Science

Science is a systematic discipline that builds and organises knowledge in the form of testable hypotheses
and predictions about the universe.[1][2] Modern science is typically divided into two or three major
branches:[3] the natural sciences (e.g., physics, chemistry, and biology), which study the physical world;
and the social sciences (e.g., economics, psychology, and sociology), which study individuals and
societies.[4][5] Applied sciences are disciplines that use scientific knowledge for practical purposes, such
as engineering and medicine.[6][7][8] While sometimes referred to as the formal sciences, the study of
logic, mathematics, and theoretical computer science (which study formal systems governed by axioms
and rules)[9][10] are typically regarded as separate because they rely on deductive reasoning instead of the
scientific method or empirical evidence as their main methodology.[11][12][13][14]

The history of science spans the majority of the historical record, with the earliest identifiable
predecessors to modern science dating to the Bronze Age in Egypt and Mesopotamia
(c. 3000–1200 BCE). Their contributions to mathematics, astronomy, and medicine entered and shaped
the Greek natural philosophy of classical antiquity, whereby formal attempts were made to provide
explanations of events in the physical world based on natural causes, while further advancements,
including the introduction of the Hindu–Arabic numeral system, were made during the Golden Age of
India.[15]: 12 [16][17][18] Scientific research deteriorated in these regions after the fall of the Western Roman
Empire during the Early Middle Ages (400–1000 CE), but in the Medieval renaissances (Carolingian
Renaissance, Ottonian Renaissance and the Renaissance of the 12th century) scholarship flourished again.
Some Greek manuscripts lost in Western Europe were preserved and expanded upon in the Middle East
during the Islamic Golden Age,[19] Later, Byzantine Greek scholars contributed to their transmission by
bringing Greek manuscripts from the declining Byzantine Empire to Western Europe at the beginning of
the Renaissance.

The recovery and assimilation of Greek works and Islamic inquiries into Western Europe from the 10th to
13th centuries revived natural philosophy,[20][21][22] which was later transformed by the Scientific
Revolution that began in the 16th century[23] as new ideas and discoveries departed from previous Greek
conceptions and traditions.[24][25] The scientific method soon played a greater role in knowledge creation
and in the 19th century many of the institutional and professional features of science began to take
shape,[26][27] along with the changing of "natural philosophy" to "natural science".[28]

New knowledge in science is advanced by research from scientists who are motivated by curiosity about
the world and a desire to solve problems.[29][30] Contemporary scientific research is highly collaborative
and is usually done by teams in academic and research institutions,[31] government agencies,[19] and
companies.[32] The practical impact of their work has led to the emergence of science policies that seek to
influence the scientific enterprise by prioritising the ethical and moral development of commercial
products, armaments, health care, public infrastructure, and environmental protection.
Etymology
The word science has been used in Middle English since the 14th century in the sense of "the state of
knowing". The word was borrowed from the Anglo-Norman language as the suffix -cience, which was
borrowed from the Latin word scientia, meaning "knowledge, awareness, understanding", a noun
derivative of sciens meaning "knowing", itself the present active participle of sciō, "to know".[33]

There are many hypotheses for science's ultimate word origin. According to Michiel de Vaan, Dutch
linguist and Indo-Europeanist, sciō may have its origin in the Proto-Italic language as *skije- or *skijo-
meaning "to know", which may originate from Proto-Indo-European language as *skh1-ie, *skh1-io,
meaning "to incise". The Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben proposed sciō is a back-formation of
nescīre, meaning "to not know, be unfamiliar with", which may derive from Proto-Indo-European *sekH-
in Latin secāre, or *skh2-, from *sḱʰeh2(i)- meaning "to cut".[34]

In the past, science was a synonym for "knowledge" or "study", in keeping with its Latin origin. A person
who conducted scientific research was called a "natural philosopher" or "man of science".[35] In 1834,
William Whewell introduced the term scientist in a review of Mary Somerville's book On the Connexion
of the Physical Sciences,[36] crediting it to "some ingenious gentleman" (possibly himself).[37]

History

Early history
Science has no single origin. Rather, scientific thinking
emerged gradually over the course of tens of thousands of
years,[38][39] taking different forms around the world, and few
details are known about the very earliest developments.
Women likely played a central role in prehistoric science,[40]
as did religious rituals.[41] Some scholars use the term
"protoscience" to label activities in the past that resemble
modern science in some but not all features;[42][43][44]
however, this label has also been criticised as denigrating,[45]
The Plimpton 322 tablet by the
or too suggestive of presentism, thinking about those Babylonians records Pythagorean triples,
activities only in relation to modern categories.[46] written c. 1800 BCE

Direct evidence for scientific processes becomes clearer with

the advent of writing systems in the Bronze Age civilisations of Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia
(c. 3000–1200 BCE), creating the earliest written records in the history of science.[15]: 12–15 [16] Although
the words and concepts of "science" and "nature" were not part of the conceptual landscape at the time,
the ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians made contributions that would later find a place in Greek and
medieval science: mathematics, astronomy, and medicine.[47][15]: 12 From the 3rd millennium BCE, the
ancient Egyptians developed a non-positional decimal numbering system,[48] solved practical problems
using geometry,[49] and developed a calendar.[50] Their healing therapies involved drug treatments and
the supernatural, such as prayers, incantations, and rituals.[15]: 9
The ancient Mesopotamians used knowledge about the properties of various natural chemicals for
manufacturing pottery, faience, glass, soap, metals, lime plaster, and waterproofing.[51] They studied
animal physiology, anatomy, behaviour, and astrology for divinatory purposes.[52] The Mesopotamians
had an intense interest in medicine and the earliest medical prescriptions appeared in Sumerian during the
Third Dynasty of Ur.[51][53] They seem to have studied scientific subjects which had practical or religious
applications and had little interest in satisfying curiosity.[51]

Classical antiquity
In classical antiquity, there is no real ancient analogue of a
modern scientist. Instead, well-educated, usually upper-class,
and almost universally male individuals performed various
investigations into nature whenever they could afford the
time.[54] Before the invention or discovery of the concept of
phusis or nature by the pre-Socratic philosophers, the same
words tend to be used to describe the natural "way" in which
a plant grows,[55] and the "way" in which, for example, one
tribe worships a particular god. For this reason, it is claimed
that these men were the first philosophers in the strict sense
and the first to clearly distinguish "nature" and
"convention".[56]
Plato's Academy mosaic, made between
The early Greek philosophers of the Milesian school, which
100 BCE and 79 CE, shows many Greek
philosophers and scholars was founded by Thales of Miletus and later continued by his
successors Anaximander and Anaximenes, were the first to
attempt to explain natural phenomena without relying on the
[57] The Pythagoreans developed a complex number philosophy[58]: 467–468 and contributed
supernatural.
significantly to the development of mathematical science.[58]: 465 The theory of atoms was developed by
the Greek philosopher Leucippus and his student Democritus.[59][60] Later, Epicurus would develop a full
natural cosmology based on atomism, and would adopt a "canon" (ruler, standard) which established
physical criteria or standards of scientific truth.[61] The Greek doctor Hippocrates established the tradition
of systematic medical science[62][63] and is known as "The Father of Medicine".[64]

A turning point in the history of early philosophical science was Socrates' example of applying
philosophy to the study of human matters, including human nature, the nature of political communities,
and human knowledge itself. The Socratic method as documented by Plato's dialogues is a dialectic
method of hypothesis elimination: better hypotheses are found by steadily identifying and eliminating
those that lead to contradictions. The Socratic method searches for general commonly-held truths that
shape beliefs and scrutinises them for consistency.[65] Socrates criticised the older type of study of
physics as too purely speculative and lacking in self-criticism.[66]

In the 4th century BCE, Aristotle created a systematic programme of teleological philosophy.[67] In the
3rd century BCE, Greek astronomer Aristarchus of Samos was the first to propose a heliocentric model of
the universe, with the Sun at the centre and all the planets orbiting it.[68] Aristarchus's model was widely
rejected because it was believed to violate the laws of physics,[68] while Ptolemy's Almagest, which
contains a geocentric description of the Solar System, was accepted through the early Renaissance
instead.[69][70] The inventor and mathematician Archimedes of Syracuse made major contributions to the
beginnings of calculus.[71] Pliny the Elder was a Roman writer and polymath, who wrote the seminal
encyclopaedia Natural History.[72][73][74]

Positional notation for representing numbers likely emerged between the 3rd and 5th centuries CE along
Indian trade routes. This numeral system made efficient arithmetic operations more accessible and would
eventually become standard for mathematics worldwide.[75]

Middle Ages
Due to the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, the 5th
century saw an intellectual decline, with knowledge of
classical Greek conceptions of the world deteriorating in
Western Europe.[15]: 194 Latin encyclopaedists of the period
such as Isidore of Seville preserved the majority of general
ancient knowledge.[76] In contrast, because the Byzantine
Empire resisted attacks from invaders, they were able to
preserve and improve prior learning.[15]: 159 John Philoponus,
a Byzantine scholar in the 6th century, started to question
Aristotle's teaching of physics, introducing the theory of
impetus.[15]: 307, 311, 363, 402 His criticism served as an
inspiration to medieval scholars and Galileo Galilei, who
extensively cited his works ten centuries later.[15]: 307–308 [77]

During late antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, natural

The first page of Vienna Dioscurides
phenomena were mainly examined via the Aristotelian depicts a peacock, made in the 6th
approach. The approach includes Aristotle's four causes: century
material, formal, moving, and final cause. [78] Many Greek
classical texts were preserved by the Byzantine Empire and
Arabic translations were made by Christians, mainly Nestorians and Miaphysites. Under the Abbasids,
these Arabic translations were later improved and developed by Arabic scientists.[79] By the 6th and 7th
centuries, the neighbouring Sasanian Empire established the medical Academy of Gondishapur, which
was considered by Greek, Syriac, and Persian physicians as the most important medical hub of the
ancient world.[80]

Islamic study of Aristotelianism flourished in the House of Wisdom established in the Abbasid capital of
Baghdad, Iraq[81] and the flourished[82] until the Mongol invasions in the 13th century. Ibn al-Haytham,
better known as Alhazen, used controlled experiments in his optical study.[a][84][85] Avicenna's
compilation of The Canon of Medicine, a medical encyclopaedia, is considered to be one of the most
important publications in medicine and was used until the 18th century.[86]

By the 11th century most of Europe had become Christian,[15]: 204 and in 1088, the University of Bologna
emerged as the first university in Europe.[87] As such, demand for Latin translation of ancient and
scientific texts grew,[15]: 204 a major contributor to the Renaissance of the 12th century. Renaissance
scholasticism in western Europe flourished, with experiments done by observing, describing, and
classifying subjects in nature.[88] In the 13th century, medical teachers and students at Bologna began
opening human bodies, leading to the first anatomy textbook based on human dissection by Mondino de
Luzzi.[89]

Renaissance
New developments in optics played a role in the inception of
the Renaissance, both by challenging long-held metaphysical
ideas on perception, as well as by contributing to the
improvement and development of technology such as the
camera obscura and the telescope. At the start of the
Renaissance, 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.[83]: Book I A model
of vision later known as perspectivism was exploited and
studied by the artists of the Renaissance. This theory uses
only three of Aristotle's four causes: formal, material, and
final.[90]

In the 16th century, Nicolaus Copernicus formulated a

heliocentric model of the Solar System, stating that the
planets revolve around the Sun, instead of the geocentric
model where the planets and the Sun revolve around the
Drawing of the heliocentric model as
Earth. This was based on a theorem that the orbital periods of
proposed by the Copernicus's De
the planets are longer as their orbs are farther from the centre
revolutionibus orbium coelestium
of motion, which he found not to agree with Ptolemy's
model.[91]

Johannes Kepler and others challenged the notion that the only function of the eye is perception, and
shifted the main focus in optics from the eye to the propagation of light.[90][92] Kepler is best known,
however, for improving Copernicus' heliocentric model through the discovery of Kepler's laws of
planetary motion. Kepler did not reject Aristotelian metaphysics and described his work as a search for
the Harmony of the Spheres.[93] Galileo had made significant contributions to astronomy, physics and
engineering. However, he became persecuted after Pope Urban VIII sentenced him for writing about the
heliocentric model.[94]

The printing press was widely used to publish scholarly arguments, including some that disagreed widely
with contemporary ideas of nature.[95] Francis Bacon and René Descartes published philosophical
arguments in favour of a new type of non-Aristotelian science. Bacon emphasised the importance of
experiment over contemplation, questioned the Aristotelian concepts of formal and final cause, promoted
the idea that science should study the laws of nature and the improvement of all human life.[96] Descartes
emphasised individual thought and argued that mathematics rather than geometry should be used to study
nature.[97]
Age of Enlightenment
At the start of the Age of Enlightenment, Isaac Newton formed the
foundation of classical mechanics by his Philosophiæ Naturalis
Principia Mathematica, greatly influencing future physicists.[98]
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz incorporated terms from Aristotelian
physics, now used in a new non-teleological way. This implied a shift
in the view of objects: objects were now considered as having no
innate goals. Leibniz assumed that different types of things all work
according to the same general laws of nature, with no special formal or
final causes.[99]

During this time the declared purpose and value of science became
producing wealth and inventions that would improve human lives, in
the materialistic sense of having more food, clothing, and other things.
In Bacon's words, "the real and legitimate goal of sciences is the Title page of the 1687 first
endowment of human life with new inventions and riches", and he edition of Philosophiæ
Naturalis Principia
discouraged scientists from pursuing intangible philosophical or
Mathematica by Isaac Newton
spiritual ideas, which he believed contributed little to human happiness
beyond "the fume of subtle, sublime or pleasing [speculation]".[100]

Science during the Enlightenment was dominated by scientific societies and academies,[101] which had
largely replaced universities as centres of scientific research and development. Societies and academies
were the backbones of the maturation of the scientific profession. Another important development was
the popularisation of science among an increasingly literate population.[102] Enlightenment philosophers
turned to a few of their scientific predecessors – Galileo, Kepler, Boyle, and Newton principally – as the
guides to every physical and social field of the day.[103][104]

The 18th century saw significant advancements in the practice of medicine[105] and physics;[106] the
development of biological taxonomy by Carl Linnaeus;[107] a new understanding of magnetism and
electricity;[108] and the maturation of chemistry as a discipline.[109] Ideas on human nature, society, and
economics evolved during the Enlightenment. Hume and other Scottish Enlightenment thinkers
developed A Treatise of Human Nature, which was expressed historically in works by authors including
James Burnett, Adam Ferguson, John Millar and William Robertson, all of whom merged a scientific
study of how humans behaved in ancient and primitive cultures with a strong awareness of the
determining forces of modernity.[110] Modern sociology largely originated from this movement.[111] In
1776, Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations, which is often considered the first work on modern
economics.[112]

19th century
During the 19th century, many distinguishing characteristics of contemporary modern science began to
take shape. These included the transformation of the life and physical sciences; the frequent use of
precision instruments; the emergence of terms such as "biologist", "physicist", and "scientist"; an
increased professionalisation of those studying nature; scientists gaining cultural authority over many
dimensions of society; the industrialisation of numerous countries; the thriving of popular science
writings; and the emergence of science journals.[113] During the late
19th century, psychology emerged as a separate discipline from
philosophy when Wilhelm Wundt founded the first laboratory for
psychological research in 1879.[114]

During the mid-19th century Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel

Wallace independently proposed the theory of evolution by natural
selection in 1858, which explained how different plants and animals
originated and evolved. Their theory was set out in detail in Darwin's
book On the Origin of Species, published in 1859.[115] Separately,
Gregor Mendel presented his paper, "Experiments on Plant
Hybridisation" in 1865,[116] which outlined the principles of biological
inheritance, serving as the basis for modern genetics.[117]

Early in the 19th century John Dalton suggested the modern atomic
theory, based on Democritus's original idea of indivisible particles
The first diagram of an
called atoms.[118] The laws of conservation of energy, conservation of
evolutionary tree made by
momentum and conservation of mass suggested a highly stable Charles Darwin in 1837
universe where there could be little loss of resources. However, with
the advent of the steam engine and the Industrial Revolution there was
an increased understanding that not all forms of energy have the same energy qualities, the ease of
conversion to useful work or to another form of energy.[119] This realisation led to the development of the
laws of thermodynamics, in which the free energy of the universe is seen as constantly declining: the
entropy of a closed universe increases over time.[b]

The electromagnetic theory was established in the 19th century by the works of Hans Christian Ørsted,
André-Marie Ampère, Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell, Oliver Heaviside, and Heinrich Hertz.
The new theory raised questions that could not easily be answered using Newton's framework. The
discovery of X-rays inspired the discovery of radioactivity by Henri Becquerel and Marie Curie in
1896,[122] Marie Curie then became the first person to win two Nobel Prizes.[123] In the next year came
the discovery of the first subatomic particle, the electron.[124]

20th century
In the first half of the century the development of antibiotics and artificial fertilisers improved human
living standards globally.[125][126] Harmful environmental issues such as ozone depletion, ocean
acidification, eutrophication, and climate change came to the public's attention and caused the onset of
environmental studies.[127]

During this period scientific experimentation became increasingly larger in scale and funding.[128] The
extensive technological innovation stimulated by World War I, World War II, and the Cold War led to
competitions between global powers, such as the Space Race and nuclear arms race.[129][130] Substantial
international collaborations were also made, despite armed conflicts.[131]

In the late 20th century active recruitment of women and elimination of sex discrimination greatly
increased the number of women scientists, but large gender disparities remained in some fields.[132] The
discovery of the cosmic microwave background in 1964[133] led to a rejection of the steady-state model
of the universe in favour of the Big Bang theory of Georges Lemaître.[134]
The century saw fundamental changes within science
disciplines. Evolution became a unified theory in the early
20th-century when the modern synthesis reconciled
Darwinian evolution with classical genetics.[135] Albert
Einstein's theory of relativity and the development of
quantum mechanics complement classical mechanics to
describe physics in extreme length, time and gravity.[136][137]
Widespread use of integrated circuits in the last quarter of the
20th century combined with communications satellites led to
a revolution in information technology and the rise of the
global internet and mobile computing, including smartphones. A computer graph of the ozone hole
The need for mass systematisation of long, intertwined causal made in 1987 using data from a space
chains and large amounts of data led to the rise of the fields of telescope
systems theory and computer-assisted scientific
[138]
modelling.

21st century
The Human Genome Project was completed
in 2003 by identifying and mapping all of the
genes of the human genome.[139] The first
induced pluripotent human stem cells were
made in 2006, allowing adult cells to be
transformed into stem cells and turn into any
cell type found in the body.[140] With the Four predicted images of the M87* black hole made by
affirmation of the Higgs boson discovery in separate teams in the Event Horizon Telescope
collaboration.
2013, the last particle predicted by the
Standard Model of particle physics was
found.[141] In 2015, gravitational waves, predicted by general relativity a century before, were first
observed.[142][143] In 2019, the international collaboration Event Horizon Telescope presented the first
direct image of a black hole's accretion disc.[144]

Branches
Modern science is commonly divided into three major branches: natural science, social science, and
formal science.[3] Each of these branches comprises various specialised yet overlapping scientific
disciplines that often possess their own nomenclature and expertise.[145] Both natural and social sciences
are empirical sciences,[146] as their knowledge is based on empirical observations and is capable of being
tested for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions.[147]

Natural science
Natural science is the study of the physical world. It can be divided into two main branches: life science
and physical science. These two branches may be further divided into more specialised disciplines. For
example, physical science can be subdivided into physics, chemistry, astronomy, and earth science.
Modern natural science is the successor to the natural philosophy that began in Ancient Greece. Galileo,
Descartes, Bacon, and Newton debated the benefits of using approaches that were more mathematical and
more experimental in a methodical way. Still, philosophical perspectives, conjectures, and
presuppositions, often overlooked, remain necessary in natural science.[148] Systematic data collection,
including discovery science, succeeded natural history, which emerged in the 16th century by describing
and classifying plants, animals, minerals, and other biotic beings.[149] Today, "natural history" suggests
observational descriptions aimed at popular audiences.[150]

Social science
Social science is the study of human behaviour and the
functioning of societies.[4][5] It has many disciplines that
include, but are not limited to anthropology, economics,
history, human geography, political science, psychology, and
sociology.[4] In the social sciences, there are many competing
theoretical perspectives, many of which are extended through
competing research programmes such as the functionalists,
conflict theorists, and interactionists in sociology.[4] Due to
the limitations of conducting controlled experiments
involving large groups of individuals or complex situations,
social scientists may adopt other research methods such as the
historical method, case studies, and cross-cultural studies.
Moreover, if quantitative information is available, social Supply and demand curve in economics,
scientists may rely on statistical approaches to better crossing over at the optimal equilibrium
understand social relationships and processes.[4]

Formal science
Formal science is an area of study that generates knowledge using formal systems.[151][9][10] A formal
system is an abstract structure used for inferring theorems from axioms according to a set of rules.[152] It
includes mathematics,[153][154] systems theory, and theoretical computer science. The formal sciences
share similarities with the other two branches by relying on objective, careful, and systematic study of an
area of knowledge. They are, however, different from the empirical sciences as they rely exclusively on
deductive reasoning, without the need for empirical evidence, to verify their abstract
concepts.[13][155][147] The formal sciences are therefore a priori disciplines and because of this, there is
disagreement on whether they constitute a science.[11][156] Nevertheless, the formal sciences play an
important role in the empirical sciences. Calculus, for example, was initially invented to understand
motion in physics.[157] Natural and social sciences that rely heavily on mathematical applications include
mathematical physics,[158] chemistry,[159] biology,[160] finance,[161] and economics.[162]

Applied science
Applied science is the use of the scientific method and knowledge to attain practical goals and includes a
broad range of disciplines such as engineering and medicine.[163][8] Engineering is the use of scientific
principles to invent, design and build machines, structures and technologies.[164] Science may contribute
to the development of new technologies.[165] Medicine is the practice of caring for patients by
maintaining and restoring health through the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of injury or
disease.[166][167]
Basic sciences
The applied sciences are often contrasted with the basic sciences, which are focused on advancing
scientific theories and laws that explain and predict events in the natural world.[168][169]

Blue skies science

Blue skies research, also called blue sky science, is scientific research in domains where "real-world"
applications are not immediately apparent. It has been defined as "research without a clear goal"[170] and
"curiosity-driven science". Proponents of this mode of science argue that unanticipated scientific
breakthroughs are sometimes more valuable than the outcomes of agenda-driven research, heralding
advances in genetics and stem cell biology as examples of unforeseen benefits of research that was
originally seen as purely theoretical in scope. Because of the inherently uncertain return on investment,
blue-sky projects are sometimes politically and commercially unpopular and tend to lose funding to
research perceived as being more reliably profitable or practical.[171]

Computational science
Computational science applies computer simulations to science, enabling a better understanding of
scientific problems than formal mathematics alone can achieve. The use of machine learning and artificial
intelligence is becoming a central feature of computational contributions to science, for example in agent-
based computational economics, random forests, topic modeling and various forms of prediction.
However, machines alone rarely advance knowledge as they require human guidance and capacity to
reason; and they can introduce bias against certain social groups or sometimes underperform against
humans.[172][173]

Interdisciplinary science
Interdisciplinary science involves the combination of two or more disciplines into one,[174] such as
bioinformatics, a combination of biology and computer science[175] or cognitive sciences. The concept
has existed since the ancient Greek period and it became popular again in the 20th century.[176]

Scientific research
Scientific research can be labelled as either basic or applied research. Basic research is the search for
knowledge and applied research is the search for solutions to practical problems using this knowledge.
Most understanding comes from basic research, though sometimes applied research targets specific
practical problems. This leads to technological advances that were not previously imaginable.[177]

Scientific method
Scientific research involves using the scientific method, which seeks to objectively explain the events of
nature in a reproducible way.[178] Scientists usually take for granted a set of basic assumptions that are
needed to justify the scientific method: there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers; this
objective reality is governed by natural laws; these laws were discovered by means of systematic
observation and experimentation.[2] Mathematics is essential in the formation of hypotheses, theories, and
laws, because it is used extensively in quantitative modelling,
observing, and collecting measurements.[179] Statistics is used
to summarise and analyse data, which allows scientists to
assess the reliability of experimental results.[180]

In the scientific method an explanatory thought experiment or

hypothesis is put forward as an explanation using parsimony
principles and is expected to seek consilience – fitting with
other accepted facts related to an observation or scientific
question.[181] This tentative explanation is used to make
falsifiable predictions, which are typically posted before
being tested by experimentation. Disproof of a prediction is
evidence of progress.[178]: 4–5 [182] Experimentation is A diagram variant of scientific method
especially important in science to help establish causal represented as an ongoing process
relationships to avoid the correlation fallacy, though in some
sciences such as astronomy or geology, a predicted
observation might be more appropriate.[183]

When a hypothesis proves unsatisfactory it is modified or discarded. If the hypothesis survives testing, it
may become adopted into the framework of a scientific theory, a validly reasoned, self-consistent model
or framework for describing the behaviour of certain natural events. A theory typically describes the
behaviour of much broader sets of observations than a hypothesis; commonly, a large number of
hypotheses can be logically bound together by a single theory. Thus, a theory is a hypothesis explaining
various other hypotheses. In that vein, theories are formulated according to most of the same scientific
principles as hypotheses. Scientists may generate a model, an attempt to describe or depict an observation
in terms of a logical, physical or mathematical representation, and to generate new hypotheses that can be
tested by experimentation.[184]

While performing experiments to test hypotheses, scientists may have a preference for one outcome over
another.[185][186] Eliminating the bias can be achieved through transparency, careful experimental design,
and a thorough peer review process of the experimental results and conclusions.[187][188] After the results
of an experiment are announced or published, it is normal practice for independent researchers to double-
check how the research was performed, and to follow up by performing similar experiments to determine
how dependable the results might be.[189] Taken in its entirety, the scientific method allows for highly
creative problem solving while minimising the effects of subjective and confirmation bias.[190]
Intersubjective verifiability, the ability to reach a consensus and reproduce results, is fundamental to the
creation of all scientific knowledge.[191]

Scientific literature
Scientific research is published in a range of literature.[192] Scientific journals communicate and
document the results of research carried out in universities and various other research institutions, serving
as an archival record of science. The first scientific journals, Journal des sçavans followed by
Philosophical Transactions, began publication in 1665. Since that time the total number of active
periodicals has steadily increased. In 1981, one estimate for the number of scientific and technical
journals in publication was 11,500.[193]
Most scientific journals cover a single scientific field and
publish the research within that field; the research is normally
expressed in the form of a scientific paper. Science has
become so pervasive in modern societies that it is considered
necessary to communicate the achievements, news, and
ambitions of scientists to a wider population.[194]

Challenges
The replication crisis is an ongoing methodological crisis that
affects parts of the social and life sciences. In subsequent
investigations, the results of many scientific studies have been
proven to be unrepeatable.[195] The crisis has long-standing
roots; the phrase was coined in the early 2010s[196] as part of
a growing awareness of the problem. The replication crisis
represents an important body of research in metascience,
which aims to improve the quality of all scientific research
while reducing waste.[197]
Cover of the first issue of Nature, 4
An area of study or speculation that masquerades as science November 1869
in an attempt to claim legitimacy that it would not otherwise
be able to achieve is sometimes referred to as pseudoscience,
fringe science, or junk science.[198][199] Physicist Richard Feynman coined the term "cargo cult science"
for cases in which researchers believe, and at a glance, look like they are doing science but lack the
honesty to allow their results to be rigorously evaluated.[200] Various types of commercial advertising,
ranging from hype to fraud, may fall into these categories. Science has been described as "the most
important tool" for separating valid claims from invalid ones.[201]

There can also be an element of political bias or ideological bias on all sides of scientific debates.
Sometimes, research may be characterised as "bad science", research that may be well-intended but is
incorrect, obsolete, incomplete, or over-simplified expositions of scientific ideas. The term scientific
misconduct refers to situations such as where researchers have intentionally misrepresented their
published data or have purposely given credit for a discovery to the wrong person.[202]

Philosophy of science

There are different schools of thought in the philosophy of science. The most popular position is
empiricism, which holds that knowledge is created by a process involving observation; scientific theories
generalise observations.[203] Empiricism generally encompasses inductivism, a position that explains how
general theories can be made from the finite amount of empirical evidence available. Many versions of
empiricism exist, with the predominant ones being Bayesianism and the hypothetico-deductive
method.[204][203]

Empiricism has stood in contrast to rationalism, the position originally associated with Descartes, which
holds that knowledge is created by the human intellect, not by observation.[205] Critical rationalism is a
contrasting 20th-century approach to science, first defined by Austrian-British philosopher Karl Popper.
Popper rejected the way that empiricism describes the
connection between theory and observation. He claimed that
theories are not generated by observation, but that observation
is made in the light of theories, and that the only way theory
A can be affected by observation is after theory A were to
conflict with observation, but theory B were to survive the
observation.[206] Popper proposed replacing verifiability with
falsifiability as the landmark of scientific theories, replacing
induction with falsification as the empirical method.[206]
Popper further claimed that there is actually only one
universal method, not specific to science: the negative method
of criticism, trial and error,[207] covering all products of the For Kuhn, the addition of epicycles in
human mind, including science, mathematics, philosophy, and Ptolemaic astronomy was "normal
art.[208] science" within a paradigm, whereas the
Copernican Revolution was a paradigm
Another approach, instrumentalism, emphasises the utility of shift
theories as instruments for explaining and predicting
phenomena. It views scientific theories as black boxes, with
only their input (initial conditions) and output (predictions) being relevant. Consequences, theoretical
entities, and logical structure are claimed to be things that should be ignored.[209] Close to
instrumentalism is constructive empiricism, according to which the main criterion for the success of a
scientific theory is whether what it says about observable entities is true.[210]

Thomas Kuhn argued that the process of observation and evaluation takes place within a paradigm, a
logically consistent "portrait" of the world that is consistent with observations made from its framing. He
characterised normal science as the process of observation and "puzzle solving", which takes place within
a paradigm, whereas revolutionary science occurs when one paradigm overtakes another in a paradigm
shift.[211] Each paradigm has its own distinct questions, aims, and interpretations. The choice between
paradigms involves setting two or more "portraits" against the world and deciding which likeness is most
promising. A paradigm shift occurs when a significant number of observational anomalies arise in the old
paradigm and a new paradigm makes sense of them. That is, the choice of a new paradigm is based on
observations, even though those observations are made against the background of the old paradigm. For
Kuhn, acceptance or rejection of a paradigm is a social process as much as a logical process. Kuhn's
position, however, is not one of relativism.[212]

Another approach often cited in debates of scientific scepticism against controversial movements like
"creation science" is methodological naturalism. Naturalists maintain that a difference should be made
between natural and supernatural, and science should be restricted to natural explanations.[213]
Methodological naturalism maintains that science requires strict adherence to empirical study and
independent verification.[214]

Scientific community
The scientific community is a network of interacting scientists who conduct scientific research. The
community consists of smaller groups working in scientific fields. By having peer review, through
discussion and debate within journals and conferences, scientists maintain the quality of research
methodology and objectivity when interpreting results.[215]

Scientists
Scientists are individuals who conduct scientific research to advance
knowledge in an area of interest.[216][217] Scientists may exhibit a
strong curiosity about reality and a desire to apply scientific
knowledge for the benefit of public health, nations, the environment,
or industries; other motivations include recognition by peers and
prestige. In modern times, many scientists study within specific areas
of science in academic institutions, often obtaining advanced degrees
in the process.[218] Many scientists pursue careers in various fields
such as academia, industry, government, and nonprofit
organisations.[219][220][221]

Science has historically been a male-dominated field, with notable

exceptions. Women have faced considerable discrimination in
science, much as they have in other areas of male-dominated Marie Curie was the first person
societies. For example, women were frequently passed over for job to be awarded two Nobel Prizes:
opportunities and denied credit for their work.[222] The achievements Physics in 1903 and Chemistry
of women in science have been attributed to the defiance of their in 1911[123]
traditional role as labourers within the domestic sphere.[223]

Learned societies
Learned societies for the communication and promotion of
scientific thought and experimentation have existed since the
Renaissance.[224] Many scientists belong to a learned society
that promotes their respective scientific discipline, profession,
or group of related disciplines.[225] Membership may either
be open to all, require possession of scientific credentials, or
conferred by election.[226] Most scientific societies are
nonprofit organisations,[227] and many are professional
Picture of scientists in 200th anniversary associations. Their activities typically include holding regular
of the Prussian Academy of Sciences, conferences for the presentation and discussion of new
1900
research results and publishing or sponsoring academic
journals in their discipline. Some societies act as professional
bodies, regulating the activities of their members in the public interest, or the collective interest of the
membership.

The professionalisation of science, begun in the 19th century, was partly enabled by the creation of
national distinguished academies of sciences such as the Italian Accademia dei Lincei in 1603,[228] the
British Royal Society in 1660,[229] the French Academy of Sciences in 1666,[230] the American National
Academy of Sciences in 1863,[231] the German Kaiser Wilhelm Society in 1911,[232] and the Chinese
Academy of Sciences in 1949.[233] International scientific organisations, such as the International Science
Council, are devoted to international cooperation for science advancement.[234]
Awards
Science awards are usually given to individuals or organisations that have made significant contributions
to a discipline. They are often given by prestigious institutions; thus, it is considered a great honour for a
scientist receiving them. Since the early Renaissance, scientists have often been awarded medals, money,
and titles. The Nobel Prize, a widely regarded prestigious award, is awarded annually to those who have
achieved scientific advances in the fields of medicine, physics, and chemistry.[235]

Society

Funding and policies

Funding of science is often through a competitive
process in which potential research projects are
evaluated and only the most promising receive
funding. Such processes, which are run by
government, corporations, or foundations, allocate
scarce funds. Total research funding in most
developed countries is between 1.5% and 3% of
GDP.[236] In the OECD, around two-thirds of research
Budget of NASA as percentage of United States
and development in scientific and technical fields is
federal budget, peaking at 4.4% in 1966 and
carried out by industry, and 20% and 10%, slowly declining since
respectively, by universities and government. The
government funding proportion in certain fields is
higher, and it dominates research in social science and the humanities. In less developed nations, the
government provides the bulk of the funds for their basic scientific research.[237]

Many governments have dedicated agencies to support scientific research, such as the National Science
Foundation in the United States,[238] the National Scientific and Technical Research Council in
Argentina,[239] Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Australia,[240] National
Centre for Scientific Research in France,[241] the Max Planck Society in Germany,[242] and National
Research Council in Spain.[243] In commercial research and development, all but the most research-
orientated corporations focus more heavily on near-term commercialisation possibilities than research
driven by curiosity.[244]

Science policy is concerned with policies that affect the conduct of the scientific enterprise, including
research funding, often in pursuance of other national policy goals such as technological innovation to
promote commercial product development, weapons development, health care, and environmental
monitoring. Science policy sometimes refers to the act of applying scientific knowledge and consensus to
the development of public policies. In accordance with public policy being concerned about the well-
being of its citizens, science policy's goal is to consider how science and technology can best serve the
public.[245] Public policy can directly affect the funding of capital equipment and intellectual
infrastructure for industrial research by providing tax incentives to those organisations that fund
research.[194]
Education and awareness
Science education for the general public is embedded in
the school curriculum, and is supplemented by online
pedagogical content (for example, YouTube and Khan
Academy), museums, and science magazines and blogs.
Major organisations of scientists such as the American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
consider the sciences to be a part of the liberal arts
traditions of learning, along with philosophy and
history.[246] Scientific literacy is chiefly concerned with
an understanding of the scientific method, units and
methods of measurement, empiricism, a basic Dinosaur exhibit in the Houston Museum of
understanding of statistics (correlations, qualitative Natural Science
versus quantitative observations, aggregate statistics),
and a basic understanding of core scientific fields such as
physics, chemistry, biology, ecology, geology, and computation. As a student advances into higher stages
of formal education, the curriculum becomes more in depth. Traditional subjects usually included in the
curriculum are natural and formal sciences, although recent movements include social and applied
science as well.[247]

The mass media face pressures that can prevent them from accurately depicting competing scientific
claims in terms of their credibility within the scientific community as a whole. Determining how much
weight to give different sides in a scientific debate may require considerable expertise regarding the
matter.[248] Few journalists have real scientific knowledge, and even beat reporters who are
knowledgeable about certain scientific issues may be ignorant about other scientific issues that they are
suddenly asked to cover.[249][250]

Science magazines such as New Scientist, Science & Vie, and Scientific American cater to the needs of a
much wider readership and provide a non-technical summary of popular areas of research, including
notable discoveries and advances in certain fields of research.[251] The science fiction genre, primarily
speculative fiction, can transmit the ideas and methods of science to the general public.[252] Recent
efforts to intensify or develop links between science and non-scientific disciplines, such as literature or
poetry, include the Creative Writing Science resource developed through the Royal Literary Fund.[253]

Anti-science attitudes
While the scientific method is broadly accepted in the scientific community, some fractions of society
reject certain scientific positions or are sceptical about science. Examples are the common notion that
COVID-19 is not a major health threat to the US (held by 39% of Americans in August 2021)[254] or the
belief that climate change is not a major threat to the US (also held by 40% of Americans, in late 2019
and early 2020).[255] Psychologists have pointed to four factors driving rejection of scientific results:[256]

Scientific authorities are sometimes seen as inexpert, untrustworthy, or biased.

Some marginalised social groups hold anti-science attitudes, in part because these groups
have often been exploited in unethical experiments.[257]
Messages from scientists may contradict deeply held existing beliefs or morals.
 The delivery of a scientific message may not be appropriately targeted to a recipient's
learning style.
Anti-science attitudes often seem to be caused by fear of rejection in social groups. For instance, climate
change is perceived as a threat by only 22% of Americans on the right side of the political spectrum, but
by 85% on the left.[258] That is, if someone on the left would not consider climate change as a threat, this
person may face contempt and be rejected in that social group. In fact, people may rather deny a
scientifically accepted fact than lose or jeopardise their social status.[259]

Politics
Attitudes towards science are often determined by
political opinions and goals. Government, business
and advocacy groups have been known to use legal
and economic pressure to influence scientific
researchers. Many factors can act as facets of the
politicisation of science such as anti-intellectualism,
perceived threats to religious beliefs, and fear for
business interests.[261] Politicisation of science is
usually accomplished when scientific information is Public opinion on global warming in the United
presented in a way that emphasises the uncertainty States by political party[260]
associated with the scientific evidence. [262] Tactics
such as shifting conversation, failing to acknowledge
facts, and capitalising on doubt of scientific consensus have been used to gain more attention for views
that have been undermined by scientific evidence.[263] Examples of issues that have involved the
politicisation of science include the global warming controversy, health effects of pesticides, and health
effects of tobacco.[263][264]

See also
List of scientific occupations
List of years in science
Logology (science)
Science (Wikiversity)
Scientific integrity

Notes
a. Ibn al-Haytham's Book of Optics Book I, [6.54]. pages 372 and 408 disputed Claudius
Ptolemy's extramission theory of vision; "Hence, the extramission of [visual] rays is
superfluous and useless". —A.Mark Smith's translation of the Latin version of Ibn al-
Haytham.[83]: Book I, [6.54]. pp. 372, 408
b. Whether the universe is closed or open, or the shape of the universe, is an open question.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics,[119]: 9 [120] and the 3rd law of thermodynamics[121] imply the
heat death of the universe if the universe is a closed system, but not necessarily for an
expanding universe.
References
1. Wilson, E. O. (1999). "The natural sciences". Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge (https://a
rchive.org/details/consilienceunity00wils_135) (Reprint ed.). New York: Vintage. pp. 49 (http
s://archive.org/details/consilienceunity00wils_135/page/n55)–71. ISBN 978-0-679-76867-8.
2. Heilbron, J. L.; et al. (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. "...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."
3. Cohen, Eliel (2021). "The boundary lens: theorising academic activity". The University and
its Boundaries: Thriving or Surviving in the 21st Century (https://www.routledge.com/The-Un
iversity-and-its-Boundaries-Thriving-or-Surviving-in-the-21st-Century/Cohen/p/book/978036
7562984). New York: Routledge. pp. 14–41. ISBN 978-0-367-56298-4. Archived (https://we
b.archive.org/web/20210505045450/https://www.routledge.com/The-University-and-its-Boun
daries-Thriving-or-Surviving-in-the-21st-Century/Cohen/p/book/9780367562984) from the
original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 4 May 2021.
4. Colander, David C.; Hunt, Elgin F. (2019). "Social science and its methods". Social Science:
An Introduction to the Study of Society (17th ed.). New York: Routledge. pp. 1–22.
5. Nisbet, Robert A.; Greenfeld, Liah (16 October 2020). "Social Science" (https://www.britanni
ca.com/topic/social-science). Encyclopædia Britannica. Archived (https://web.archive.org/we
b/20220202193947/https://www.britannica.com/topic/social-science) from the original on 2
February 2022. Retrieved 9 May 2021.
6. Fischer, M. R.; Fabry, G (2014). "Thinking and acting scientifically: Indispensable basis of
medical education" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4027809). GMS
Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ausbildung. 31 (2): Doc24. doi:10.3205/zma000916 (https://doi.o
rg/10.3205%2Fzma000916). PMC 4027809 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC
4027809). PMID 24872859 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24872859).
7. Sinclair, Marius (1993). "On the Differences between the Engineering and Scientific
Methods" (https://www.ijee.ie/contents/c090593.html). The International Journal of
Engineering Education. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20171115220102/https://ww
w.ijee.ie/contents/c090593.html) from the original on 15 November 2017. Retrieved
7 September 2018.
8. Bunge, M. (1966). "Technology as Applied Science". In Rapp, F. (ed.). Contributions to a
Philosophy of Technology. Dordrecht: Springer. pp. 19–39. doi:10.1007/978-94-010-2182-
1_2 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-94-010-2182-1_2). ISBN 978-94-010-2184-5.
S2CID 110332727 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:110332727).
9. Löwe, Benedikt (2002). "The formal sciences: their scope, their foundations, and their unity".
Synthese. 133 (1/2): 5–11. doi:10.1023/A:1020887832028 (https://doi.org/10.1023%2FA%3
A1020887832028). ISSN 0039-7857 (https://search.worldcat.org/issn/0039-7857).
S2CID 9272212 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:9272212).
10. Rucker, Rudy (2019). "Robots and souls". Infinity and the Mind: The Science and
Philosophy of the Infinite (http://www.rudyrucker.com/infinityandthemind/#calibre_link-328)
(Reprint ed.). Princeton University Press. pp. 157–188. ISBN 978-0-691-19138-6. Archived
(https://web.archive.org/web/20210226212447/http://www.rudyrucker.com/infinityandthemin
d/#calibre_link-328) from the original on 26 February 2021. Retrieved 11 May 2021.
11. Bishop, Alan (1991). "Environmental activities and mathematical culture" (https://books.goog
le.com/books?id=9AgrBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA54). Mathematical Enculturation: A Cultural
Perspective on Mathematics Education. Norwell, MA: Kluwer. pp. 20–59. ISBN 978-0-7923-
1270-3. Retrieved 24 March 2018.
12. Bunge, Mario (1998). "The Scientific Approach". Philosophy of Science: Volume 1, From
Problem to Theory. Vol. 1 (revised ed.). New York: Routledge. pp. 3–50. ISBN 978-0-7658-
0413-6.
13. Fetzer, James H. (2013). "Computer reliability and public policy: Limits of knowledge of
computer-based systems". Computers and Cognition: Why Minds are not Machines.
Newcastle, United Kingdom: Kluwer. pp. 271–308. ISBN 978-1-4438-1946-6.
14. Nickles, Thomas (2013). "The Problem of Demarcation". Philosophy of Pseudoscience:
Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. The University of Chicago Press. p. 104.
15. Lindberg, David C. (2007). The beginnings of Western science: the European Scientific
tradition in philosophical, religious, and institutional context (2nd ed.). University of Chicago
Press. ISBN 978-0226482057.
16. Grant, Edward (2007). "Ancient Egypt to Plato" (https://archive.org/details/historynaturalph0
0gran/page/n16). A History of Natural Philosophy: From the Ancient World to the Nineteenth
Century. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–26. ISBN 978-0-521-68957-1.
17. Building Bridges Among the BRICs (https://books.google.com/books?id=rMAaBgAAQBAJ)
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20230418081025/https://books.google.com/books?id
=rMAaBgAAQBAJ) 18 April 2023 at the Wayback Machine, p. 125, Robert Crane, Springer,
2014
18. Keay, John (2000). India: A history (https://archive.org/details/indiahistory00keay/page/132).
Atlantic Monthly Press. p. 132 (https://archive.org/details/indiahistory00keay/page/132).
ISBN 978-0-87113-800-2. "The great era of all that is deemed classical in Indian literature,
art and science was now dawning. It was this crescendo of creativity and scholarship, as
much as ... political achievements of the Guptas, which would make their age so golden."
19. Lindberg, David C. (2007). "Islamic science". The beginnings of Western science: the
European Scientific tradition in philosophical, religious, and institutional context (2nd ed.).
University of Chicago Press. pp. 163–192. ISBN 978-0-226-48205-7.
20. Lindberg, David C. (2007). "The revival of learning in the West". The beginnings of Western
science: the European Scientific tradition in philosophical, religious, and institutional context
(2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. pp. 193–224. ISBN 978-0-226-48205-7.
21. Lindberg, David C. (2007). "The recovery and assimilation of Greek and Islamic science".
The beginnings of Western science: the European Scientific tradition in philosophical,
religious, and institutional context (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. pp. 225–253.
ISBN 978-0-226-48205-7.
22. Sease, Virginia; Schmidt-Brabant, Manfrid. Thinkers, Saints, Heretics: Spiritual Paths of the
Middle Ages. 2007. Pages 80–81 (https://books.google.com/books?id=8Lkzp-StZGUC&dq
=%22Everything+we+would+today+call+science+came+through+Islam%22&pg=PA80)
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20240827070053/https://books.google.com/books?id
=8Lkzp-StZGUC&dq=%22Everything%20we%20would%20today%20call%20science%20ca
me%20through%20Islam%22&pg=PA80) 27 August 2024 at the Wayback Machine.
Retrieved 6 October 2023
23. Principe, Lawrence M. (2011). "Introduction". Scientific Revolution: A Very Short
Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 1–3. ISBN 978-0-19-956741-6.
24. Lindberg, David C. (2007). "The legacy of ancient and medieval science". The beginnings of
Western science: the European Scientific tradition in philosophical, religious, and
institutional context (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. pp. 357–368. ISBN 978-0-226-
48205-7.
25. Grant, Edward (2007). "Transformation of medieval natural philosophy from the early period
modern period to the end of the nineteenth century". A History of Natural Philosophy: From
the Ancient World to the Nineteenth Century (https://archive.org/details/historynaturalph00gr
an). New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 274 (https://archive.org/details/historynatur
alph00gran/page/n289)–322. ISBN 978-0-521-68957-1.
26. Cahan, David, ed. (2003). From Natural Philosophy to the Sciences: Writing the History of
Nineteenth-Century Science. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-08928-7.
27. Lightman, Bernard (2011). "13. Science and the Public". In Shank, Michael; Numbers,
Ronald; Harrison, Peter (eds.). Wrestling with Nature: From Omens to Science. University of
Chicago Press. p. 367. ISBN 978-0-226-31783-0.
28. Harrison, Peter (2015). The Territories of Science and Religion. University of Chicago Press.
pp. 164–165. ISBN 978-0-226-18451-7. "The changing character of those engaged in
scientific endeavors was matched by a new nomenclature for their endeavors. The most
conspicuous marker of this change was the replacement of "natural philosophy" by "natural
science". In 1800 few had spoken of the "natural sciences" but by 1880 this expression had
overtaken the traditional label "natural philosophy". The persistence of "natural philosophy"
in the twentieth century is owing largely to historical references to a past practice (see figure
11). As should now be apparent, this was not simply the substitution of one term by another,
but involved the jettisoning of a range of personal qualities relating to the conduct of
philosophy and the living of the philosophical life."
29. MacRitchie, Finlay (2011). "Introduction". Scientific Research as a Career (https://www.routl
edge.com/Scientific-Research-as-a-Career/MacRitchie/p/book/9781439869659). New York:
Routledge. pp. 1–6. ISBN 978-1-4398-6965-9. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20210
505074020/https://www.routledge.com/Scientific-Research-as-a-Career/MacRitchie/p/book/
9781439869659) from the original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
30. Marder, Michael P. (2011). "Curiosity and research". Research Methods for Science (https://
www.cambridge.org/core/books/research-methods-for-science/1C04E5D747781B68C52A7
9EE86BF584B). New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–17. ISBN 978-0-521-14584-
8. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20210505001547/https://www.cambridge.org/core/
books/research-methods-for-science/1C04E5D747781B68C52A79EE86BF584B) from the
original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
31. de Ridder, Jeroen (2020). "How many scientists does it take to have knowledge?". In
McCain, Kevin; Kampourakis, Kostas (eds.). What is Scientific Knowledge? An Introduction
to Contemporary Epistemology of Science (https://www.routledge.com/What-is-Scientific-Kn
owledge-An-Introduction-to-Contemporary-Epistemology/McCain-Kampourakis/p/book/9781
138570153). New York: Routledge. pp. 3–17. ISBN 978-1-138-57016-0. Archived (https://we
b.archive.org/web/20210505044353/https://www.routledge.com/What-is-Scientific-Knowledg
e-An-Introduction-to-Contemporary-Epistemology/McCain-Kampourakis/p/book/9781138570
153) from the original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
32. Szycher, Michael (2016). "Establishing your dream team". Commercialization Secrets for
Scientists and Engineers (https://www.routledge.com/Commercialization-Secrets-for-Scienti
sts-and-Engineers/Szycher/p/book/9781498730600). New York: Routledge. pp. 159–176.
ISBN 978-1-138-40741-1. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20210818032914/https://w
ww.routledge.com/Commercialization-Secrets-for-Scientists-and-Engineers/Szycher/p/book/
9781498730600) from the original on 18 August 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
33. "Science" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science). Merriam-Webster Online
Dictionary. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20190901035713/https://www.merriam-we
bster.com/dictionary/science) from the original on 1 September 2019. Retrieved 16 October
2011.
34. Vaan, Michiel de (2008). "sciō" (https://archive.org/details/m-de-vaan-2008-etymological-dict
ionary-of-latin-and-the-other-italic-languages/page/544/). Etymological Dictionary of Latin
and the other Italic Languages. Indo-European Etymological Dictionary. p. 545. ISBN 978-
90-04-16797-1.
35. Cahan, David (2003). From natural philosophy to the sciences: writing the history of
nineteenth-century science. University of Chicago Press. pp. 3–15. ISBN 0-226-08927-4.
36. Ross, Sydney (1962). "Scientist: The story of a word" (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F00033796
200202722). Annals of Science. 18 (2): 65–85. doi:10.1080/00033796200202722 (https://do
i.org/10.1080%2F00033796200202722).
37. "scientist" (https://www.oed.com/search/dictionary/?q=scientist). Oxford English Dictionary
(Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership (http
s://www.oed.com/public/login/loggingin#withyourlibrary) required.)
38. Carruthers, Peter (2 May 2002). Carruthers, Peter; Stich, Stephen; Siegal, Michael (eds.).
"The roots of scientific reasoning: infancy, modularity and the art of tracking". The Cognitive
Basis of Science. Cambridge University Press. pp. 73–96.
doi:10.1017/cbo9780511613517.005 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2Fcbo9780511613517.005).
ISBN 978-0-521-81229-0.
39. Lombard, Marlize; Gärdenfors, Peter (2017). "Tracking the Evolution of Causal Cognition in
Humans". Journal of Anthropological Sciences. 95 (95): 219–234. doi:10.4436/JASS.95006
(https://doi.org/10.4436%2FJASS.95006). ISSN 1827-4765 (https://search.worldcat.org/iss
n/1827-4765). PMID 28489015 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28489015).
40. Graeber, David; Wengrow, David (2021). The Dawn of Everything. p. 248.
41. Budd, Paul; Taylor, Timothy (1995). "The Faerie Smith Meets the Bronze Industry: Magic
Versus Science in the Interpretation of Prehistoric Metal-Making". World Archaeology. 27
(1): 133–143. doi:10.1080/00438243.1995.9980297 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F00438243.1
995.9980297). JSTOR 124782 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/124782).
42. Tuomela, Raimo (1987). "Science, Protoscience, and Pseudoscience". In Pitt, J. C.; Pera,
M. (eds.). Rational Changes in Science. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science.
Vol. 98. Dordrecht: Springer. pp. 83–101. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-3779-6_4 (https://doi.org/
10.1007%2F978-94-009-3779-6_4). ISBN 978-94-010-8181-8.
43. Smith, Pamela H. (2009). "Science on the Move: Recent Trends in the History of Early
Modern Science". Renaissance Quarterly. 62 (2): 345–375. doi:10.1086/599864 (https://doi.
org/10.1086%2F599864). PMID 19750597 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19750597).
S2CID 43643053 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:43643053).
44. Fleck, Robert (March 2021). "Fundamental Themes in Physics from the History of Art" (http
s://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs00016-020-00269-7). Physics in Perspective. 23 (1): 25–48.
Bibcode:2021PhP....23...25F (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021PhP....23...25F).
doi:10.1007/s00016-020-00269-7 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs00016-020-00269-7).
ISSN 1422-6944 (https://search.worldcat.org/issn/1422-6944). S2CID 253597172 (https://ap
i.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:253597172).
45. Scott, Colin (2011). "The Case of James Bay Cree Knowledge Construction". In Harding,
Sandra (ed.). Science for the West, Myth for the Rest?. The Postcolonial Science and
Technology Studies Reader. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. pp. 175–197.
doi:10.2307/j.ctv11g96cc.16 (https://doi.org/10.2307%2Fj.ctv11g96cc.16). ISBN 978-0-
8223-4936-5. JSTOR j.ctv11g96cc.16 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv11g96cc.16).
46. Dear, Peter (2012). "Historiography of Not-So-Recent Science". History of Science. 50 (2):
197–211. doi:10.1177/007327531205000203 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F00732753120500
0203). S2CID 141599452 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:141599452).
47. Rochberg, Francesca (2011). "Ch.1 Natural Knowledge in Ancient Mesopotamia". In Shank,
Michael; Numbers, Ronald; Harrison, Peter (eds.). Wrestling with Nature: From Omens to
Science. University of Chicago Press. p. 9. ISBN 978-0-226-31783-0.
48. Krebs, Robert E. (2004). Groundbreaking Scientific Experiments, Inventions, and
Discoveries of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 127.
ISBN 978-0313324338.
49. Erlich, Ḥaggai; Gershoni, Israel (2000). The Nile: Histories, Cultures, Myths (https://books.g
oogle.com/books?id=LcsJosc239YC&q=egyptian%20geometry%20Nile&pg=PA80). Lynne
Rienner. pp. 80–81. ISBN 978-1-55587-672-2. Retrieved 9 January 2020. "The Nile
occupied an important position in Egyptian culture; it influenced the development of
mathematics, geography, and the calendar; Egyptian geometry advanced due to the
practice of land measurement "because the overflow of the Nile caused the boundary of
each person's land to disappear." "
50. "Telling Time in Ancient Egypt" (https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/tell/hd_tell.htm). The
Met's Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. February 2017. Archived (https://web.archive.org/we
b/20220303133140/https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/tell/hd_tell.htm) from the original
on 3 March 2022. Retrieved 27 May 2022.
51. McIntosh, Jane R. (2005). Ancient Mesopotamia: New Perspectives (https://books.google.c
om/books?id=9veK7E2JwkUC&q=science+in+ancient+Mesopotamia). Santa Barbara, CA:
ABC-CLIO. pp. 273–276. ISBN 978-1-57607-966-9. Retrieved 20 October 2020.
52. Aaboe, Asger (2 May 1974). "Scientific Astronomy in Antiquity". Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society. 276 (1257): 21–42. Bibcode:1974RSPTA.276...21A (https://ui.adsabs.h
arvard.edu/abs/1974RSPTA.276...21A). doi:10.1098/rsta.1974.0007 (https://doi.org/10.109
8%2Frsta.1974.0007). JSTOR 74272 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/74272).
S2CID 122508567 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:122508567).
53. Biggs, R. D. (2005). "Medicine, Surgery, and Public Health in Ancient Mesopotamia".
Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies. 19 (1): 7–18.
54. Lehoux, Daryn (2011). "2. Natural Knowledge in the Classical World". In Shank, Michael;
Numbers, Ronald; Harrison, Peter (eds.). Wrestling with Nature: From Omens to Science.
University of Chicago Press. p. 39. ISBN 978-0-226-31783-0.
55. An account of the pre-Socratic use of the concept of φύσις may be found in Naddaf, Gerard
(2006). The Greek Concept of Nature. SUNY Press, and in Ducarme, Frédéric; Couvet,
Denis (2020). "What does 'nature' mean?" (https://hal.science/hal-02554932/file/s41599-020
-0390-y.pdf) (PDF). Palgrave Communications. 6 (14). Springer Nature.
doi:10.1057/s41599-020-0390-y (https://doi.org/10.1057%2Fs41599-020-0390-y). Archived
(https://web.archive.org/web/20230816053756/https://hal.science/hal-02554932/file/s41599-
020-0390-y.pdf) (PDF) from the original on 16 August 2023. Retrieved 16 August 2023. The
word φύσις, while first used in connection with a plant in Homer, occurs early in Greek
philosophy, and in several senses. Generally, these senses match rather well the current
senses in which the English word nature is used, as confirmed by Guthrie, W. K. C.
Presocratic Tradition from Parmenides to Democritus (volume 2 of his History of Greek
Philosophy), Cambridge University Press, 1965.
56. Strauss, Leo; Gildin, Hilail (1989). "Progress or Return? The Contemporary Crisis in
Western Education". An Introduction to Political Philosophy: Ten Essays by Leo Strauss (htt
ps://books.google.com/books?id=cpx2j0TumyIC). Wayne State University Press. p. 209.
ISBN 978-0814319024. Retrieved 30 May 2022.
57. O'Grady, Patricia F. (2016). Thales of Miletus: The Beginnings of Western Science and
Philosophy (https://books.google.com/books?id=ZTUlDwAAQBAJ&q=Thales+of+Miletus+fir
st+scientist&pg=PA245). New York: Routledge. p. 245. ISBN 978-0-7546-0533-1. Retrieved
20 October 2020.
58. Burkert, Walter (1 June 1972). Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism (https://books.g
oogle.com/books?id=0qqp4Vk1zG0C&q=Pythagoreanism). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-53918-1.
59. Pullman, Bernard (1998). The Atom in the History of Human Thought (https://books.google.c
om/books?id=IQs5hur-BpgC&q=Leucippus+Democritus+atom&pg=PA56). Oxford University
Press. pp. 31–33. Bibcode:1998ahht.book.....P (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998ahht.
book.....P). ISBN 978-0-19-515040-7. Retrieved 20 October 2020.
60. Cohen, Henri; Lefebvre, Claire, eds. (2017). Handbook of Categorization in Cognitive
Science (https://books.google.com/books?id=zIrCDQAAQBAJ&q=Leucippus+Democritus+a
tom&pg=PA427) (2nd ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier. p. 427. ISBN 978-0-08-101107-2.
Retrieved 20 October 2020.
61. Lucretius (fl.1st cenruty BCE) De rerum natura
62. Margotta, Roberto (1968). The Story of Medicine (https://books.google.com/books?id=vFZrA
AAAMAAJ). New York: Golden Press. Retrieved 18 November 2020.
63. Touwaide, Alain (2005). Glick, Thomas F.; Livesey, Steven; Wallis, Faith (eds.). Medieval
Science, Technology, and Medicine: An Encyclopedia (https://books.google.com/books?id=7
7y2AgAAQBAJ&q=Hippocrates+medical+science&pg=PA224). New York: Routledge.
p. 224. ISBN 978-0-415-96930-7. Retrieved 20 October 2020.
64. Leff, Samuel; Leff, Vera (1956). From Witchcraft to World Health (https://books.google.com/
books?id=HjNrAAAAMAAJ). London: Macmillan. Retrieved 23 August 2020.
65. "Plato, Apology" (https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.
01.0170%3Atext%3DApol.%3Apage%3D17). p. 17. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2
0180129145253/http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.0
1.0170%3Atext%3DApol.%3Apage%3D17) from the original on 29 January 2018. Retrieved
1 November 2017.
66. "Plato, Apology" (https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.
01.0170%3Atext%3DApol.%3Apage%3D27). p. 27. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2
0180129145253/http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.0
1.0170%3Atext%3DApol.%3Apage%3D27) from the original on 29 January 2018. Retrieved
1 November 2017.
67. Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics (https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3A
text%3A1999.01.0054%3Abekker%20page%3D1139b) (H. Rackham ed.). 1139b. Archived
(https://web.archive.org/web/20120317140402/http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?do
c=) from the original on 17 March 2012. Retrieved 22 September 2010.
68. McClellan, James E. III; Dorn, Harold (2015). Science and Technology in World History: An
Introduction (https://books.google.com/books?id=ah1ECwAAQBAJ&q=Aristarchus+heliocen
trism&pg=PA99). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 99–100. ISBN 978-1-4214-
1776-9. Retrieved 20 October 2020.
69. Graßhoff, Gerd (1990). The History of Ptolemy's Star Catalogue. Studies in the History of
Mathematics and Physical Sciences. Vol. 14. New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-
4468-4 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-1-4612-4468-4). ISBN 978-1-4612-8788-9.
70. Hoffmann, Susanne M. (2017). Hipparchs Himmelsglobus (in German). Wiesbaden:
Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. Bibcode:2017hihi.book.....H (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.ed
u/abs/2017hihi.book.....H). doi:10.1007/978-3-658-18683-8 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2F978-
3-658-18683-8). ISBN 978-3-658-18682-1.
71. Edwards, C. H. Jr. (1979). The Historical Development of the Calculus (https://books.google.
com/books?id=ilrlBwAAQBAJ&q=Archimedes+calculus&pg=PA75). New York: Springer.
p. 75. ISBN 978-0-387-94313-8. Retrieved 20 October 2020.
72. Lawson, Russell M. (2004). Science in the Ancient World: An Encyclopedia (https://books.go
ogle.com/books?id=1AY1ALzh9V0C&q=Pliny+the+Elder+encyclopedia&pg=PA190). Santa
Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. pp. 190–191. ISBN 978-1-85109-539-1. Retrieved 20 October
2020.
73. Murphy, Trevor Morgan (2004). Pliny the Elder's Natural History: The Empire in the
Encyclopedia (https://books.google.com/books?id=6NC_T_tG9lQC&q=Pliny+the+Elder+enc
yclopedia). Oxford University Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-19-926288-5. Retrieved 20 October
2020.
74. Doody, Aude (2010). Pliny's Encyclopedia: The Reception of the Natural History (https://boo
ks.google.com/books?id=YoEhAwAAQBAJ&q=Pliny+the+Elder+encyclopedia). Cambridge
University Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-1-139-48453-4. Retrieved 20 October 2020.
75. Conner, Clifford D. (2005). A People's History of Science: Miners, Midwives, and "Low
Mechanicks". New York: Nation Books. pp. 72–74. ISBN 1-56025-748-2.
76. Grant, Edward (1996). The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages: Their
Religious, Institutional and Intellectual Contexts (https://books.google.com/books?id=YyvmE
yX6rZgC). Cambridge Studies in the History of Science. Cambridge University Press. pp. 7–
17. ISBN 978-0-521-56762-6. Retrieved 9 November 2018.
77. Wildberg, Christian (1 May 2018). "Philoponus" (https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/
entries/philoponus/). In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2019
0822110331/https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/philoponus/) from the
original on 22 August 2019. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
78. Falcon, Andrea (2019). "Aristotle on Causality" (https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/
entries/aristotle-causality/#FouCau). In Zalta, Edward (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (Spring 2019 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived (htt
ps://web.archive.org/web/20201009032459/https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entri
es/aristotle-causality/#FouCau) from the original on 9 October 2020. Retrieved 3 October
2020.
79. Grant, Edward (2007). "Islam and the eastward shift of Aristotelian natural philosophy". A
History of Natural Philosophy: From the Ancient World to the Nineteenth Century (https://arc
hive.org/details/historynaturalph00gran). Cambridge University Press. pp. 62 (https://archiv
e.org/details/historynaturalph00gran/page/n77)–67. ISBN 978-0-521-68957-1.
80. Fisher, W. B. (1968–1991). The Cambridge history of Iran. Cambridge University Press.
ISBN 978-0-521-20093-6.
81. "Bayt al-Hikmah" (https://www.britannica.com/place/Bayt-al-Hikmah). Encyclopædia
Britannica. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20161104043313/https://www.britannica.c
om/place/Bayt-al-Hikmah) from the original on 4 November 2016. Retrieved 3 November
2016.
82. Hossein Nasr, Seyyed; Leaman, Oliver, eds. (2001). History of Islamic Philosophy.
Routledge. pp. 165–167. ISBN 978-0415259347.
83. Smith, A. Mark (2001). Alhacen's Theory of Visual Perception: A Critical Edition, with English
Translation and Commentary, of the First Three Books of Alhacen's De Aspectibus, the
Medieval Latin Version of Ibn al-Haytham's Kitāb al-Manāẓir, 2 vols. Transactions of the
American Philosophical Society. Vol. 91. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.
ISBN 978-0-87169-914-5.
84. Toomer, G. J. (1964). "Reviewed work: Ibn al-Haythams Weg zur Physik, Matthias
Schramm". Isis. 55 (4): 463–465. doi:10.1086/349914 (https://doi.org/10.1086%2F349914).
JSTOR 228328 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/228328). See p. 464: "Schramm sums up [Ibn
Al-Haytham's] achievement in the development of scientific method.", p. 465: "Schramm has
demonstrated .. beyond any dispute that Ibn al-Haytham is a major figure in the Islamic
scientific tradition, particularly in the creation of experimental techniques." p. 465: "only
when the influence of Ibn al-Haytham and others on the mainstream of later medieval
physical writings has been seriously investigated can Schramm's claim that Ibn al-Haytham
was the true founder of modern physics be evaluated."
85. Cohen, H. Floris (2010). "Greek nature knowledge transplanted: The Islamic world". How
modern science came into the world. Four civilizations, one 17th-century breakthrough
(2nd ed.). Amsterdam University Press. pp. 99–156. ISBN 978-90-8964-239-4.
86. Selin, Helaine, ed. (2006). Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and
Medicine in Non-Western Cultures (https://archive.org/details/encyclopaediahis00seli).
Springer. pp. 155 (https://archive.org/details/encyclopaediahis00seli/page/n168)–156.
Bibcode:2008ehst.book.....S (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ehst.book.....S).
ISBN 978-1-4020-4559-2.
87. Russell, Josiah C. (1959). "Gratian, Irnerius, and the Early Schools of Bologna". The
Mississippi Quarterly. 12 (4): 168–188. JSTOR 26473232 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2647
3232). "Perhaps even as early as 1088 (the date officially set for the founding of the
University)"
 88. "St. Albertus Magnus" (https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Albertus-Magnus).
Encyclopædia Britannica. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20171028045424/https://w
ww.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Albertus-Magnus) from the original on 28 October 2017.
Retrieved 27 October 2017.
89. Numbers, Ronald (2009). Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion
(http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674057418). Harvard University Press.
p. 45. ISBN 978-0-674-03327-6. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20210120190509/htt
ps://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674057418) from the original on 20
January 2021. Retrieved 27 March 2018.
90. Smith, A. Mark (1981). "Getting the Big Picture in Perspectivist Optics". Isis. 72 (4): 568–
589. doi:10.1086/352843 (https://doi.org/10.1086%2F352843). JSTOR 231249 (https://www.
jstor.org/stable/231249). PMID 7040292 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7040292).
S2CID 27806323 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:27806323).
91. Goldstein, Bernard R. (2016). "Copernicus and the Origin of his Heliocentric System" (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20200412211013/http://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e610/194b7b608c
ab49e034a542017213d827fb70.pdf) (PDF). Journal for the History of Astronomy. 33 (3):
219–235. doi:10.1177/002182860203300301 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F00218286020330
0301). S2CID 118351058 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:118351058). Archived
from the original (http://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e610/194b7b608cab49e034a542017213d8
27fb70.pdf) (PDF) on 12 April 2020. Retrieved 12 April 2020.
92. Cohen, H. Floris (2010). "Greek nature knowledge transplanted and more: Renaissance
Europe". How modern science came into the world. Four civilizations, one 17th-century
breakthrough (2nd ed.). Amsterdam University Press. pp. 99–156. ISBN 978-90-8964-239-
4.
93. Koestler, Arthur (1990) [1959]. The Sleepwalkers: A History of Man's Changing Vision of the
Universe (https://archive.org/details/sleepwalkershist00koes_0/page/1). London: Penguin.
p. 1 (https://archive.org/details/sleepwalkershist00koes_0/page/1). ISBN 0-14-019246-8.
94. van Helden, Al (1995). "Pope Urban VIII" (http://galileo.rice.edu/gal/urban.html). The Galileo
Project. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20161111033150/http://galileo.rice.edu/gal/ur
ban.html) from the original on 11 November 2016. Retrieved 3 November 2016.
95. Gingerich, Owen (1975). "Copernicus and the Impact of Printing". Vistas in Astronomy. 17
(1): 201–218. Bibcode:1975VA.....17..201G (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975VA.....1
7..201G). doi:10.1016/0083-6656(75)90061-6 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2F0083-6656%287
5%2990061-6).
96. Zagorin, Perez (1998). Francis Bacon. Princeton University Press. p. 84. ISBN 978-0-691-
00966-7.
97. Davis, Philip J.; Hersh, Reuben (1986). Descartes' Dream: The World According to
Mathematics. Cambridge, MA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
98. Gribbin, John (2002). Science: A History 1543–2001. Allen Lane. p. 241. ISBN 978-0-7139-
9503-9. "Although it was just one of the many factors in the Enlightenment, the success of
Newtonian physics in providing a mathematical description of an ordered world clearly
played a big part in the flowering of this movement in the eighteenth century"
99. "Gottfried Leibniz – Biography" (https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Leibniz/).
Maths History. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20170711221621/http://www-groups.d
cs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Leibniz.html) from the original on 11 July 2017.
Retrieved 2 March 2021.
100. Freudenthal, Gideon; McLaughlin, Peter (20 May 2009). The Social and Economic Roots of
the Scientific Revolution: Texts by Boris Hessen and Henryk Grossmann (https://books.goog
le.com/books?id=PgmbZIybuRoC&pg=PA162). Springer. ISBN 978-1-4020-9604-4.
Retrieved 25 July 2018.
101. Goddard Bergin, Thomas; Speake, Jennifer, eds. (1987). Encyclopedia of the Renaissance
(https://archive.org/details/encyclopediaofre0000unse_d0p5). Facts on File. ISBN 978-
0816013159.
102. van Horn Melton, James (2001). The Rise of the Public in Enlightenment Europe (https://ww
w.cambridge.org/core/books/rise-of-the-public-in-enlightenment-europe/BA532085A260114
CD430D9A059BD96EF). Cambridge University Press. pp. 82–83.
doi:10.1017/CBO9780511819421 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2FCBO9780511819421).
ISBN 978-0511819421. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20220120143805/https://ww
w.cambridge.org/core/books/rise-of-the-public-in-enlightenment-europe/BA532085A260114
CD430D9A059BD96EF) from the original on 20 January 2022. Retrieved 27 May 2022.
103. "The Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment (1500–1780)" (https://www.tamaqua.k12.p
a.us/cms/lib07/PA01000119/Centricity/Domain/119/TheScientificRevolution.pdf) (PDF).
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20240114191547/https://www.tamaqua.k12.pa.us/cm
s/lib07/PA01000119/Centricity/Domain/119/TheScientificRevolution.pdf) (PDF) from the
original on 14 January 2024. Retrieved 29 January 2024.
104. "Scientific Revolution" (https://www.britannica.com/science/Scientific-Revolution).
Encyclopædia Britannica. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20190518105004/https://w
ww.britannica.com/science/Scientific-Revolution) from the original on 18 May 2019.
Retrieved 29 January 2024.
105. Madigan, M.; Martinko, J., eds. (2006). Brock Biology of Microorganisms (11th ed.). Prentice
Hall. ISBN 978-0131443297.
106. Guicciardini, N. (1999). Reading the Principia: The Debate on Newton's Methods for Natural
Philosophy from 1687 to 1736 (https://archive.org/details/readingprincipia0000guic). New
York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521640664.
107. Calisher, CH (2007). "Taxonomy: what's in a name? Doesn't a rose by any other name smell
as sweet?" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2080517). Croatian Medical
Journal. 48 (2): 268–270. PMC 2080517 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC20
80517). PMID 17436393 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17436393).
108. Darrigol, Olivier (2000). Electrodynamics from Ampère to Einstein (https://archive.org/detail
s/electrodynamicsf0000darr). New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198505949.
109. Olby, R. C.; Cantor, G. N.; Christie, J. R. R.; Hodge, M. J. S. (1990). Companion to the
History of Modern Science. London: Routledge. p. 265.
110. Magnusson, Magnus (10 November 2003). "Review of James Buchan, Capital of the Mind:
how Edinburgh Changed the World" (https://web.archive.org/web/20110606015918/http://w
ww.newstatesman.com/200311100040). New Statesman. Archived from the original (http://
www.newstatesman.com/200311100040) on 6 June 2011. Retrieved 27 April 2014.
111. Swingewood, Alan (1970). "Origins of Sociology: The Case of the Scottish Enlightenment".
The British Journal of Sociology. 21 (2): 164–180. doi:10.2307/588406 (https://doi.org/10.23
07%2F588406). JSTOR 588406 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/588406).
112. Fry, Michael (1992). Adam Smith's Legacy: His Place in the Development of Modern
Economics (https://archive.org/details/adamsmithslegacy0000unse). Paul Samuelson,
Lawrence Klein, Franco Modigliani, James M. Buchanan, Maurice Allais, Theodore Schultz,
Richard Stone, James Tobin, Wassily Leontief, Jan Tinbergen. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-
06164-3.
113. Lightman, Bernard (2011). "13. Science and the Public". In Shank, Michael; Numbers,
Ronald; Harrison, Peter (eds.). Wrestling with Nature: From Omens to Science. University of
Chicago Press. p. 367. ISBN 978-0-226-31783-0.
114. Leahey, Thomas Hardy (2018). "The psychology of consciousness". A History of
Psychology: From Antiquity to Modernity (8th ed.). New York: Routledge. pp. 219–253.
ISBN 978-1-138-65242-2.
115. Padian, Kevin (2008). "Darwin's enduring legacy" (https://doi.org/10.1038%2F451632a).
Nature. 451 (7179): 632–634. Bibcode:2008Natur.451..632P (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/
abs/2008Natur.451..632P). doi:10.1038/451632a (https://doi.org/10.1038%2F451632a).
PMID 18256649 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18256649).
116. Henig, Robin Marantz (2000). The monk in the garden: the lost and found genius of Gregor
Mendel, the father of genetics (https://archive.org/details/monkingardenlost00heni).
pp. 134–138.
117. Miko, Ilona (2008). "Gregor Mendel's principles of inheritance form the cornerstone of
modern genetics. So just what are they?" (https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/gregor
-mendel-and-the-principles-of-inheritance-593/). Nature Education. 1 (1): 134. Archived (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20190719224056/http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/gregor-
mendel-and-the-principles-of-inheritance-593) from the original on 19 July 2019. Retrieved
9 May 2021.
118. Rocke, Alan J. (2005). "In Search of El Dorado: John Dalton and the Origins of the Atomic
Theory". Social Research. 72 (1): 125–158. doi:10.1353/sor.2005.0003 (https://doi.org/10.13
53%2Fsor.2005.0003). JSTOR 40972005 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/40972005).
S2CID 141350239 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:141350239).
119. Reichl, Linda (1980). A Modern Course in Statistical Physics. Edward Arnold. ISBN 0-7131-
2789-9.
120. Rao, Y. V. C. (1997). Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics. Universities Press. p. 158.
ISBN 978-81-7371-048-3.
121. Heidrich, M. (2016). "Bounded energy exchange as an alternative to the third law of
thermodynamics". Annals of Physics. 373: 665–681. Bibcode:2016AnPhy.373..665H (http
s://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016AnPhy.373..665H). doi:10.1016/j.aop.2016.07.031 (http
s://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.aop.2016.07.031).
122. Mould, Richard F. (1995). A century of X-rays and radioactivity in medicine: with emphasis
on photographic records of the early years (Reprint. with minor corr ed.). Bristol: Inst. of
Physics Publ. p. 12. ISBN 978-0-7503-0224-1.
123. Estreicher, Tadeusz (1938). "Curie, Maria ze Skłodowskich". Polski słownik biograficzny, vol.
4 (in Polish). p. 113.
124. Thomson, J. J. (1897). "Cathode Rays". Philosophical Magazine. 44 (269): 293–316.
doi:10.1080/14786449708621070 (https://doi.org/10.1080%2F14786449708621070).
125. Goyotte, Dolores (2017). "The Surgical Legacy of World War II. Part II: The age of
antibiotics" (https://www.ast.org/ceonline/articles/402/files/assets/common/downloads/public
ation.pdf) (PDF). The Surgical Technologist. 109: 257–264. Archived (https://web.archive.or
g/web/20210505180530/https://www.ast.org/ceonline/articles/402/files/assets/common/dow
nloads/publication.pdf) (PDF) from the original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 8 January 2021.
126. Erisman, Jan Willem; Sutton, M. A.; Galloway, J.; Klimont, Z.; Winiwarter, W. (October
2008). "How a century of ammonia synthesis changed the world" (https://web.archive.org/w
eb/20100723223052/http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~wilkins/energy/Resources/Essays/n
geo325.pdf.xpdf). Nature Geoscience. 1 (10): 636–639. Bibcode:2008NatGe...1..636E (http
s://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008NatGe...1..636E). doi:10.1038/ngeo325 (https://doi.org/1
0.1038%2Fngeo325). S2CID 94880859 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:9488085
9). Archived from the original (http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~wilkins/energy/Resources/
Essays/ngeo325.pdf.xpdf) on 23 July 2010. Retrieved 22 October 2010.
127. Emmett, Robert; Zelko, Frank (2014). Emmett, Rob; Zelko, Frank (eds.). "Minding the Gap:
Working Across Disciplines in Environmental Studies" (https://web.archive.org/web/2022012
1054306/https://www.environmentandsociety.org/perspectives/2014/2/minding-gap-working-
across-disciplines-environmental-studies). Environment & Society Portal. RCC Perspectives
no. 2. doi:10.5282/rcc/6313 (https://doi.org/10.5282%2Frcc%2F6313). Archived from the
original (http://www.environmentandsociety.org/perspectives/2014/2/minding-gap-working-ac
ross-disciplines-environmental-studies) on 21 January 2022.
128. Furner, Jonathan (1 June 2003). "Little Book, Big Book: Before and After Little Science, Big
Science: A Review Article, Part I". Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. 35 (2):
115–125. doi:10.1177/0961000603352006 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F096100060335200
6). S2CID 34844169 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:34844169).
129. Kraft, Chris; Schefter, James (2001). Flight: My Life in Mission Control (https://archive.org/d
etails/flight00chri). New York: Dutton. pp. 3–5. ISBN 0-525-94571-7.
130. Kahn, Herman (1962). Thinking about the Unthinkable. Horizon.
131. Shrum, Wesley (2007). Structures of scientific collaboration. Joel Genuth, Ivan Chompalov.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-28358-8.
132. Rosser, Sue V. (12 March 2012). Breaking into the Lab: Engineering Progress for Women in
Science. New York University Press. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-8147-7645-2.
133. Penzias, A. A. (2006). "The origin of elements" (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/la
ureates/1978/penzias-lecture.pdf) (PDF). Science. 205 (4406). Nobel Foundation: 549–554.
doi:10.1126/science.205.4406.549 (https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.205.4406.549).
PMID 17729659 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17729659). Archived (https://web.archive.
org/web/20110117225210/http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1978/penzia
s-lecture.pdf) (PDF) from the original on 17 January 2011. Retrieved 4 October 2006.
134. Weinberg, S. (1972). Gravitation and Cosmology (https://archive.org/details/gravitationcosm
o00stev_0/page/495). John Whitney & Sons. pp. 464–495 (https://archive.org/details/gravita
tioncosmo00stev_0/page/495). ISBN 978-0-471-92567-5.
135. Futuyma, Douglas J.; Kirkpatrick, Mark (2017). "Chapter 1: Evolutionary Biology". Evolution
(4th ed.). Sinauer. pp. 3–26. ISBN 978-1605356051.
136. Miller, Arthur I. (1981). Albert Einstein's special theory of relativity. Emergence (1905) and
early interpretation (1905–1911). Reading: Addison–Wesley. ISBN 978-0-201-04679-3.
137. ter Haar, D. (1967). The Old Quantum Theory (https://archive.org/details/oldquantumtheory0
000haar). Pergamon. pp. 206 (https://archive.org/details/oldquantumtheory0000haar/page/2
06). ISBN 978-0-08-012101-7.
138. von Bertalanffy, Ludwig (1972). "The History and Status of General Systems Theory". The
Academy of Management Journal. 15 (4): 407–426. JSTOR 255139 (https://www.jstor.org/st
able/255139).
139. Naidoo, Nasheen; Pawitan, Yudi; Soong, Richie; Cooper, David N.; Ku, Chee-Seng (October
2011). "Human genetics and genomics a decade after the release of the draft sequence of
the human genome" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3525251). Human
Genomics. 5 (6): 577–622. doi:10.1186/1479-7364-5-6-577 (https://doi.org/10.1186%2F147
9-7364-5-6-577). PMC 3525251 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3525251).
PMID 22155605 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22155605).
140. Rashid, S. Tamir; Alexander, Graeme J. M. (March 2013). "Induced pluripotent stem cells:
from Nobel Prizes to clinical applications" (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.jhep.2012.10.026).
Journal of Hepatology. 58 (3): 625–629. doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2012.10.026 (https://doi.org/10.1
016%2Fj.jhep.2012.10.026). ISSN 1600-0641 (https://search.worldcat.org/issn/1600-0641).
PMID 23131523 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23131523).
141. O'Luanaigh, C. (14 March 2013). "New results indicate that new particle is a Higgs boson"
(http://home.web.cern.ch/about/updates/2013/03/new-results-indicate-new-particle-higgs-bo
son) (Press release). CERN. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20151020000722/http://
home.web.cern.ch/about/updates/2013/03/new-results-indicate-new-particle-higgs-boson)
from the original on 20 October 2015. Retrieved 9 October 2013.
142. Abbott, B. P.; Abbott, R.; Abbott, T. D.; Acernese, F.; Ackley, K.; Adams, C.; Adams, T.;
Addesso, P.; Adhikari, R. X.; Adya, V. B.; Affeldt, C.; Afrough, M.; Agarwal, B.; Agathos, M.;
Agatsuma, K.; Aggarwal, N.; Aguiar, O. D.; Aiello, L.; Ain, A.; Ajith, P.; Allen, B.; Allen, G.;
Allocca, A.; Altin, P. A.; Amato, A.; Ananyeva, A.; Anderson, S. B.; Anderson, W. G.;
Angelova, S. V.; et al. (2017). "Multi-messenger Observations of a Binary Neutron Star
Merger" (https://doi.org/10.3847%2F2041-8213%2Faa91c9). The Astrophysical Journal.
848 (2): L12. arXiv:1710.05833 (https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.05833).
Bibcode:2017ApJ...848L..12A (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...848L..12A).
doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 (https://doi.org/10.3847%2F2041-8213%2Faa91c9).
S2CID 217162243 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:217162243).
143. Cho, Adrian (2017). "Merging neutron stars generate gravitational waves and a celestial light
show". Science. doi:10.1126/science.aar2149 (https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.aar2149).
144. "Media Advisory: First Results from the Event Horizon Telescope to be Presented on April
10th" (https://web.archive.org/web/20190420135254/https://eventhorizontelescope.org/blog/
media-advisory-first-results-event-horizon-telescope-be-presented-april-10th). Event
Horizon Telescope. 20 April 2019. Archived from the original (https://eventhorizontelescope.
org/blog/media-advisory-first-results-event-horizon-telescope-be-presented-april-10th) on 20
April 2019. Retrieved 21 September 2021.
145. "Scientific Method: Relationships Among Scientific Paradigms" (https://web.archive.org/web/
20161101001155/http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/scientific_method_relationships_
among_scientific_paradigms/). Seed Magazine. 7 March 2007. Archived from the original (ht
tp://seedmagazine.com/content/article/scientific_method_relationships_among_scientific_pa
radigms/) on 1 November 2016. Retrieved 4 November 2016.
146. Bunge, Mario Augusto (1998). Philosophy of Science: From Problem to Theory. Transaction.
p. 24. ISBN 978-0-7658-0413-6.
147. Popper, Karl R. (2002a) [1959]. "A survey of some fundamental problems". The Logic of
Scientific Discovery (https://archive.org/details/logicscientificd00popp_574). New York:
Routledge. pp. 3 (https://archive.org/details/logicscientificd00popp_574/page/n133)–26.
ISBN 978-0-415-27844-7.
148. Gauch, Hugh G. Jr. (2003). "Science in perspective" (https://books.google.com/books?id=iV
kugqNG9dAC&pg=PA71). Scientific Method in Practice. Cambridge University Press.
pp. 21–73. ISBN 978-0-521-01708-4. Retrieved 3 September 2018.
149. Oglivie, Brian W. (2008). "Introduction". The Science of Describing: Natural History in
Renaissance Europe (Paperback ed.). University of Chicago Press. pp. 1–24. ISBN 978-0-
226-62088-6.
150. "Natural History" (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=natural+history).
Princeton University WordNet. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20120303173506/htt
p://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=natural+history) from the original on 3 March
2012. Retrieved 21 October 2012.
151. "Formal Sciences: Washington and Lee University" (https://my.wlu.edu/the-sciences-at-wan
dl/formal-sciences). Washington and Lee University. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2
0210514125428/https://my.wlu.edu/the-sciences-at-wandl/formal-sciences) from the original
on 14 May 2021. Retrieved 14 May 2021. "A "formal science" is an area of study that uses
formal systems to generate knowledge such as in Mathematics and Computer Science.
Formal sciences are important subjects because all of quantitative science depends on
them."
152. "Formal system" (https://www.britannica.com/topic/formal-system). Encyclopædia
Britannica. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20080429174130/http://www.britannica.co
m/eb/article-9034889/formal-system) from the original on 29 April 2008. Retrieved 30 May
2022.
153. Tomalin, Marcus (2006). Linguistics and the Formal Sciences.
154. Löwe, Benedikt (2002). "The Formal Sciences: Their Scope, Their Foundations, and Their
Unity". Synthese. 133 (1/2): 5–11. doi:10.1023/a:1020887832028 (https://doi.org/10.1023%2
Fa%3A1020887832028). S2CID 9272212 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:927221
2).
155. Bill, Thompson (2007). "2.4 Formal Science and Applied Mathematics". The Nature of
Statistical Evidence. Lecture Notes in Statistics. Vol. 189. Springer. p. 15.
156. Bunge, Mario (1998). "The Scientific Approach". Philosophy of Science: Volume 1, From
Problem to Theory. Vol. 1 (revised ed.). New York: Routledge. pp. 3–50. ISBN 978-0-7658-
0413-6.
157. Mujumdar, Anshu Gupta; Singh, Tejinder (2016). "Cognitive science and the connection
between physics and mathematics". In Aguirre, Anthony; Foster, Brendan (eds.). Trick or
Truth?: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics. The Frontiers
Collection. Switzerland: Springer. pp. 201–218. ISBN 978-3-319-27494-2.
158. "About the Journal" (https://web.archive.org/web/20061003233339/http://jmp.aip.org/jmp/sta
ff.jsp). Journal of Mathematical Physics. Archived from the original (http://jmp.aip.org/jmp/sta
ff.jsp) on 3 October 2006. Retrieved 3 October 2006.
159. Restrepo, G. (2016). "Mathematical chemistry, a new discipline". In Scerri, E.; Fisher, G.
(eds.). Essays in the philosophy of chemistry (https://global.oup.com/academic/product/essa
ys-in-the-philosophy-of-chemistry-9780190494599?cc=de&lang=en&). New York: Oxford
University Press. pp. 332–351. ISBN 978-0-19-049459-9. Archived (https://web.archive.org/
web/20210610130352/https://global.oup.com/academic/product/essays-in-the-philosophy-of
-chemistry-9780190494599?cc=de&lang=en&) from the original on 10 June 2021. Retrieved
31 May 2022.
160. "What is mathematical biology" (https://web.archive.org/web/20180923070442/http://www.b
ath.ac.uk/cmb/mathBiology/). Centre for Mathematical Biology, University of Bath. Archived
from the original (http://www.bath.ac.uk/cmb/mathBiology/) on 23 September 2018.
Retrieved 7 June 2018.
161. Johnson, Tim (1 September 2009). "What is financial mathematics?" (https://plus.maths.org/
content/what-financial-mathematics). +Plus Magazine. Archived (https://web.archive.org/we
b/20220408231344/https://plus.maths.org/content/what-financial-mathematics) from the
original on 8 April 2022. Retrieved 1 March 2021.
162. Varian, Hal (1997). "What Use Is Economic Theory?". In D'Autume, A.; Cartelier, J. (eds.). Is
Economics Becoming a Hard Science?. Edward Elgar. Pre-publication (http://www.sims.berk
eley.edu/~hal/Papers/theory.pdf). Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20060625062619/ht
tp://www.sims.berkeley.edu/~hal/Papers/theory.pdf) 25 June 2006 at the Wayback Machine.
Retrieved 1 April 2008.
163. Abraham, Reem Rachel (2004). "Clinically oriented physiology teaching: strategy for
developing critical-thinking skills in undergraduate medical students". Advances in
Physiology Education. 28 (3): 102–104. doi:10.1152/advan.00001.2004 (https://doi.org/10.1
152%2Fadvan.00001.2004). PMID 15319191 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15319191).
S2CID 21610124 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:21610124).
164. "Engineering" (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/engineering). Cambridge
Dictionary. Cambridge University Press. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2019081903
0859/https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/engineering) from the original on 19
August 2019. Retrieved 25 March 2021.
165. Brooks, Harvey (1 September 1994). "The relationship between science and technology" (ht
tps://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/files/publication/sciencetechnology.pdf) (PDF).
Research Policy. Special Issue in Honor of Nathan Rosenberg. 23 (5): 477–486.
doi:10.1016/0048-7333(94)01001-3 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2F0048-7333%2894%290100
1-3). ISSN 0048-7333 (https://search.worldcat.org/issn/0048-7333). Archived (https://web.ar
chive.org/web/20221230224402/https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/files/publicati
on/sciencetechnology.pdf) (PDF) from the original on 30 December 2022. Retrieved
14 October 2022.
166. Firth, John (2020). "Science in medicine: when, how, and what". Oxford textbook of
medicine. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-874669-0.
167. Saunders, J. (June 2000). "The practice of clinical medicine as an art and as a science" (htt
ps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071282). Med Humanit. 26 (1): 18–22.
doi:10.1136/mh.26.1.18 (https://doi.org/10.1136%2Fmh.26.1.18). PMC 1071282 (https://ww
w.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071282). PMID 12484313 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.ni
h.gov/12484313). S2CID 73306806 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:73306806).
168. Davis, Bernard D. (March 2000). "Limited scope of science" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p
mc/articles/PMC98983). Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews. 64 (1): 1–12.
doi:10.1128/MMBR.64.1.1-12.2000 (https://doi.org/10.1128%2FMMBR.64.1.1-12.2000).
PMC 98983 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC98983). PMID 10704471 (http
s://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10704471) & "Technology" in Davis, Bernard (March 2000).
"The scientist's world" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC98983). Microbiology
and Molecular Biology Reviews. 64 (1): 1–12. doi:10.1128/MMBR.64.1.1-12.2000 (https://do
i.org/10.1128%2FMMBR.64.1.1-12.2000). PMC 98983 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ar
ticles/PMC98983). PMID 10704471 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10704471).
169. McCormick, James (2001). "Scientific medicine—fact of fiction? The contribution of science
to medicine" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2560978). Occasional Paper
(Royal College of General Practitioners) (80): 3–6. PMC 2560978 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/pmc/articles/PMC2560978). PMID 19790950 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1979095
0).
170. Bell, David (2005). Science, Technology and Culture. McGraw-Hill International. p. 33.
ISBN 978-0-335-21326-9.
171. Henderson, Mark (19 September 2005). "Politics clouds blue-sky science" (https://web.archi
ve.org/web/20070301060232/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article568223.ece).
The Times. Archived from the original (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article56822
3.ece) on 1 March 2007. Retrieved 26 April 2010.
172. Breznau, Nate (2022). "Integrating Computer Prediction Methods in Social Science: A
Comment on Hofman et al. (2021)" (https://osf.io/adxb3/download). Social Science
Computer Review. 40 (3): 844–853. doi:10.1177/08944393211049776 (https://doi.org/10.11
77%2F08944393211049776). S2CID 248334446 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:
248334446). Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20240429040922/https://osf.io/adxb3/do
wnload) from the original on 29 April 2024. Retrieved 16 August 2023.
173. Hofman, Jake M.; Watts, Duncan J.; Athey, Susan; Garip, Filiz; Griffiths, Thomas L.;
Kleinberg, Jon; Margetts, Helen; Mullainathan, Sendhil; Salganik, Matthew J.; Vazire,
Simine; Vespignani, Alessandro (July 2021). "Integrating explanation and prediction in
computational social science" (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03659-0).
Nature. 595 (7866): 181–188. Bibcode:2021Natur.595..181H (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/
abs/2021Natur.595..181H). doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03659-0 (https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fs4
1586-021-03659-0). ISSN 1476-4687 (https://search.worldcat.org/issn/1476-4687).
PMID 34194044 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34194044). S2CID 235697917 (https://ap
i.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:235697917). Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/202109
25074416/https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03659-0) from the original on 25
September 2021. Retrieved 25 September 2021.
174. Nissani, M. (1995). "Fruits, Salads, and Smoothies: A Working definition of
Interdisciplinarity". The Journal of Educational Thought. 29 (2): 121–128.
doi:10.55016/ojs/jet.v29i2.52385 (https://doi.org/10.55016%2Fojs%2Fjet.v29i2.52385).
JSTOR 23767672 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/23767672).
175. Moody, G. (2004). Digital Code of Life: How Bioinformatics is Revolutionizing Science,
Medicine, and Business (https://archive.org/details/digitalcodeoflif0000mood). John Wiley &
Sons. p. vii. ISBN 978-0-471-32788-2.
176. Ausburg, Tanya (2006). Becoming Interdisciplinary: An Introduction to Interdisciplinary
Studies (2nd ed.). New York: Kendall/Hunt Publishing.
177. Dawkins, Richard (10 May 2006). "To Live at All Is Miracle Enough" (https://web.archive.org/
web/20120119113522/http://richarddawkins.net/articles/91). RichardDawkins.net. Archived
from the original (http://richarddawkins.net/articles/91) on 19 January 2012. Retrieved
5 February 2012.
178. di Francia, Giuliano Toraldo (1976). "The method of physics". The Investigation of the
Physical World. Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–52. ISBN 978-0-521-29925-1. "The
amazing point is that for the first time since the discovery of mathematics, a method has
been introduced, the results of which have an intersubjective value!"
179. Popper, Karl R. (2002e) [1959]. "The problem of the empirical basis". The Logic of Scientific
Discovery (https://archive.org/details/logicscientificd00popp_574). New York: Routledge.
pp. 3 (https://archive.org/details/logicscientificd00popp_574/page/n133)–26. ISBN 978-0-
415-27844-7.
180. Diggle, Peter J.; Chetwynd, Amanda G. (2011). Statistics and Scientific Method: An
Introduction for Students and Researchers. Oxford University Press. pp. 1–2. ISBN 978-
0199543182.
181. Wilson, Edward (1999). Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. New York: Vintage.
ISBN 978-0-679-76867-8.
182. Fara, Patricia (2009). "Decisions" (https://archive.org/details/sciencefourthous00fara/page/3
06). Science: A Four Thousand Year History. Oxford University Press. p. 408 (https://archiv
e.org/details/sciencefourthous00fara/page/408). ISBN 978-0-19-922689-4.
183. Aldrich, John (1995). "Correlations Genuine and Spurious in Pearson and Yule" (https://doi.o
rg/10.1214%2Fss%2F1177009870). Statistical Science. 10 (4): 364–376.
doi:10.1214/ss/1177009870 (https://doi.org/10.1214%2Fss%2F1177009870).
JSTOR 2246135 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2246135).
184. Nola, Robert; Irzik, Gürol (2005). Philosophy, science, education and culture. Science &
technology education library. Vol. 28. Springer. pp. 207–230. ISBN 978-1-4020-3769-6.
185. van Gelder, Tim (1999). " "Heads I win, tails you lose": A Foray Into the Psychology of
Philosophy" (https://web.archive.org/web/20080409054240/http://www.philosophy.unimelb.e
du.au/tgelder/papers/HeadsIWin.pdf) (PDF). University of Melbourne. Archived from the
original (http://www.philosophy.unimelb.edu.au/tgelder/papers/HeadsIWin.pdf) (PDF) on 9
April 2008. Retrieved 28 March 2008.
186. Pease, Craig (6 September 2006). "Chapter 23. Deliberate bias: Conflict creates bad
science" (https://web.archive.org/web/20100619154617/http://law-and-science.net/Science4
BLJ/Scientific_Method/Deliberate.bias/Text.htm). Science for Business, Law and
Journalism. Vermont Law School. Archived from the original (http://law-and-science.net/Scie
nce4BLJ/Scientific_Method/Deliberate.bias/Text.htm) on 19 June 2010.
187. Shatz, David (2004). Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-0-
7425-1434-8.
188. Krimsky, Sheldon (2003). Science in the Private Interest: Has the Lure of Profits Corrupted
the Virtue of Biomedical Research (https://archive.org/details/scienceinprivate0000krim).
Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-0-7425-1479-9.
189. Bulger, Ruth Ellen; Heitman, Elizabeth; Reiser, Stanley Joel (2002). The Ethical Dimensions
of the Biological and Health Sciences (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-
521-00886-0.
190. Backer, Patricia Ryaby (29 October 2004). "What is the scientific method?" (https://web.arch
ive.org/web/20080408082917/http://www.engr.sjsu.edu/pabacker/scientific_method.htm).
San Jose State University. Archived from the original (http://www.engr.sjsu.edu/pabacker/sci
entific_method.htm) on 8 April 2008. Retrieved 28 March 2008.
191. Ziman, John (1978c). "Common observation" (https://archive.org/details/reliableknowledg00j
ohn/page/42). Reliable knowledge: An exploration of the grounds for belief in science.
Cambridge University Press. pp. 42–76 (https://archive.org/details/reliableknowledg00john/p
age/42). ISBN 978-0-521-22087-3.
192. Ziman, J. M. (1980). "The proliferation of scientific literature: a natural process". Science.
208 (4442): 369–371. Bibcode:1980Sci...208..369Z (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980
Sci...208..369Z). doi:10.1126/science.7367863 (https://doi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.736786
3). PMID 7367863 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7367863).
193. Subramanyam, Krishna; Subramanyam, Bhadriraju (1981). Scientific and Technical
Information Resources. CRC Press. ISBN 978-0-8247-8297-9.
194. Bush, Vannevar (July 1945). "Science the Endless Frontier" (https://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf5
0/vbush1945.htm). National Science Foundation. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/201
61107221306/https://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/vbush1945.htm) from the original on 7
November 2016. Retrieved 4 November 2016.
195. Schooler, J. W. (2014). "Metascience could rescue the 'replication crisis' " (https://doi.org/10.
1038%2F515009a). Nature. 515 (7525): 9. Bibcode:2014Natur.515....9S (https://ui.adsabs.h
arvard.edu/abs/2014Natur.515....9S). doi:10.1038/515009a (https://doi.org/10.1038%2F515
009a). PMID 25373639 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25373639).
196. Pashler, Harold; Wagenmakers, Eric Jan (2012). "Editors' Introduction to the Special Section
on Replicability in Psychological Science: A Crisis of Confidence?" (https://doi.org/10.1177%
2F1745691612465253). Perspectives on Psychological Science. 7 (6): 528–530.
doi:10.1177/1745691612465253 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1745691612465253).
PMID 26168108 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26168108). S2CID 26361121 (https://api.
semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:26361121).
197. Ioannidis, John P. A.; Fanelli, Daniele; Dunne, Debbie Drake; Goodman, Steven N. (2
October 2015). "Meta-research: Evaluation and Improvement of Research Methods and
Practices" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4592065). PLOS Biology. 13 (10):
–1002264. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002264 (https://doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.10022
64). ISSN 1545-7885 (https://search.worldcat.org/issn/1545-7885). PMC 4592065 (https://w
ww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4592065). PMID 26431313 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.
nih.gov/26431313).
198. Hansson, Sven Ove (3 September 2008). "Science and Pseudoscience" (https://plato.stanfo
rd.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/pseudo-science). In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Section 2: The "science" of pseudoscience. Archived (https://w
eb.archive.org/web/20211029205141/https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/pse
udo-science/) from the original on 29 October 2021. Retrieved 28 May 2022.
199. Shermer, Michael (1997). Why people believe weird things: pseudoscience, superstition,
and other confusions of our time (https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780965594875). New
York: W. H. Freeman & Co. p. 17. ISBN 978-0-7167-3090-3.
200. Feynman, Richard (1974). "Cargo Cult Science" (https://web.archive.org/web/20050304032
544/http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cult.html). Center for Theoretical
Neuroscience. Columbia University. Archived from the original (http://neurotheory.columbia.e
du/~ken/cargo_cult.html) on 4 March 2005. Retrieved 4 November 2016.
201. Novella, Steven (2018). The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe: How to Know What's Really
Real in a World Increasingly Full of Fake. Hodder & Stoughton. p. 162. ISBN 978-
1473696419.
202. "Coping with fraud" (https://web.archive.org/web/20070928151119/http://www.publicationeth
ics.org.uk/reports/1999/1999pdf3.pdf) (PDF). The COPE Report 1999: 11–18. Archived from
the original (http://www.publicationethics.org.uk/reports/1999/1999pdf3.pdf) (PDF) on 28
September 2007. Retrieved 21 July 2011. "It is 10 years, to the month, since Stephen
Lock ... Reproduced with kind permission of the Editor, The Lancet."
203. Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2003c). "Induction and confirmation". Theory and Reality: An
Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (https://archive.org/details/theoryrealityint00godf).
University of Chicago. pp. 39 (https://archive.org/details/theoryrealityint00godf/page/n53)–
56. ISBN 978-0-226-30062-7.
204. Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2003o). "Empiricism, naturalism, and scientific realism?". Theory and
Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (https://archive.org/details/theoryreality
int00godf). University of Chicago. pp. 219 (https://archive.org/details/theoryrealityint00godf/p
age/n233)–232. ISBN 978-0-226-30062-7.
205. Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2003b). "Logic plus empiricism". Theory and Reality: An Introduction
to the Philosophy of Science (https://archive.org/details/theoryrealityint00godf). University of
Chicago. pp. 19 (https://archive.org/details/theoryrealityint00godf/page/n33)–38. ISBN 978-
0-226-30062-7.
206. Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2003d). "Popper: Conjecture and refutation". Theory and Reality: An
Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (https://archive.org/details/theoryrealityint00godf).
University of Chicago. pp. 57 (https://archive.org/details/theoryrealityint00godf/page/n71)–
74. ISBN 978-0-226-30062-7.
207. Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2003g). "Lakatos, Laudan, Feyerabend, and frameworks". Theory
and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (https://archive.org/details/theoryre
alityint00godf). University of Chicago. pp. 102 (https://archive.org/details/theoryrealityint00g
odf/page/n116)–121. ISBN 978-0-226-30062-7.
208. Popper, Karl (1972). Objective Knowledge.
209. Newton-Smith, W. H. (1994). The Rationality of Science (https://archive.org/details/rationalit
yofsci0000newt). London: Routledge. p. 30 (https://archive.org/details/rationalityofsci0000ne
wt/page/30). ISBN 978-0-7100-0913-5.
210. Votsis, I. (2004). The Epistemological Status of Scientific Theories: An Investigation of the
Structural Realist Account (PhD thesis). University of London, London School of Economics.
p. 39.
211. Bird, Alexander (2013). "Thomas Kuhn" (http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entries/th
omas-kuhn/). In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20200715191833/https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2013/entrie
s/thomas-kuhn/) from the original on 15 July 2020. Retrieved 26 October 2015.
212. Kuhn, Thomas S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (https://philpapers.org/rec/
KUHTSO-2) (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. p. 206. ISBN 978-0-226-45804-5.
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20211019102817/https://philpapers.org/rec/KUHTSO-
2) from the original on 19 October 2021. Retrieved 30 May 2022.
213. Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2003). "Naturalistic philosophy in theory and practice". Theory and
Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (https://archive.org/details/theoryreality
int00godf). University of Chicago. pp. 149 (https://archive.org/details/theoryrealityint00godf/p
age/n163)–162. ISBN 978-0-226-30062-7.
214. Brugger, E. Christian (2004). "Casebeer, William D. Natural Ethical Facts: Evolution,
Connectionism, and Moral Cognition". The Review of Metaphysics. 58 (2).
215. Kornfeld, W.; Hewitt, C. E. (1981). "The Scientific Community Metaphor" (http://dspace.mit.e
du/bitstream/handle/1721.1/5693/AIM-641.pdf?sequence=2) (PDF). IEEE Transactions on
Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. 11 (1): 24–33. doi:10.1109/TSMC.1981.4308575 (https://d
oi.org/10.1109%2FTSMC.1981.4308575). hdl:1721.1/5693 (https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1%2
F5693). S2CID 1322857 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:1322857). Archived (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20160408100757/http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/56
93/AIM-641.pdf?sequence=2) (PDF) from the original on 8 April 2016. Retrieved 26 May
2022.
216. "Eusocial climbers" (https://eowilsonfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/the-big-rea
d-eusocial-climbers.pdf) (PDF). E. O. Wilson Foundation. Archived (https://web.archive.org/
web/20190427085753/https://eowilsonfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/the-big-r
ead-eusocial-climbers.pdf) (PDF) from the original on 27 April 2019. Retrieved 3 September
2018. "But he's not a scientist, he's never done scientific research. My definition of a
scientist is that you can complete the following sentence: 'he or she has shown that...',"
Wilson says."
217. "Our definition of a scientist" (https://sciencecouncil.org/about-science/our-definition-of-a-sci
entist/). Science Council. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20190823135636/https://sci
encecouncil.org/about-science/our-definition-of-a-scientist/) from the original on 23 August
2019. Retrieved 7 September 2018. "A scientist is someone who systematically gathers and
uses research and evidence, making a hypothesis and testing it, to gain and share
understanding and knowledge."
218. Cyranoski, David; Gilbert, Natasha; Ledford, Heidi; Nayar, Anjali; Yahia, Mohammed (2011).
"Education: The PhD factory" (https://doi.org/10.1038%2F472276a). Nature. 472 (7343):
276–279. Bibcode:2011Natur.472..276C (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011Natur.472..
276C). doi:10.1038/472276a (https://doi.org/10.1038%2F472276a). PMID 21512548 (http
s://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21512548).
219. Kwok, Roberta (2017). "Flexible working: Science in the gig economy" (https://doi.org/10.10
38%2Fnj7677-549a). Nature. 550 (7677): 419–421. doi:10.1038/nj7677-549a (https://doi.or
g/10.1038%2Fnj7677-549a).
220. Woolston, Chris (2007). "Many junior scientists need to take a hard look at their job
prospects" (https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fnj7677-549a). Nature. 550 (7677): 549–552.
doi:10.1038/nj7677-549a (https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fnj7677-549a).
221. Lee, Adrian; Dennis, Carina; Campbell, Phillip (2007). "Graduate survey: A love–hurt
relationship" (https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fnj7677-549a). Nature. 550 (7677): 549–552.
doi:10.1038/nj7677-549a (https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fnj7677-549a).
222. Whaley, Leigh Ann (2003). Women's History as Scientists. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
223. Spanier, Bonnie (1995). "From Molecules to Brains, Normal Science Supports Sexist Beliefs
about Difference". Im/partial Science: Gender Identity in Molecular Biology. Indiana
University Press. ISBN 978-0-253-20968-9.
224. Parrott, Jim (9 August 2007). "Chronicle for Societies Founded from 1323 to 1599" (http://w
ww.scholarly-societies.org/1599andearlier.html). Scholarly Societies Project. Archived (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20140106185404/http://www.scholarly-societies.org/1599andearlier.
html) from the original on 6 January 2014. Retrieved 11 September 2007.
225. "The Environmental Studies Association of Canada – What is a Learned Society?" (https://w
eb.archive.org/web/20130529163615/http://www.esac.ca/about/what-is-a-learned-society/).
Archived from the original (http://www.esac.ca/about/what-is-a-learned-society/) on 29 May
2013. Retrieved 10 May 2013.
226. "Learned societies & academies" (https://web.archive.org/web/20140603140851/http://www.
britishcouncil.org/science-uk-organisations-learned-societies.htm). Archived from the
original (http://www.britishcouncil.org/science-uk-organisations-learned-societies.htm) on 3
June 2014. Retrieved 10 May 2013.
227. "Learned Societies, the key to realising an open access future?" (https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/imp
actofsocialsciences/2019/06/24/learned-societies-the-key-to-realising-an-open-access-futur
e/). Impact of Social Sciences. London School of Economics. 24 June 2019. Archived (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20230205140831/https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/20
19/06/24/learned-societies-the-key-to-realising-an-open-access-future/) from the original on
5 February 2023. Retrieved 22 January 2023.
228. "Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei" (http://positivamente.lincei.it/) (in Italian). 2006. Archived
(https://web.archive.org/web/20100228005402/http://positivamente.lincei.it/) from the
original on 28 February 2010. Retrieved 11 September 2007.
229. "Prince of Wales opens Royal Society's refurbished building" (http://royalsociety.org/News.a
spx?id=973&terms=prince+of+wales). The Royal Society. 7 July 2004. Archived (https://we
b.archive.org/web/20150409010143/https://royalsociety.org/News.aspx?id=973&terms=princ
e+of+wales) from the original on 9 April 2015. Retrieved 7 December 2009.
230. Meynell, G. G. "The French Academy of Sciences, 1666–91: A reassessment of the French
Académie royale des sciences under Colbert (1666–83) and Louvois (1683–91)" (https://we
b.archive.org/web/20120118174108/http://www.haven.u-net.com/6text_7B2.htm#Appendi
x%202). Archived from the original (http://www.haven.u-net.com/6text_7B2.htm#Appendix%
202) on 18 January 2012. Retrieved 13 October 2011.
231. "Founding of the National Academy of Sciences" (http://www7.nationalacademies.org/archiv
es/nasfounding.html). .nationalacademies.org. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20130
203154802/http://www7.nationalacademies.org/archives/nasfounding.html) from the original
on 3 February 2013. Retrieved 12 March 2012.
232. "The founding of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society (1911)" (https://www.mpg.de/946619/5_event2-
1911). Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20220302052520/htt
ps://www.mpg.de/946619/5_event2-1911) from the original on 2 March 2022. Retrieved
30 May 2022.
233. "Introduction" (https://english.cas.cn/about_us/introduction/201501/t20150114_135284.shtm
l). Chinese Academy of Sciences. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20220331215338/h
ttps://english.cas.cn/about_us/introduction/201501/t20150114_135284.shtml) from the
original on 31 March 2022. Retrieved 31 May 2022.
234. "Two main Science Councils merge to address complex global challenges" (https://en.unesc
o.org/news/two-main-science-councils-merge-address-complex-global-challenges).
UNESCO. 5 July 2018. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20210712044005/https://en.u
nesco.org/news/two-main-science-councils-merge-address-complex-global-challenges)
from the original on 12 July 2021. Retrieved 21 October 2018.
235. Stockton, Nick (7 October 2014). "How did the Nobel Prize become the biggest award on
Earth?" (https://www.wired.com/2014/10/whats-nobel-prize-become-biggest-award-planet).
Wired. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20190619044702/https://www.wired.com/201
4/10/whats-nobel-prize-become-biggest-award-planet/) from the original on 19 June 2019.
Retrieved 3 September 2018.
236. "Main Science and Technology Indicators – 2008-1" (https://web.archive.org/web/20100215
172528/http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/49/45/24236156.pdf) (PDF). OECD. Archived from
the original (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/49/45/24236156.pdf) (PDF) on 15 February
2010.
237. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2015: Innovation for growth and
society (http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/oecd-science-technology-and-i
ndustry-scoreboard-2015_sti_scoreboard-2015-en). OECD. 2015. p. 156.
doi:10.1787/sti_scoreboard-2015-en (https://doi.org/10.1787%2Fsti_scoreboard-2015-en).
ISBN 978-9264239784. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20220525063455/https://ww
w.oecd-ilibrary.org/science-and-technology/oecd-science-technology-and-industry-scoreboar
d-2015_sti_scoreboard-2015-en) from the original on 25 May 2022. Retrieved 28 May 2022
– via oecd-ilibrary.org.
238. Kevles, Daniel (1977). "The National Science Foundation and the Debate over Postwar
Research Policy, 1942–1945". Isis. 68 (241): 4–26. doi:10.1086/351711 (https://doi.org/10.1
086%2F351711). PMID 320157 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/320157).
S2CID 32956693 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:32956693).
239. "Argentina, National Scientific and Technological Research Council (CONICET)" (https://cou
ncil.science/member/argentina-national-scientific-and-technological-research-council-conice
t/). International Science Council. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20220516220311/ht
tps://council.science/member/argentina-national-scientific-and-technological-research-counc
il-conicet/) from the original on 16 May 2022. Retrieved 31 May 2022.
240. Innis, Michelle (17 May 2016). "Australia to Lay Off Leading Scientist on Sea Levels" (http
s://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/18/world/australia/australia-to-lay-off-leading-scientist-on-sea-
levels.html). The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331 (https://search.worldcat.org/issn/0362-4
331). Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20210507080237/https://www.nytimes.com/201
6/05/18/world/australia/australia-to-lay-off-leading-scientist-on-sea-levels.html) from the
original on 7 May 2021. Retrieved 31 May 2022.
241. "Le CNRS recherche 10.000 passionnés du blob" (https://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/le-cnrs-r
echerche-10-000-passionnes-du-blob-20211020). Le Figaro (in French). 20 October 2021.
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20220427225305/https://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/le-
cnrs-recherche-10-000-passionnes-du-blob-20211020) from the original on 27 April 2022.
Retrieved 31 May 2022.
242. Bredow, Rafaela von (18 December 2021). "How a Prestigious Scientific Organization Came
Under Suspicion of Treating Women Unequally" (https://www.spiegel.de/international/germa
ny/how-a-prestigious-scientific-organization-came-under-suspicion-of-treating-women-uneq
ually-a-96da63b5-19af-4fde-b044-445f9cfd6159). Der Spiegel. ISSN 2195-1349 (https://sea
rch.worldcat.org/issn/2195-1349). Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20220529004707/h
ttps://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/how-a-prestigious-scientific-organization-came-
under-suspicion-of-treating-women-unequally-a-96da63b5-19af-4fde-b044-445f9cfd6159)
from the original on 29 May 2022. Retrieved 31 May 2022.
243. "En espera de una "revolucionaria" noticia sobre Sagitario A*, el agujero negro supermasivo
en el corazón de nuestra galaxia" (https://www.elmundo.es/ciencia-y-salud/ciencia/2022/05/
12/627cca26fdddff17068b4590.html). ELMUNDO (in Spanish). 12 May 2022. Archived (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20220513185034/https://www.elmundo.es/ciencia-y-salud/ciencia/2
022/05/12/627cca26fdddff17068b4590.html) from the original on 13 May 2022. Retrieved
31 May 2022.
244. Fletcher, Anthony C.; Bourne, Philip E. (27 September 2012). "Ten Simple Rules To
Commercialize Scientific Research" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC345987
8). PLOS Computational Biology. 8 (9): e1002712. Bibcode:2012PLSCB...8E2712F (https://
ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012PLSCB...8E2712F). doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002712 (http
s://doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi.1002712). ISSN 1553-734X (https://search.worldcat.org/
issn/1553-734X). PMC 3459878 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3459878).
PMID 23028299 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23028299).
245. Marburger, John Harmen III (10 February 2015). Science policy up close. Crease, Robert P.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-41709-0.
246. Gauch, Hugh G. (2012). Scientific Method in Brief. New York: Cambridge University Press.
pp. 7–10. ISBN 9781107666726.
247. Benneworth, Paul; Jongbloed, Ben W. (31 July 2009). "Who matters to universities? A
stakeholder perspective on humanities, arts and social sciences valorisation" (https://ris.utw
ente.nl/ws/files/47901538/Benneworth2010Who.pdf) (PDF). Higher Education. 59 (5): 567–
588. doi:10.1007/s10734-009-9265-2 (https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs10734-009-9265-2).
ISSN 0018-1560 (https://search.worldcat.org/issn/0018-1560). Archived (https://web.archive.
org/web/20231024214150/https://ris.utwente.nl/ws/files/47901538/Benneworth2010Who.pd
f) (PDF) from the original on 24 October 2023. Retrieved 16 August 2023.
248. Dickson, David (11 October 2004). "Science journalism must keep a critical edge" (https://w
eb.archive.org/web/20100621053624/http://www.scidev.net/en/editorials/science-journalism-
must-keep-a-critical-edge.html). Science and Development Network. Archived from the
original (http://www.scidev.net/en/editorials/science-journalism-must-keep-a-critical-edge.ht
ml) on 21 June 2010.
249. Mooney, Chris (November–December 2004). "Blinded By Science, How 'Balanced'
Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality" (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/inter
section/2010/01/15/blinded-by-science-how-balanced-coverage-lets-the-scientific-fringe-hija
ck-reality/). Columbia Journalism Review. Vol. 43, no. 4. Archived (https://web.archive.org/w
eb/20100117181240/http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/01/15/blinded-by-
science-how-balanced-coverage-lets-the-scientific-fringe-hijack-reality/) from the original on
17 January 2010. Retrieved 20 February 2008.
250. McIlwaine, S.; Nguyen, D. A. (2005). "Are Journalism Students Equipped to Write About
Science?" (http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:8064). Australian Studies in Journalism.
14: 41–60. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20080801163322/http://espace.library.uq.
edu.au/view/UQ:8064) from the original on 1 August 2008. Retrieved 20 February 2008.
251. Webb, Sarah (December 2013). "Popular science: Get the word out" (https://doi.org/10.103
8%2Fnj7478-177a). Nature. 504 (7478): 177–179. doi:10.1038/nj7478-177a (https://doi.org/
10.1038%2Fnj7478-177a). PMID 24312943 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24312943).
252. Wilde, Fran (21 January 2016). "How Do You Like Your Science Fiction? Ten Authors Weigh
In On 'Hard' vs. 'Soft' SF" (https://www.tor.com/2016/01/21/how-do-you-like-your-science-fict
ion-ten-authors-weigh-in-on-hard-vs-soft-sf/). Tor.com. Archived (https://web.archive.org/we
b/20190404025029/https://www.tor.com/2016/01/21/how-do-you-like-your-science-fiction-te
n-authors-weigh-in-on-hard-vs-soft-sf/) from the original on 4 April 2019. Retrieved 4 April
2019.
253. Petrucci, Mario. "Creative Writing – Science" (https://web.archive.org/web/20090106015539/
http://writeideas.org.uk/creativescience/index.htm). Archived from the original (http://writeide
as.org.uk/creativescience/index.htm) on 6 January 2009. Retrieved 27 April 2008.
254. Tyson, Alec; Funk, Cary; Kennedy, Brian; Johnson, Courtney (15 September 2021).
"Majority in U.S. Says Public Health Benefits of COVID-19 Restrictions Worth the Costs,
Even as Large Shares Also See Downsides" (https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2021/0
9/15/majority-in-u-s-says-public-health-benefits-of-covid-19-restrictions-worth-the-costs-eve
n-as-large-shares-also-see-downsides/). Pew Research Center Science & Society. Archived
(https://web.archive.org/web/20220809114234/https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2021/0
9/15/majority-in-u-s-says-public-health-benefits-of-covid-19-restrictions-worth-the-costs-eve
n-as-large-shares-also-see-downsides/) from the original on 9 August 2022. Retrieved
4 August 2022.
255. Kennedy, Brian (16 April 2020). "U.S. concern about climate change is rising, but mainly
among Democrats" (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/16/u-s-concern-about-cl
imate-change-is-rising-but-mainly-among-democrats/). Pew Research Center. Archived (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20220803101033/https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/1
6/u-s-concern-about-climate-change-is-rising-but-mainly-among-democrats/) from the
original on 3 August 2022. Retrieved 4 August 2022.
256. Philipp-Muller, Aviva; Lee, Spike W. S.; Petty, Richard E. (26 July 2022). "Why are people
antiscience, and what can we do about it?" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9
335320). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 119 (30): e2120755119.
Bibcode:2022PNAS..11920755P (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022PNAS..11920755
P). doi:10.1073/pnas.2120755119 (https://doi.org/10.1073%2Fpnas.2120755119).
ISSN 0027-8424 (https://search.worldcat.org/issn/0027-8424). PMC 9335320 (https://www.n
cbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9335320). PMID 35858405 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.g
ov/35858405).
257. Gauchat, Gordon William (2008). "A Test of Three Theories of Anti-Science Attitudes".
Sociological Focus. 41 (4): 337–357. doi:10.1080/00380237.2008.10571338 (https://doi.org/
10.1080%2F00380237.2008.10571338). S2CID 144645723 (https://api.semanticscholar.or
g/CorpusID:144645723).
258. Poushter, Jacob; Fagan, Moira; Gubbala, Sneha (31 August 2022). "Climate Change
Remains Top Global Threat Across 19-Country Survey" (https://www.pewresearch.org/globa
l/2022/08/31/climate-change-remains-top-global-threat-across-19-country-survey/). Pew
Research Center's Global Attitudes Project. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2022083
1225832/https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2022/08/31/climate-change-remains-top-globa
l-threat-across-19-country-survey/) from the original on 31 August 2022. Retrieved
5 September 2022.
259. McRaney, David (2022). How Minds Change: The Surprising Science of Belief, Opinion, and
Persuasion. New York: Portfolio/Penguin. ISBN 978-0-593-19029-6.
260. McGreal, Chris (26 October 2021). "Revealed: 60% of Americans say oil firms are to blame
for the climate crisis" (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/26/climate-chang
e-poll-oil-gas-companies-environment). The Guardian. Archived (https://web.archive.org/we
b/20211026122356/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/26/climate-change-
poll-oil-gas-companies-environment) from the original on 26 October 2021. "Source:
Guardian/Vice/CCN/YouGov poll. Note: ±4% margin of error."
261. Goldberg, Jeanne (2017). "The Politicization of Scientific Issues: Looking through Galileo's
Lens or through the Imaginary Looking Glass" (https://web.archive.org/web/2018081618235
0/https://www.csicop.org/si/show/politicization_of_scientific_issues). Skeptical Inquirer. 41
(5): 34–39. Archived from the original (https://www.csicop.org/si/show/politicization_of_scien
tific_issues) on 16 August 2018. Retrieved 16 August 2018.
262. Bolsen, Toby; Druckman, James N. (2015). "Counteracting the Politicization of Science".
Journal of Communication (65): 746.
263. Freudenberg, William F.; Gramling, Robert; Davidson, Debra J. (2008). "Scientific Certainty
Argumentation Methods (SCAMs): Science and the Politics of Doubt" (http://sciencepolicy.c
olorado.edu/students/envs_5720/freudenberg_etal_2008.pdf) (PDF). Sociological Inquiry.
78 (1): 2–38. doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.2008.00219.x (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1475-682
X.2008.00219.x). Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20201126214329/http://sciencepolic
y.colorado.edu/students/envs_5720/freudenberg_etal_2008.pdf) (PDF) from the original on
26 November 2020. Retrieved 12 April 2020.
264. van der Linden, Sander; Leiserowitz, Anthony; Rosenthal, Seth; Maibach, Edward (2017).
"Inoculating the Public against Misinformation about Climate Change" (https://www.repositor
y.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/1810/270860/1/global%20challenges.pdf) (PDF). Global Challenges.
1 (2): 1. Bibcode:2017GloCh...100008V (https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017GloCh...100
008V). doi:10.1002/gch2.201600008 (https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fgch2.201600008).
PMC 6607159 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6607159). PMID 31565263
(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31565263). Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/202004
04185312/https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/1810/270860/global%20challe
nges.pdf?sequence=1) (PDF) from the original on 4 April 2020. Retrieved 25 August 2019.

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Science&oldid=1289222603"