Science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of a series on

Science
Formal
[show]

Physical
[show]
Astronomy
 Astrophysics
 Cosmology
 Galactic astronomy
 Planetary geology
 Planetary science
 Stellar astronomy

Chemistry
 Acid-base
 Analytical
 Environmental
 Inorganic
 Nuclear
 Organic
 Physical
 Solid-state
 Supramolecular
 Sustainable ("green")
 Theoretical


Astrochemistry
 Biochemistry
 Crystallography
 Food chemistry
  Geochemistry
 Materials science
 Molecular physics
 Photochemistry
 Radiochemistry
 Stereochemistry
 Surface science

Physics
 Classical
 Modern
 Applied

 Experimental
 Theoretical

 Computational


Atomic
 Condensed matter

 Mechanics
o (classical
o continuum
o fluid
o solid)


Molecular
 Nuclear
 Particle
 Plasma
 Quantum field theory
 Quantum mechanics (introduction)

 Special relativity
 General relativity
 Rheology
 String theory
 Thermodynamics

Earth sciences
 Climatology
 Ecology
  Edaphology
 Environmental science
 Geodesy
 Geography (physical)
 Geology
 Geomorphology
 Geophysics
 Glaciology
 Hydrology
 Limnology
 Meteorology
 Oceanography
 Paleoclimatology
 Paleoecology
 Palynology
 Pedology
 Space science

Life
[show]
Biology
 Anatomy
 Anthropology
 Astrobiology
 Biochemistry
 Biogeography
 Biological engineering
 Biophysics
 Behavioral neuroscience
 Biotechnology
 Botany
 Cell biology
 Conservation biology
 Cryobiology
 Developmental biology
 Ecology
 Ethnobiology
 Ethology
 Evolutionary biology (introduction)
 Genetics (introduction)
 Gerontology
  Immunology
 Limnology
 Marine biology
 Microbiology
 Molecular biology
 Neuroscience
 Paleontology
 Parasitology
 Physiology
 Radiobiology
 Soil biology
 Sociobiology
 Systematics
 Toxicology
 Zoology

Social
[show]

Applied
[show]
Engineering
 Aerospace
 Agricultural
 Biological
 Biomedical
 Chemical
 Civil
 Computer science / engineering


Electrical
 Fire protection
 Genetic
 Industrial
 Mechanical
 Military
 Mining
 Nuclear
 Operations research
  Robotics
 Software
 Web

Healthcare
 Dentistry
 Epidemiology

 Medicine (veterinary)

 Nursing
 Pharmacy

Interdisciplinary
[show]

 Philosophy
 History

[show]

 Outline
 Portal
 Category

 v
 t
 e

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes
knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[2][3][4] In an older and closely
related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained
and reliably applied. A practitioner of science is known as a scientist.

In classical antiquity, science as a type of knowledge was closely linked to philosophy. During the Islamic
Golden Age, the foundation for the scientific method was laid, which emphasized experimental data and
reproducibility of its results.[5][6][7] In the West during the early modern period the words "science" and
"philosophy of nature" were sometimes used interchangeably.[8] And not until the 17th century, natural
philosophy (which is today called "natural science") was considered a separate branch of philosophy in the
West.[9]

In modern usage, "science" most often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, not only the knowledge itself. It
is also often restricted to those branches of study that seek to explain the phenomena of the material universe.[10]
In the 17th and 18th centuries scientists increasingly sought to formulate knowledge in terms of laws of nature
such as Newton's laws of motion. And over the course of the 19th century, the word "science" became
increasingly associated with the scientific method itself, as a disciplined way to study the natural world,
including physics, chemistry, geology and biology. It is in the 19th century also that the term scientist was
created by the naturalist-theologian William Whewell to distinguish those who sought knowledge on nature
from those who sought other types of knowledge.[11]

However, "science" has also continued to be used in a broad sense to denote reliable and teachable knowledge
about a topic, as reflected in modern terms like library science or computer science. This is also reflected in the
names of some areas of academic study such as "social science" or "political science".

The scale of the universe mapped to the branches of science and the hierarchy of science.[12]

Contents
[hide]

 1 History
o 1.1 Pre-philosophical
o 1.2 Philosophical study of nature
o 1.3 Philosophical turn to human things
o 1.4 Medieval science, and foundations for scientific method
o 1.5 Renaissance, and early modern science
o 1.6 Age of Enlightenment
o 1.7 19th century
 o 1.8 20th century and beyond
 2 Philosophy of science
o 2.1 Certainty and science
o 2.2 Pseudoscience, fringe science, and junk science
 3 Scientific practice
o 3.1 The scientific method
o 3.2 Mathematics and formal sciences
o 3.3 Basic and applied research
o 3.4 Research in practice
o 3.5 Practical impacts of scientific research
 4 Scientific community
o 4.1 Branches and fields
o 4.2 Institutions
o 4.3 Literature
 5 Science and society
o 5.1 Women in science
o 5.2 Science policy
o 5.3 Media perspectives
o 5.4 Political usage
 6 See also
 7 Notes
 8 References
 9 Further reading
 10 External links

History
Main article: History of science

Both Aristotle and Kuan Tzu (4th century BCE), in an example of simultaneous scientific discovery, mention
that some marine animals were subject to a lunar cycle, and increase and decrease in size with the waxing and
waning of the moon. Aristotle was referring specifically to the sea urchin, pictured above.[13]

Science in a broad sense existed before the modern era, and in many historical civilizations,[14] but modern
science is so distinct in its approach and successful in its results that it now defines what science is in the
strictest sense of the term.[3] Much earlier than the modern era, another important turning point was the
development of classical natural philosophy in the ancient Greek-speaking world.

Pre-philosophical
Science in its original sense is a word for a type of knowledge (Latin scientia, Ancient Greek epistemē), rather
than a specialized word for the pursuit of such knowledge. In particular it is one of the types of knowledge
which people can communicate to each other and share. For example, knowledge about the working of natural
things was gathered long before recorded history and led to the development of complex abstract thinking. This
is shown by the construction of complex calendars, techniques for making poisonous plants edible, and
buildings such as the pyramids. However no consistent conscientious distinction was made between knowledge
of such things which are true in every community and other types of communal knowledge, such as
mythologies and legal systems.

Philosophical study of nature

See also: Nature (philosophy)

Before the invention or discovery of the concept of "nature" (Ancient Greek phusis), by the Pre-Socratic
philosophers, the same words tend to be used to describe the natural "way" in which a plant grows,[15] and the
"way" in which, for example, one tribe worships a particular god. For this reason it is claimed these men were
the first philosophers in the strict sense, and also the first people to clearly distinguish "nature" and
"convention".[16] Science was therefore distinguished as the knowledge of nature, and the things which are true
for every community, and the name of the specialized pursuit of such knowledge was philosophy — the realm
of the first philosopher-physicists. They were mainly speculators or theorists, particularly interested in
astronomy. In contrast, trying to use knowledge of nature to imitate nature (artifice or technology, Greek
technē) was seen by classical scientists as a more appropriate interest for lower class artisans.[17]

Philosophical turn to human things

A major turning point in the history of early philosophical science was the controversial but successful attempt
by Socrates to apply philosophy to the study of human things, including human nature, the nature of political
communities, and human knowledge itself. He criticized the older type of study of physics as too purely
speculative, and lacking in self-criticism. He was particularly concerned that some of the early physicists treated
nature as if it could be assumed that it had no intelligent order, explaining things merely in terms of motion and
matter. The study of human things had been the realm of mythology and tradition, and Socrates was
executed.[18] Aristotle later created a less controversial systematic programme of Socratic philosophy, which
was teleological, and human-centred. He rejected many of the conclusions of earlier scientists. For example in
his physics the sun goes around the earth, and many things have it as part of their nature that they are for
humans. Each thing has a formal cause and final cause and a role in the rational cosmic order. Motion and
change is described as the actualization of potentials already in things, according to what types of things they
are. While the Socratics insisted that philosophy should be used to consider the practical question of the best
way to live for a human being (a study Aristotle divided into ethics and political philosophy), they did not argue
for any other types of applied science.

Aristotle maintained the sharp distinction between science and the practical knowledge of artisans, treating
theoretical speculation as the highest type of human activity, practical thinking about good living as something
less lofty, and the knowledge of artisans as something only suitable for the lower classes. In contrast to modern
science, Aristotle's influential emphasis was upon the "theoretical" steps of deducing universal rules from raw
data, and did not treat the gathering of experience and raw data as part of science itself.[19]

Medieval science, and foundations for scientific method

During late antiquity and the early Middle Ages, the Aristotelian approach to inquiries on natural phenomenon
was used. Some ancient knowledge was lost, or in some cases kept in obscurity, during the fall of the Roman
Empire and periodic political struggles. However, the general fields of science, or natural philosophy as it was
called, and much of the general knowledge from the ancient world remained preserved though the works of the
early Latin encyclopedists like Isidore of Seville. Also, in the Byzantine empire, many Greek science texts were
preserved in Syriac translations done by groups such as Nestorians and Monophysites.[21] Many of these were
translated later on into Arabic under Caliphate, during which many types of classical learning were preserved
and in some cases improved upon.[21] During the Islamic Golden Age, a Muslim scholar Ibn al-Haytham, who is
considered by some to be the father of modern scientific method, argued for it by emphasizing experimental
data and reproducibility of its results.[6][7] The House of Wisdom, considered to be the first university in the
world, was established in Abbasid-era Baghdad, Iraq.[22] It is considered to have been a major intellectual center
during the Islamic Golden Age. In the later medieval period, as science in Byzantium and the Islamic world
waned, Western Europeans began collecting ancient texts from the Mediterranean, not only in Latin, but also in
Greek, Arabic, and Hebrew. Knowledge of ancient researchers such as Aristotle, Ptolemy, Euclid, amongst
Catholic scholars, were recovered with renewed interest in diverse aspects of natural phenomenon. In Europe,
men like Roger Bacon in England argued for more experimental science. By the late Middle Ages, a synthesis
of Catholicism and Aristotelianism known as Scholasticism was flourishing in Western Europe, which had
become a new geographic center of science.

Renaissance, and early modern science

Main article: Scientific revolution

Galileo is considered one of the fathers of modern science.[23]

By the late Middle Ages, especially in Italy there was an influx of Greek texts and scholars from the collapsing
Byzantine empire. Copernicus formulated a heliocentric model of the solar system unlike the geocentric model
of Ptolemy's Almagest. All aspects of scholasticism were criticized in the 15th and 16th centuries; one author
who was notoriously persecuted was Galileo, who made innovative use of experiment and mathematics.
However the persecution began after Pope Urban VIII blessed Galileo to write about the Copernican system.
Galileo had used arguments from the Pope and put them in the voice of the simpleton in the work "Dialogue
Concerning the Two Chief World Systems" which caused great offense to him.[24]

In Northern Europe, the new technology of the printing press was widely used to publish many arguments
including some that disagreed with church dogma. René Descartes and Francis Bacon published philosophical
arguments in favor of a new type of non-Aristotelian science. Descartes argued that mathematics could be used
in order to study nature, as Galileo had done, and Bacon emphasized the importance of experiment over
contemplation. Bacon questioned the Aristotelian concepts of formal cause and final cause, and promoted the
idea that science should study the laws of "simple" natures, such as heat, rather than assuming that there is any
specific nature, or "formal cause", of each complex type of thing. This new modern science began to see itself
as describing "laws of nature". This updated approach to studies in nature was seen as mechanistic. Bacon also
argued that science should aim for the first time at practical inventions for the improvement of all human life.

Data from the famous Michelson–Morley experiment that refuted 19th century theory of light-bearing aether as
the medium that had to be a fluid in order to fill space, more rigid than steel in order to support the high
frequencies of light waves, as well as massless and without viscosity or it would visibly affect the orbits of
planets.

Age of Enlightenment

In the 17th and 18th centuries, the project of modernity, as had been promoted by Bacon and Descartes, led to
rapid scientific advance and the successful development of a new type of natural science, mathematical,
methodically experimental, and deliberately innovative. Newton and Leibniz succeeded in developing a new
physics, now referred to as Newtonian physics, which could be confirmed by experiment and explained using
mathematics. Leibniz also incorporated terms from Aristotelian physics, but now being used in a new non-
teleological way, for example "energy" and "potential" (modern versions of Aristotelian "energeia and
potentia"). In the style of Bacon, he assumed that different types of things all work according to the same
general laws of nature, with no special formal or final causes for each type of thing.

It is during this period that the word "science" gradually became more commonly used to refer to a type of
pursuit of a type of knowledge, especially knowledge of nature — coming close in meaning to the old term
"natural philosophy".
19th century

Both John Herschel and William Whewell systematized methodology: the latter coined the term scientist. When
Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species he established descent with modification as the prevailing
evolutionary explanation of biological complexity. His theory of natural selection provided a natural
explanation of how species originated, but this only gained wide acceptance a century later. John Dalton
developed the idea of atoms. The laws of Thermodynamics and the electromagnetic theory were also
established in the 19th century, which raised new questions which could not easily be answered using Newton's
framework.

20th century and beyond

Einstein's Theory of Relativity and the development of quantum mechanics led to the replacement of Newtonian
physics with a new physics which contains two parts, that describe different types of events in nature. The
extensive use of scientific innovation during the wars of this century, led to the space race, increased life
expectancy, and the Nuclear arms race, giving a widespread public appreciation of the importance of modern
science. More recently it has been argued that the ultimate purpose of science is to make sense of human beings
and our nature – for example in his book Consilience, EO Wilson said "The human condition is the most
important frontier of the natural sciences."[25]

Philosophy of science
Main article: Philosophy of science

The following text needs to be harmonized with text in Philosophy of science.

Working scientists usually take for granted a set of basic assumptions that are needed to justify the scientific
method: (1) that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers; (2) that this objective reality is
governed by natural laws; (3) that these laws can be discovered by means of systematic observation and
experimentation.[3] Philosophy of science seeks a deep understanding of what these underlying assumptions
mean and whether they are valid.

The belief that scientific theories should and do represent metaphysical reality is known as realism. It can be
contrasted with anti-realism, the view that the success of science does not depend on it being accurate about
unobservable entities such as electrons. One form of anti-realism is idealism, the belief that the mind or
consciousness is the most basic essence, and that each mind generates its own reality.[26] In an idealistic world
view, what is true for one mind need not be true for other minds.

There are different schools of thought in philosophy of science. The most popular position is empiricism,[27]
which claims that knowledge is created by a process involving observation and that scientific theories are the
result of generalizations from such observations.[28] Empiricism generally encompasses inductivism, a position
that tries to explain the way general theories can be justified by the finite number of observations humans can
make and the hence finite amount of empirical evidence available to confirm scientific theories. This is
necessary because the number of predictions those theories make is infinite, which means that they cannot be
known from the finite amount of evidence using deductive logic only. Many versions of empiricism exist, with
the predominant ones being bayesianism[29] and the hypothetico-deductive method.[30]
Karl Popper c. 1980s

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.[31] 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 and that the only way a theory can
be affected by observation is when it comes in conflict with it.[32] Popper proposed replacing verifiability with
falsifiability as the landmark of scientific theories, and replacing induction with falsification as the empirical
method.[33] Popper further claimed that there is actually only one universal method, not specific to science: the
negative method of criticism, trial and error.[34] It covers all products of the human mind, including science,
mathematics, philosophy, and art.[35]

Another approach, instrumentalism, colloquially termed "shut up and calculate", emphasizes the utility of
theories as instruments for explaining and predicting phenomena.[36] 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 simply be ignored and that scientists
shouldn't make a fuss about (see interpretations of quantum mechanics). 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.

Paul K Feyerabend advanced the idea of epistemological anarchism, which holds that there are no useful and
exception-free methodological rules governing the progress of science or the growth of knowledge, and that the
idea that science can or should operate according to universal and fixed rules is unrealistic, pernicious and
detrimental to science itself.[37] Feyerabend advocates treating science as an ideology alongside others such as
religion, magic and mythology, and considers the dominance of science in society authoritarian and unjustified.
He also contended (along with Imre Lakatos)[discuss] that the demarcation problem of distinguishing science from
pseudoscience on objective grounds is not possible and thus fatal to the notion of science running according to
fixed, universal rules.[37] Feyerabend also stated that science does not have evidence for its philosophical
precepts, particularly the notion of Uniformity of Law and the Uniformity of Process across time and space.[38]

Finally, another approach often cited in debates of scientific skepticism against controversial movements like
"scientific creationism", is methodological naturalism. Its main point is that a difference between natural and
supernatural explanations should be made, and that science should be restricted methodologically to natural
explanations.[39] That the restriction is merely methodological (rather than ontological) means that science
should not consider supernatural explanations itself, but should not claim them to be wrong either. Instead,
supernatural explanations should be left a matter of personal belief outside the scope of science. Methodological
naturalism maintains that proper science requires strict adherence to empirical study and independent
verification as a process for properly developing and evaluating explanations for observable phenomena.[40] The
absence of these standards, arguments from authority, biased observational studies and other common fallacies
are frequently cited by supporters of methodological naturalism as characteristic of the non-science they
criticize.

Certainty and science

DNA determines the genetic structure of all known life

A scientific theory is empirical,[27] and is always open to falsification if new evidence is presented. That is, no
theory is ever considered strictly certain as science accepts the concept of fallibilism.[41] The philosopher of
science Karl Popper sharply distinguishes truth from certainty. He writes that scientific knowledge "consists in
the search for truth", but it "is not the search for certainty ... All human knowledge is fallible and therefore
uncertain."[42]

New scientific knowledge rarely results in vast changes in our understanding. According to psychologist Keith
Stanovich, it may be the media's overuse of words like "breakthrough" that leads the public to imagine that
science is constantly proving everything it thought was true to be false.[43] While there are such famous cases as
the theory of relativity that required a complete reconceptualization, these are extreme exceptions. Knowledge
in science is gained by a gradual synthesis of information from different experiments, by various researchers,
across different branches of science; it is more like a climb than a leap.[44] Theories vary in the extent to which
they have been tested and verified, as well as their acceptance in the scientific community.[45] For example,
heliocentric theory, the theory of evolution, relativity theory, and germ theory still bear the name "theory" even
though, in practice, they are considered factual.[46] Philosopher Barry Stroud adds that, although the best
definition for "knowledge" is contested, being skeptical and entertaining the possibility that one is incorrect is
compatible with being correct. Ironically then, the scientist adhering to proper scientific approaches will doubt
themselves even once they possess the truth.[47] The fallibilist C. S. Peirce argued that inquiry is the struggle to
resolve actual doubt and that merely quarrelsome, verbal, or hyperbolic doubt is fruitless[48]—but also that the
inquirer should try to attain genuine doubt rather than resting uncritically on common sense.[49] He held that the
successful sciences trust, not to any single chain of inference (no stronger than its weakest link), but to the cable
of multiple and various arguments intimately connected.[50]

Stanovich also asserts that science avoids searching for a "magic bullet"; it avoids the single-cause fallacy. This
means a scientist would not ask merely "What is the cause of ...", but rather "What are the most significant
causes of ...". This is especially the case in the more macroscopic fields of science (e.g. psychology,
cosmology).[51] Of course, research often analyzes few factors at once, but these are always added to the long
list of factors that are most important to consider.[51] For example: knowing the details of only a person's
genetics, or their history and upbringing, or the current situation may not explain a behaviour, but a deep
understanding of all these variables combined can be very predictive.

Pseudoscience, fringe science, and junk science

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.[52]
Physicist Richard Feynman coined the term "cargo cult science" for cases in which researchers believe they are
doing science because their activities have the outward appearance of science but actually lack the "kind of utter
honesty" that allows their results to be rigorously evaluated.[53] Various types of commercial advertising,
ranging from hype to fraud, may fall into these categories.

There also can be[discuss] an element of political or ideological bias on all sides of scientific debates.[citation needed]
Sometimes, research may be characterized as "bad science", research that may be well-intentioned but is
actually 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.[54]

Scientific practice

Astronomy became much more accurate after Tycho Brahe devised his scientific instruments for measuring
angles between two celestial bodies, before the invention of the telescope. Brahe's observations were the basis
for Kepler's laws.

"If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he
shall end in certainties." —Francis Bacon (1605) The Advancement of Learning, Book 1, v, 8

A skeptical point of view, demanding a method of proof, was the practical position taken as early as 1000 years
ago, with Alhazen, Doubts Concerning Ptolemy, through Bacon (1605), and C. S. Peirce (1839–1914), who
note that a community will then spring up to address these points of uncertainty. The methods of inquiry into a
problem have been known for thousands of years,[55] and extend beyond theory to practice. The use of
measurements, for example, is a practical approach to settle disputes in the community.

John Ziman points out that intersubjective pattern recognition is fundamental to the creation of all scientific
knowledge.[56] Ziman shows how scientists can identify patterns to each other across centuries: Needham 1954
(illustration facing page 164) shows how today's trained Western botanist can identify Artemisia alba from
images taken from a 16th-century Chinese pharmacopeia,[57] and Ziman refers to this ability as 'perceptual
consensibility'.[58] Ziman then makes consensibility, leading to consensus, the touchstone of reliable
knowledge.[59]

The scientific method

Main article: Scientific method

The scientific method seeks to explain the events of nature in a reproducible way.[60] An explanatory thought
experiment or hypothesis is put forward, as explanation, using principles such as parsimony (also known as
"Occam's Razor") and are generally expected to seek consilience—fitting well with other accepted facts related
to the phenomena.[61] This new explanation is used to make falsifiable predictions that are testable by
experiment or observation. The predictions are to be posted before a confirming experiment or observation is
sought, as proof that no tampering has occurred. Disproof of a prediction is evidence of progress.[62][63] This is
done partly through observation of natural phenomena, but also through experimentation, that tries to simulate
natural events under controlled conditions, as appropriate to the discipline (in the observational sciences, such
as astronomy or geology, a predicted observation might take the place of a controlled experiment).
Experimentation is especially important in science to help establish causal relationships (to avoid the correlation
fallacy).

When a hypothesis proves unsatisfactory, it is either modified or discarded.[64] If the hypothesis 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. 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. In addition to testing hypotheses, scientists may also generate a model based on observed
phenomena. This is an attempt to describe or depict the phenomenon in terms of a logical, physical or
mathematical representation and to generate new hypotheses that can be tested.[65]

While performing experiments to test hypotheses, scientists may have a preference for one outcome over
another, and so it is important to ensure that science as a whole can eliminate this bias.[66][67] This can be
achieved by careful experimental design, transparency, and a thorough peer review process of the experimental
results as well as any conclusions.[68][69] 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.[70] Taken in its entirety,
the scientific method allows for highly creative problem solving while minimizing any effects of subjective bias
on the part of its users (namely the confirmation bias).[71]

Mathematics and formal sciences

Main article: Mathematics

Mathematics is essential to the 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. Arithmetic, algebra, geometry, trigonometry and
calculus, for example, are all essential to physics. Virtually every branch of mathematics has applications in
science, including "pure" areas such as number theory and topology.

Statistical methods, which are mathematical techniques for summarizing and analyzing data, allow scientists to
assess the level of reliability and the range of variation in experimental results. Statistical analysis plays a
fundamental role in many areas of both the natural sciences and social sciences.
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.[72]

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 the scientific method. In general, mathematics is classified as formal science,
while natural and social sciences are classified as empirical sciences.[73]

Basic and applied research

Distinguished Men of Science.[74] Use your cursor to see who is who.[75]

Although some scientific research is applied research into specific problems, a great deal of our understanding
comes from the curiosity-driven undertaking of basic research. This leads to options for technological advance
that were not planned or sometimes even imaginable. This point was made by Michael Faraday when, allegedly
in response to the question "what is the use of basic research?" he responded "Sir, what is the use of a new-born
child?".[76] For example, research into the effects of red light on the human eye's rod cells did not seem to have
any practical purpose; eventually, the discovery that our night vision is not troubled by red light would lead
search and rescue teams (among others) to adopt red light in the cockpits of jets and helicopters.[77] In a
nutshell: Basic research is the search for knowledge. Applied research is the search for solutions to practical
problems using this knowledge. Finally, even basic research can take unexpected turns, and there is some sense
in which the scientific method is built to harness luck.

Research in practice

Due to the increasing complexity of information and specialization of scientists, most of the cutting-edge
research today is done by well funded groups of scientists, rather than individuals.[78] D.K. Simonton notes that
due to the breadth of very precise and far reaching tools already used by researchers today and the amount of
research generated so far, creation of new disciplines or revolutions within a discipline may no longer be
possible as it is unlikely that some phenomenon that merits its own discipline has been overlooked. Hybridizing
of disciplines and finessing knowledge is, in his view, the future of science.[78]

Practical impacts of scientific research

Research Impact
Static electricity and
All electric appliances, dynamo's, electric power stations, modern electronics, including
magnetism (1600)
electric lighting, television, electric heating, magnetic tape, loudspeaker, plus the
Electric current (18th
compass and lightning rod.
century)
Optics, hence fiber optic cable (1840s), modern intercontinental communications, and
Diffraction (1665)
cable TV and internet
Hygiene, leading to decreased transmission of infectious diseases; antibodies, leading to
Germ theory (1700)
techniques for disease diagnosis and targeted anticancer therapies.
Leading to the elimination of most infectious diseases from developed countries and the
Vaccination (1798)
worldwide eradication of smallpox.
Photovoltaic effect Solar cells (1883), hence solar power, solar powered watches, calculators and other
(1839) devices.
The strange orbit of
Mercury (1859) and
other research
Satellite-based technology such as GPS (1973), satnav and satellite communications[79]
leading to special
(1905) and general
relativity (1916)
Radio had become used in innumerable ways beyond its better-known areas of
telephony, and broadcast television (1927) and radio (1906) entertainment. Other uses
included – emergency services, radar (navigation and weather prediction), medicine,
Radio waves (1887)
astronomy, wireless communications, and networking. Radio waves also led researchers
to adjacent frequencies such as microwaves, used worldwide for heating and cooking
food.
Radioactivity (1896) Cancer treatment (1896), nuclear reactors (1942) and weapons (1945), PET scans (1961),
and antimatter (1932) and medical research (via isotopic labeling)
X-rays (1896) Medical imaging, including computed tomography
Crystallography and
Semiconductor devices (1906), hence modern computing and telecommunications
quantum mechanics
including the integration with wireless devices: the mobile phone[79]
(1900)
Starting with bakelite, many types of artificial polymers for numerous applications in
Plastics (1907)
industry and daily life
Antibiotics (1880's,
Salvarsan, Penicilline, doxycycline etc.
1928)

Scientific community
Johannes Hevelius and wife Elisabetha making observations, 1673. The Royal Society numbers Hevelius
among its first foreign members.

The Meissner effect causes a magnet to levitate above a superconductor

The scientific community is the group of all interacting scientists. It includes many sub-communities working
on particular scientific fields, and within particular institutions; interdisciplinary and cross-institutional
activities are also significant.

Branches and fields

Main article: Branches of science

Scientific fields are commonly divided into two major groups: natural sciences, which study natural phenomena
(including biological life), and social sciences, which study human behavior and societies. These groupings are
empirical sciences, which means the knowledge must be based on observable phenomena and capable of being
tested for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions.[80] There are also related
disciplines that are grouped into interdisciplinary and applied sciences, such as engineering and medicine.
Within these categories are specialized scientific fields that can include parts of other scientific disciplines but
often possess their own nomenclature and expertise.[81]

Mathematics, which is classified as a formal science,[82][83] has both similarities and differences with the
empirical sciences (the natural and social sciences). It is similar to empirical sciences in that it involves an
objective, careful and systematic study of an area of knowledge; it is different because of its method of
verifying its knowledge, using a priori rather than empirical methods.[84] The formal sciences, which also
include statistics and logic, are vital to the empirical sciences. Major advances in formal science have often led
to major advances in the empirical sciences. The formal sciences are essential in the formation of hypotheses,
theories, and laws,[85] both in discovering and describing how things work (natural sciences) and how people
think and act (social sciences).
Institutions

Louis XIV visiting the Académie des sciences in 1671

Learned societies for the communication and promotion of scientific thought and experimentation have existed
since the Renaissance period.[86] The oldest surviving institution is the Italian Accademia dei Lincei which was
established in 1603.[87] The respective National Academies of Science are distinguished institutions that exist in
a number of countries, beginning with the British Royal Society in 1660[88] and the French Académie des
Sciences in 1666.[89]

International scientific organizations, such as the International Council for Science, have since been formed to
promote cooperation between the scientific communities of different nations. Many governments have
dedicated agencies to support scientific research. Prominent scientific organizations include, the National
Science Foundation in the U.S., the National Scientific and Technical Research Council in Argentina, the
academies of science of many nations, CSIRO in Australia, Centre national de la recherche scientifique in
France, Max Planck Society and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft in Germany, and in Spain, CSIC.

Literature

Main article: Scientific literature

An enormous range of scientific literature is published.[90] 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 the 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.[91] The United States
National Library of Medicine currently indexes 5,516 journals that contain articles on topics related to the life
sciences. Although the journals are in 39 languages, 91 percent of the indexed articles are published in
English.[92]

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 generally considered necessary to communicate the achievements, news, and ambitions of scientists to a
wider populace.

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. Science books engage the interest of many more people.
Tangentially, the science fiction genre, primarily fantastic in nature, engages the public imagination and
transmits the ideas, if not the methods, of science.

Recent efforts to intensify or develop links between science and non-scientific disciplines such as Literature or,
more specifically, Poetry, include the Creative Writing Science resource developed through the Royal Literary
Fund.[93]

Science and society

Main article: Women in science

Vera Rubin, the first astronomer to infer galactic clumping from astronomical data in 1953, was not allowed to
use the telescope at Palomar until 1965, with the given reason that the facility did not have a women's restroom.

Science has traditionally been a male-dominated field, with some notable exceptions.[94] Women historically
faced considerable discrimination in science, much as they did in other areas of male-dominated societies, such
as frequently being passed over for job opportunities and denied credit for their work.[95] The achievements of
women in science have been attributed to their defiance of their traditional role as laborers within the domestic
sphere.[96]

In the late 20th century, active recruitment of women and elimination of institutional discrimination on the basis
of sex greatly increased the number of female scientists, but large gender disparities remain in some fields; over
half of new biologists are female, while 80% of PhDs in physics are given to men. Feminists claim this is the
result of culture rather than an innate difference between the sexes, and some experiments have shown that
parents challenge and explain more to boys than girls, asking them to reflect more deeply and logically.[97] In
the early part of the 21st century, in America, women earned 50.3% bachelor's degrees, 45.6% master's degrees,
and 40.7% of PhDs in science and engineering fields with women earning more than half of the degrees in three
fields: Psychology (about 70%), Social Sciences (about 50%), and Biology (about 50-60%). However, when it
comes to the Physical Sciences, Geosciences, Math, Engineering, and Computer Science; women earned less
than half the degrees.[98] However, lifestyle choice also plays a major role in female engagement in science;
women with young children are 28% less likely to take tenure-track positions due to work-life balance issues,[99]
and female graduate students' interest in careers in research declines dramatically over the course of graduate
school, whereas that of their male colleagues remains unchanged.[100]

Science policy

Main articles: Science policy, History of science policy, Funding of science and Economics of science
President Clinton meets the 1998 U.S. Nobel Prize winners in the White House.

Science policy is an area of public policy concerned with the 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 also refers to the act of applying scientific knowledge and consensus to the
development of public policies. Science policy thus deals with the entire domain of issues that involve the
natural sciences. 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.

State policy has influenced the funding of public works and science for thousands of years, dating at least from
the time of the Mohists, who inspired the study of logic during the period of the Hundred Schools of Thought,
and the study of defensive fortifications during the Warring States period in China. In Great Britain,
governmental approval of the Royal Society in the 17th century recognized a scientific community which exists
to this day. The professionalization of science, begun in the 19th century, was partly enabled by the creation of
scientific organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences, the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, and State
funding of universities of their respective nations. Public policy can directly affect the funding of capital
equipment, intellectual infrastructure for industrial research, by providing tax incentives to those organizations
that fund research. Vannevar Bush, director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development for the
United States government, the forerunner of the National Science Foundation, wrote in July 1945 that "Science
is a proper concern of government".[101]

Science and technology 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.[102] 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 industries is higher, and it dominates research in
social science and humanities. Similarly, with some exceptions (e.g. biotechnology) government provides the
bulk of the funds for basic scientific research. In commercial research and development, all but the most
research-oriented corporations focus more heavily on near-term commercialisation possibilities rather than
"blue-sky" ideas or technologies (such as nuclear fusion).

Media perspectives

The mass media face a number of 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.[103] Few journalists have real scientific knowledge, and even beat reporters who know a great deal about
certain scientific issues may be ignorant about other scientific issues that they are suddenly asked to
cover.[104][105]

Political usage
See also: Politicization of science

Many issues damage the relationship of science to the media and the use of science and scientific arguments by
politicians. As a very broad generalisation, many politicians seek certainties and facts whilst scientists typically
offer probabilities and caveats. However, politicians' ability to be heard in the mass media frequently distorts
the scientific understanding by the public. Examples in Britain include the controversy over the MMR
inoculation, and the 1988 forced resignation of a Government Minister, Edwina Currie for revealing the high
probability that battery farmed eggs were contaminated with Salmonella.[106]

John Horgan, Chris Mooney, and researchers from the US and Canada have described Scientific Certainty
Argumentation Methods (SCAMs), where an organization or think tank makes it their only goal to cast doubt on
supported science because it conflicts with political agendas.[107][108][109][110] Hank Campbell and microbiologist
Alex Berezow have described "feel-good fallacies" used in politics, where politicians frame their positions in a
way that makes people feel good about supporting certain policies even when scientific evidence shows there is
no need to worry or there is no need for dramatic change on current programs.[111]