Science

In its broadest sense, science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") refers to any systematic knowledge or practice. In its more usual restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.[1][2] This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word. Science as discussed in this article is sometimes termed experimental science to differentiate it from applied science, which is the application of scientific research to specific human needs, though the two are often interconnected.

Science is the effort to discover and increase human understanding of how reality works. Its purview is the portion of reality which is independent of religious, political, cultural, or philosophical outlook. Using controlled methods, scientists collect data in the form of observations, record observable physical evidence of natural phenomena, and analyze this information to construct theoretical explanations of how things work. Knowledge in science is gained through research. The methods of scientific research include the generation of hypotheses about how phenomena work, and experimentation that tests these hypotheses under controlled conditions. The outcome or product of this empirical scientific process is the formulation of theory that describes human understanding of physical processes and facilitates prediction.

Lavoisier says, "... the impossibility of separating the nomenclature of a science from the science itself is owing to this, that every branch of physical science must consist of three things: the series of facts which are the objects of the science, the ideas which represent these facts and the words by which these ideas are expressed."[3]

A broader modern definition of science may include the natural sciences along with the social and behavioral sciences, as the main subdivisions of science, defining it as the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.[4] However, other contemporary definitions still place the natural sciences, which are closely related with the physical world's phenomena, as the only true vehicles of science.

History of science

Main article: History of science

While empirical investigations of the natural world have been described since antiquity (for example, by Aristotle, Theophrastus and Pliny the Elder), and scientific methods have been employed since the Middle Ages (for example, by Ibn al-Haytham, Abu Rayhan Biruni and Roger Bacon), the dawn of modern science is generally traced back to the early modern period, during what is known as the Scientific Revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries. The Greek word for science is 'επιστήμη', deriving from the verb 'επίσταμαι', which literally means 'to know'.

 

Scientific method

Main article: Scientific method
The Bohr model of the atom, like many ideas in the history of science, was at first prompted by and later partially disproved by experiment.

A scientific method seeks to explain the events of nature in a reproducible way, and to use these reproductions to make useful predictions. It is done through observation of natural phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate natural events under controlled conditions. It provides an objective process to find solutions to problems in a number of scientific and technological fields.[8]

Based on observations of a phenomenon, a scientist may generate a model. This is an attempt to describe or depict the phenomenon in terms of a logical physical or mathematical representation. As empirical evidence is gathered, a scientist can suggest a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon. This description can be used to make predictions that are testable by experiment or observation using scientific method. When a hypothesis proves unsatisfactory, it is either modified or discarded.

While performing experiments, scientists may have a preference for one outcome over another, and it is important that this tendency not bias their interpretation.[9][10] A strict following of a scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of a scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. This can be achieved by correct experimental design, and a thorough peer review of the experimental results as well as conclusions of a study.[11][12] Once the experiment results are announced or published, an important cross-check can be the need to validate the results by an independent party.[13]

Once a hypothesis has survived testing, it may become adopted into the framework of a scientific theory. This is a logically reasoned, self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of certain natural phenomena. A theory typically describes the behavior of much broader sets of phenomena than a hypothesis—commonly, a large number of hypotheses can be logically bound together by a single theory. These broader theories may be formulated using principles such as parsimony (e.g., "Occam's Razor"). They are then repeatedly tested by analyzing how the collected evidence (facts) compares to the theory. When a theory survives a sufficiently large number of empirical observations, it then becomes a scientific generalization that can be taken as fully verified.

Despite the existence of well-tested theories, science cannot claim absolute knowledge of nature or the behavior of the subject or of the field of study due to epistemological problems that are unavoidable and preclude the discovery or establishment of absolute truth. Unlike a mathematical proof, a scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification, if new evidence is presented. Even the most basic and fundamental theories may turn out to be imperfect if new observations are inconsistent with them. Critical to this process is making every relevant aspect of research publicly available, which allows ongoing review and repeating of experiments and observations by multiple researchers operating independently of one another. Only by fulfilling these expectations can it be determined how reliable the experimental results are for potential use by others.

Isaac Newton's law of gravitation is a famous example of an established law that was later found not to be universal—it does not hold in experiments involving motion at speeds close to the speed of light or in close proximity of strong gravitational fields; outside these conditions, Newtonian mechanics remains an excellent model of motion and gravity, while general relativity accounts for the same phenomena that Newton's Laws do, and more. General relativity is now regarded as a more comprehensive theory,[14] reducing to Newtonian mechanics at lower speeds. Newtonian mechanics remains in use worldwide, due to its computational simplicity.

One position in the philosophy of science, initially advanced by Paul Feyerabend in Against Method, is that there really is no such thing as the scientific method. Rather, philosophers of science say that there are scientific methods. For example, controlled experiments are commonly performed in physics, chemistry, medicine, etc.. While controlled experiments are impossible in climatology, geology or astrophysics, in these sciences, observations for posited predictions serve to corroborate hypotheses.

Mathematics

Data from the famous Michelson–Morley experiment

Mathematics is essential to many sciences. One important function of mathematics in science is the role it plays in the expression of scientific models. Observing and collecting measurements, as well as hypothesizing and predicting, often require extensive use of mathematics and mathematical models. Calculus may be the branch of mathematics most often used in science, but virtually every branch of mathematics has applications in science, including "pure" areas such as number theory and topology. Mathematics is fundamental to the understanding of the natural sciences and the social sciences, many of which also rely heavily on statistics.

Statistical methods, comprised of mathematical techniques for summarizing and exploring data, allow scientists to assess the level of reliability and the range of variation in experimental results. Statistical thinking also plays a fundamental role in many areas of science.

Computational science applies computing power to simulate real-world situations, enabling a better understanding of scientific problems than formal mathematics alone can achieve. According to the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, computation is now as important as theory and experiment in advancing scientific knowledge.[15]

Whether mathematics itself is properly classified as science has been a matter of some debate. Some thinkers see mathematicians as scientists, regarding physical experiments as inessential or mathematical proofs as equivalent to experiments. Others do not see mathematics as a science, since it does not require an experimental test of its theories and hypotheses. Mathematical theorems and formulas are obtained by logical derivations which presume axiomatic systems, rather than the combination of empirical observation and logical reasoning that has come to be known as scientific method. In general, mathematics is classified as formal science, while natural and social sciences are classified as empirical sciences.[16]

 

See also

Main articles: List of basic science topics and List of science topics

Notes

  1. "Online dictionary". Merriam-Webster. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/science. Retrieved on 2008-01-30. 
  2. a b c d e Popper, Karl (2002) [1959]. The Logic of Scientific Discovery (2nd English edition ed.). New York, NY: Routledge Classics. ISBN 0-415-27844-9. OCLC 59377149. 
  3. Antoine Lavoisier Elements of Chemistry, p. 1, Great Books v. 45, Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc., 1952 ASIN B000O5VV9K
  4. Science, Answers.com
  5. Locke, J. (1838). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Printed by Thomas Davison. 
  6. a b c d e Thurs, Daniel Patrick (2007). Science Talk: Changing Notions of Science in American Popular Culture. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. ISBN 978-0813540733. OCLC 170031241. 
  7. Ross, S. (1962). "Scientist: The story of a word" (PDF). Annals of Science 18 (2): 65–85. doi:10.1080/00033796200202722. http://www.informaworld.com/index/739364907.pdf. Retrieved on 2008-02-08. 
  8. Backer, Patricia Ryaby (October 29, 2004). "What is the scientific method?". San Jose State University. http://www.engr.sjsu.edu/pabacker/scientific_method.htm. Retrieved on 2008-03-28. 
  9. van Gelder, Tim (1999). ""Heads I win, tails you lose": A Foray Into the Psychology of Philosophy" (PDF). University of Melbourne. http://www.philosophy.unimelb.edu.au/tgelder/papers/HeadsIWin.pdf. Retrieved on 2008-03-28. 
  10. Pease, Craig (September 6, 2006). "Chapter 23. Deliberate bias: Conflict creates bad science". Science for Business, Law and Journalism. Vermont Law School. http://law-and-science.net/Science4BLJ/Scientific_Method/Deliberate.bias/Text.htm. Retrieved on 2008-03-28. 
  11. Shatz, David (2004). Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 074251434X. OCLC 54989960. 
  12. Krimsky, Sheldon (2003). Science in the Private Interest: Has the Lure of Profits Corrupted the Virtue of Biomedical Research. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 074251479X. OCLC 185926306. 
  13. Bulger, Ruth Ellen; Heitman, Elizabeth; Reiser, Stanley Joel (2002). The Ethical Dimensions of the Biological and Health Sciences (2nd edition ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521008867. OCLC 47791316. 
  14. Schutz, Bernard F. (2003). Gravity from the ground up. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521455065. OCLC 239632969. 
  15. Graduate Education for Computational Science and Engineering, SIAM Working Group on CSE Education. Accessed 2008-04-27.
  16. Bunge, Mario Augusto (1998). Philosophy of Science: From Problem to Theory. Transaction Publishers. p. 24. ISBN 0-765-80413-1. 
  17. Kuznar, Lawrence A. (1997). Reclaiming a Scientific Anthropology. Rowman Altamira. ISBN 076199114X. OCLC 231704464. 
  18. Kaiser, Christopher B. (2007). Toward a Theology of Scientific Endeavour: The Descent of Science. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.. ISBN 0754641597. OCLC 74964819. 
  19. Brugger, E. Christian (2004). "Casebeer, William D. Natural Ethical Facts: Evolution, Connectionism, and Moral Cognition". The Review of Metaphysics 58 (2). 
  20. Popper, Karl (2002). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Routledge. 
  21. Newton-Smith, W. H. (1994). The Rationality of Science. London: Routledge. p. 30. 
  22. Siepmann, J. P. (1999). "What is Science? (Editorial)". Journal of Theoretics 3. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998RPPh...61...77K. Retrieved on 2007-07-23. 
  23. Richardson, R. H. (Dick) (January 28, 2001). "Economics is NOT Natural Science! (It is technology of Social Science.)". The University of Texas at Austin. http://www.sbs.utexas.edu/resource/onlinetext/Definitions/economicsNOTscience.htm. Retrieved on 2007-07-23. 
  24. Staff (May 19, 2006). "Behavioral and Social Science Are Under Attack in the Senate". American Sociological Association. http://www.asanet.org/page.ww?section=Advocacy&name=Social+Sciences+Under+Attack. Retrieved on 2007-07-23. 
  25. Logik der Forschung, new appendix *XIX (not yet available in the English edition Logic of scientific discovery)
  26. Popper, Karl (1983). "Preface, On the non-existence of scientific method". Realism and the Aim of Science (1st edition ed.). Totowa, New Jersey: Rowman and Littlefield. 
  27. Karl Popper: Objective Knowledge (1972)
  28. Critical examination of various positions on this issue can be found in Karl R. Popper's The Poverty of Historicism.
  29. Jacques Barzun, Science: The Glorious Entertainment, Harper and Row: 1964. p. 15. (quote) and Chapters II and XII.
  30. a b Fritjof Capra, Uncommon Wisdom, ISBN 0-671-47322-0, p. 213
  31. Rollin, Bernard E. (2006). Science and Ethics. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521857546. OCLC 238793190. 
  32. Dickson, David (October 11, 2004). "Science journalism must keep a critical edge". Science and Development Network. http://www.scidev.net/Editorials/index.cfm?fuseaction=readEditorials&itemid=131&language=1. Retrieved on 2008-02-20. 
  33. Mooney, Chris (2007). "Blinded By Science, How 'Balanced' Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality". Columbia Journalism Review. http://cjrarchives.org/issues/2004/6/mooney-science.asp. Retrieved on 2008-02-20. 
  34. McIlwaine, S.; Nguyen, D. A. (2005). "Are Journalism Students Equipped to Write About Science?". Australian Studies in Journalism 14: 41–60. http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:8064. Retrieved on 2008-02-20. 
  35. "1988: Egg industry fury over salmonella claim", "On This Day," BBC News, December 3, 1988.
  36. Jung, Carl (1973). Synchronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle. Princeton University Press. pp. 35. ISBN 0691017948. 
  37. Wilson, Robert Anton. (2007). Real Reality [Adobe Flash video]. YouTube.
  38. Parkin, D. Simulaneity and Sequencing in the Oracular Speech of Kenyan Diviners, page 185. Indiana University Press, 1991.
  39. See: Editorial Staff (March 7, 2007). "Scientific Method: Relationships among Scientific Paradigms". Seed magazine. http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2007/03/scientific_method_relationship.php. Retrieved on 2007-09-12. 
  40. Parrott, Jim (August 9, 2007). "Chronicle for Societies Founded from 1323 to 1599". Scholarly Societies Project. http://www.scholarly-societies.org/1599andearlier.html. Retrieved on 2007-09-11. 
  41. "Benvenuto nel sito dell'Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei" (in Italian). Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. 2006. http://positivamente.lincei.it/. Retrieved on 2007-09-11. 
  42. "Brief history of the Society". The Royal Society. http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=2176. Retrieved on 2007-09-11. 
  43. 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)". Topics in Scientific & Medical History. http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=2176. Retrieved on 2007-09-11. 
  44. Ziman, Bhadriraju (1980). "The proliferation of scientific literature: a natural process". Science 208 (4442): 369–371. doi:10.1126/science.7367863. PMID 7367863. 
  45. Subramanyam, Krishna; Subramanyam, Bhadriraju (1981). Scientific and Technical Information Resources. CRC Press. ISBN 0824782976. OCLC 232950234. 
  46. ftp://ftp.ncbi.nih.gov/pubmed/J_Entrez.txt
  47. Petrucci, Mario. "Creative Writing <-> Science". http://writeideas.org.uk/creativescience/index.htm. Retrieved on 2008-04-27. 

References

  • Feyerabend, Paul (2005). Science, history of the philosophy, as cited in Honderich, Ted (2005). The Oxford companion to philosophy. Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0199264791. OCLC 173262485.  of. Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford.
  • Papineau, David. (2005). Science, problems of the philosophy of., as cited in Honderich, Ted (2005). The Oxford companion to philosophy. Oxford Oxfordshire: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0199264791. OCLC 173262485. 
  • Feynman, R.P. (1999). The Pleasure of Finding Things Out: The Best Short Works of Richard P. Feynman. Perseus Books Group. ISBN 0465023959. OCLC 181597764. 
  • Parkin, D (1991). "Simulaneity and Sequencing in the Oracular Speech of Kenyan Diviners." In Philip M. Peek (ed) African Divination Systems: Ways of Knowing. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana University Press.

Further reading