Science (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 6 June 2024 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Science article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience
This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors on August 2022.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors
[[Scientific method#Elements of the scientific method|ongoing process]] The anchor (Elements of the scientific method) has been deleted.
The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking the page history of the target pages, or updating the links.
Remove this template after the problem is fixed | Report an error
In the best-case scenario it's still an WP:EGG, but Testability seems much more general and less potentially leading. it's a very underdeveloped page though—which I do see as a potential reason one would link a related-enough page instead. Remsense ‥ 论 13:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Remsense ‥ 论13:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But what about MOS:SOB? That's the only reason why I unlinked it. I also believe that the average user would know what testable/testability means and how it is used in a sentence. ZZZ'S13:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, it is recognizable as related to/involving the common sense, but the term is used in a specific way and has a specific history, but I'm not quite sure whether that's enough to say it's not a "common word being used in a straightforward manner". Remsense ‥ 论14:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If mathematics is a a science (which it is) as in you will be lauhed at if you dont agree with this opinion. Then "science" isn't just physics. Aka math, therefore testability is no criterion. Math neither predicts nor tests it described and deduces.
I propose trimming the definition to state: an organised system of knkwldge and link epistemology or maybe phil. of science in a folowing disambiguation. 109.245.227.37 (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying that... but here it is sectioned under formal sciences. Can't have your cake and eat it too. (It can't be boty a liberal and a formal science) You might as well assert that logic falls under liberal arts as well. And add history and philosophy while you're at it, frankly. Frankly it makes no sense it boggles me. No other knowledge is more certian nor systematic thab mathematical knowledge. Even since galileo and descartes the mathematical innovations and discoveries of early europe were the keystones of any scientific endeavour you can imagine not Newton without his calculus. 178.220.176.20 (talk) 10:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cite the article itself. It states that Science is subdivided into social, physcial and formal sciences. This clearl6 cibtrsdicts your first criterions which apply to physical and or social sciences only (both od them being the empirical kind). You don't do measurements in mathematics. You deduce theorems from first principles, just like you use comparative and historical methods in the social sciences, in short there's a glaring cobtradiction in the first paragraph that no one has seemed to notice yet. 178.220.176.88 (talk) 11:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's confusing.
This article should either include math and change it's definition or do away with deductive sciences altogether because clearly the definition in the opening sentence only applies to physics and maybe sociology. 178.220.176.88 (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't wholly agree. To the Historian and the Mathematician that proposition is a bit problematic. They could'nt really do their work in good consceince if they did not truly believe that they're doing scieintific research.... On the other hand i don't think the physicists perspective can really see the problems i'm alluding to. 2A06:63C5:8105:400:9D0C:6943:3F45:57C2 (talk) 10:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That people consider the term "protoscience" recentist or denigrating isn't even mentioned in the protoscience article. Do we really need to include it here? It bloats the description of protoscience, which is only mentioned once in the entire article and is already qualified as what "some scholars use". Kaotao (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3O: "The scientific method soon played a greater role in knowledge creation"
Apparently, neither @ModernDaySlavery nor I can let this phrase go. In the context of the article lead:
The recovery and assimilation of Greek works and Islamic inquiries into Western Europe from the 10th to 13th centuries revived natural philosophy, which was later transformed by the Scientific Revolution that began in the 16th century as new ideas and discoveries departed from previous Greek conceptions and traditions. 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, along with the changing of "natural philosophy" to "natural science".
It reads perfectly ordinarily and coherently to me, and I cannot for the life of me understand what they find unclear or otherwise objectionable about it. It's gone back and forth for months, and I'm tired of it given now they think ChatGPT will figure this out on their behalf. I don't want to continue the lamest of all slow motion edit wars, so I hope someone can tell me if I'm missing something, or otherwise help. With vital, fundamental articles like these I really feel it's particularly deleterious to tinker with longstanding prose that is fine without making real improvements, so that is why I've been so obstinate myself. Remsense ‥ 论00:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3O Response: I am here to try to provide a third opinion.
From what I can see, the dispute is between these two sentences:
1. "The scientific method soon emerged as an essential approach to probing natural phenomena,"
2. "The scientific method soon played a greater role in knowledge creation"
I don't know what @ModernDaySlavery takes issue with, but the issue I see is whether knowledge is acquired or created. This a long-standing debate in philosophy that also depends on which discipline we are talking about. In fact, the Scientific Method article says the following: "The scientific method is an empirical method for acquiring knowledge". So right off the bat, there is a small, but important difference in the formulations between the Science article and the Scientific Method article.
In my opinion, the sentence should be one that avoids the debate altogether. This is why I am more partial to ModernDaySlavery's formulation. I'm just wondering if a better word than "probing" can be found, like "examining" or "investigating" or something third.
level-1 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
3O Response: I am here to try to provide a third opinion.