ STONE Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 513–533, 1994. Bibliography. Elsevier Science Ltd. James Franklin mentions operations research and control theory. —My sense of all this is: this topic is currently little-noticed, for those who are not engineers. But who knows, maybe big data will awaken interest in it. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 01:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks.--Cswquz (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Cswquz: You need to provide an acceptable line of reasoning for your recent edits, or you will be blocked for WP:Tendentious editing. You have already crossed the WP:3RR line. Meaning no more of your unilateral changes to this article. Start with your premises, please. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 15:19, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I see, that is alright. Well, first, I have conceded, see the section below; second, someone else has overcrossed 3rr line also, see my talk page.--Cswquz (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not a question of human rights; rather, the question is 'Have you created a persuasive line of reasoning that will make your case to the other editors, that we might arrive at a consensus about the article'. You should have started here. But no editing in the article, please, until you can convince other editors about the merits of your edit. The article is already stable. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 16:12, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I almost omitted your comment again. I started a new section below, in which I did some reasoning which is, IMO, persuasive enough, but it seems that no one will read it anymore. I was then threatened to be blocked from editing (see my talk page). Ooh, that's so fearful! So, that's it. До свидания.--Cswquz (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

An Apology Regarding My Edit

I've made an edit that reverted the formal sciences back into the original order that it was established in. Soon after the edit another user reverted the edit and explained to me that the new revision regarding the ordering of the sciences has already been extensively discussed here on the talk page. I do not wish to go against the decision reached by a group of many, so because of that, I send my apologies about that edit. It should also be assured that any changes I've made have been undone as the admins would have intended it to be. W.C Cross (talk) 20:34, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

No need to apologize, @W.C Cross:. This is a work in progress and a group effort. Appreciate the note though. Hope you have a good weekend. danielkueh (talk) 20:37, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Universe

[67] - this edit. Universe has specific meaning. Social studies or biology (for example) do not study Universe. Physics and Astronomy do. "Phenomena" might work. My very best wishes (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The Universe represents the totality of all space and time and its contents, i.e., everything that can, in principle, be studied by science. The different branches of science study different aspects or parts of this totality. This is consistent with E.O. Wilson’s definition of science in his book Consilience. Phenomenon is quite limiting. Various dictionaries define it as only those objects or events (usually rare or unusual) that can be detected by our senses (e.g., [68],[69],[70]). danielkueh (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Heilbron has something to say here: The disputed edit elided 'about the Universe'; there is an unsaid assumption of methodological naturalism in play: the laws of physics are spoken by societies of rhetors who speak of their subjects, the Inventio#Topoi, in a hierarchy of nature, meaning the cosmos, the Earth, its societies, who inhabit the Topoi, the microcosmos, in an unbounded hierarchy. It's not everything and definitely not anything. For example, myth, fiction, etc. cannot be part of science, by definition. Heilbron embodies the rhetoric of science very well: "... modern science is a discovery as well as an invention. It was a discovery that nature generally acts regularly enough to be described by laws and even by mathematics; and required invention to devise the techniques, abstractions, apparatus, and organization for exhibiting the regularities and securing their law-like descriptions."— p.vii Heilbron, J.L., ed. (2003). "Preface". The Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. vii–X. ISBN 978-0-19-511229-0. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

This thread is actually quite urgent: Disinformation cannot be part of science, and yet there are scientists who actively practice undercutting each other, propaganda, etc. The moral and ethical dimension of science cannot be ignored if the species, and current civilization is to survive. End of comment --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

• Hmm... There are people who think that disinformation aka information warfare, military deception and The Art of War is art and science and they even wrote books about it [71] and teach about it in certain departments. My very best wishes (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Would this be best covered in the "Challenges" or "Politicization of science" sections? danielkueh (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I can see that different dictionaries use partly different definitions. First of all, the science about Universe is Cosmology. That's why EB [72] uses wording not "about", but "concerned with the physical world and its phenomena", which I think is much better. Secondly, first phrase should include something about using the scientific method (which is really the key here) to achieve knowledge: this appears in EB as "unbiased observations and systematic experimentation". My very best wishes (talk) 00:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Including the term universe in this article's definition does not make science in general synonymous with cosmology as the latter is concerned with a particular aspect of the universe, namely its origin and evolution. Other than making the sentence wordy, I don't see how changing "about" to "concerned with" is an improvement. danielkueh (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

That was just a quick suggestion. If you both disagree, let's keep it. BTW, how about arts? This is not science, but they do help humans to learn a lot about the surrounding world and themselves. The only difference: they do not employ the scientific method - the method is the key here. My very best wishes (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Just taking a quick glance at the definitions in both articles, it appears that the difference between them lies in their ends (or goals). Where science is concerned with creating testable explanations and predictions (theories and laws) about the world around us, the arts (according to WP) appear to be focused on producing "objects, environments and experiences." In any event, I am not opposed to expanding the first lead sentence into a full-fledged paragraph that would include the scientific method, which I agree is crucial to the entire enterprise. It is mentioned in the second paragraph (albeit in passing) and research is described in the fourth paragraph. This is the organization of the entire article as well. In past discussions, we did not include it in the first lead paragraph as there were concerns that it might limit the scope of the article, such as excluding the formal sciences. But that was a decade ago (see Archive 4). Perspectives might have changed. If you have a specific or concrete text in mind, feel free to propose it. danielkueh (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe later, but I would need to look at sources. The subject is tricky. For example, do all nonfiction literature belongs to science? Apparently not? Why not? As about the difference with arts, one could say that in science someone discovers the already existing objective laws of nature, but in arts he does not, this is pure creativity of man. But again, things like the intuition and great imagination may well be considered a part of science. My very best wishes (talk) 01:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree. danielkueh (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

[edit conflict] And merely the human language is already a method of study. My very best wishes (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

You mean in linguistics? danielkueh (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2020

NOT TO BE INCLUDED: reason for edit: The first line definition of science is inadequate.

TO BE ADDED:

A science (noun) is an organized body of knowledge about a particular area of existence. A science is developed by the observation of Effects (phenomena and realities) to discover their nature and their Causes, the understanding of which permits prediction and control, i.e. the power to produce the desired results in the area.

Science (verb) is the systematic process of discovery and development of a science, also called the scientific method, scientific investigation, or research.

A technology is the application of a science using equipment and processes to produce the desired results, often in commercial or industrial quantities.

The golden standard of science is VERIFIABILITY of the results predicted and produced according to the protocol used. Verifiability requires that third parties can repeat the experiments and reproduce the results, thus objectively confirming verifying and confirming the validity of the proposed addition of knowledge to the science. Psycan (talk) 13:45, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. This wouldn't be a good change. For one very obvious error here, science isn't a verb (except in a slangy, humorous way that doesn't bear on the article). "Science" is a pretty nebulous concept, and trying to pin it down to a couple sentences is inappropriate. Any major changes to such a broad, major article would also need consensus. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:31, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2020

add cosmology to example of formal science it will change "and the formal sciences (e.g., logic, mathematics, and theoretical computer science)," to "and the formal sciences (e.g., logic, mathematics, theoretical computer science, and cosmology),"

source: philosophy "metaphysical philosophy has given way to formal sciences such as logic, mathematics and philosophy of science, while still including epistemology, cosmology, etc." Wccma (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source for itself per WP:CIRC. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Earlier root of science

Science is originated in vedic period in India. Hindus religious text veda is full of scientific proofs. Aaryabhatt is famous ancient astronomist . Even Indian have a well developed medical science. These days known as ayurveda. The aacharya susruta is considered as the father of surgery . Susruta samhita is still practised and follow by the doctors of the world . If you looked towards earlier root of science you find it in India thousands of years ago Dr Kumar Deepak (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed Technically Vedas Can Be Said To Be Millions Of Years Old And I am not being biased here it is said that there are multiple Authors of the Vedas in each Yugas Yugas meaning ages and there are total 4 yugas/ages satyayuga/the age of truthfulness/golden age Treta Yuga/silver age Dwapar yuga/bronze age and lastly the current yuga we're living in kali yuga/age of darkness/iron age the first author of the Vedas is brahma which was written in the beginning of time the most recent Veda author is krishna dwaipayana you can check all the details about multiple Authors in Vyasa title page so yeah the starting date of Vedas Are unknown Weeabo-kun2198 (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)