NOTICE: Citizendium is still being set up on its newer server, treat as a beta for now; please see here for more.
Citizendium - a community developing a quality comprehensive compendium of knowledge, online and free. Click here to join and contribute—free
CZ thanks our previous donors. Donate here. Treasurer's Financial Report -- Thanks to our content contributors. --

Talk:Science

From Citizendium
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Talk
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
Video [?]
 
To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist. To update this checklist edit the metadata template.
 Definition The organized body of knowledge based on non–trivial refutable concepts that can be verified or rejected on the base of observation and experimentation [d] [e]

Mofdifications

I put here the reasons for some changes.

  • I deleted all the paragraphs, which are refering to supernatural. The text stated that science is not able to examine supernatural phenomena. But this statement presupposes that there are such phenomena.
  • I also deleted all reference that science can not examine "what is". Science is of course not a kind of fundamentalist realism. But actually the realism debate is not a scientific issue. We must formulate science in a way, which is devoid of such ideologic debates.
  • I also modified the parts, which describe the negative effects of science. I made it clearer that science is only a tool. The tool can be used ina good or bad way. This is not a scientific issue.

--Matthias Brendel 06:13, 30 November 2006 (CST)

RE

  • I also modified the parts, which describe the negative effects of science. I made it clearer that science is only a tool. The tool can be used ina good or bad way. This is not a scientific issue.

Perhaps a link to articles in Economics and Politics where such discussions are relevant may be useful for a variety of reasons David Tribe 16:11, 7 February 2007 (CST)

Introduction

I'm not quite sure I agree with the wording in the introduction (nor the definition). My definition of science is closer to knowledge gathered with the scientific method. Where mathematics can be considered a tool used in science, but not science, since it is derived from something that is not a fact (axioms).

The reason I mostly disagree with the presentation of the topic is that it is too broad, it would include pseudoscientific concepts; Since even pseudoscience would be included in the definition ("logically organized system of knowledge attained by some logical vindication" and "confirmation by empirical observations"). And pseudoscience is literally speaking 'not-science'. Benjamin Ingberg 18:12, 25 June 2008 (CDT)