From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Article milestones
April 8, 2006WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
Article Collaboration and Improvement DriveThis article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of May 29, 2007.
Stock post message.svg To-do list for Science: edit·history·watch·refresh· Updated 2020-07-10

You might start with talk:science/Archive 5#Prior discussion, October 2011, for a group effort at a Good Article.

  • add criticism
  • add inline citations
  • achieve NPOV in method and philosophical sections
  • "The principal elements of the nature of science: Dispelling the myth" reference to Direct instruction news as a source is false. The source cannot be found in the 2002 Spring release.checkY RockMagnetist (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • achieve consistency with other science related pages of Wikipedia Question? RockMagnetist (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Science brief definitions:

    • Science=Logic+Observations

    • Empirical Sciences = Observations OR Experiments OR Mathematical Modeling OR Computational Modeling = partial evidence for supporting or rejecting ideas, with strong effort to avoid logical or statistical falacies in this supporting process.

    • Formal Sciences = Deductive reasoning from formal systems of axioms and definitions: Mathematics, Logics and Theoretical Computation
  • Add discussion to Literature section on ownership, copyright, Creative Commons
  • Add UC Berkeley's "How Science Works" as a "Resource" - checkY RockMagnetist (talk) 21:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Make the first link go to philosophy or some other page (other than latin or knowledge) to avoid a loop which will never terminate at the philosophy page. Biran4454 (talk) 15:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Earlier root of science[edit]

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

An Apology Regarding My Edit[edit]

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

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


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

The Universe represents the totality of all space and time and its contents, i.e., everything that can, in principle, be studied by science. The different branches of science study different aspects or parts of this totality. This is consistent with E.O. Wilson’s definition of science in his book Consilience. Phenomenon is quite limiting. Various dictionaries define it as only those objects or events (usually rare or unusual) that can be detected by our senses (e.g., [2],[3],[4]). danielkueh (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Heilbron has something to say here: The disputed edit elided 'about the Universe'; there is an unsaid assumption of methodological naturalism in play: the laws of physics are spoken by societies of rhetors who speak of their subjects, the Inventio#Topoi, in a hierarchy of nature, meaning the cosmos, the Earth, its societies, who inhabit the Topoi, the microcosmos, in an unbounded hierarchy. It's not everything and definitely not anything. For example, myth, fiction, etc. cannot be part of science, by definition. Heilbron embodies the rhetoric of science very well: "... modern science is a discovery as well as an invention. It was a discovery that nature generally acts regularly enough to be described by laws and even by mathematics; and required invention to devise the techniques, abstractions, apparatus, and organization for exhibiting the regularities and securing their law-like descriptions."— p.vii Heilbron, J.L. (editor-in-chief) (2003). "Preface". The Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. vii–X. ISBN 978-0-19-511229-0. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
This thread is actually quite urgent: Disinformation cannot be part of science, and yet there are scientists who actively practice undercutting each other, propaganda, etc. The moral and ethical dimension of science cannot be ignored if the species, and current civilization is to survive. End of comment --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:56, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Would this be best covered in the "Challenges" or "Politicization of science" sections? danielkueh (talk) 00:54, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
I can see that different dictionaries use partly different definitions. First of all, the science about Universe is Cosmology. That's why EB [6] uses wording not "about", but "concerned with the physical world and its phenomena", which I think is much better. Secondly, first phrase should include something about using the scientific method (which is really the key here) to achieve knowledge: this appears in EB as "unbiased observations and systematic experimentation". My very best wishes (talk) 00:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Including the term universe in this article's definition does not make science in general synonymous with cosmology as the latter is concerned with a particular aspect of the universe, namely its origin and evolution. Other than making the sentence wordy, I don't see how changing "about" to "concerned with" is an improvement. danielkueh (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
That was just a quick suggestion. If you both disagree, let's keep it. BTW, how about arts? This is not science, but they do help humans to learn a lot about the surrounding world and themselves. The only difference: they do not employ the scientific method - the method is the key here. My very best wishes (talk) 00:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Just taking a quick glance at the definitions in both articles, it appears that the difference between them lies in their ends (or goals). Where science is concerned with creating testable explanations and predictions (theories and laws) about the world around us, the arts (according to WP) appear to be focused on producing "objects, environments and experiences." In any event, I am not opposed to expanding the first lead sentence into a full-fledged paragraph that would include the scientific method, which I agree is crucial to the entire enterprise. It is mentioned in the second paragraph (albeit in passing) and research is described in the fourth paragraph. This is the organization of the entire article as well. In past discussions, we did not include it in the first lead paragraph as there were concerns that it might limit the scope of the article, such as excluding the formal sciences. But that was a decade ago (see Archive 4). Perspectives might have changed. If you have a specific or concrete text in mind, feel free to propose it. danielkueh (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Maybe later, but I would need to look at sources. The subject is tricky. For example, do all nonfiction literature belongs to science? Apparently not? Why not? As about the difference with arts, one could say that in science someone discovers the already existing objective laws of nature, but in arts he does not, this is pure creativity of man. But again, things like the intuition and great imagination may well be considered a part of science. My very best wishes (talk) 01:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree. danielkueh (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
[edit conflict] And merely the human language is already a method of study. My very best wishes (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
You mean in linguistics? danielkueh (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2020[edit]

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


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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2020[edit]

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

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

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