What is etymology of the word science

Who invented word science?

William Whewell

When was science first used?

As far as the older times are concerned, clearly no scientist could prove that the Earth was formed exactly 4 600 000 000 years ago, or that the first human settlements were established 12 000 years ago….A brief history of Science.

Years BP Events in Earth History
3 700 first alphabet developed (Palestine)
3 500 first use of iron

Is science a Greek word?

The modern English word ‘science’ is related to the Latin word ‘scientia’, the ancient Greek word for knowledge was ‘episteme’. Probably neither word is exactly carrying the meaning of our modern word ‘science’, and we use the word ‘science as a shorthand of referring to attempts to explain and understand nature.

What is the etymology of the word science?

Science comes from the Latin “scio” meaning “I know.” Scio derives from the Latin infinitive “scire” meaning “to know,” and is akin to “scindere” meaning to cut or to split. Scindere is traceable to the Greek “schizein” meaning to split, and that’s traceable to the Sanskrit “chinatti” meaning ‘he splits’.

What is science answer in one word?

a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. any of the branches of natural or physical science.

What is science simple definition Urdu?

Science Meaning in English to Urdu is علم سائنس, as written in Urdu and Ilm Science, as written in Roman Urdu. There are many synonyms of Science which include Art, Branch, Discipline, Education, Erudition, Information, Learning, Lore, Scholarship, Skill, System, Technique, Wisdom, Body Of Knowledge, etc.

What is science 11th?

What are the subjects in Science in class 11? The science stream has two sub-branches, divided based on the third subject you study: Medical – Physics, Chemistry, Biology, English, Optional Subject. Non-Medical – Physics, Chemistry, Maths, English, Optional Subject.

Is science class 11 hard?

Science is the most popular stream chosen by students in class 11. But, Science is also considered a very hard stream to cope with often putting the students under a lot of pressure. But nothing is too tough with the right planning, thought and hard work to you have the recipe for success.

Which group is best in 11th?

The best group in class 11 is bio maths group but it is the toughest of all. Then comes csc group and then commerce group. Commerce group is the easiest of all the group and it is also a good group and it has many opportunities nowadays. But all depends on your interest.

Is Commerce easy or science?

From Accounting to Managing, Commerce is practically everywhere. When it comes to the course structure, Commerce is easier than Science. The science subjects require you to study continuously and extensively. Commerce requires you to be clear with the basics, and you are good to go.

Is science good for future?

Science is a very diverse field with many possible job opportunities and career paths. Whether you have an interest in working with computers, the weather, or medicine (just to name a few possibilities), it is highly likely that there will be a job available in the field of your choice in the future.

Which stream is best for future?

1. Science – Science is the most popular and favourite career option for the majority of the parents and students. Science stream offers many lucrative career options such as engineering, medical, IT and you can even opt for research roles.

Which job is best after 10th?

Government Jobs After 10th In Staff Selection Commission

Sr. No. Exam Post
1 SSC MTS Watchman
Cleaning Staff
Junior Gestetner Operator
2 SSC Selection Post Office Attendant/Field Attendant

Which government job is best?

Top Government Jobs in India

  • State Public Service Commission.
  • Defence services – Army, Navy, Coast guard.
  • Government Lecturer or University Professors.
  • Railway engineers.
  • Bank Jobs.
  • Government Doctors.
  • Scientists.
  • Insurance Sector Jobs.

What government job makes the most money?

The Highest-Paying Federal Government Jobs

  • Nurse anesthetist.
  • Administrative law judge.
  • Patent administrator.
  • Technical systems program manager.
  • General mathematician/statistician.
  • Chief engineer.
  • Astronomy and space scientist. FrameStockFootages / Shutterstock.
  • Program manager. Kaspars Grinvalds / Shutterstock.

Which government job is easy?

#1 RRB Group D This is the first among the Top 10 easiest exams in India and is conducted to recruit people for Group D vacancies in Indian Railways like Cabin Man, Welder, Gatekeeper. This exam is conducted in two stages namely, written test which is held on online mode and physical efficiency test.

Who gets the highest salary in Indian government?

Salary of the government officials in India

Position in the Indian order of precedence Post Salary per month (Basic Pay)
1 President ₹500,000 (US$7,000)
2 Vice President ₹400,000 (US$5,600)
3 Prime Minister ₹280,000 (US$3,900)(salary received as a Member of Parliament in Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha)
4 Governors ₹350,000 (US$4,900)

What is the salary of PM Modi?

2 lakh

What is the salary of Narendra Modi?

The Prime Minister of India will be drawing a monthly salary of Rs. 1.6 lakh. His basic salary will be Rs 50,000, with a sumptuary allowance of Rs. 3,000, a daily allowance of Rs.

Who is the president’s salary?

a $400,000

Источник

What is the etymology 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.

Is science Greek or Latin?

The term science comes from the Latin word scientia, meaning “knowledge”.

What is the root word of scientist?

History and Etymology for scientist scient- (in Latin scientia «knowledge, science» or in scientific) + -ist entry 1. Note: The word scientist was apparently first introduced by the English polymath William Whewell (1794-1866).

What is the queen of all sciences?

In fact, philosophy is called the «queen of the sciences,» because it has all other disciplines as its subject matter. For this reason, there can be a philosophy of art, of education, of history, of science, and so forth.

Who is the king of mathematics?

Leonhard Euler, a Swiss mathematician that introduced various modern terminology and mathematical notation, is called the King of mathematics. He was born in 1707 in Basel, Switzerland, and at the age of thirteen, he joined the University of Basel, where he became a Master of Philosophy.

Who is the Princess of mathematics?

Sophie Germain

What was Gauss’s IQ?

Carl Gauss His estimated IQ scores range from 250 to 300 by different measures. His writings were particularly influential in the study of electromagnetism. He refused to publish anything until it was absolutely perfect.

Who is the greatest mathematician that ever lived?

Archimedes

Who is considered the smartest person ever?

William James Sidis

What is an IQ of 167?

An IQ score over 140 indicates that you’re a genius or nearly a genius, while 120 — 140 is classed as «very superior intelligence». 110 — 119 is «superior intelligence», while 90 — 109 is «normal or average intelligence».

What are the IQ ranges and classifications?

Wechsler Intelligence Scales

Corresponding IQ Range Classifications More value-neutral terms
110–119 High average High average
90–109 Average Average
80–89 Low average Low average
70–79 Borderline Well below average
Источник

Science is a systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[1][2]

Timeline of the Universe from Big Bang to present

The earliest written records of identifiable predecessors to modern science come from Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia from around 3000 to 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.[3]: 12 [4] 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, but was preserved in the Muslim world during the Islamic Golden Age[5] and later by the efforts of Byzantine Greek scholars who brought Greek manuscripts from the dying Byzantine Empire to Western Europe in the Renaissance.

The recovery and assimilation of Greek works and Islamic inquiries into Western Europe from the 10th to 13th century revived «natural philosophy»,[6][7] which was later transformed by the Scientific Revolution that began in the 16th century[8] as new ideas and discoveries departed from previous Greek conceptions and traditions.[9][10] 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,[11][12] along with the changing of «natural philosophy» to «natural science».[13]

Modern science is typically divided into three major branches:[14] natural sciences (e.g., biology, chemistry, and physics), which study the physical world; the social sciences (e.g., economics, psychology, and sociology), which study individuals and societies;[15][16] and the formal sciences (e.g., logic, mathematics, and theoretical computer science), which study formal systems, governed by axioms and rules.[17][18] There is disagreement whether the formal sciences are science disciplines,[19][20][21] because they do not rely on empirical evidence.[22][20] Applied sciences are disciplines that use scientific knowledge for practical purposes, such as in engineering and medicine.[23][24][25]

New knowledge in science is advanced by research from scientists who are motivated by curiosity about the world and a desire to solve problems.[26][27] Contemporary scientific research is highly collaborative and is usually done by teams in academic and research institutions,[28] government agencies, and companies.[29][30] The practical impact of their work has led to the emergence of science policies that seek to influence the scientific enterprise by prioritizing the ethical and moral development of commercial products, armaments, health care, public infrastructure, and environmental protection.

Etymology

Look up science in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

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». It is a noun derivative of the Latin sciens meaning «knowing», and undisputedly derived from the Latin sciō, the present participle scīre, meaning «to know».[31]

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».[32]

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».[33] In 1834, William Whewell introduced the term scientist in a review of Mary Somerville’s book On the Connexion of the Physical Sciences,[34] crediting it to «some ingenious gentleman» (possibly himself).[35]

History

Early history

Science has no single origin. Rather, systematic methods emerged gradually over the course of tens of thousands of years,[36][37] 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,[38] as did religious rituals.[39] Some scholars use the term «protoscience» to label activities in the past that resemble modern science in some but not all features;[40][41][42] however, this label has also been criticized as denigrating[43] or too suggestive of presentism, thinking about those activities only in relation to modern categories.[44]

Direct evidence for scientific processes becomes clearer with the advent of writing systems in early civilizations like Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, creating the earliest written records in the history of science in around 3000 to 1200 BCE.[3]: 12–15 [4] 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.[45][3]: 12  From the 3rd millennium BCE, the ancient Egyptians developed a decimal numbering system,[46] solved practical problems using geometry,[47] and developed a calendar.[48] Their healing therapies involved drug treatments and the supernatural, such as prayers, incantations, and rituals.[3]: 9 

The ancient Mesopotamians used knowledge about the properties of various natural chemicals for manufacturing pottery, faience, glass, soap, metals, lime plaster, and waterproofing.[49] They studied animal physiology, anatomy, behavior, and astrology for divinatory purposes.[50] The Mesopotamians had an intense interest in medicine[49] and the earliest medical prescriptions appeared in Sumerian during the Third Dynasty of Ur.[51] They seem to study scientific subjects which have practical or religious applications and have little interest of satisfying curiosity.[49]

Classical antiquity

In classical antiquity, there is no real ancient analog 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.[52] 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,[53] 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».[54]

The early Greek philosophers of the Milesian school, which 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 supernatural.[55] The Pythagoreans developed a complex number philosophy[56]: 467–68  and contributed significantly to the development of mathematical science.[56]: 465  The theory of atoms was developed by the Greek philosopher Leucippus and his student Democritus.[57][58] 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.[59] The Greek doctor Hippocrates established the tradition of systematic medical science[60][61] and is known as «The Father of Medicine».[62]

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 scrutinizes them for consistency.[63] Socrates criticized the older type of study of physics as too purely speculative and lacking in self-criticism.[64]

Aristotle in the 4th century BCE created a systematic program of teleological philosophy.[65] 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 center and all the planets orbiting it.[66] Aristarchus’s model was widely rejected because it was believed to violate the laws of physics,[66] while Ptolemy’s Almagest, which contains a geocentric description of the Solar System, was accepted through the early Renaissance instead.[67][68] The inventor and mathematician Archimedes of Syracuse made major contributions to the beginnings of calculus.[69] Pliny the Elder was a Roman writer and polymath, who wrote the seminal encyclopedia Natural History.[70][71][72]

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.[73]

Middle Ages

Due to the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, the 5th century saw an intellectual decline and knowledge of Greek conceptions of the world deteriorated in Western Europe.[3]: 194  During the period, Latin encyclopedists such as Isidore of Seville preserved the majority of general ancient knowledge.[74] In contrast, because the Byzantine Empire resisted attacks from invaders, they were able to preserve and improve prior learning.[3]: 159  John Philoponus, a Byzantine scholar in the 500s, started to question Aristotle’s teaching of physics, introducing the theory of impetus.[3]: 307, 311, 363, 402  His criticism served as an inspiration to medieval scholars and Galileo Galilei, who extensively cited his works ten centuries later.[3]: 307–308 [75]

During late antiquity and the early Middle Ages, natural phenomena were mainly examined via the Aristotelian approach. The approach includes Aristotle’s four causes: material, formal, moving, and final cause.[76] Many Greek classical texts were preserved by the Byzantine empire and Arabic translations were done by groups such as the Nestorians and the Monophysites. Under the Caliphate, these Arabic translations were later improved and developed by Arabic scientists.[77] By the 6th and 7th centuries, the neighboring Sassanid Empire established the medical Academy of Gondeshapur, which is considered by Greek, Syriac, and Persian physicians as the most important medical center of the ancient world.[78]

The House of Wisdom was established in Abbasid-era Baghdad, Iraq,[79] where the Islamic study of Aristotelianism flourished[80] until the Mongol invasions in the 13th century. Ibn al-Haytham, better known as Alhazen, began experimenting as a means to gain knowledge[81][82] and disproved Ptolemy’s theory of vision[83]: Book I, [6.54]. p. 372  Avicenna’s compilation of the Canon of Medicine, a medical encyclopedia, is considered to be one of the most important publications in medicine and was used until the 18th century.[84]

By the eleventh century, most of Europe had become Christian,[3]: 204  and in 1088, the University of Bologna emerged as the first university in Europe.[85] As such, demand for Latin translation of ancient and scientific texts grew,[3]: 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.[86] In the 13rd 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.[87]

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.[88]

In the sixteenth 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 Earth. This was based on a theorem that the orbital periods of the planets are longer as their orbs are farther from the center of motion, which he found not to agree with Ptolemy’s model.[89]

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.[88][90] 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.[91] 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.[92]

The printing press was widely used to publish scholarly arguments, including some that disagreed widely with contemporary ideas of nature.[93] Francis Bacon and René Descartes published philosophical arguments in favor of a new type of non-Aristotelian science. Bacon emphasized 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.[94] Descartes emphasized individual thought and argued that mathematics rather than geometry should be used to study nature.[95]

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.[96] 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.[97]

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 endowment of human life with new inventions and riches«, and he discouraged scientists from pursuing intangible philosophical or spiritual ideas, which he believed contributed little to human happiness beyond «the fume of subtle, sublime or pleasing [speculation]».[98]

Science during the Enlightenment was dominated by scientific societies[99] and academies, which had largely replaced universities as centers of scientific research and development. Societies and academies were the backbones of the maturation of the scientific profession. Another important development was the popularization of science among an increasingly literate population.[100] Enlightenment philosophers chose a short history of scientific predecessors – Galileo, Boyle, and Newton principally – as the guides to every physical and social field of the day.[101]

The 18th century saw significant advancements in the practice of medicine[102] and physics;[103] the development of biological taxonomy by Carl Linnaeus;[104] a new understanding of magnetism and electricity;[105] and the maturation of chemistry as a discipline.[106] 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.[107] Modern sociology largely originated from this movement.[108] In 1776, Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations, which is often considered the first work on modern economics.[109]

19th century

During the nineteenth century, many distinguishing characteristics of contemporary modern science began to take shape. These included the transformation of the life and physical sciences, frequent use of precision instruments, emergence of terms such as «biologist», «physicist», «scientist», increased professionalization of those studying nature, scientists gained cultural authority over many dimensions of society, industrialization of numerous countries, thriving of popular science writings and emergence of science journals.[110] 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.[111]

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.[112] Separately, Gregor Mendel presented his paper, «Experiments on Plant Hybridization» in 1865,[113] which outlined the principles of biological inheritance, serving as the basis for modern genetics.[114]

Early in the 19th century, John Dalton suggested the modern atomic theory, based on Democritus’s original idea of indivisible particles called atoms.[115] The laws of conservation of energy, conservation of momentum and conservation of mass suggested a highly stable 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.[116] This realization 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.[a]

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,[119] Marie Curie then became the first person to win two Nobel prizes.[120] In the next year came the discovery of the first subatomic particle, the electron.[121]

20th century

First global view of the ozone hole in 1983, using a space telescope

In the first half of the century, the development of antibiotics and artificial fertilizers improved human living standards globally.[122][123] 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.[124]

During this period, scientific experimentation became increasingly larger in scale and funding.[125] 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[126] and nuclear arms race.[127] Substantial international collaborations were also made, despite armed conflicts.[128]

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.[129] The discovery of the cosmic microwave background in 1964[130] led to a rejection of the steady-state model of the universe in favor of the Big Bang theory of Georges Lemaître.[131]

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.[132] Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity and the development of quantum mechanics complement classical mechanics to describe physics in extreme length, time and gravity.[133][134] 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. The need for mass systematization of long, intertwined causal chains and large amounts of data led to the rise of the fields of systems theory and computer-assisted scientific modeling.[135]

21st century

The Human Genome Project was completed in 2003 by identifying and mapping all of the genes of the human genome.[136] The first induced pluripotent human stem cells were made in 2006, allowing adult cells to be transformed into stem cells and turn to any cell type found in the body.[137] With the affirmation of the Higgs boson discovery in 2013, the last particle predicted by the Standard Model of particle physics was found.[138] In 2015, gravitational waves, predicted by general relativity a century before, were first observed.[139][140] In 2019, the international collaboration Event Horizon Telescope presented the first direct image of a black hole’s accretion disk.[141]

Branches

Modern science is commonly divided into three major branches: natural science, social science, and formal science.[14] Each of these branches comprises various specialized yet overlapping scientific disciplines that often possess their own nomenclature and expertise.[142] Both natural and social sciences are empirical sciences,[143] 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.[144]

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 specialized 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 which were more mathematical and more experimental in a methodical way. Still, philosophical perspectives, conjectures, and presuppositions, often overlooked, remain necessary in natural science.[145] 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.[146] Today, «natural history» suggests observational descriptions aimed at popular audiences.[147]

Social science is the study of human behavior and functioning of societies.[15][16] It has many disciplines that include, but are not limited to anthropology, economics, history, human geography, political science, psychology, and sociology.[15] In the social sciences, there are many competing theoretical perspectives, many of which are extended through competing research programs such as the functionalists, conflict theorists, and interactionists in sociology.[15] 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 scientists may rely on statistical approaches to better understand social relationships and processes.[15]

Formal science

Formal science is an area of study that generates knowledge using formal systems.[148][17][18] A formal system is an abstract structure used for inferring theorems from axioms according to a set of rules.[149] It includes mathematics,[150][151] 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.[22][152][144] The formal sciences are therefore a priori disciplines and because of this, there is disagreement on whether they constitute a science.[19][153] Nevertheless, the formal sciences play an important role in the empirical sciences. Calculus, for example, was initially invented to understand motion in physics.[154] Natural and social sciences that rely heavily on mathematical applications include mathematical physics,[155] chemistry,[156] biology,[157] finance,[158] and economics.[159]

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.[160][25] Engineering is the use of scientific principles to invent, design and build machines, structures and technologies.[161] Science may contribute to the development of new technologies.[162] Medicine is the practice of caring for patients by maintaining and restoring health through the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of injury or disease.[163][164] 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.[165][166]

Computational science applies computing power to simulate real-world situations, 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.[167][168]

Interdisciplinary science

Interdisciplinary science involves the combination of two or more disciplines into one,[169] such as bioinformatics, a combination of biology and computer science[170] or cognitive sciences. The concept has existed since the ancient Greek and it became popular again in the 20th century.[171]

Scientific research

Scientific research can be labeled 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.[172]

Scientific method

Scientific research involves using the scientific method, which seeks to objectively explain the events of nature in a reproducible way.[173] 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 modeling, observing, and collecting measurements.[174] Statistics is used to summarize and analyze data, which allows scientists to assess the reliability of experimental results.[175]

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.[176] 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.[173]: 4–5 [177] Experimentation is especially important in science to help establish causal relationships to avoid the correlation fallacy, though in some sciences such as astronomy or geology, a predicted observation might be more appropriate.[178]

When a hypothesis proves unsatisfactory, it is modified or discarded.[179] If the hypothesis survived testing, it may become adopted into the framework of a scientific theory, a logically reasoned, self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of certain natural events. A theory typically describes the behavior 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.[180]

While performing experiments to test hypotheses, scientists may have a preference for one outcome over another.[181][182] Eliminating the bias can be achieved by transparency, careful experimental design, and a thorough peer review process of the experimental results and conclusions.[183][184] 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.[185] Taken in its entirety, the scientific method allows for highly creative problem solving while minimizing the effects of subjective and confirmation bias.[186] Intersubjective verifiability, the ability to reach a consensus and reproduce results, is fundamental to the creation of all scientific knowledge.[187]

Scientific literature

Cover of the first issue of Nature, November 4, 1869

Scientific research is published in a range of literature.[188] 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.[189]

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.[190]

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 are proven to be unrepeatable.[191] The crisis has long-standing roots; the phrase was coined in the early 2010s[192] 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.[193]

An area of study or speculation that masquerades as science in an attempt to claim a legitimacy that it would not otherwise be able to achieve is sometimes referred to as pseudoscience, fringe science, or junk science.[194][195] Physicist Richard Feynman coined the term «cargo cult science» for cases in which researchers believe and at a glance looks like they are doing science, but lack the honesty allowing their results to be rigorously evaluated.[196] 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.[197]

There can also be an element of political or ideological bias on all sides of scientific debates. Sometimes, research may be characterized 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.[198]

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 generalize observations.[199] 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[200] and the hypothetico-deductive method.[199]

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.[201] 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: 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.[202]
Popper proposed replacing verifiability with falsifiability as the landmark of scientific theories, replacing induction with falsification as the empirical method.[202] Popper further claimed that there is actually only one universal method, not specific to science: the negative method of criticism, trial and error,[203] covering all products of the human mind, including science, mathematics, philosophy, and art.[204]

Another approach, instrumentalism, emphasizes the utility of 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 something that should be ignored.[205] 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.[206]

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 characterized 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.[207] 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.[208]

Finally, another approach often cited in debates of scientific skepticism 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.[209] Methodological naturalism maintains that science requires strict adherence to empirical study and independent verification.[210]

The scientific community is a network of interacting scientists who conducts 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.[211]

Scientists

Scientists are individuals who conduct scientific research to advance knowledge in an area of interest.[212][213] In modern times, many professional scientists are trained in an academic setting and upon completion, attain an academic degree, with the highest degree being a doctorate such as a Doctor of Philosophy or PhD.[214] Many scientists pursue careers in various sectors of the economy such as academia, industry, government, and nonprofit organizations.[215][216][217]

Scientists exhibit a strong curiosity about reality and a desire to apply scientific knowledge for the benefit of health, nations, the environment, or industries. Other motivations include recognition by their peers and prestige. In modern times, many scientists have advanced degrees[218] in an area of science and pursue careers in various sectors of the economy such as academia, industry, government, and nonprofit environments.[219][220]

Science has historically been a male-dominated field, with notable exceptions. Women in science faced considerable discrimination in science, much as they did in other areas of male-dominated societies. For example, women were frequently being passed over for job opportunities and denied credit for their work.[221] The achievements of women in science have been attributed to the defiance of their traditional role as laborers within the domestic sphere.[222] Lifestyle choice plays a major role in female engagement in science; female graduate students’ interest in careers in research declines dramatically throughout graduate school, whereas that of their male colleagues remains unchanged.[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 non-profit organizations,[227] and many are professional associations. Their activities typically include holding regular conferences for the presentation and discussion of new research results and publishing or sponsoring academic journals in their discipline. Some societies act as professional bodies, regulating the activities of their members in the public interest or the collective interest of the membership.[citation needed]

The professionalization 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 organizations, such as the International Science Council, are devoted to international cooperation for science advancement.[234]

Awards

Science awards are usually given to individuals or organizations that have made significant contributions to a discipline. They are often given by prestigious institutions, thus it is considered a great honor for a scientist receiving them. Since the early Renaissance, scientists are often 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

Scientific research is often funded 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 and development in scientific and technical fields is carried out by industry, and 20% and 10% respectively by universities and government. The government funding proportion in certain fields is higher, and it dominates research in social science and humanities. In the lesser-developed nations, 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 Organization 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-oriented corporations focus more heavily on near-term commercialization possibilities rather 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 organizations that fund research.[190]

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. Scientific literacy is chiefly concerned with an understanding of the scientific method, units and methods of measurement, empiricism, a basic understanding of statistics (correlations, qualitative versus quantitative observations, aggregate statistics), as well as 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.[246]

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.[247] 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.[248][249]

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.[250] Science fiction genre, primarily speculative fiction, can transmit the ideas and methods of science to the general public.[251] 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.[252]

Anti-science attitudes

While the scientific method is broadly accepted in the scientific community, some fractions of society reject certain scientific positions or are skeptical 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)[253] 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).[254] Psychologists have pointed to four factors driving rejection of scientific results:[255]

  • Scientific authorities are sometimes seen as inexpert, untrustworthy, or biased.
  • Some marginalized social groups hold anti-science attitudes, in part because these groups have often been exploited in unethical experiments.[256]
  • 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 seem to be often caused by fear of rejection in social groups. For instance, climate change is perceived as a threat by only 22% of Americans on the right side of the political spectrum, but by 85% on the left.[257] That is, if someone on the left would not consider climate change as a threat, this person may face contempt and be rejected in that social group. In fact, people may rather deny a scientifically accepted fact than lose or jeopardize their social status.[258]

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 politicization of science such as anti-intellectualism, perceived threats to religious beliefs, and fear for business interests.[260] Politicization of science is usually accomplished when scientific information is presented in a way that emphasizes the uncertainty associated with the scientific evidence.[261] Tactics such as shifting conversation, failing to acknowledge facts, and capitalizing on doubt of scientific consensus have been used to gain more attention for views that have been undermined by scientific evidence.[262] Examples of issues that have involved the politicization of science include the global warming controversy, health effects of pesticides, and health effects of tobacco.[262][263]

See also

  • List of scientific occupations
  • List of years in science

Notes

  1. ^ Whether the universe is closed or open, or the shape of the universe, is an open question. The 2nd law of thermodynamics,[116]: 9 [117] and the 3rd law of thermodynamics[118] 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 (Reprint ed.). New York: Vintage. pp. 49–71. ISBN 978-0-679-76867-8.
  2. ^ a b 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. ^ a b c d e f g h i j 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 9780226482057.
  4. ^ a b Grant, Edward (2007). «Ancient Egypt to Plato». A History of Natural Philosophy: From the Ancient World to the Nineteenth Century (First ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–26. ISBN 978-0-521-68957-1.
  5. ^ Lindberg, David C. (2007). «Islamic science». The beginnings of Western science: the European Scientific tradition in philosophical, religious, and institutional context (Second ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 163–92. ISBN 978-0-226-48205-7.
  6. ^ 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: University of Chicago Press. pp. 193–224. ISBN 978-0-226-48205-7.
  7. ^ 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: University of Chicago Press. pp. 225–53. ISBN 978-0-226-48205-7.
  8. ^ Principe, Lawrence M. (2011). «Introduction». Scientific Revolution: A Very Short Introduction (First ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 1–3. ISBN 978-0-19-956741-6.
  9. ^ 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: University of Chicago Press. pp. 357–368. ISBN 978-0-226-48205-7.
  10. ^ 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: Cambridge University Press. pp. 274–322. ISBN 978-0-521-68957-1.
  11. ^ Cahan, David, ed. (2003). From Natural Philosophy to the Sciences: Writing the History of Nineteenth-Century Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-08928-7.
  12. ^ 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. ISBN 978-0-226-31783-0.
  13. ^ Harrison, Peter (2015). The Territories of Science and Religion. Chicago: 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.
  14. ^ a b Cohen, Eliel (2021). «The boundary lens: theorising academic actitity». The University and its Boundaries: Thriving or Surviving in the 21st Century 1st Edition. New York: Routledge. pp. 14–41. ISBN 978-0-367-56298-4. Archived from the original on May 5, 2021. Retrieved May 4, 2021.
  15. ^ a b c d e 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, NY: Routledge. pp. 1–22.
  16. ^ a b Nisbet, Robert A.; Greenfeld, Liah (October 16, 2020). «Social Science». Encyclopedia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. Archived from the original on February 2, 2022. Retrieved May 9, 2021.
  17. ^ a b Löwe, Benedikt (2002). «The formal sciences: their scope, their foundations, and their unity». Synthese. 133 (1/2): 5–11. doi:10.1023/A:1020887832028. S2CID 9272212.
  18. ^ a b Rucker, Rudy (2019). «Robots and souls». Infinity and the Mind: The Science and Philosophy of the Infinite (Reprint ed.). Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. pp. 157–188. ISBN 978-0-691-19138-6. Archived from the original on February 26, 2021. Retrieved May 11, 2021.
  19. ^ a b Bishop, Alan (1991). «Environmental activities and mathematical culture». Mathematical Enculturation: A Cultural Perspective on Mathematics Education. Norwell, Massachusetts: Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 20–59. ISBN 978-0-7923-1270-3. Archived from the original on December 25, 2020. Retrieved March 24, 2018.
  20. ^ a b Nickles, Thomas (2013). «The Problem of Demarcation». Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. p. 104.
  21. ^ Bunge, Mario (1998). «The Scientific Approach». Philosophy of Science. Vol. 1, From Problem to Theory (revised ed.). New York: Routledge. pp. 3–50. ISBN 978-0-7658-0413-6.
  22. ^ a b 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 Academic Publishers. pp. 271–308. ISBN 978-1-4438-1946-6.
  23. ^ Fischer, M.R.; Fabry, G (2014). «Thinking and acting scientifically: Indispensable basis of medical education». GMS Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ausbildung. 31 (2): Doc24. doi:10.3205/zma000916. PMC 4027809. PMID 24872859.
  24. ^ Sinclair, Marius (1993). «On the Differences between the Engineering and Scientific Methods». The International Journal of Engineering Education. Archived from the original on November 15, 2017. Retrieved September 7, 2018.
  25. ^ a b Bunge, M (1966). «Technology as applied science». In Rapp, F. (ed.). Contributions to a Philosophy of Technology. Theory and Decision Library (An International Series in the Philosophy and Methodology of the Social and Behavioral Sciences). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. pp. 19–39. doi:10.1007/978-94-010-2182-1_2. ISBN 978-94-010-2184-5.
  26. ^ MacRitchie, Finlay (2011). «Introduction». Scientific Research as a Career. New York: Routledge. pp. 1–6. ISBN 978-1-4398-6965-9. Archived from the original on May 5, 2021. Retrieved May 5, 2021.
  27. ^ Marder, Michael P. (2011). «Curiosity and research». Research Methods for Science. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–17. ISBN 978-0-521-14584-8. Archived from the original on May 5, 2021. Retrieved May 5, 2021.
  28. ^ 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. New York: Routledge. pp. 3–17. ISBN 978-1-138-57016-0. Archived from the original on May 5, 2021. Retrieved May 5, 2021.
  29. ^ Lindberg, David C. (2007). «Islamic science». The beginnings of Western science: the European Scientific tradition in philosophical, religious, and institutional context (Second ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 163–192. ISBN 978-0-226-48205-7.
  30. ^ Szycher, Michael (2016). «Establishing your dream team». Commercialization Secrets for Scientists and Engineers. New York: Routledge. pp. 159–176. ISBN 978-1-138-40741-1. Archived from the original on August 18, 2021. Retrieved May 5, 2021.
  31. ^ «science». Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Merriam-Webster, Inc. Archived from the original on September 1, 2019. Retrieved October 16, 2011.
  32. ^ Vaan, Michiel de (2008). «sciō». Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages. Indo-European Etymological Dictionary. p. 545. ISBN 978-90-04-16797-1.
  33. ^ Cahan, David (2003). From natural philosophy to the sciences : writing the history of nineteenth-century science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 3–15. ISBN 0-226-08927-4. OCLC 51330464. Archived from the original on May 31, 2022. Retrieved May 31, 2022.
  34. ^ Ross, Sydney (1962). «Scientist: The story of a word». Annals of Science. 18 (2): 65–85. doi:10.1080/00033796200202722.
  35. ^ «scientist». Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.)
  36. ^ Carruthers, Peter (May 2, 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, ISBN 978-0-521-81229-0
  37. ^ 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. ISSN 1827-4765. PMID 28489015.
  38. ^ Graeber, David; Wengrow, David (2021). The Dawn of Everything. p. 248.
  39. ^ 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. JSTOR 124782.
  40. ^ 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. ISBN 978-94-010-8181-8.
  41. ^ 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. PMID 19750597. S2CID 43643053.
  42. ^ Fleck, Robert (March 2021). «Fundamental Themes in Physics from the History of Art». Physics in Perspective. 23 (1): 25–48. Bibcode:2021PhP….23…25F. doi:10.1007/s00016-020-00269-7. ISSN 1422-6944. S2CID 253597172.
  43. ^ Scott, Colin (2011). «Science for the West, Myth for the Rest?». In Harding, Sandra (ed.). The Postcolonial Science and Technology Studies Reader. Durham: Duke University Press. p. 175. doi:10.2307/j.ctv11g96cc.16. ISBN 978-0-8223-4936-5. OCLC 700406626.
  44. ^ Dear, Peter (2012). «Historiography of Not-So-Recent Science». History of Science. 50 (2): 197–211. doi:10.1177/007327531205000203. S2CID 141599452.
  45. ^ 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. ISBN 978-0-226-31783-0.
  46. ^ 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.
  47. ^ Erlich, Ḥaggai; Gershoni, Israel (2000). The Nile: Histories, Cultures, Myths. Lynne Rienner Publishers. pp. 80–81. ISBN 978-1-55587-672-2. Archived from the original on May 31, 2022. Retrieved January 9, 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.»
  48. ^ «Telling Time in Ancient Egypt». The Met’s Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. Archived from the original on March 3, 2022. Retrieved May 27, 2022.
  49. ^ a b c McIntosh, Jane R. (2005). Ancient Mesopotamia: New Perspectives. Santa Barbara, California, Denver, Colorado, and Oxford, England: ABC-CLIO. pp. 273–76. ISBN 978-1-57607-966-9. Archived from the original on February 5, 2021. Retrieved October 20, 2020.
  50. ^ Aaboe, Asger (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. S2CID 122508567.
  51. ^ Biggs, R D. (2005). «Medicine, Surgery, and Public Health in Ancient Mesopotamia». Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies. 19 (1): 7–18.
  52. ^ 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. ISBN 978-0-226-31783-0.
  53. ^ 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?». Palgrave Communications. Springer Nature. 6 (14). doi:10.1057/s41599-020-0390-y. 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 UP, 1965.
  54. ^ Strauss, Leo; Gildin, Hilail (1989). «Progress or Return? The Contemporary Crisis in Western Education». An Introduction to Political Philosophy: Ten Essays by Leo Strauss. Wayne State University Press (published August 1, 1989). p. 209. ISBN 978-0814319024. Archived from the original on May 31, 2022. Retrieved May 30, 2022.
  55. ^ 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. ISBN 978-0-7546-0533-1. Archived from the original on March 31, 2021. Retrieved October 20, 2020.
  56. ^ a b 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.
  57. ^ Pullman, Bernard (1998). The Atom in the History of Human Thought. pp. 31–33. Bibcode:1998ahht.book…..P. ISBN 978-0-19-515040-7. Archived from the original on February 5, 2021. Retrieved October 20, 2020.
  58. ^ 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. Archived from the original on February 5, 2021. Retrieved October 20, 2020.
  59. ^ Lucretius (fl. 1st c. BCE) De rerum natura
  60. ^ Margotta, Roberto (1968). The Story of Medicine. New York City, New York: Golden Press. Archived from the original on February 5, 2021. Retrieved November 18, 2020.
  61. ^ 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. ISBN 978-0-415-96930-7. Archived from the original on February 6, 2021. Retrieved October 20, 2020.
  62. ^ Leff, Samuel; Leff, Vera (1956). From Witchcraft to World Health. London, England: Macmillan. Archived from the original on February 5, 2021. Retrieved August 23, 2020.
  63. ^ «Plato, Apology». p. 17. Archived from the original on January 29, 2018. Retrieved November 1, 2017.
  64. ^ «Plato, Apology». p. 27. Archived from the original on January 29, 2018. Retrieved November 1, 2017.
  65. ^ Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics (H. Rackham ed.). 1139b. Archived from the original on March 17, 2012. Retrieved September 22, 2010.
  66. ^ a b McClellan III, James E.; Dorn, Harold (2015). Science and Technology in World History: An Introduction. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 99–100. ISBN 978-1-4214-1776-9. Archived from the original on February 6, 2021. Retrieved October 20, 2020.
  67. ^ Graßhoff, Gerd (1990). The History of Ptolemy’s Star Catalogue. Studies in the History of Mathematics and Physical Sciences. Vol. 14. New York, NY: Springer New York. doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-4468-4. ISBN 978-1-4612-8788-9. Archived from the original on May 30, 2022. Retrieved May 27, 2022.
  68. ^ Hoffmann, Susanne M. (2017). Hipparchs Himmelsglobus (in German). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. Bibcode:2017hihi.book…..H. doi:10.1007/978-3-658-18683-8. ISBN 978-3-658-18682-1. Archived from the original on May 30, 2022. Retrieved May 27, 2022.
  69. ^ 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. Archived from the original on February 5, 2021. Retrieved October 20, 2020.
  70. ^ Lawson, Russell M. (2004). Science in the Ancient World: An Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. pp. 190–91. ISBN 978-1-85109-539-1. Archived from the original on February 5, 2021. Retrieved October 20, 2020.
  71. ^ Murphy, Trevor Morgan (2004). Pliny the Elder’s Natural History: The Empire in the Encyclopedia. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-19-926288-5. Archived from the original on February 6, 2021. Retrieved October 20, 2020.
  72. ^ Doody, Aude (2010). Pliny’s Encyclopedia: The Reception of the Natural History. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-1-139-48453-4. Archived from the original on March 31, 2021. Retrieved October 20, 2020.
  73. ^ 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. OCLC 62164511.
  74. ^ 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. ISBN 978-0-521-56762-6. Archived from the original on August 21, 2019. Retrieved November 9, 2018.
  75. ^ Wildberg, Christian (May 1, 2018). Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the original on August 22, 2019. Retrieved May 1, 2018 – via Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  76. ^ Falcon, Andrea (2019). «Aristotle on Causality». In Zalta, Edward (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the original on October 9, 2020. Retrieved October 3, 2020.
  77. ^ 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. ISBN 978-0-521-68957-1.
  78. ^ Fisher, W.B. (William Bayne) (1968–1991). The Cambridge history of Iran. Cambridge: University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-20093-6. OCLC 745412.
  79. ^ «Bayt al-Hikmah». Encyclopædia Britannica. Archived from the original on November 4, 2016. Retrieved November 3, 2016.
  80. ^ Hossein Nasr, Seyyed; Leaman, Oliver, eds. (2001). History of Islamic Philosophy. Routledge. pp. 165–167. ISBN 9780415259347.
  81. ^ Toomer, G.J. (1964). «Reviewed work: Ibn al-Haythams Weg zur Physik, Matthias Schramm». Isis. 55 (4): 463–65. doi:10.1086/349914. 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.»
  82. ^ Cohen, H. Floris (2010). «Greek nature knowledge transplanted: The Islamic world». How modern science came into the world. Four civilizations, one 17th-century breakthrough (Second ed.). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. pp. 99–156. ISBN 978-90-8964-239-4.
  83. ^ a b 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. OCLC 47168716.
  84. ^ Selin, Helaine, ed. (2006). Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures. pp. 155–156. Bibcode:2008ehst.book…..S. ISBN 978-1-4020-4559-2.
  85. ^ Russell, Josiah C. (1959). «Gratian, Irnerius, and the Early Schools of Bologna». The Mississippi Quarterly. 12 (4): 168–188. JSTOR 26473232. Archived from the original on May 27, 2022. Retrieved May 27, 2022 – via JSTOR. Perhaps even as early as 1088 (the date officially set for the founding of the University)
  86. ^ «St. Albertus Magnus | German theologian, scientist, and philosopher». Archived from the original on October 28, 2017. Retrieved October 27, 2017.
  87. ^ Numbers, Ronald (2009). Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion. Harvard University Press. p. 45. ISBN 978-0-674-03327-6. Archived from the original on January 20, 2021. Retrieved March 27, 2018.
  88. ^ a b Smith, A. Mark (1981). «Getting the Big Picture in Perspectivist Optics». Isis. 72 (4): 568–89. doi:10.1086/352843. JSTOR 231249. PMID 7040292. S2CID 27806323.
  89. ^ Goldstein, Bernard R (2016). «Copernicus and the Origin of his Heliocentric System» (PDF). Journal for the History of Astronomy. 33 (3): 219–35. doi:10.1177/002182860203300301. S2CID 118351058. Archived (PDF) from the original on April 12, 2020. Retrieved April 12, 2020.
  90. ^ 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 (Second ed.). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. pp. 99–156. ISBN 978-90-8964-239-4.
  91. ^ Koestler, Arthur (1990) [1959]. The Sleepwalkers: A History of Man’s Changing Vision of the Universe. London: Penguin Books. p. 1. ISBN 0-14-019246-8.
  92. ^ van Helden, Al (1995). «Pope Urban VIII». The Galileo Project. Archived from the original on November 11, 2016. Retrieved November 3, 2016.
  93. ^ Gingerich, Owen (1975). «Copernicus and the Impact of Printing». Vistas in Astronomy. 17 (1): 201–218. Bibcode:1975VA…..17..201G. doi:10.1016/0083-6656(75)90061-6.
  94. ^ Zagorin, Perez (1998). Francis Bacon. Princeton: Princeton University Press. p. 84. ISBN 978-0-691-00966-7.
  95. ^ Davis, Philip J.; Hersh, Reuben (1986). Descartes’ Dream: The World According to Mathematics. Cambridge, MA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
  96. ^ Gribbin, John (2002). Science: A History 1543–2001. 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
  97. ^ «Gottfried Leibniz – Biography». Maths History. Archived from the original on July 11, 2017. Retrieved March 2, 2021.
  98. ^ 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. ISBN 978-1-4020-9604-4. Archived from the original on January 19, 2020. Retrieved July 25, 2018.
  99. ^ Goddard Bergin, Thomas; Speake, Jennifer, eds. (1987). Encyclopedia of the Renaissance. Facts on File (published December 1, 1987). ISBN 978-0816013159.
  100. ^ van Horn Melton, James (2001). The Rise of the Public in Enlightenment Europe. Cambridge University Press. pp. 82–83. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511819421. ISBN 9780511819421. Archived from the original on January 20, 2022. Retrieved May 27, 2022.
  101. ^ Cassels, Alan (1996). Ideology and International Relations in the Modern World. Routledge. p. 2. ISBN 9781134813308. Archived from the original on May 31, 2022. Retrieved May 30, 2022.
  102. ^ Madigan M, Martinko J, eds. (2006). Brock Biology of Microorganisms (11th ed.). Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0131443297.
  103. ^ Guicciardini, N. (1999). Reading the Principia: The Debate on Newton’s Methods for Natural Philosophy from 1687 to 1736. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521640664.
  104. ^ Calisher, CH (2007). «Taxonomy: what’s in a name? Doesn’t a rose by any other name smell as sweet?». Croatian Medical Journal. 48 (2): 268–270. PMC 2080517. PMID 17436393.
  105. ^ Darrigol, Olivier (2000). Electrodynamics from Ampère to Einstein. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198505949.
  106. ^ 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.
  107. ^ Magnusson, Magnus (November 10, 2003). «Review of James Buchan, Capital of the Mind: how Edinburgh Changed the World«. New Statesman. Archived from the original on June 6, 2011. Retrieved April 27, 2014.
  108. ^ 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. JSTOR 588406.
  109. ^ Fry, Michael (1992). Adam Smith’s Legacy: His Place in the Development of Modern Economics. 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.
  110. ^ 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. ISBN 978-0-226-31783-0.
  111. ^ Leahey, Thomas Hardy (2018). «The psychology of consciousness». A History of Psychology: From Antiquity to Modernity (8th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. pp. 219–253. ISBN 978-1-138-65242-2.
  112. ^ Padian, Kevin (2008). «Darwin’s enduring legacy». Nature. 451 (7179): 632–634. Bibcode:2008Natur.451..632P. doi:10.1038/451632a. PMID 18256649.
  113. ^ Henig, Robin Marantz (2000). The monk in the garden: the lost and found genius of Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics. pp. 134–138.
  114. ^ Miko, Ilona (2008). «Gregor Mendel’s principles of inheritance form the cornerstone of modern genetics. So just what are they?». Nature Education. 1 (1): 134. Archived from the original on July 19, 2019. Retrieved May 9, 2021.
  115. ^ 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. JSTOR 40972005.
  116. ^ a b Reichl, Linda (1980). A Modern Course in Statistical Physics. Edward Arnold. ISBN 0-7131-2789-9.
  117. ^ Rao, Y. V. C. (1997). Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics. Universities Press. p. 158. ISBN 978-81-7371-048-3.
  118. ^ 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. doi:10.1016/j.aop.2016.07.031. Archived from the original on January 15, 2019. Retrieved May 29, 2022.
  119. ^ 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.
  120. ^ a b Estreicher, Tadeusz (1938). «Curie, Maria ze Skłodowskich». Polski słownik biograficzny, vol. 4 (in Polish). p. 113.
  121. ^ Thomson, J.J. (1897). «Cathode Rays». Philosophical Magazine. 44 (269): 293–316. doi:10.1080/14786449708621070. Archived from the original on January 25, 2022. Retrieved February 24, 2022.
  122. ^ Goyotte, Dolores (2017). «The Surgical Legacy of World War II. Part II: The age of antibiotics» (PDF). The Surgical Technologist. 109: 257–264. Archived (PDF) from the original on May 5, 2021. Retrieved January 8, 2021.
  123. ^ Erisman, Jan Willem; MA Sutton; J Galloway; Z Klimont; W Winiwarter (October 2008). «How a century of ammonia synthesis changed the world». Nature Geoscience. 1 (10): 636–639. Bibcode:2008NatGe…1..636E. doi:10.1038/ngeo325. S2CID 94880859. Archived from the original on July 23, 2010. Retrieved October 22, 2010.
  124. ^ Emmett, Robert; Zelko, Frank (2014). Emmett, Rob; Zelko, Frank (eds.). «Minding the Gap: Working Across Disciplines in Environmental Studies». Environment & Society Portal. RCC Perspectives no. 2. doi:10.5282/rcc/6313. Archived from the original on January 21, 2022.
  125. ^ Furner, Jonathan (June 1, 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. S2CID 34844169.
  126. ^ Kraft, Chris; James Schefter (2001). Flight: My Life in Mission Control. New York: Dutton. pp. 3–5. ISBN 0-525-94571-7.
  127. ^ Kahn, Herman (1962). Thinking about the Unthinkable. Horizon Press.
  128. ^ Shrum, Wesley (2007). Structures of scientific collaboration. Joel Genuth, Ivan Chompalov. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-28358-8. OCLC 166143348. Archived from the original on July 30, 2022. Retrieved May 31, 2022.
  129. ^ Rosser, Sue V. (March 12, 2012). Breaking into the Lab: Engineering Progress for Women in Science. New York: New York University Press. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-8147-7645-2.
  130. ^ Penzias, A. A. (2006). «The origin of elements» (PDF). Science. Nobel Foundation. 205 (4406): 549–54. doi:10.1126/science.205.4406.549. PMID 17729659. Archived (PDF) from the original on January 17, 2011. Retrieved October 4, 2006.
  131. ^ Weinberg, S. (1972). Gravitation and Cosmology. John Whitney & Sons. pp. 495–464. ISBN 978-0-471-92567-5.
  132. ^ Futuyma, Douglas J.; Kirkpatrick, Mark (April 2017). «Chapter 1: Evolutionary Biology». Evolution (4th ed.). pp. 3–26. ISBN 9781605356051. Archived from the original on May 31, 2022. Retrieved May 30, 2022.
  133. ^ 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.
  134. ^ ter Haar, D. (1967). The Old Quantum Theory. Pergamon Press. pp. 206. ISBN 978-0-08-012101-7.
  135. ^ von Bertalanffy, Ludwig (1972). «The History and Status of General Systems Theory». The Academy of Management Journal. 15 (4): 407–26. doi:10.2307/255139. JSTOR 255139.
  136. ^ 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:10.1186/1479-7364-5-6-577. PMC 3525251. PMID 22155605.
  137. ^ 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:10.1016/j.jhep.2012.10.026. ISSN 1600-0641. PMID 23131523.
  138. ^ O’Luanaigh, C. (March 14, 2013). «New results indicate that new particle is a Higgs boson» (Press release). CERN. Archived from the original on October 20, 2015. Retrieved October 9, 2013.
  139. ^ 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:1710.05833. Bibcode:2017ApJ…848L..12A. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9. S2CID 217162243.
  140. ^ Cho, Adrian (2017). «Merging neutron stars generate gravitational waves and a celestial light show». Science. doi:10.1126/science.aar2149.
  141. ^ «Media Advisory: First Results from the Event Horizon Telescope to be Presented on April 10th | Event Horizon Telescope». April 20, 2019. Archived from the original on April 20, 2019. Retrieved September 21, 2021.
  142. ^ «Scientific Method: Relationships Among Scientific Paradigms». Seed Magazine. March 7, 2007. Archived from the original on November 1, 2016. Retrieved November 4, 2016.
  143. ^ Bunge, Mario Augusto (1998). Philosophy of Science: From Problem to Theory. Transaction Publishers. p. 24. ISBN 978-0-7658-0413-6.
  144. ^ a b Popper, Karl R. (2002a) [1959]. «A survey of some fundamental problems». The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Routledge Classics. pp. 3–26. ISBN 978-0-415-27844-7. OCLC 59377149.
  145. ^ Gauch, Hugh G. Jr. (2003). «Science in perspective». Scientific Method in Practice. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. pp. 21–73. ISBN 978-0-521-01708-4. Archived from the original on December 25, 2020. Retrieved September 3, 2018.
  146. ^ Oglivie, Brian W. (2008). «Introduction». The Science of Describing: Natural History in Renaissance Europe (Paperback ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 1–24. ISBN 978-0-226-62088-6.
  147. ^ «Natural History». Princeton University WordNet. Archived from the original on March 3, 2012. Retrieved October 21, 2012.
  148. ^ «Formal Sciences: Washington and Lee University». Washington and Lee University. Archived from the original on May 14, 2021. Retrieved May 14, 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.
  149. ^ «formal system». Encyclopædia Britannica. Archived from the original on April 29, 2008. Retrieved May 30, 2022.
  150. ^ Tomalin, Marcus (2006). Linguistics and the Formal Sciences.
  151. ^ Löwe, Benedikt (2002). «The Formal Sciences: Their Scope, Their Foundations, and Their Unity». Synthese. 133: 5–11. doi:10.1023/a:1020887832028. S2CID 9272212.
  152. ^ Bill, Thompson (2007). «2.4 Formal Science and Applied Mathematics». The Nature of Statistical Evidence. Lecture Notes in Statistics. Vol. 189. Springer. p. 15.
  153. ^ 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.
  154. ^ 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 (1st ed.). Switzerland: SpringerNature. pp. 201–218. ISBN 978-3-319-27494-2.
  155. ^ «About the Journal». Journal of Mathematical Physics. Archived from the original on October 3, 2006. Retrieved October 3, 2006.
  156. ^ Restrepo, G. (2016). «Mathematical chemistry, a new discipline». In Scerri, E.; Fisher, G. (eds.). Essays in the philosophy of chemistry. New York, UK: Oxford University Press. pp. 332–351. ISBN 978-0-19-049459-9. Archived from the original on June 10, 2021.
  157. ^ «What is mathematical biology». Centre for Mathematical Biology, University of Bath. Archived from the original on September 23, 2018. Retrieved June 7, 2018.
  158. ^ Johnson, Tim (September 1, 2009). «What is financial mathematics?». +Plus Magazine. Archived from the original on April 8, 2022. Retrieved March 1, 2021.
  159. ^ 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. Archived June 25, 2006, at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved April 1, 2008.
  160. ^ 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:10.1152/advan.00001.2004. PMID 15319191. S2CID 21610124. Archived from the original on January 22, 2020. Retrieved December 4, 2019.
  161. ^ «Cambridge Dictionary». Cambridge University Press. Archived from the original on August 19, 2019. Retrieved March 25, 2021.
  162. ^ Brooks, Harvey (September 1, 1994). «The relationship between science and technology» (PDF). Research Policy. Special Issue in Honor of Nathan Rosenberg. 23 (5): 477–486. doi:10.1016/0048-7333(94)01001-3. ISSN 0048-7333.
  163. ^ Firth, John (2020). «Science in medicine: when, how, and what». Oxford textbook of medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-874669-0.
  164. ^ Saunders, J. (June 2000). «The practice of clinical medicine as an art and as a science». Med Humanit. 26 (1): 18–22. doi:10.1136/mh.26.1.18. PMID 12484313. S2CID 73306806.
  165. ^ Davis, Bernard D. (March 2000). «Limited scope of science». Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews. 64 (1): 1–12. doi:10.1128/MMBR.64.1.1-12.2000. PMC 98983. PMID 10704471 & «Technology» in Bernard Davis (March 2000). «The scientist’s world». Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews. 64 (1): 1–12. doi:10.1128/MMBR.64.1.1-12.2000. PMC 98983. PMID 10704471.
  166. ^ James McCormick (2001). «Scientific medicine—fact of fiction? The contribution of science to medicine». Occasional Paper (Royal College of General Practitioners) (80): 3–6. PMC 2560978. PMID 19790950.
  167. ^ Breznau, Nate (2022). «Integrating Computer Prediction Methods in Social Science: A Comment on Hofman et al. (2021)». Social Science Computer Review. 40 (3): 844–853. doi:10.1177/08944393211049776. S2CID 248334446.
  168. ^ 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». Nature. 595 (7866): 181–188. Bibcode:2021Natur.595..181H. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03659-0. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID 34194044. S2CID 235697917. Archived from the original on September 25, 2021. Retrieved September 25, 2021.
  169. ^ Nissani, M. (1995). «Fruits, Salads, and Smoothies: A Working definition of Interdisciplinarity». The Journal of Educational Thought. 29 (2): 121–128. JSTOR 23767672.
  170. ^ Moody G (2004). Digital Code of Life: How Bioinformatics is Revolutionizing Science, Medicine, and Business. p. vii. ISBN 978-0-471-32788-2.
  171. ^ Ausburg, Tanya (2006). Becoming Interdisciplinary: An Introduction to Interdisciplinary Studies (2nd ed.). New York: Kendall/Hunt Publishing.
  172. ^ Dawkins, Richard (May 10, 2006). «To Live at All Is Miracle Enough». RichardDawkins.net. Archived from the original on January 19, 2012. Retrieved February 5, 2012.
  173. ^ a b di Francia, Giuliano Toraldo (1976). «The method of physics». The Investigation of the Physical World. Cambridge, United Kingdom: 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!
  174. ^ Popper, Karl R. (2002e) [1959]. «The problem of the empirical basis». The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Routledge Classics. pp. 3–26. ISBN 978-0-415-27844-7. OCLC 59377149.
  175. ^ Diggle, Peter J.; Chetwynd, Amanda G. (September 8, 2011). Statistics and Scientific Method: An Introduction for Students and Researchers. Oxford University Press. pp. 1, 2. ISBN 9780199543182.
  176. ^ Wilson, Edward (1999). Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. New York: Vintage. ISBN 978-0-679-76867-8.
  177. ^ Fara, Patricia (2009). «Decisions». Science: A Four Thousand Year History. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. p. 408. ISBN 978-0-19-922689-4.
  178. ^ Aldrich, John (1995). «Correlations Genuine and Spurious in Pearson and Yule». Statistical Science. 10 (4): 364–376. doi:10.1214/ss/1177009870. JSTOR 2246135.
  179. ^ Nola, Robert; Irzik, Gürol (2005k). «naive inductivism as a methodology in science». Philosophy, science, education and culture. Science & technology education library. Vol. 28. Springer. pp. 207–230. ISBN 978-1-4020-3769-6.
  180. ^ Nola, Robert; Irzik, Gürol (2005j). «The aims of science and critical inquiry». Philosophy, science, education and culture. Science & technology education library. Vol. 28. Springer. pp. 207–230. ISBN 978-1-4020-3769-6.
  181. ^ 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.
  182. ^ 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 original on June 19, 2010.
  183. ^ Shatz, David (2004). Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-0-7425-1434-8. OCLC 54989960.
  184. ^ Krimsky, Sheldon (2003). Science in the Private Interest: Has the Lure of Profits Corrupted the Virtue of Biomedical Research. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-0-7425-1479-9. OCLC 185926306.
  185. ^ 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. OCLC 47791316.
  186. ^ Backer, Patricia Ryaby (October 29, 2004). «What is the scientific method?». San Jose State University. Archived from the original on April 8, 2008. Retrieved March 28, 2008.
  187. ^ Ziman, John (1978c). «Common observation». Reliable knowledge: An exploration of the grounds for belief in science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 42–76. ISBN 978-0-521-22087-3.
  188. ^ Ziman, J.M. (1980). «The proliferation of scientific literature: a natural process». Science. 208 (4442): 369–71. Bibcode:1980Sci…208..369Z. doi:10.1126/science.7367863. PMID 7367863.
  189. ^ Subramanyam, Krishna; Subramanyam, Bhadriraju (1981). Scientific and Technical Information Resources. CRC Press. ISBN 978-0-8247-8297-9. OCLC 232950234.
  190. ^ a b Bush, Vannevar (July 1945). «Science the Endless Frontier». National Science Foundation. Archived from the original on November 7, 2016. Retrieved November 4, 2016.
  191. ^ Schooler, J. W. (2014). «Metascience could rescue the ‘replication crisis’«. Nature. 515 (7525): 9. Bibcode:2014Natur.515….9S. doi:10.1038/515009a. PMID 25373639.
  192. ^ Pashler, Harold; Wagenmakers, Eric Jan (2012). «Editors’ Introduction to the Special Section on Replicability in Psychological Science: A Crisis of Confidence?» (PDF). Perspectives on Psychological Science. 7 (6): 528–530. doi:10.1177/1745691612465253. PMID 26168108. S2CID 26361121. Archived (PDF) from the original on February 28, 2019. Retrieved April 12, 2020.
  193. ^ 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:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002264. ISSN 1545-7885. PMC 4592065. PMID 26431313.
  194. ^ Hansson, Sven Ove; Zalta, Edward N. (September 3, 2008). «Science and Pseudoscience». Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Section 2: The «science» of pseudoscience. Archived from the original on October 29, 2021. Retrieved May 28, 2022.
  195. ^ Shermer M (1997). Why people believe weird things: pseudoscience, superstition, and other confusions of our time. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company. p. 17. ISBN 978-0-7167-3090-3.
  196. ^ Feynman, Richard (1974). «Cargo Cult Science». Center for Theoretical Neuroscience. Columbia University. Archived from the original on March 4, 2005. Retrieved November 4, 2016.
  197. ^ 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 9781473696419.
  198. ^ «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.
  199. ^ a b Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2003c). «Induction and confirmation». Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago. pp. 39–56. ISBN 978-0-226-30062-7.
  200. ^ Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2003o). «Empiricism, naturalism, and scientific realism?». Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago. pp. 219–232. ISBN 978-0-226-30062-7.
  201. ^ Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2003b). «Logic plus empiricism». Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago. pp. 19–38. ISBN 978-0-226-30062-7.
  202. ^ a b Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2003d). «Popper: Conjecture and refutation». Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago. pp. 57–74. ISBN 978-0-226-30062-7.
  203. ^ Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2003g). «Lakatos, Laudan, Feyerabend, and frameworks». Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago. pp. 102–121. ISBN 978-0-226-30062-7.
  204. ^ Popper, Karl (1972). Objective Knowledge.
  205. ^ Newton-Smith, W.H. (1994). The Rationality of Science. London: Routledge. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-7100-0913-5.
  206. ^ 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.
  207. ^ Bird, Alexander (2013). Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). «Thomas Kuhn». Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived from the original on July 15, 2020. Retrieved October 26, 2015.
  208. ^ Kuhn, Thomas S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. p. 206. ISBN 978-0-226-45804-5. Archived from the original on October 19, 2021. Retrieved May 30, 2022.
  209. ^ Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2003). «Naturalistic philosophy in theory and practice». Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago. pp. 149–162. ISBN 978-0-226-30062-7.
  210. ^ Brugger, E. Christian (2004). «Casebeer, William D. Natural Ethical Facts: Evolution, Connectionism, and Moral Cognition». The Review of Metaphysics. 58 (2).
  211. ^ Kornfeld, W; Hewitt, CE (1981). «The Scientific Community Metaphor» (PDF). IEEE Trans. Sys., Man, and Cyber. SMC-11 (1): 24–33. doi:10.1109/TSMC.1981.4308575. hdl:1721.1/5693. S2CID 1322857. Archived (PDF) from the original on April 8, 2016. Retrieved May 26, 2022.
  212. ^ «Eusocial climbers» (PDF). E.O. Wilson Foundation. Archived (PDF) from the original on April 27, 2019. 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.
  213. ^ «Our definition of a scientist». Science Council. Archived from the original on August 23, 2019. 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.
  214. ^ Cyranoski, David; Gilbert, Natasha; Ledford, Heidi; Nayar, Anjali; Yahia, Mohammed (2011). «Education: The PhD factory». Nature. 472 (7343): 276–79. Bibcode:2011Natur.472..276C. doi:10.1038/472276a. PMID 21512548.
  215. ^ Kwok, Roberta (2017). «Flexible working: Science in the gig economy». Nature. 550: 419–21. doi:10.1038/nj7677-549a.
  216. ^ Woolston, Chris (2007). Editorial (ed.). «Many junior scientists need to take a hard look at their job prospects». Nature. 550: 549–552. doi:10.1038/nj7677-549a.
  217. ^ Lee, Adrian; Dennis, Carina; Campbell, Phillip (2007). «Graduate survey: A love–hurt relationship». Nature. 550 (7677): 549–52. doi:10.1038/nj7677-549a.
  218. ^ Cyranoski, David; Gilbert, Natasha; Ledford, Heidi; Nayar, Anjali; Yahia, Mohammed (2011). «Education: The PhD factory». Nature. 472 (7343): 276–279. Bibcode:2011Natur.472..276C. doi:10.1038/472276a. PMID 21512548.
  219. ^ Kwok, Roberta (2017). «Flexible working: Science in the gig economy». Nature. 550: 419–421. doi:10.1038/nj7677-549a.
  220. ^ Lee, Adrian; Dennis, Carina; Campbell, Phillip (2007). «Graduate survey: A love–hurt relationship». Nature. 550 (7677): 549–552. doi:10.1038/nj7677-549a.
  221. ^ Whaley, Leigh Ann (2003). Women’s History as Scientists. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, INC.
  222. ^ 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.
  223. ^ Change of Heart: Career intentions and the chemistry PhD. Royal Society of Chemistry. 2008.
  224. ^ Parrott, Jim (August 9, 2007). «Chronicle for Societies Founded from 1323 to 1599». Scholarly Societies Project. Archived from the original on January 6, 2014. Retrieved September 11, 2007.
  225. ^ «The Environmental Studies Association of Canada – What is a Learned Society?». Archived from the original on May 29, 2013. Retrieved May 10, 2013.
  226. ^ «Learned societies & academies». Archived from the original on June 3, 2014. Retrieved May 10, 2013.
  227. ^ «Learned Societies, the key to realising an open access future?». Impact of Social Sciences. LSE. June 24, 2019. Retrieved January 22, 2023.
  228. ^ «Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei» (in Italian). 2006. Archived from the original on February 28, 2010. Retrieved September 11, 2007.
  229. ^ «Prince of Wales opens Royal Society’s refurbished building». The Royal Society. July 7, 2004. Archived from the original on April 9, 2015. Retrieved December 7, 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)». Archived from the original on January 18, 2012. Retrieved October 13, 2011.
  231. ^ ITS. «Founding of the National Academy of Sciences». .nationalacademies.org. Archived from the original on February 3, 2013. Retrieved March 12, 2012.
  232. ^ «The founding of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society (1911)». Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. Archived from the original on March 2, 2022. Retrieved May 30, 2022.
  233. ^ «Introduction». Chinese Academy of Sciences. Archived from the original on March 31, 2022. Retrieved May 31, 2022.
  234. ^ «Two main Science Councils merge to address complex global challenges». UNESCO. July 5, 2018. Archived from the original on July 12, 2021. Retrieved October 21, 2018.
  235. ^ Stockton, Nick (October 7, 2014). «How did the Nobel Prize become the biggest award on Earth?». Wired. Archived from the original on June 19, 2019. Retrieved September 3, 2018.
  236. ^ «Main Science and Technology Indicators – 2008-1» (PDF). OECD. Archived from the original (PDF) on February 15, 2010.
  237. ^ OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2015: Innovation for growth and society. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard. OECD. 2015. p. 156. doi:10.1787/sti_scoreboard-2015-en. ISBN 9789264239784. Archived from the original on May 25, 2022. Retrieved May 28, 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. PMID 320157. S2CID 32956693.
  239. ^ «Argentina, National Scientific and Technological Research Council (CONICET)». International Science Council. Archived from the original on May 16, 2022. Retrieved May 31, 2022.
  240. ^ Innis, Michelle (May 17, 2016). «Australia to Lay Off Leading Scientist on Sea Levels». The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on May 7, 2021. Retrieved May 31, 2022.
  241. ^ «Le CNRS recherche 10.000 passionnés du blob». Le Figaro (in French). October 20, 2021. Archived from the original on April 27, 2022. Retrieved May 31, 2022.
  242. ^ Bredow, Rafaela von (December 18, 2021). «How a Prestigious Scientific Organization Came Under Suspicion of Treating Women Unequally». Der Spiegel. ISSN 2195-1349. Archived from the original on May 29, 2022. Retrieved May 31, 2022.
  243. ^ «En espera de una «revolucionaria» noticia sobre Sagitario A*, el agujero negro supermasivo en el corazón de nuestra galaxia». ELMUNDO (in Spanish). May 12, 2022. Archived from the original on May 13, 2022. Retrieved May 31, 2022.
  244. ^ Fletcher, Anthony C.; Bourne, Philip E. (September 27, 2012). «Ten Simple Rules To Commercialize Scientific Research». PLOS Computational Biology. 8 (9): e1002712. Bibcode:2012PLSCB…8E2712F. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002712. ISSN 1553-734X. PMC 3459878. PMID 23028299.
  245. ^ Marburger, John H., III (John Harmen), 1941-2011 (February 10, 2015). Science policy up close. Crease, Robert P. Cambridge, Massachusetts. ISBN 978-0-674-41709-0. OCLC 875999943.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  246. ^ Benneworth, Paul; Jongbloed, Ben W. (July 31, 2009). «Who matters to universities? A stakeholder perspective on humanities, arts and social sciences valorisation». Higher Education. 59 (5): 567–588. doi:10.1007/s10734-009-9265-2. ISSN 0018-1560.
  247. ^ Dickson, David (October 11, 2004). «Science journalism must keep a critical edge». Science and Development Network. Archived from the original on June 21, 2010.
  248. ^ Mooney, Chris (November–December 2004). «Blinded By Science, How ‘Balanced’ Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality». Columbia Journalism Review. Vol. 43, no. 4. Archived from the original on January 17, 2010. Retrieved February 20, 2008.
  249. ^ McIlwaine, S.; Nguyen, D.A. (2005). «Are Journalism Students Equipped to Write About Science?». Australian Studies in Journalism. 14: 41–60. Archived from the original on August 1, 2008. Retrieved February 20, 2008.
  250. ^ Webb, Sarah (December 2013). «Popular science: Get the word out». Nature. 504 (7478): 177–9. doi:10.1038/nj7478-177a. PMID 24312943.
  251. ^ Wilde, Fran (January 21, 2016). «How Do You Like Your Science Fiction? Ten Authors Weigh In On ‘Hard’ vs. ‘Soft’ SF». Tor.com. Archived from the original on April 4, 2019. Retrieved April 4, 2019.
  252. ^ Petrucci, Mario. «Creative Writing – Science». Archived from the original on January 6, 2009. Retrieved April 27, 2008.
  253. ^ Tyson, Alec; Funk, Cary; Kennedy, Brian; Johnson, Courtney (September 15, 2021). «Majority in U.S. Says Public Health Benefits of COVID-19 Restrictions Worth the Costs, Even as Large Shares Also See Downsides». Pew Research Center Science & Society. Retrieved August 4, 2022.
  254. ^ Kennedy, Brian. «U.S. concern about climate change is rising, but mainly among Democrats». Pew Research Center. Retrieved August 4, 2022.
  255. ^ Philipp-Muller, Aviva; Lee, Spike W. S.; Petty, Richard E. (July 26, 2022). «Why are people antiscience, and what can we do about it?». Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 119 (30): e2120755119. Bibcode:2022PNAS..11920755P. doi:10.1073/pnas.2120755119. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 9335320. PMID 35858405.
  256. ^ 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. S2CID 144645723.
  257. ^ Poushter, Jacob; Fagan, Moira; Gubbala, Sneha (August 31, 2022). «Climate Change Remains Top Global Threat Across 19-Country Survey». Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project. Retrieved September 5, 2022.
  258. ^ McRaney, David (2022). How minds change : the surprising science of belief, opinion, and persuasion. [New York, NY]. ISBN 978-0-593-19029-6. OCLC 1322437138.
  259. ^ McGreal, Chris (October 26, 2021). «Revealed: 60% of Americans say oil firms are to blame for the climate crisis». The Guardian. Archived from the original on October 26, 2021. Source: Guardian/Vice/CCN/YouGov poll. Note: ±4% margin of error.
  260. ^ 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.
  261. ^ Bolsen, Toby; Druckman, James N. (2015). «Counteracting the Politicization of Science». Journal of Communication (65): 746.
  262. ^ a b Freudenberg, William F.; Gramling, Robert; Davidson, Debra J. (2008). «Scientific Certainty Argumentation Methods (SCAMs): Science and the Politics of Doubt» (PDF). Sociological Inquiry. 78: 2–38. doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.2008.00219.x. Archived (PDF) from the original on November 26, 2020. Retrieved April 12, 2020.
  263. ^ 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:10.1002/gch2.201600008. PMC 6607159. PMID 31565263. Archived (PDF) from the original on April 4, 2020. Retrieved August 25, 2019.

External links

  •   Media related to Science at Wikimedia Commons
Источник

The meaning of science has evolved over the past two centuries. So too has the recognition that the soft sciences are just as critical to humanity as the traditional hard sciences.

In fields as different as genomics or human geography, the raisons d’être of hard and soft sciences and many of their applied allies, like engineering or accountancy, are the development of new knowledge through research. This is taken further by advancing that knowledge, and sharing it through publication and teaching. It is as complicated and yet as simple: the South African Journal of Science publishes work based on, or leading to, these foundations.

The journal is about quality knowledge-producing research, not about disciplines. After all, the National Research Foundation has just made top-rating awards to scholars in widely diverse disciplines.

Recent recipients include academics from wide-ranging disciplines: epidemiology, policy studies, medicine, history and computational and applied mathematics. This is precisely what the science in the South African Journal of Science is all about, just as it is what the Academy of Science South Africa is about.

It is the diversity of different disciplines that enshrines the strength of the contemporary university (and the journal) – a strength sometimes obscured by rankings which favour the natural sciences.

While protecting the value of the essential, it is clear that there is an equally inescapable need for greater and growing mutual respect of the different ways in which knowledge is produced, and research findings reported, so that co-operation becomes more, rather than less, possible.

To make the most of science, it is now more important than ever to celebrate the contributions that it makes, across the spectrum of disciplines, whether individually or collectively.

It is in this way that science contributes significantly to the well-being of ourselves, the environment on which we depend, and the richness of our world: genetics, agriculture, meteorology, music, literature, and so on.

How might we possibly live without the benefits that they, and their fellow disciplines, all offer? What can be said about the meaning of the word “science”?

Core meaning has remained consistent

We need a clearer understanding of the etymology of the word science. What must also be considered are the implications that those meanings have had for the ways in which science has been practised and understood, at least in the Western world.

Science is one of hundreds of thousands of words in English that has an extraordinarily long etymological history. Its popular meaning has changed, century by century, and sometimes even more rapidly than that.

Yet even among those words there are core meanings that have remained consistent. 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. By the late 14th century, science meant, in English, collective knowledge.

But it has consistently carried the meaning of being a socially embedded activity: people seeking, systematising and sharing knowledge.

Earlier ferocious debates echo down the centuries

There are fierce debates about what makes up the proper ways of defining and constituting the undertaking of research and designating real knowledge.

These debates have their origins in the earliest Western universities whose intellectual context was that of the values and belief systems of the Catholic Church – and in the impact that the secularisation of universities had in later centuries.

Disciplines as we know them today arose in the 18th and 19th centuries. Although they have changed, with new disciplines being added and some shrinking or disappearing, the debates continue about which disciplines are better than others.

Muller captures the essence of this debate as played out in the 1960s amid the furore generated by papers by politician Lord CP Snow (a Cambridge-trained chemist and novelist) and FR Leavis, a Cambridge literary scholar.

Snow presented a Rede Lecture at Cambridge, called provocatively “The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution”. It was at the secularised guardians of elite “traditional” culture that Snow aimed his provocation.

Snow characterised scientific culture as optimistic and forward looking, though regarded as shallow and philistine by the cultivated literary culture of the literary elite, who Snow considered ignorant snobs. He derided the mutual incomprehension of the two cultures: The degree of incomprehension on both sides is the kind of joke which has gone sour and lamented the sheer
loss to us all.

The fault he laid squarely at the door of the literary intellectuals, calling them “natural Luddites” who lacked the culture to grasp the second law of thermodynamics, a piece of general cultural knowledge he likened to knowing something about Shakespeare.

And then went on to say that industrialisation was the only hope for the poor and the Third World, and that the best the developed world could do was to produce as many engineers as it could and export them to where they were needed in the developing world.

Despite his oversimplifications, Snow had hit a nerve. The most extreme response came from Leavis, doyen of the literary elite.

In a lecture at Cambridge, Leavis heaped derision on Snow’s “embarrassing vulgarity of style”, his ignorance, and ineptness as a novelist. But Leavis’ attack drew an avalanche of responses, which called it “bemused drivelling” of “unexampled ferocity”.

The debates may no longer be ferocious. But their sounds echo faintly through academia – more so in some countries than in others.

This piece was first published in the September/October 2015 issue of the South African Journal of Science.

Источник

English[edit]

Etymology 1[edit]

From Middle English science, scyence, borrowed from Old French science, escience, from Latin scientia (“knowledge”), from sciens, the present participle stem of scire (“to know”).

Pronunciation[edit]

  • IPA(key): /ˈsaɪ.əns/, enPR: sīʹ-əns
  • Hyphenation: sci‧ence
  • Rhymes: -aɪəns

Noun[edit]

science (countable and uncountable, plural sciences)

  1. (countable) A particular discipline or branch of learning, especially one dealing with measurable or systematic principles rather than intuition or natural ability. [from 14th c.]

    • 2013 August 3, “Boundary problems”, in The Economist, volume 408, number 8847:

      Economics is a messy discipline: too fluid to be a science, too rigorous to be an art. Perhaps it is fitting that economists’ most-used metric, gross domestic product (GDP), is a tangle too. GDP measures the total value of output in an economic territory. Its apparent simplicity explains why it is scrutinised down to tenths of a percentage point every month.

    Of course in my opinion Social Studies is more of a science than an art.

  2. Specifically the natural sciences.

    My favorite subjects at school are science, mathematics, and history.

  3. (uncountable, archaic) Knowledge gained through study or practice; mastery of a particular discipline or area. [from 14th c.]
    • If we conceive God’s sight or science, before the creation, to be extended to all and every part of the world, seeing everything as it is, […] his science or sight from all eternity lays no necessity on anything to come to pass.
    • 1819, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Notes on Hamlet
      Shakespeare’s deep and accurate science in mental philosophy
  4. (now only theology) The fact of knowing something; knowledge or understanding of a truth. [from 14th c.]
  5. (uncountable) The collective discipline of study or learning acquired through the scientific method; the sum of knowledge gained from such methods and discipline. [from 18th c.]

    • 1899 February, Joseph Conrad, “The Heart of Darkness”, in Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine, volume CLXV, number M, New York, N.Y.: The Leonard Scott Publishing Company, […], →OCLC, part I, page 201:

      ‘I always ask leave, in the interests of science, to measure the crania of those going out there,’ he said.

    • 1929, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, The Disintegration Machine‎[1]:

      «That this use should be destructive is no doubt very deplorable, but Science knows no distinctions of the sort, but follows knowledge wherever it may lead.»

    • 1931 November 15, Winston Churchill, “Fifty Years Hence”, in Maclean’s‎[2]:

      What is it that has produced this new prodigious speed of man? Science is the cause. Her feeble groping fingers lifted here and there, often trampled underfoot, often frozen in isolation, have now become a vast organized, united, class-conscious army marching forward upon all the fronts toward objectives none may measure or define.

    • 1951 January 1, Albert Einstein, letter to Maurice Solovine, as published in Letters to Solovine (1993)
      I have found no better expression than «religious» for confidence in the rational nature of reality […] Whenever this feeling is absent, science degenerates into uninspired empiricism.

    • 2012 January 1, Philip E. Mirowski, “Harms to Health from the Pursuit of Profits”, in American Scientist, volume 100, number 1, page 87:

      In an era when political leaders promise deliverance from decline through America’s purported preeminence in scientific research, the news that science is in deep trouble in the United States has been as unwelcome as a diagnosis of leukemia following the loss of health insurance.

  6. (uncountable) Knowledge derived from scientific disciplines, scientific method, or any systematic effort.

    • 2001 September, Neil deGrasse Tyson, “Over the rainbow”, in Natural History, volume 110, number 7, page 30:

      While much good science has come from the Hubble telescope (including the most reliable measure to date for the expansion rate of the universe), you would never know from media accounts that the foundation of our cosmic knowledge continues to flow primarily from the analysis of spectra and not from looking at pretty pictures.

  7. (uncountable, collective) The scientific community.

    • 2008, Dara Ó Briain Talks Funny – Live in London, United Kingdom, published 2008, spoken by stand-up comedian (Dara Ó Briain):

      Science knows it doesn’t know everything; otherwise, it’d stop.

    • 2020 September 14, “As Trump Again Rejects Science, Biden Calls Him a ‘Climate Arsonist’”, in New York Times‎[3]:

      With wildfires raging across the West, climate change took center stage in the race for the White House on Monday as former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. called President Trump a “climate arsonist” while the president said that “I don’t think science knows” what is actually happening.

    • 2021 April 27, Amanda Hess, “Inject the Vaccine Fan Fiction Directly Into My Veins”, in The New York Times‎[4], →ISSN:

      There are plenty of earnestly respectful vaccine selfies, where the inoculated person bares a shoulder and thanks science for their shot.

    • 2021 June 3, Katherine Eban, quoting Robert Redfield, “The Lab-Leak Theory: Inside the Fight to Uncover COVID-19’s Origins”, in Vanity Fair‎[5]:

      “I expected it from politicians. I didn’t expect it from science.”

  8. (euphemistic, with definite article) Synonym of sweet science (“the sport of boxing”)
    • 1816, The art and practice of English boxing (page v)
      From a conviction, that the science is universally understood, the strong are taught humility, and the weak confidence. Many have laughed at the idea, that Boxing is of national service, but they have laughed at the expence[sic] of truth.

    • 1888, William Edwards, Art of Boxing and Science of Self-Defense:

      […] for not a blow or guard in boxing will repay you more than the cross-counter, which may well be called the sheet-anchor of the science.

Usage notes[edit]

Since the middle of the 20th century, the term science is normally used to indicate the natural sciences (e.g., chemistry), the social sciences (e.g., sociology), and the formal sciences (e.g., mathematics). In the 18th and 19th centuries, the term was broader and encompassed scholarly study of the humanities (e.g., grammar) and the arts (e.g., music).

Synonyms[edit]
  • sci
  • sci.
Hyponyms[edit]
  • agriscience
  • antiscience
  • applied science
  • archival science
  • behavioral science
  • bionanoscience
  • bioscience
  • citizen science
  • cognitive science
  • computer science
  • crank science
  • creation science
  • cyberscience
  • data science
  • dismal science
  • Earth science
  • environmental science
  • ethnoscience
  • exact science
  • forensic science
  • formal science
  • fundamental science
  • geoscience
  • geroscience
  • glycoscience
  • hard science
  • information science
  • junk science
  • library science
  • life science
  • marine science
  • nanoscience
  • natural science
  • neuroscience
  • palaeoscience
  • photoscience
  • physical science
  • planetary science
  • political science
  • popular science
  • proscience
  • protoscience
  • pseudoscience
  • pure science
  • rocket science
  • social science
  • soft science
  • soil science
  • space science
  • structural science
  • superscience
  • sweet science
  • systems science
  • technoscience
Coordinate terms[edit]
  • art
Derived terms[edit]
  • Bachelor of Science
  • blind with science
  • computer science
  • dismal science
  • double science
  • down to a science
  • gay science
  • Hollywood science
  • junk science
  • Letters and Science
  • Master of Science
  • McScience
  • multiscience
  • nonscience
  • omniscience
  • philosophy of science
  • pop-science
  • pseudoscience
  • science centre
  • science fair
  • science fiction
  • science room
  • scienceless
  • sciencelike
  • sciences
  • scientific
  • scientifically
  • scientist
  • social science
  • sweet science
  • triple science
  • unscience
[edit]
  • engineering
  • technology
Translations[edit]

collective discipline of learning acquired through the scientific method

  • Afrikaans: wetenskap (af)
  • Albanian: shkencë (sq) f
  • Amharic: ሳይንስ (sayəns)
  • Arabic: عِلْم‎ (ar) m (ʕilm)
  • Armenian: գիտություն (hy) (gitutʿyun)
  • Aromanian: shtiintsã f, shciintsã f
  • Assamese: বিজ্ঞান (biggan)
  • Asturian: ciencia (ast) f
  • Avar: гӏелму (ʻelmu)
  • Azerbaijani: elm (az), bilim (az)
  • Bambara: dɔnniya
  • Bashkir: ғилем (ğilem)
  • Basque: zientzia (eu)
  • Bavarian: Wissnschoft
  • Belarusian: наву́ка (be) f (navúka)
  • Bengali: বিজ্ঞান (bn) (biggên)
  • Breton: skiant (br)
  • Bulgarian: нау́ка (bg) f (naúka)
  • Burmese: သိပ္ပံ (sippam), ဗေဒ (my) (beda.)
  • Buryat: шэнжэлхэ ухаан (šenželxe uxaan)
  • Catalan: ciència (ca) f
  • Cebuano: kaalamdag
  • Chechen: ӏилма (ˀilma)
  • Chinese:
    Cantonese: 科學／科学 (fo1 hok6)
    Dungan: куәщүә (kuəxüə)
    Hakka: 科學／科学 (khô-ho̍k)
    Mandarin: 科學／科学 (zh) (kēxué)
    Min Dong: 科學／科学 (kuŏ-hŏk)
    Min Nan: 科學／科学 (zh-min-nan) (kho-ha̍k)
    Wu: 科學／科学 (khu hhiaq)
  • Chuvash: ӑслӑх (ăslăh)
  • Crimean Tatar: ilim
  • Czech: věda (cs) f
  • Danish: videnskab (da) c
  • Dhivehi: ސައިންސު‎ (sain̊su), ސައިންސް‎ (sain̊s)
  • Dutch: wetenschap (nl) f
  • Esperanto: scienco (eo)
  • Estonian: teadus (et)
  • Faroese: vísindi n pl
  • Finnish: tiede (fi)
  • French: science (fr) f
  • Friulian: sience f
  • Galician: ciencia (gl) f
  • Georgian: მეცნიერება (ka) (mecniereba)
  • German: Wissenschaft (de) f
  • Greek: επιστήμη (el) f (epistími)
    Ancient: ἐπιστήμη f (epistḗmē)
  • Guaraní: tembikuaaty (gn), mba’ekuaa
  • Gujarati: વિજ્ઞાન (vijñān)
  • Haitian Creole: syans
  • Hawaiian: akeakamai
  • Hebrew: מַדָּע‎ (he) m (madá)
  • Hindi: विज्ञान (hi) m (vigyān), शास्त्र (hi) m (śāstra), बिज्ञान (hi) m (bigyān), साइंस (hi) f (sāins)
  • Hungarian: tudomány (hu)
  • Icelandic: vísindi (is) n, fræði (is) n
  • Ido: cienco (io)
  • Igbo: amamihe (ig)
  • Indonesian: ilmu (id)
  • Ingrian: tiito, oppi
  • Interlingua: scientia
  • Irish: eolaíocht f
  • Italian: scienza (it) f
  • Japanese: 科学 (ja) (かがく, kagaku), サイエンス (saiensu)
  • Kannada: ಅರಿಮೆ (kn) (arime)
  • Kazakh: ғылым (kk) (ğylym)
  • Khmer: វិទ្យាសាស្ត្រ (km) (vityiəsaah), ស្យង់ (km) (syɑng)
  • Korean: 과학(科學) (ko) (gwahak)
  • Kurdish:
    Central Kurdish: زانستی‎ (zanistî)
    Northern Kurdish: zanist (ku) f
  • Kyrgyz: илим (ky) (ilim)
  • Lao: ວິທະຍາສາດ (lo) (wi tha nyā sāt)
  • Latin: scientia (la) f
  • Latvian: zinātne f
  • Lezgi: илим (ilim)
  • Lithuanian: mokslas (lt) m
  • Lower Sorbian: wědomnosć f
  • Luxembourgish: Wëssenschaft (lb) f
  • Macedonian: наука f (nauka)
  • Malay: sains (ms), ilmu (ms)
  • Malayalam: ശാസ്‌ത്രം (śās‌traṃ)
  • Maltese: xjenza f
  • Manx: oaylleeaght f
  • Maori: pūtaiao
  • Marathi: विज्ञान (mr) (vidnyān)
  • Mirandese: ciéncia
  • Mongolian:
    Cyrillic: шинжлэх ухаан (mn) (šinžlex uxaan)
  • Nepali: विज्ञान (ne) (vigyān) बिज्ञान (bigyān)
  • Norman: scienche f
  • Northern Sami: dieđa
  • Norwegian:
    Bokmål: vitenskap (no) m
    Nynorsk: vitskap (nn) m
  • Occitan: sciéncia (oc) f
  • Oriya: ବିଜ୍ଞାନ (or) (bijñanô)
  • Ossetian: зонад (zonad)
  • Pashto: علم‎ (ps) m (elm, elǝm), ساينس‎ (ps) m (sāyns)
  • Persian: علم‎ (fa) (‘elm)
  • Plautdietsch: Wissenschoft f
  • Polish: nauka (pl) f
  • Portuguese: ciência (pt) f
  • Punjabi: ਵਿਗਿਆਨ (vigiāna)
  • Romanian: știință (ro) f
  • Russian: нау́ка (ru) f (naúka)
  • Sanskrit: विज्ञान (sa) n (vijñāna)
  • Santali: ᱥᱟᱬᱮᱥ (saṇes)
  • Saterland Frisian: Wietenskup f
  • Scottish Gaelic: eòlas m, saidheans m
  • Serbo-Croatian:
    Cyrillic: на̀ука f, зна̏но̄ст f
    Roman: nàuka (sh) f, znȁnōst (sh) f
  • Sicilian: scenzia (scn) f
  • Sinhalese: විද්‍යාව (widyāwa)
  • Slovak: veda (sk) f, náuka (sk) f
  • Slovene: znanost (sl) f
  • Spanish: ciencia (es) f
  • Sundanese: ᮆᮜ᮪ᮙᮥ (élmu)
  • Swahili: sayansi (sw) class n
  • Swedish: vetenskap (sv) c
  • Tabasaran: илим (ilim)
  • Tagalog: agham (tl), siyensiya
  • Tajik: илм (tg) (ilm)
  • Tamil: அறிவியல் (ta) (aṟiviyal)
  • Tarantino: scienze f
  • Tatar: фән (tt) (fän), гыйлем (tt) (ğıylem)
  • Telugu: విజ్ఞానము (te) (vijñānamu)
  • Thai: วิทยาศาสตร์ (th) (wít-tá-yaa-sàat)
  • Tibetan: ཚན་རིག (tshan rig)
  • Turkish: bilim (tr), ilim (tr), fen (tr)
  • Turkmen: ylym (tk)
  • Ukrainian: нау́ка (uk) f (naúka)
  • Urdu: سائنس‎ m (sayens)
  • Uyghur: ئىلىم‎ (ilim)
  • Uzbek: ilm (uz), fan (uz)
  • Vietnamese: khoa học (vi) (科學)
  • Volapük: nolav (vo)
  • Welsh: gwyddoniaeth (cy)
  • West Frisian: wittenskip (fy) c
  • Yakut: үөрэх (üöreq)
  • Yiddish: וויסנשאַפֿט‎ f (visnshaft)
  • Zealandic: weet’nschap
  • Zhuang: gohyoz

particular discipline or branch of learning

  • Afrikaans: wetenskap (af)
  • Arabic: عِلْم‎ (ar) m (ʕilm)
  • Armenian: գիտություն (hy) (gitutʿyun)
  • Asturian: (please verify) ciencia (ast) f
  • Bashkir: фән (fän)
  • Basque: zientzia (eu)
  • Catalan: ciència (ca) f
  • Chinese:
    Mandarin: 科學／科学 (zh) (kēxué)
  • Czech: věda (cs) f
  • Danish: videnskab (da) c
  • Dutch: wetenschap (nl) f
  • Estonian: -teadus (et) teadusala
  • Finnish: -tiede (fi), tieteenala (fi)
  • French: science (fr) f
  • German: Wissenschaft (de) f
  • Greek: επιστήμη (el) f (epistími)
    Ancient: ἐπιστήμη f (epistḗmē)
  • Hebrew: מַדָּע‎ (he) m (madá)
  • Hindi: शास्त्र (hi) m (śāstra), साइंस (hi) f (sāins)
  • Hungarian: tudomány (hu)
  • Icelandic: fræði (is) n
  • Ingrian: tiito, oppi
  • Interlingua: scientia
  • Irish: eolaíocht f
  • Italian: scienza (it) f
  • Japanese: 科学 (ja) (かがく, kagaku)
  • Khmer: វិទ្យាសាស្ត្រ (km) (vityiəsaah)
  • Korean: 과학 (ko) (gwahak)
  • Latin: disciplina f
  • Latvian: zinātne f
  • Malay: (please verify) bidang sains
  • Malayalam: ശാസ്‌ത്രം (śās‌traṃ)
  • Maltese: xjenza
  • Marathi: शास्त्र (mr) n (śāstra)
  • Norman: scienche f
  • Norwegian:
    Bokmål: vitenskap (no) m
    Nynorsk: vitskap (nn) m
  • Portuguese: ciência (pt) f
  • Punjabi: ਵਿਗਿਆਨ m (vigiāna)
  • Romanian: materie (ro) f
  • Russian: нау́ка (ru) f (naúka), дисципли́на (ru) f (disciplína)
  • Saterland Frisian: Wietenskup f
  • Scottish Gaelic: eòlas m
  • Serbo-Croatian:
    Cyrillic: наука f, знаност f
    Roman: nauka (sh) f, znanost (sh) f
  • Slovene: znanost (sl) f
  • Spanish: ciencia (es) f
  • Swedish: vetenskap (sv)
  • Tagalog: agham (tl), siyensiya
  • Telugu: శాస్త్రము (te) (śāstramu)
  • Turkish: bilim (tr), ilim (tr)
  • Ukrainian: нау́ка (uk) f (naúka), дисциплі́на f (dyscyplína)
  • Vietnamese: ngành khoa học, môn khoa học
  • Volapük: nolav (vo)
  • Welsh: gwyddor (cy) f
  • West Frisian: wittenskip (fy) c
  • Yiddish: וויסנשאַפֿט‎ f (visnshaft)

fact of knowing something

  • Danish: viden (da)
  • Dutch: weten (nl) n, wetenschap (nl) f
  • Finnish: tieto (fi)
  • French: science (fr)
  • German: Wissen (de) n
  • Hindi: शास्त्र (hi) m (śāstra)
  • Hungarian: tudás (hu)
  • Icelandic: vísindi (is) n, fræði (is) n
  • Italian: scienza (it) f
  • Japanese: 知識 (ja) (chishiki)
  • Korean: 지식(知識) (ko) (jisik)
  • Latvian: zinātne f
  • Malayalam: ശാസ്‌ത്രം (śās‌traṃ)
  • Maltese: xjenza f
  • Portuguese: ciência (pt) f
  • Romanian: știință (ro) f
  • Scottish Gaelic: eòlas m
  • Serbo-Croatian:
    Cyrillic: наука f, знање n
    Roman: nauka (sh) f, znanje (sh) n
  • Slovene: znanje (sl) n
  • Swedish: vetande (sv) n
  • Ukrainian: знання́ (uk) n (znannjá)
  • Vietnamese: tri thức (vi) (知識), kiến thức (vi) (見識)
  • Volapük: nol (vo)

knowledge gained through study or practice

  • Armenian: գիտելիք (hy) (gitelikʿ)
  • Danish: viden (da)
  • Dutch: kennis (nl) f, ervaring (nl), wetenschap (nl) f
  • Finnish: tiedot (fi)
  • French: science (fr)
  • German: Kenntnis (de) n, Erfahrung (de) f, Wissen (de) n
  • Hindi: शास्त्र (hi) m (śāstra)
  • Icelandic: vísindi (is) n, fræði (is) n
  • Irish: eolas m
  • Italian: scienza (it) f, conoscenza (it) f
  • Japanese: 技能 (ja) (kinō), 熟練 (ja) (jukuren)
  • Korean: 지식(知識) (ko) (jisik)
  • Latin: scientia (la) f
  • Latvian: zinātne f
  • Malayalam: ശാസ്‌ത്രം (śās‌traṃ)
  • Maltese: xjenza, għerf
  • Norwegian: kunskap c
  • Portuguese: ciência (pt) f
  • Romanian: știință (ro) f
  • Scottish Gaelic: eòlas m
  • Serbo-Croatian:
    Cyrillic: наука f, знање n
    Roman: nauka (sh) f, znanje (sh) n
  • Slovene: znanje (sl) n
  • Spanish: conocimiento (es) m
  • Swedish: kunskap (sv) c
  • Turkish: bilgi (tr), malumat (tr)
  • Ukrainian: знання́ (uk) n (znannjá)
  • Vietnamese: tri thức (vi) (知識), kiến thức (vi) (見識)
  • Volapük: nol (vo)

Translations to be checked

  • Afrikaans: (please verify) wetenskap (af)
  • Aragonese: (please verify) zenzia f
  • Belarusian: (please verify) навукі (navuki)
  • Breton: (please verify) skiant (br) f
  • Esperanto: (please verify) scienco (eo)
  • Galician: (please verify) ciencia (gl)
  • Ido: (please verify) cienco (io)
  • Indonesian: (please verify) alam (id)
  • Kurdish:
    Northern Kurdish: (please verify) zanist (ku) f, (please verify) ilim (ku) f, (please verify) zanyarî (ku) f, (please verify) zanîn (ku) f
  • Lithuanian: (2) (please verify) mokslas (lt) m
  • Low German: (please verify) Wetenschop (nds) f
  • Maltese: (please verify) xjenza f
  • Nahuatl: (please verify) tlapohualmatiliztli
  • Persian: (please verify) دانش‎ (fa) (dâneš)
  • Romanian: (please verify) știință (ro) f
  • Sindhi: (please verify) سائِنس‎ (sd) f (sāins)
  • Slovak: (please verify) veda (sk) f
  • Sundanese: (please verify) élmu (su)
  • Swahili: (please verify) sayansi (sw)
  • Turkish: (please verify) bilim (tr)
See also[edit]
  • science on Wikipedia.Wikipedia

Verb[edit]

science (third-person singular simple present sciences, present participle sciencing, simple past and past participle scienced)

  1. (transitive, dated) To cause to become versed in science; to make skilled; to instruct.

    • 1742, Philip Francis, Odes, Epodes, and Carmen Seculare of Horace in Latin and English:

      I mock’d at all religious Fear, Deep-scienced in the mazy Lore Of mad Philosophy

  2. (transitive, colloquial, humorous) To use science to solve a problem.

Etymology 2[edit]

See scion.

Noun[edit]

science

  1. Obsolete spelling of scion

Further reading[edit]

  • science on Wikiquote.Wikiquote
  • «science» in Raymond Williams, Keywords (revised), 1983, Fontana Press, page 276.

French[edit]

Etymology[edit]

From Middle French science, from Old French science, escience, borrowed from Latin scientia.[1]

Pronunciation[edit]

  • IPA(key): /sjɑ̃s/
  • Audio (France, Paris) (file)
  • Rhymes: -ɑ̃s
  • Homophone: sciences

Noun[edit]

science f (plural sciences)

  1. (literary or archaic) knowledge
  2. science (field of study, etc.)

Derived terms[edit]

  • abîme de science
  • avoir la science infuse
  • puits de science
  • science de la terre
  • science de la vie
  • science des médias
  • science dure
  • science exacte
  • science humaine
  • science molle

[edit]

  • scientificité
  • scientifique
  • scientiste

References[edit]

  1. ^ Etymology and history of “science”, in Trésor de la langue française informatisé [Digitized Treasury of the French Language], 2012.

Further reading[edit]

  • “science”, in Trésor de la langue française informatisé [Digitized Treasury of the French Language], 2012.

Middle English[edit]

Alternative forms[edit]

  • scyence, syens, sciens, sciense, sience

Etymology[edit]

From Old French science, from Latin scientia.

Pronunciation[edit]

  • IPA(key): /siːˈɛns(ə)/, /siˈɛns(ə)/

Noun[edit]

science (plural sciences)

  1. facts, knowledge; that which is known:
    1. A science; the body of knowledge composing a specific discipline.
    2. learnt knowledge, especially from written sources.
    3. applied or situational knowledge.
    4. truth, reality, verified information.
  2. One’s faculty of finding information; knowing or insight
  3. One’s faculty of making sound decisions; sagaciousness.
  4. One’s aptitude or learning; one’s knowledge (in a field).
  5. A non-learned discipline, pursuit, or field.
  6. (rare) verifiability; trust in knowledge.

Descendants[edit]

  • English: science
  • Scots: science

References[edit]

  • “scī̆ence, n.”, in MED Online, Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan, 2007, retrieved 2018-05-24.

Middle French[edit]

Etymology[edit]

From Old French science.

Noun[edit]

science f (plural sciences)

  1. science (field of study, etc.)
  2. knowledge

Descendants[edit]

  • French: science

Old French[edit]

Alternative forms[edit]

  • escience

Etymology[edit]

Borrowed from Latin scientia.

Noun[edit]

science f (nominative singular science)

  1. knowledge; wisdom

Descendants[edit]

  • → Middle English: science
    • English: science
      • → Japanese: サイエンス
      • → Malay: sains
        • → Indonesian: sains
      • → Swahili: sayansi
  • Middle French: science
    • French: science
      • → Khmer: ស្យង់ (syɑng)
  • Norman: scienche
Источник

Понравилась статья? Поделить с друзьями:
  • What is error 2015 in excel vba
  • What is format as table in excel
  • What is formal and informal word
  • What is forecasting in excel
  • What is forecast in excel