The root of the word science

What is the root meaning of the word science?

In English, science came from Old French, meaning knowledge, learning, application, and a corpus of human knowledge. It originally came from the Latin word scientia which meant knowledge, a knowing, expertness, or experience.

Who is the king of subject?

Physics is the first line but after that all about is mathematics.

Who are subjects?

A subject is a part of a sentence that contains the person or thing performing the action (or verb) in a sentence. … In the sentence, the subject is «I» and the verb is «will call.» Example: You were a great singer. In this sentence, the subject is «you» and the verb is «were.»05-Oct-2020

Are mathematics a science?

In many ways, math is closely related to science. … Mathematics is such a useful tool that science could make few advances without it. However, math and standard sciences, like biology, physics, and chemistry, are distinct in at least one way: how ideas are tested and accepted based on evidence.

What is Royal subject?

1 of, relating to, or befitting a king, queen, or other monarch; regal. 2 prenominal; often cap established, chartered by, under the patronage or in the service of royalty.

What is a royal person?

A royal person is a king, queen, or emperor, or a member of their family.

Whats is loyal?

adjective. faithful to one’s sovereign, government, or state: a loyal subject. … faithful to any leader, party, or cause, or to any person or thing conceived as deserving fidelity: a loyal friend. characterized by or showing faithfulness to commitments, vows, allegiance, obligations, etc.: loyal conduct.

What do royal mean?

adjective. of or relating to a king, queen, or other sovereign: royal power; a royal palace. descended from or related to a king or line of kings: a royal prince. noting or having the rank of a king or queen. established or chartered by or existing under the patronage of a sovereign: a royal society.

What is another name for Royal?

What is another word for royal?

kingly princely
supreme grand
absolute majestic
lordly stately
noble dignified

What’s a synonym for Royal?

regal, kingly, queenly, kinglike, queenlike, princely. sovereign, monarchical. 2’tourists can expect a royal welcome’ SYNONYMS. excellent, fine, marvellous, magnificent, splendid, superb, wonderful, first-rate, first-class.

How do you describe royalty?

Royalty is a good word for describing a family of kings, queens, princes, and princesses. … The noun royalty means a group of royals, or kings and their extended families. Queen Elizabeth of England is a member of Britain’s royalty, for example.

What is a rich area called?

affluent Add to list Share. You know you’re driving through an affluent neighborhood when you see large houses, perfect landscaping, and expensive cars. Use affluent to describe wealthy people or areas.

How do you say rich in a nice way?

affluent

  1. flush.
  2. loaded.
  3. moneyed.
  4. opulent.
  5. prosperous.
  6. rich.
  7. stinking rich.
  8. upper class.

What is it called when you have a lot of money?

wealth. noun. a large amount of money and other valuable things.

Which word is slang for money?

Bucks. Perhaps the most commonly used slang term for dollars, it is believed to originate from early American colonists who would often trade deerskins, or buckskins.

Источник

The root of this word tree of knowledge usually appears as «sci-» and its most famous member is the word «science.»

10 words

6 learners

Learn words with Flashcards and other activities

Other learning activities

Full list of words from this list:

  1. conscious

    having awareness of surroundings and sensations and thoughts

    It was hardly a
    conscious decision, certainly not one I recall agonizing over.Salon (Mar 24, 2013)

    Because the prefix «con-» means «with» in this case, and the root «sci-» means «knowledge,» the word «conscious» means, simply «with knowledge,» or, «with awareness.»

  2. conscience

    a feeling of shame when you do something immoral

    Indeed, individual
    conscience is a core value in Catholic teaching.

    When your conscience troubles you, it is because you know («sci-«) that you’ve done wrong. You may be able to deny your wrong-doing to others, keeping them unaware, but you can’t fool your own conscience.

  3. conscientious

    characterized by extreme care and great effort

    A conscientious person works with great attention and knowledge of the task at hand. To be conscientious is to attend to details, to be highly aware (knowledgeable) of the task, and to be thorough.

  4. omniscient

    knowing, seeing, or understanding everything

    «Omni-» means «all» («omnivore»), so «omniscient» means «all-knowing.» This word is often used in a religious context, referring to an all-knowing God. It is also used when talking about stories. A narrator who is telling the story, but not a character in it, is said to be «omniscient,» or all-knowing about the feelings and activities of all of the characters. In other stories, the narrator is not all-knowing, but just another character telling the story from his point of view.

  5. subconscious

    just below the level of awareness

    Because the prefix «sub-» means «under,» subconscious thoughts and feelings are those that lie under the conscious level. They exist, but we are unaware of them. Subconscious thoughts and feelings may express themselves in dreams or in vague feelings that we can’t explain.

  6. unconscious

    without active awareness

    They are involuntarily managed in the vast processing system of the
    unconscious mind.Forbes (May 14, 2013)

    When you do something unconsciously, you do it automatically. An unconscious person is «knocked out,» either through a deep sleep, anesthesia, a head injury, or a comatose state.

  7. self-conscious

    excessively aware of your appearance or behavior

    At work she felt increasingly
    self-conscious around male customers.

    If you’ve ever felt that you looked or acted out of place with a group of people, you know what it is to be self-conscious. Self-consciousness is the opposite of confidence. The term «self-conscious» has a negative connotation, related to embarrassment, lack of confidence, discomfort.

  8. plebiscite

    a vote determining public opinion on a question

    The
    plebiscite could be put off no longer; on December 15th, the vote was taken.Egan, Maurice Francis

    Etymologically, the word «plebiscite» means «the common people («pleb»)know («sci»). This is a word that you probably learned, or will learn, in your social studies class.

  9. unconscionable

    lacking a sense of right conduct

    «Numerous people at the time found it
    unconscionable that Mr. Arridy was sentenced to death,» Ritter said.

    When something is unconscionable, it is inexcusable. The word implies a lack of conscience, or, a lack of awareness or caring about one’s conscience.

  10. prescience

    the power to foresee the future

    Melissa did not ask in what her mother was vindicated; she had a dull
    prescience of trouble.Graham, Margaret Collier

    Because «pre-» means «before,» the word «prescience» refers to having knowledge beforehand. But the word «prescience» is usually used in a less occult way than words like «omen» and «premonition.» A prescient person may know things before they actually happen, but that is probably more because she has well-developed intuition than supernatural powers.

Created on May 16, 2013
(updated May 16, 2013)

Источник

By Bridgette Hernandez

The period between the fall of Rome and the beginning of the Renaissance is commonly referred to by two distinct names – Middle Ages and Dark Ages. Roughly, we are looking at ten centuries of what most scholars consider to be a scientific regression led by the strong hand of the church.

While it is true that the Middle Ages have caused traditional Greco-inspired sciences to fade into obscurity, their continued development ensured Renaissance’s blooming later on. However, did “science” exist as we commonly refer to it today in the Middle Ages, or was research and study treated as a mere curiosity?

The “Science” in the Science of the Middle Ages

The root of the word “science” comes from the Latin word “scientia,” which is any field of knowledge, from botany, mathematics, or even theology. Theology played a large part in shaping the European continent in the centuries following Christianity’s canonization and the subsequent Great Schism, which split Christianity.

Given how dependent monarchs were of the church’s approval for anything they did, both Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches contributed to various fields of science independently. Monasteries were not only the homes of reclusive priests and monks seeking a connection to God but also learned scholars and manuscript writers, and artists.

Theology was closely integrated with other fields of science in the Middle Ages due to the time’s inherent necessity to look for God’s earthly footprints. This makes it difficult to distinguish the two today objectively, with primary sources all leaning heavily toward God as the ultimate architect of all things.

Monasteries as the Middle Ages’ Universities

The second reason as to why monasteries were the meccas of scientific research lies in the monks’ level of education and familiarity with scientific fields. The printing press was not invented by Gutenberg by 1440, and even then, printing was a luxury very few could afford.

This made monasteries the perfect place for copying and storing original manuscripts from centuries past. When not in prayer or working in fields, monks spent most of their time reading, studying, copying, and preserving old manuscripts and creating new ones.

As official universities started opening in the late 11th century, as with the University of Bologna, the traffic between monasteries and formal schooling institutions increased. Manuscripts were exchanged, copied, and spread throughout Europe, further increasing the church’s presence in public life and academia.

Translation and Distribution of Scientific Texts

Much like today, the science of the Middle Ages was an international affair despite Christianity’s heavy reliance on theology. Given the printing press’s late introduction to the Middle Ages, translation and physical distribution of scientific texts took precedent.

Universities across England, Germany, France, and Italy used Latin as the official international language, much like we use English today. Spain was particularly noteworthy for its translation of Islamic texts (copies and translations of original, lost Greek scriptures) back into Latin for international distribution.

This has made previously unknown and thought-lost scientific sources available again, prompting scholars to rediscover what was once lost to time. Both monastic orders and traders used this opportunity to distribute newly-written and freshly-copied tomes across Europe in hopes of spreading knowledge and enlightenment.

Innovation Bred Through Rediscovery

The Middle Ages did much more than retread old ground laid out by ancient Greek scholars. Numerous scientific discoveries took place during the now-infamous time period despite the church’s wishes that all things be relegated to God.

The invention of the mechanical clock dates back to the 14th century, where it found its place as a time-keeping tool used by, again, monastic orders. Oxford Calculators, named for their place of invention, the Oxford University, have enabled scientists to measure elements such as speed and temperature with greater precision. First, eyeglasses were invented in the Middle Ages as a byproduct of research into optics and lenses.

Following that, research into sunlight, rays, and light is often attributed solely to European scholars but owes its roots to Muslim scholars in equal measure. While God has been placed at the center of creation in the Middle Ages, scholars didn’t stray from asking big questions about how nature works.  However, as stated, the two are interconnected on a fundamental level, and it is almost impossible to look at science and theology as separate entities.

Astronomy as an Epicenter of Medieval Curiosity

One only needs to look up at a starry sky to start wondering what the cosmos is really made of. This is the line of thinking many scholars in the Middle Ages attempted to follow through on through their research. We can trace the origins of cosmology to Plato and Aristotle, but their philosophies rely on the earthly and forgo the heavenly altogether.

Medieval scholars were able to draw a parallel between the heavenly and earthly, justifying that what happens down here reflects on your journey up there. This has also been subjugated to Christianity and the notion of leading a healthy earthly life to ensure your place in the heavens. For medieval scientists, Earth was at the center of the cosmos, and everything else revolved around it. That is not to say that scholars were oblivious to the Solar System and planetary bodies as we know them today.

The astrolabe was a device which found its way to Europe from the Middle East in the 11th century and was used for astronomical predictions. Positions of planetary bodies were used closely with the zodiac to determine the best times to perform various earthly activities or medical procedures. In the 12th century, mathematics, arithmetic, and geometry slowly found their way into the field of astronomy, helping all these fields flourish going forward.

Planting the Seeds of Modern Medical Science

Medicine is a field which was seen in a drastically different light compared to today’s way of thinking. Following the familiar pattern of theology, most diseases and ailments were seen as acts of God and punishment for mankind’s misdeeds. Such was the case with the Black Death, notorious for its decimation of the European continent, which was interpreted as mankind’s ultimate punishment.

However, people were not oblivious to environmental disasters and climate changes, which, while equally godly, could be studied and anticipated more easily than sicknesses. As astronomy continued its development late into the Middle Ages, scholars were able to identify nature’s patterns more clearly and contribute to the medical field. The idea of the spiritual (mind) and earthly (body) being interdependent originated from the Middle Ages, and we still refer to it in academia.

Various herbs and drugs were used, studied, and subsequently cataloged by monastic orders and then spread throughout the continent as guidelines for healing the afflicted. Combined with the notion of spirit-body cohesion, Christian priests and pilgrims could exert religion and belief with the populous due to sheer continental educational disparity.

Reexamining the Science of the Middle Ages

It’s easy to look at the Middle Ages from the 21st-century perspective and scoff at numerous mistakes and poor decisions made in scientific studies. However, without the foundations laid in medieval times, our understanding of sciences such as mathematics, astronomy, and, crucially, medicine would be lacking severely.

With the church’s dominance in the Middle Ages being omnipotent, the only way any real scientific progress could have been made was under its wing. Today, we have the luxury of hindsight and are able to extrapolate what exactly long-forgotten scholars thought of the world we live in. By looking back, we can pave the way forward and leave an even better foundation for those that follow in our footsteps.

Bridgette Hernandez is a professional writer, editor, and self-proclaimed history buff, working closely on Subjecto Flashcards. Brid loves to write articles, case studies and do research on the topics of art and history, among others. In her spare time, Brid is an avid reader and traveler.

Top Image: Detail of historiated initial, with a female figure, possibly a personification of astronomy, showing the stars to a group of scholars, who wear versions of fourteenth-century academic dress, at the beginning of Ptolemy’s Almagest, translated by Gerard of Cremona. British Library MS Burney 275 fol. 390v

Related Posts

  • The Middleness of the Middle Ages: Periodizing European History
  • Medicine or Magic? Physicians in the Middle Ages
  • Science and Religion in the Middle Ages
  • The Relevance of the Middle Ages to the History of Science and Technology
  • The Middle Ages Contributions to Cardiovascular Medicine

Subscribe to Medievalverse

Источник

Scientists give names to new discoveries, concepts, theories and inventions using classical Latin and Greek roots, prefixes and suffixes. Since these languages are no longer spoken (they were replaced by modern Greek and Italian), meanings do not change. For example, the ancient Greeks used the word therme to describe heat, and today we use the root therm to mean “heat” in a variety of English words such as homeotherm, thermometer, thermistor, ectotherm, poikilotherm, thermophilic, thermoregulation, thermochemistry, endothermic, exothermic, thermite, thermodynamics, thermoelectric, thermocouple, thermonuclear, thermal, isotherm, and thermocline. A simple science root word can provide clues to numerous other words, greatly reducing the amount of memorization necessary to master this new vocabulary, and making it easier for people from different countries to understand! A knowledge of Greek and Latin root words can greatly enhance student understanding of scientific terms and provide a better understanding of English and other European languages. Approximately 50% of all words in English have Latin roots, many of which are shared by Spanish, French, Portuguese and Italian. Learning scientific root words thereby helps one understand the vocabulary of a variety of languages, particularly English. The activities in this chapter focus on scientific terms, but the roots are used in other words as well. For example, the prefix anti- means against, or opposite as seen in the following scientific terms: antiseptic, antibiotic, antigen, antibody, antibacterial, antioxidant, anticodon, antacid, antinodes, antimatter, antiquark, antiparticle, anticline, and anticyclone. This same prefix is used in many non-scientific terms as well, such as anticlimactic, antifreeze, antiperspirant, antidepressant, and antiterrorism. Thus, an understanding of the roots introduced in this chapter helps one master both scientific and nonscientific terms and become more proficient in the use of language.

Building a Root Word Glossary

    1. Choose a difficult term in your discipline and enter in the appropriate column in the Root Word Glossary. Identify the prefixes, suffixes and roots and place in the appropriate columns
    2. Identify the meanings of these terms. You may use YourDictionary to accomplish this.
    3. Provide additional examples of the use of each prefix, suffix or root word. You may use OneLook to accomplish this.

Analyzing Scientific Terms

    1. Analyze the roots and determine its meaning; Visualization of this word.
    2. Building a slide show to illustrate analyses of scientific terms.
      1. Example 1 — Scientific terms
      2. Example 2 — variety of terms
Источник

For the past two years I have been working at an international school. It is wonderful to work with and teach learners from such diverse backgrounds and cultures. The new challenge for me has been working with many learners whose first language is not English, and I have embraced this opportunity to work on an area that I wasn’t exposed to as much while teaching in the UK.

I recently took an 8 week BML (bilingual and multilingual learners) course. There were some useful strategies that I picked up and started implementing in my classes. While flicking through the book of strategies, this one on Greek and Latin roots immediately caught my attention.

In Science so many of the words that we use in our lessons are derived from Greek and Latin roots, and while I sometimes make a point of linking to words we have used before (for example when discussing protostars, I make the link to prototype), I really wanted to start going deeper into root words with my classes.

As with many strategies, what is recommended for a specific group of learners is usually also good to use with other learners as well. I will not be restricting the usage of root word exploration to my English as a second language learners, but I will be using it in all of my classes across all year groups.

To that end, I started making root word cards which I will place around my teaching lab. I have made 55 cards so far, but this is a work in progress and I will be adding more as I think of them.

SET 1. You can access the pdf of the first 26 cards here:

SET 2. You can access the pdf of the next 14 cards here:

Update: October 28th 2022. SET 3. You can access the pdf of cards 41-55 here:

Update: November 20th 2022. SET 4. You can access the pdf of cards 56-70 here:

Update: December 17th 2022. SET 5. You can access the pdf of cards 71-85 here:

I will continue working on these cards as I think of some new words to include, and I am sure I have forgotten some very obvious ones in the process! I am always open to feedback, so do let me know what you think.

Источник

What is science?

Science (from the Latin word scientia, meaning “knowledge”)[1] is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[2][3][4]

The earliest roots of science can be traced to Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia in around 3500 to 3000 BCE.[5][6] Their contributions to mathematics, astronomy, and medicine entered and shaped Greek natural philosophy of classical antiquity, whereby formal attempts were made to provide explanations of events in the physical world based on natural causes.[5][6] After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, knowledge of Greek conceptions of the world deteriorated in Western Europe during the early centuries (400 to 1000 CE) of the Middle Ages[7] but was preserved in the Muslim world during the Islamic Golden Age.[8] The recovery and assimilation of Greek works and Islamic inquiries into Western Europe from the 10th to 13th century revived “natural philosophy”,[7][9] which was later transformed by the Scientific Revolution that began in the 16th century[10] as new ideas and discoveries departed from previous Greek conceptions and traditions.[11][12][13][14] The scientific method soon played a greater role in knowledge creation and it was not until the 19th century that many of the institutional and professional features of science began to take shape;[15][16][17] along with the changing of “natural philosophy” to “natural science.”[18]

Modern science is typically divided into three major branches that consist of the natural sciences (e.g., biology, chemistry, and physics), which study nature in the broadest sense; the social sciences (e.g., economics, psychology, and sociology), which study individuals and societies; and the formal sciences (e.g., logic, mathematics, and theoretical computer science), which study abstract concepts. There is disagreement,[19][20] however, on whether the formal sciences actually constitute a science as they do not rely on empirical evidence.[21] Disciplines that use existing scientific knowledge for practical purposes, such as engineering and medicine, are described as applied sciences.[22][23][24][25]

Science is based on research, which is commonly conducted in academic and research institutions as well as in government agencies and companies. The practical impact of scientific research has led to the emergence of science policies that seek to influence the scientific enterprise by prioritizing the development of commercial products, armaments, health care, and environmental protection.

Branches of science

Modern science is commonly divided into three major branches that consist of the natural sciences, social sciences, and formal sciences. Each of these branches comprise various specialized yet overlapping scientific disciplines that often possess their own nomenclature and expertise.[90] Both natural and social sciences are empirical sciences[91] 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.[92]

There are also closely related disciplines that use science, such as engineering and medicine, which are sometimes described as applied sciences. The relationships between the branches of science are summarized by the following table.

Science
Formal science Empirical sciences
Natural science Social science
Foundation Logic; Mathematics; Statistics Physics; Chemistry; Biology;
Earth science; Space science		 Economics; Political science;
Sociology; Psychology
Application Computer science Engineering; Agricultural science;
Medicine; Dentistry; Pharmacy		 Business administration;
Jurisprudence; Pedagogy

Natural science

The scale of the Universe mapped to branches of science and showing how one system is built atop the next through the hierarchy of the sciences.

Natural science is concerned with the description, prediction, and understanding of natural phenomena based on empirical evidence from observation and experimentation. It can be divided into two main branches: life science (or biological science) and physical science. Physical science is subdivided into branches, including physics, chemistry, astronomy and earth science. These two branches may be further divided into more specialized disciplines. 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 which were more mathematical and more experimental in a methodical way. Still, philosophical perspectives, conjectures, and presuppositions, often overlooked, remain necessary in natural science.[93] Systematic data collection, including discovery science, succeeded natural history, which emerged in the 16th century by describing and classifying plants, animals, minerals, and so on.[94] Today, “natural history” suggests observational descriptions aimed at popular audiences.[95]

In economics, the supply and demand model describes how prices vary as a result of a balance between product availability and demand.

Social science is concerned with society and the relationships among individuals within a society. It has many branches that include, but are not limited to, anthropology, archaeology, communication studies, economics, history, human geography, jurisprudence, linguistics, political science, psychology, public health, and sociology. Social scientists may adopt various philosophical theories to study individuals and society. For example, positivist social scientists use methods resembling those of the natural sciences as tools for understanding society, and so define science in its stricter modern sense. Interpretivist social scientists, by contrast, may use social critique or symbolic interpretation rather than constructing empirically falsifiable theories, and thus treat science in its broader sense. In modern academic practice, researchers are often eclectic, using multiple methodologies (for instance, by combining both quantitative and qualitative research). The term “social research” has also acquired a degree of autonomy as practitioners from various disciplines share in its aims and methods.

Formal science

Formal science is involved in the study of formal systems. It includes mathematics,[96][97] 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.[21][98][92] The formal sciences are therefore a priori disciplines and because of this, there is disagreement on whether they actually constitute a science.[19][20] Nevertheless, the formal sciences play an important role in the empirical sciences. Calculus, for example, was initially invented to understand motion in physics.[99] Natural and social sciences that rely heavily on mathematical applications include mathematical physics, mathematical chemistry, mathematical biology, mathematical finance, and mathematical economics.

References

  1. Harper, Douglas. “science”. Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved September 20, 2014.
  2. Wilson, E.O. (1999). “The natural sciences”. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge (Reprint ed.). New York, New York: Vintage. pp. 49–71. ISBN978-0-679-76867-8.
  3. “… modern science is a discovery as well as an invention. It was a discovery that nature generally acts regularly enough to be described by laws and even by mathematics; and required invention to devise the techniques, abstractions, apparatus, and organization for exhibiting the regularities and securing their law-like descriptions.”— p.vii Heilbron, J.L. (editor-in-chief)(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.
  4. “science”. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Merriam-Webster, Inc. Retrieved October 16, 2011. 3 a:knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b: such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena.
  5. “The historian … requires a very broad definition of “science” – one that … will help us to understand the modern scientific enterprise. We need to be broad and inclusive, rather than narrow and exclusive … and we should expect that the farther back we go [in time] the broader we will need to be.”  p.3—Lindberg, David C. (2007). “Science before the Greeks”. The beginnings of Western science: the European Scientific tradition in philosophical, religious, and institutional context(Second ed.). Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. pp. 1–27. ISBN978-0-226-48205-7.
  6. Grant, Edward (2007). “Ancient Egypt to Plato”. A History of Natural Philosophy: From the Ancient World to the Nineteenth Century (First ed.). New York, New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–26. ISBN978-052-1-68957-1.
  7. 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 (Second ed.). Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. pp. 193–224. ISBN978-0-226-48205-7.
  8. Lindberg, David C. (2007). “Islamic science”. The beginnings of Western science: the European Scientific tradition in philosophical, religious, and institutional context (Second ed.). Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. pp. 163–92. ISBN978-0-226-48205-7.
  9. 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.). Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. pp. 225–53. ISBN978-0-226-48205-7.
  10. Principe, Lawrence M. (2011). “Introduction”. Scientific Revolution: A Very Short Introduction (First ed.). New York, New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 1–3. ISBN978-0-199-56741-6.
  11. Lindberg, David C. (1990). “Conceptions of the Scientific Revolution from Baker to Butterfield: A preliminary sketch”. In David C. Lindberg; Robert S. Westman (eds.). Reappraisals of the Scientific Revolution (First ed.). Chicago, Illinois: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–26. ISBN978-0-521-34262-9.
  12. 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.). Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. pp. 357–368. ISBN978-0-226-48205-7.
  13. Del Soldato, Eva (2016). Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy(Fall 2016 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
  14. 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 (First ed.). New York, New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 274–322. ISBN978-052-1-68957-1.
  15. Cahan, David, ed. (2003). From Natural Philosophy to the Sciences: Writing the History of Nineteenth-Century Science. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. ISBN978-0-226-08928-7.
  16. The Oxford English Dictionarydates the origin of the word “scientist” to 1834.
  17. Lightman, Bernard (2011). “13. Science and the Public”. In Shank, Michael; Numbers, Ronald; Harrison, Peter (eds.). Wrestling with Nature : From Omens to Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 367. ISBN978-0226317830.
  18. Harrison, Peter(2015). The Territories of Science and Religion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 164–165. ISBN 9780226184517. 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.
  19. Bishop, Alan (1991). “Environmental activities and mathematical culture”. Mathematical Enculturation: A Cultural Perspective on Mathematics Education. Norwell, Massachusetts: Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 20–59. ISBN978-0-792-31270-3.
  20. Bunge, Mario (1998). “The Scientific Approach”. Philosophy of Science: Volume 1, From Problem to Theory. 1(revised ed.). New York, New York: Routledge. pp. 3–50. ISBN978-0-765-80413-6.
  21. Fetzer, James H. (2013). “Computer reliability and public policy: Limits of knowledge of computer-based systems”. Computers and Cognition: Why Minds are not Machines (1st ed.). Newcastle, United Kingdom: Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 271–308. ISBN978-1-443-81946-6.
  22. Fischer, M.R.; Fabry, G (2014). “Thinking and acting scientifically: Indispensable basis of medical education”. GMS Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ausbildung. 31(2): Doc24. doi:3205/zma000916. PMC 4027809. PMID 24872859.
  23. Abraham, Reem Rachel (2004). “Clinically oriented physiology teaching: strategy for developing critical-thinking skills in undergraduate medical students”. Advances in Physiology Education. 28(3): 102–04. doi:1152/advan.00001.2004. PMID 15319191.
  24. Sinclair, Marius. “On the Differences between the Engineering and Scientific Methods”. The International Journal of Engineering Education.
  25. “Engineering Technology :: Engineering Technology :: Purdue School of Engineering and Technology, IUPUI”. www.engr.iupui.edu. Retrieved September 7, 2018.
  26. Grant, Edward (January 1, 1997). “History of Science: When Did Modern Science Begin?”. The American Scholar. 66(1): 105–113. JSTOR 41212592.
  27. Pingree, David(December 1992). “Hellenophilia versus the History of Science”. Isis. 83 (4): 554–63. Bibcode:..83..554P. doi:10.1086/356288. JSTOR 234257.
  28. Sima Qian(司馬遷, d. 86 BCE) in his Records of the Grand Historian (太史公書) covering some 2500 years of Chinese history, records Sunshu Ao (孫叔敖, fl. c. 630–595 BCE – Zhou dynasty), the first known hydraulic engineer of China, cited in (Joseph Needham et al. (1971) Science and Civilisation in China 3 p. 271) as having built a reservoir which has lasted to this day.
  29. 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. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 9. ISBN978-0226317830.
  30. McIntosh, Jane R. (2005). Ancient Mesopotamia: New Perspectives. Santa Barbara, California, Denver, Colorado, and Oxford, England: ABC-CLIO. pp. 273–76. ISBN978-1-57607-966-9.
  31. Aaboe (May 2, 1974). “Scientific Astronomy in Antiquity”. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. 276(1257): 21–42. Bibcode:1974RSPTA.276…21A. doi:10.1098/rsta.1974.0007. JSTOR 74272.
  32. R D. Biggs (2005). “Medicine, Surgery, and Public Health in Ancient Mesopotamia”. Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies. 19(1): 7–18.
  33. 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. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 39. ISBN978-0226317830.
  34. See the quotation in Homer(8th century BCE) Odyssey302–03
  35. “Progress or Return” in An Introduction to Political Philosophy: Ten Essays by Leo Strauss(Expanded version of Political Philosophy: Six Essays by Leo Strauss, 1975.) Ed. Hilail Gilden. Detroit: Wayne State UP, 1989.
  36. Cropsey; Strauss (eds.). History of Political Philosophy (3rd ed.). p. 209.
  37. O’Grady, Patricia F. (2016). Thales of Miletus: The Beginnings of Western Science and Philosophy. New York City, New York and London, England: Routledge. p. 245. ISBN978-0-7546-0533-1.
  38. Burkert, Walter(June 1, 1972). Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-53918-1. Archived from the original on January 29, 2018.
  39. Pullman, Bernard (1998). The Atom in the History of Human Thought. pp. 31–33. Bibcode:book…..P. ISBN978-0-19-515040-7.
  40. Cohen, Henri; Lefebvre, Claire, eds. (2017). Handbook of Categorization in Cognitive Science(Second ed.). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. p. 427. ISBN 978-0-08-101107-2.
  41. Margotta, Roberto (1968). vFZrAAAAMAAJ The Story of MedicineCheck |url= value (help). New York City, New York: Golden Press.
  42. Touwaide, Alain (2005). Glick, Thomas F.; Livesey, Steven; Wallis, Faith (eds.). Medieval Science, Technology, and Medicine: An Encyclopedia. New York City, New York and London, England: Routledge. p. 224. ISBN978-0-415-96930-7.
  43. Leff, Samuel; Leff, Vera (1956). From Witchcraft to World Health. London, England: Macmillan.
  44. Mitchell, Jacqueline S. (February 18, 2003). “The Origins of Science”. Scientific American Frontiers. PBS. Archived from the originalon March 3, 2003. Retrieved November 3, 2016.
  45. “Plato, Apology”. p. 17. Archivedfrom the original on January 29, 2018. Retrieved November 1, 2017.
  46. “Plato, Apology”. p. 27. Archivedfrom the original on January 29, 2018. Retrieved November 1, 2017.
  47. “Plato, Apology, section 30”. Perseus Digital Library. Tufts University. 1966. Archivedfrom the original on January 27, 2017. Retrieved November 1, 2016.
  48. Nicomachean Ethics (H. Rackham ed.). Archived from the original on March 17, 2012. Retrieved September 22, 2010. 1139b
  49. McClellan III, James E.; Dorn, Harold (2015). Science and Technology in World History: An Introduction. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 99–100. ISBN978-1-4214-1776-9.
  50. Edwards, C.H. Jr. (1979). The Historical Development of the Calculus(First ed.). New York City, New York: Springer-Verlag. p. 75. ISBN 978-0-387-94313-8.
  51. Lawson, Russell M. (2004). Science in the Ancient World: An Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. pp. 190–91. ISBN978-1-85109-539-1.
  52. Murphy, Trevor Morgan (2004). Pliny the Elder’s Natural History: The Empire in the Encyclopedia. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. p. 1. ISBN9780199262885.
  53. Doode, Aude (2010). Pliny’s Encyclopedia: The Reception of the Natural History. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. p. 1. ISBN9781139484534.
  54. Smith, A. Mark (June 2004), “What is the History of Medieval Optics Really About?”, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 148(2): 180–94, JSTOR 1558283, PMID 15338543
  55. Lindberg, David C. (2007). “Roman and early medieval science”. The beginnings of Western science: the European Scientific tradition in philosophical, religious, and institutional context (Second ed.). Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. pp. 132–162. ISBN978-0-226-48205-7.
  56. Wildberg, Christian (May 1, 2018). Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University – via Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  57. Aristotle, PhysicsII, 3, and Metaphysics V, 2
  58. Grant, Edward (1996). The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages: Their Religious, Institutional and Intellectual Contexts. Cambridge Studies in the History of Science. Cambridge University Press. pp. 7–17. ISBN978-0521567626.
  59. 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. Cambridge University Press. pp. 62–67. ISBN978-0-521-68957-1.
  60. The Cambridge history of Iran. Fisher, W.B. (William Bayne). Cambridge: University Press. 1968–1991. ISBN978-0521200936. OCLC 745412.
  61. “Bayt al-Hikmah”. Encyclopædia Britannica. Archivedfrom the original on November 4, 2016. Retrieved November 3, 2016.
  62. Klein-Frank, F. Al-Kindi. In Leaman, O & Nasr, H (2001). History of Islamic Philosophy. London: Routledge. p. 165. Felix Klein-Frank (2001) Al-Kindi, pp. 166–67. In Oliver Leaman & Hossein Nasr. History of Islamic Philosophy. London: Routledge.
  63. “Science in Islam”. Oxford Dictionary of the Middle Ages. 2009.
  64. Toomer, G.J. (1964). “Reviewed work: Ibn al-Haythams Weg zur Physik, Matthias Schramm”. Isis. 55(4): 463–65. doi:1086/349914. JSTOR 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-Haytam and others on the mainstream of later medieval physical writings has been seriously investigated can Schramm’s claim that ibn al-Haytam was the true founder of modern physics be evaluated.”
  65. Smith 2001:Book I, [6.54]. p. 372
  66. Selin, H (2006). Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures. pp. 155–156. Bibcode:book…..S. ISBN978-1-4020-4559-2.
  67. Numbers, Ronald (2009). 9780674057418 Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and ReligionCheck |url= value (help). Harvard University Press. p. 45. ISBN 978-0-674-03327-6.
  68. Shwayder, Maya (April 7, 2011). “Debunking a myth”. The Harvard Gazette. Retrieved May 11, 2019.
  69. Smith 2001
  70. McGinnis, Jon (2010). The Canon of Medicine. Oxford University. p. 227.
  71. Lindberg, David (1992). The Beginnings of Western Science. University of Chicago Press. p. 162. ISBN9780226482040.
  72. “St. Albertus Magnus | German theologian, scientist, and philosopher”. Archivedfrom the original on October 28, 2017. Retrieved October 27, 2017.
  73. 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”: Volume One”. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. 91(4): i–337. JSTOR 3657358.
  74. Smith, A. Mark (1981). “Getting the Big Picture in Perspectivist Optics”. Isis. 72(4): 568–89. doi:1086/352843. JSTOR 231249. PMID 7040292.
  75. Goldstein, Bernard R (2016). “Copernicus and the Origin of his Heliocentric System”. Journal for the History of Astronomy. 33(3): 219–35. doi:1177/002182860203300301.
  76. Cohen, H. Floris(2010). How modern science came into the world. Four civilizations, one 17th-century breakthrough(Second ed.). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. ISBN 9789089642394.
  77. “Galileo and the Birth of Modern Science”. American Heritage of Invention and Technology. 24.
  78. van Helden, Al (1995). “Pope Urban VIII”. The Galileo Project. Archivedfrom the original on November 11, 2016. Retrieved November 3, 2016.
  79. MacTutor Archive, Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz
  80. Freudenthal, Gideon; McLaughlin, Peter (May 20, 2009). The Social and Economic Roots of the Scientific Revolution: Texts by Boris Hessen and Henryk Grossmann. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN9781402096044.
  81. Thomas G. Bergin (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Renaissance(Oxford and New York: New Market Books, 1987).
  82. see Hall (1954), iii; Mason (1956), 223.
  83. Cassels, Alan. Ideology and International Relations in the Modern World. p. 2.
  84. Ross, Sydney (1962). “Scientist: The story of a word”(PDF). Annals of Science. 18(2): 65–85. doi:1080/00033796200202722. Retrieved March 8, 2011.To be exact, the person who coined the term scientist was referred to in Whewell 1834 only as “some ingenious gentleman.” Ross added a comment that this “some ingenious gentleman” was Whewell himself, without giving the reason for the identification. Ross 1962, p. 72.
  85. von Bertalanffy, Ludwig (1972). “The History and Status of General Systems Theory”. The Academy of Management Journal. 15(4): 407–26. doi:2307/255139. JSTOR 255139.
  86. 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”. Human Genomics. 5(6): 577–622. doi:1186/1479-7364-5-6-577. PMC 3525251. PMID 22155605.
  87. Rashid, S. Tamir; Alexander, Graeme J.M. (March 2013). “Induced pluripotent stem cells: from Nobel Prizes to clinical applications”. Journal of Hepatology. 58(3): 625–629. doi:1016/j.jhep.2012.10.026. ISSN 1600-0641. PMID 23131523.
  88. 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”. The Astrophysical Journal. 848(2): L12. arXiv:05833. Bibcode:2017ApJ…848L..12A. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9.
  89. Cho, Adrian (2017). “Merging neutron stars generate gravitational waves and a celestial light show”. Science. doi:1126/science.aar2149.
  90. “Scientific Method: Relationships Among Scientific Paradigms”. Seed Magazine. March 7, 2007. Archived from the originalon November 1, 2016. Retrieved November 4,2016.
  91. Bunge, Mario Augusto (1998). Philosophy of Science: From Problem to Theory. Transaction Publishers. p. 24. ISBN978-0-7658-0413-6.
  92. Popper, Karl R. (2002a) [1959]. “A survey of some fundamental problems”. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York, New York: Routledge Classics. pp. 3–26. ISBN978-0-415-27844-7. OCLC 59377149.
  93. Gauch Jr., Hugh G. (2003). “Science in perspective”. Scientific Method in Practice. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. pp. 21–73. ISBN978-0-52-101708-4.
  94. Oglivie, Brian W. (2008). “Introduction”. The Science of Describing: Natural History in Renaissance Europe(Paperback ed.). Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. pp. 1–24. ISBN978-0-226-62088-6.
  95. “Natural History”. Princeton University WordNet. Archivedfrom the original on March 3, 2012. Retrieved October 21, 2012.
  96. Tomalin, Marcus (2006). Linguistics and the Formal Sciences. doi:2277/0521854814.
  97. Löwe, Benedikt (2002). “The Formal Sciences: Their Scope, Their Foundations, and Their Unity”. Synthese. 133: 5–11. doi:1023/a:1020887832028.
  98. Bill, Thompson (2007), “2.4 Formal Science and Applied Mathematics”, The Nature of Statistical Evidence, Lecture Notes in Statistics, 189(1st ed.), Springer, p. 15
  99. Mujumdar, Anshu Gupta; Singh, Tejinder (2016). “Cognitive science and the connection between physics and mathematics”. In Anthony Aguirre; Brendan Foster (eds.). Trick or Truth?: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics. The Frontiers Collection (1st ed.). Switzerland: SpringerNature. pp. 201–218. ISBN978-3-319-27494-2.
  100. Richard Dawkins (May 10, 2006). “To Live at All Is Miracle Enough”. RichardDawkins.net. Archived from the originalon January 19, 2012. Retrieved February 5, 2012.
  101. Stanovich, Keith E. (2007). How to Think Straight About Psychology. Boston: Pearson Education. pp. 106–147. ISBN978-0-205-68590-5.
  102. “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!” (Author’s punctuation)}} —di Francia, Giuliano Toraldo (1976). “The method of physics”. The Investigation of the Physical World. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–52. ISBN978-0-521-29925-1.
  103. Wilson, Edward (1999). Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. New York: Vintage. ISBN978-0-679-76867-8.
  104. Fara, Patricia (2009). “Decisions”. Science: A Four Thousand Year History. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. p. 408. ISBN978-0-19-922689-4.
  105. Nola, Robert; Irzik, Gürol (2005k). “naive inductivism as a methodology in science”. Philosophy, science, education and culture. Science & technology education library. 28. Springer. pp. 207–230. ISBN978-1-4020-3769-6.
  106. Nola, Robert; Irzik, Gürol (2005j). “The aims of science and critical inquiry”. Philosophy, science, education and culture. Science & technology education library. 28. Springer. pp. 207–230. ISBN978-1-4020-3769-6.
  107. van Gelder, Tim (1999). “”Heads I win, tails you lose”: A Foray Into the Psychology of Philosophy”(PDF). University of Melbourne. Archived from the original (PDF) on April 9, 2008. Retrieved March 28, 2008.
  108. Pease, Craig (September 6, 2006). “Chapter 23. Deliberate bias: Conflict creates bad science”. Science for Business, Law and Journalism. Vermont Law School. Archived from the originalon June 19, 2010.
  109. Shatz, David (2004). Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN978-0-7425-1434-8. OCLC 54989960.
  110. Krimsky, Sheldon (2003). Science in the Private Interest: Has the Lure of Profits Corrupted the Virtue of Biomedical Research. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN978-0-7425-1479-9. OCLC 185926306.
  111. Bulger, Ruth Ellen; Heitman, Elizabeth; Reiser, Stanley Joel (2002). The Ethical Dimensions of the Biological and Health Sciences (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-0-521-00886-0. OCLC 47791316.
  112. Backer, Patricia Ryaby (October 29, 2004). “What is the scientific method?”. San Jose State University. Archived from the originalon April 8, 2008. Retrieved March 28, 2008.
  113. Ziman, John (1978c). “Common observation”. Reliable knowledge: An exploration of the grounds for belief in science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 42–76. ISBN978-0-521-22087-3.
  114. Ziman, John (1978c). “The stuff of reality”. Reliable knowledge: An exploration of the grounds for belief in science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 95–123. ISBN978-0-521-22087-3.
  115. Popper, Karl R. (2002e) [1959]. “The problem of the empirical basis”. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York, New York: Routledge Classics. pp. 3–26. ISBN978-0-415-27844-7. OCLC 59377149.
  116. “SIAM: Graduate Education for Computational Science and Engineering”. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. Archivedfrom the original on December 28, 2016. Retrieved November 4, 2016.
  117. Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2003c). “Induction and confirmation”. Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (1st ed.). Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago. pp. 39–56. ISBN978-0-226-30062-7.
  118. Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2003o). “Empiricism, naturalism, and scientific realism?”. Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (1st ed.). Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago. pp. 219–232. ISBN978-0-226-30062-7.
  119. Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2003b). “Logic plus empiricism”. Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (1st ed.). Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago. pp. 19–38. ISBN978-0-226-30062-7.
  120. Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2003d). “Popper: Conjecture and refutation”. Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (1st ed.). Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago. pp. 57–74. ISBN978-0-226-30062-7.
  121. Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2003g). “Lakatos, Laudan, Feyerabend, and frameworks”. Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (1st ed.). Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago. pp. 102–121. ISBN978-0-226-30062-7.
  122. Popper, Karl (1972). Objective Knowledge.
  123. “Shut up and multiply”. LessWrong Wiki. September 13, 2015. Archivedfrom the original on October 19, 2016. Retrieved November 4, 2016.
  124. Newton-Smith, W.H. (1994). The Rationality of Science. London: Routledge. p. 30. ISBN978-0-7100-0913-5.
  125. Bird, Alexander (2013). Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). “Thomas Kuhn”. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved October 26, 2015.
  126. S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd. ed., Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Pr., 1970, p. 206. ISBN0-226-45804-0
  127. Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2003j). “Naturalistic philosophy in theory and practice”. Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science (1st ed.). Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago. pp. 149–162. ISBN978-0-226-30062-7.
  128. Brugger, E. Christian (2004). “Casebeer, William D. Natural Ethical Facts: Evolution, Connectionism, and Moral Cognition”. The Review of Metaphysics. 58(2).
  129. Winther, Rasmus Grønfeldt (2015). “The Structure of Scientific Theories”. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved November 4, 2016.
  130. Popper, Karl Raimund (1996). In Search of a Better World: Lectures and Essays From Thirty Years. New York, New York: Routledge. ISBN978-0-415-13548-1.
  131. Dawkins, Richard; Coyne, Jerry (September 2, 2005). “One side can be wrong”. The Guardian. London. Archivedfrom the original on December 26, 2013.
  132. “Barry Stroud on Scepticism”. philosophy bites. December 16, 2007. Archivedfrom the original on January 23, 2012. Retrieved February 5, 2012.
  133. Peirce (1877), “The Fixation of Belief”, Popular Science Monthly, v. 12, pp. 1–15, see §IV on  6–7ArchivedApril 15, 2016, at the Wayback Machine. Reprinted Collected Papers v. 5, paragraphs 358–87 (see 374–76), Writings v. 3, pp. 242–57 (see 247–48), Essential Peirce v. 1, pp. 109–23 (see 114–15), and elsewhere.
  134. Peirce (1905), “Issues of Pragmaticism”, The Monist, v. XV, n. 4, pp. 481–99, see “Character V” on  491. Reprinted in Collected Papersv. 5, paragraphs 438–63 (see 451), Essential Peirce v. 2, pp. 346–59 (see 353), and elsewhere.
  135. Peirce (1868), “Some Consequences of Four Incapacities”, Journal of Speculative Philosophy 2, n. 3, pp. 140–57, see p. 141Archived April 15, 2016, at the Wayback Machine. Reprinted in Collected Papers, v. 5, paragraphs 264–317, Writings v. 2, pp. 211–42, Essential Peirce v. 1, pp. 28–55, and elsewhere.
  136. Ziman, J.M.(1980). “The proliferation of scientific literature: a natural process”. Science. 208 (4442): 369–71. Bibcode:..208..369Z. doi:10.1126/science.7367863. PMID 7367863.
  137. Subramanyam, Krishna; Subramanyam, Bhadriraju (1981). Scientific and Technical Information Resources. CRC Press. ISBN978-0-8247-8297-9. OCLC 232950234.
  138. “MEDLINE Fact Sheet”. Washington DC: United States National Library of Medicine. Archivedfrom the original on October 16, 2011. Retrieved October 15, 2011.
  139. Petrucci, Mario. “Creative Writing – Science”. Archived from the originalon January 6, 2009. Retrieved April 27,2008.
  140. Schooler, J. W. (2014). “Metascience could rescue the ‘replication crisis’”. Nature. 515(7525): 9. Bibcode:515….9S. doi:10.1038/515009a. PMID 25373639.
  141. Smith, Noah. “Why ‘Statistical Significance’ Is Often Insignificant”. Bloomberg. Retrieved November 7, 2017.
  142. Pashler, Harold; Wagenmakers, Eric Jan (2012). “Editors’ Introduction to the Special Section on Replicability in Psychological Science: A Crisis of Confidence?”. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 7(6): 528–530. doi:1177/1745691612465253. PMID 26168108.
  143. Ioannidis, John P. A.; Fanelli, Daniele; Dunne, Debbie Drake; Goodman, Steven N. (October 2, 2015). “Meta-research: Evaluation and Improvement of Research Methods and Practices”. PLOS Biology. 13(10): –1002264. doi:1371/journal.pbio.1002264. ISSN 1545-7885. PMC 4592065. PMID 26431313.
  144. Feynman, Richard (1974). “Cargo Cult Science”. Center for Theoretical Neuroscience. Columbia University. Archived from the originalon March 4, 2005. Retrieved November 4,2016.
  145. Novella, Steven, et al. The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe: How to Know What’s Really Real in a World Increasingly Full of Fake. Grand Central Publishing, 2018. pp. 162.
  146. “Coping with fraud”(PDF). The COPE Report 1999: 11–18. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 28, 2007. Retrieved July 21, 2011. It is 10 years, to the month, since Stephen Lock … Reproduced with kind permission of the Editor, The Lancet.
  147. “Eusocial climbers”(PDF). E.O. Wilson Foundation. Retrieved September 3, 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.
  148. “Our definition of a scientist”. Science Council. Retrieved September 7, 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.
  149. Cyranoski, David; Gilbert, Natasha; Ledford, Heidi; Nayar, Anjali; Yahia, Mohammed (2011). “Education: The PhD factory”. Nature. 472(7343): 276–79. Bibcode:472..276C. doi:10.1038/472276a. PMID 21512548.
  150. Kwok, Roberta (2017). “Flexible working: Science in the gig economy”. Nature. 550: 419–21. doi:1038/nj7677-549a.
  151. Woolston, Chris (2007). Editorial (ed.). “Many junior scientists need to take a hard look at their job prospects”. Nature. 550: 549–552. doi:1038/nj7677-549a.
  152. Lee, Adrian; Dennis, Carina; Campbell, Phillip (2007). “Graduate survey: A love–hurt relationship”. Nature. 550(7677): 549–52. doi:1038/nj7677-549a.
  153. Stockton, Nick (October 7, 2014), “How did the Nobel Prize become the biggest award on Earth?”, Wired, retrieved September 3, 2018
  154. “Nobel Prize Facts”. Nobel Foundation. Archivedfrom the original on July 8, 2017. Retrieved October 11, 2015.
  155. 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. ISBN9780253209689.
  156. Rosser, Sue V. (March 12, 2012). Breaking into the Lab: Engineering Progress for Women in Science. New York: New York University Press. p. 7. ISBN978-0-8147-7645-2.
  157. Goulden, Mark; Frasch, Karie; Mason, Mary Ann (2009). Staying Competitive: Patching America’s Leaky Pipeline in the Sciences. University of Berkeley Law.
  158. Change of Heart: Career intentions and the chemistry PhD. Royal Society of Chemistry. 2008.
  159. Parrott, Jim (August 9, 2007). “Chronicle for Societies Founded from 1323 to 1599”. Scholarly Societies Project. Archivedfrom the original on January 6, 2014. Retrieved September 11, 2007.
  160. “The Environmental Studies Association of Canada – What is a Learned Society?”. Archived from the originalon May 29, 2013. Retrieved May 10, 2013.
  161. “Learned societies & academies”. Archived from the originalon June 3, 2014. Retrieved May 10, 2013.
  162. “Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei”(in Italian). 2006. Archived from the original on February 28, 2010. Retrieved September 11, 2007.
  163. 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)”. Archived from the originalon January 18, 2012. Retrieved October 13, 2011.
  164. Bush, Vannevar (July 1945). “Science the Endless Frontier”. National Science Foundation. Archivedfrom the original on November 7, 2016. Retrieved November 4, 2016.
  165. “Main Science and Technology Indicators – 2008-1”(PDF). OECD. Archived from the original(PDF) on February 15, 2010.
  166. Ladwig, Peter (2012). “Perceived familiarity or factual knowledge? Comparing operationalizations of scientific understanding”. Science and Public Policy. 39(6): 761–74. doi:1093/scipol/scs048.
  167. Eveland, William (2004). “How Web Site Organization Influences Free Recall, Factual Knowledge, and Knowledge Structure Density”. Human Communication Research. 30(2): 208–33. doi:1111/j.1468-2958.2004.tb00731.x.
  168. Dickson, David (October 11, 2004). “Science journalism must keep a critical edge”. Science and Development Network. Archived from the originalon June 21, 2010.
  169. Mooney, Chris (November–December 2004). “Blinded By Science, How ‘Balanced’ Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality”. Columbia Journalism Review. Vol. 43 no. 4. Archivedfrom the original on January 17, 2010. Retrieved February 20, 2008.
  170. McIlwaine, S.; Nguyen, D.A. (2005). “Are Journalism Students Equipped to Write About Science?”. Australian Studies in Journalism. 14: 41–60. Archivedfrom the original on August 1, 2008. Retrieved February 20, 2008.
  171. Goldberg, Jeanne (2017). “The Politicization of Scientific Issues: Looking through Galileo’s Lens or through the Imaginary Looking Glass”. Skeptical Inquirer. 41(5): 34–39. Archived from the original on August 16, 2018. Retrieved August 16, 2018.
  172. Bolsen, Toby; Druckman, James N. (2015). “Counteracting the Politicization of Science”. Journal of Communication (65): 746.
  173. Freudenberg, William F. “Scientific Certainty Argumentation Methods (SCAMs): Science and the Politics of Doubt”. Sociological Inquiry. 78: 2–38. doi:1111/j.1475-682X.2008.00219(inactive December 4, 2019).
  174. van der Linden, Sander; Leiserowitz, Anthony; Rosenthal, Seth; Maibach, Edward (2017). “Inoculating the Public against Misinformation about Climate Change”(PDF). Global Challenges. 1 (2): 1. doi:1002/gch2.201600008. PMC 6607159. PMID 31565263.

Источник

Все категории

  • Фотография и видеосъемка
  • Знания
  • Другое
  • Гороскопы, магия, гадания
  • Общество и политика
  • Образование
  • Путешествия и туризм
  • Искусство и культура
  • Города и страны
  • Строительство и ремонт
  • Работа и карьера
  • Спорт
  • Стиль и красота
  • Юридическая консультация
  • Компьютеры и интернет
  • Товары и услуги
  • Темы для взрослых
  • Семья и дом
  • Животные и растения
  • Еда и кулинария
  • Здоровье и медицина
  • Авто и мото
  • Бизнес и финансы
  • Философия, непознанное
  • Досуг и развлечения
  • Знакомства, любовь, отношения
  • Наука и техника


12

Translate the words of the same root; define what part of speech they belong to:
science – scientist – scientific;
develop – developer – development;
nucleus – nuclei – nuclear;
apply – applied – application;
accurate – accuracy;
invent – inventor – invention;
power – powerful – powerless;
produce – product – production – productive.

1 ответ:



0



0

наука (сущ) — ученый (сущ — человек) — научный (прил — например, научное объяснение)

развивать, создавать (гл) — разработчик (сущ — человек) — развитие, создание, становление (сущ)

ядро (сущ — ед.ч) — ядра (сущ — мн.ч) — ядерный (прил — например, ядерное оружие)

применять, обращаться (гл) — прилагаемый, применимый (прич) — заявление, приложение (сущ)

точный (прил) — точность (сущ)

изобретать (гл) — изобретатель (сущ — человек) — изобретение (сущ)

сила (сущ) — сильный (прил) — бессильный (прил)

производить (гл) — продукт (сущ) — производство, продукция (сущ) — эффективный, продуктивный (прил)

P.S. nuclei ( или nucleuses) — это множественная форма nucleus.

Читайте также

2 This is her daughter,She is a dancer.

3 It’s a horse.Its hair is grey.

4 They are a brother and a sister.Their mum is a teacher.

5 This is his son.He’s a businessman.

6 She’s a vet.Her name’s Pamela.

7 Their parents are doctors.They’re kind.

3

He’s got a family.His family isn’t big.He’s got a mum.His mum is very beautiful.He’s got a grandad.He’s a farmer.Mike likes his farm.

1.c)
2.a)
3.e)
4.b)
5.d)

Ответ:

The Steppe: a golden Treasure — Цель- золотая сокровищница

1. Have you ever worked in a shop?
2. What’s the best film have you ever watched?
3. Have your parents ever lived in a foreign country?
4. Have you ever stayed in a luxury hotel?
5. What’s the most interesting food have you ever tasted?

Bee, red, zebra,face,cook

Источник

Понравилась статья? Поделить с друзьями:
  • The spoken word of love
  • The root of the word education
  • The spoken word of god
  • The root of the word activity
  • The root of that word is greek