diff --git a/_index.db b/_index.db index dc65e6c66..8aef7e2b8 100644 Binary files a/_index.db and b/_index.db differ diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_pseudoscience-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_pseudoscience-0.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..b22afbdfb --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_pseudoscience-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ +--- +title: "History of pseudoscience" +chunk: 1/2 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_pseudoscience" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:24.281319+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +The history of pseudoscience is the study of pseudoscientific theories over time. A pseudoscience is a set of ideas that presents itself as science, while it does not meet the criteria to properly be called such. +Distinguishing between proper science and pseudoscience is sometimes difficult. One popular proposal for demarcation between the two is the falsification criterion, most notably contributed to by the philosopher Karl Popper. In the history of pseudoscience it can be especially hard to separate the two, because some sciences developed from pseudosciences. An example of this is the science chemistry, which traces its origins from the protoscience of alchemy. +The vast diversity in pseudosciences further complicates the history of pseudoscience. Some pseudosciences originated in the pre-scientific era, such as astrology and acupuncture. Others developed as part of an ideology, such as Lysenkoism, or as a response to perceived threats to an ideology. An example of this is creationism, which was developed as a response to the scientific theory of evolution. +Despite failing to meet proper scientific standards, many pseudosciences survive. This is usually due to a persistent core of devotees who refuse to accept scientific criticism of their beliefs, or due to popular misconceptions. Sheer popularity is also a factor, as is attested by astrology which remains popular despite being rejected by a large majority of scientists. + +== 19th century == + +Among the most notable developments in the history of pseudoscience in the 19th century are the rise of Spiritualism (traced in America to 1848), homeopathy (first formulated in 1796), and phrenology (developed around 1800). Another popular pseudoscientific belief that arose during the 19th century was the idea that there were canals visible on Mars. A relatively mild Christian fundamentalist backlash against the scientific theory of evolution foreshadowed subsequent events in the 20th century. +The study of bumps and fissures in people's skulls to determine their character, phrenology, was originally considered a science. It influenced psychiatry and early studies into neuroscience. As science advanced, phrenology was increasingly viewed as a pseudoscience. Halfway through the 19th century, the scientific community had prevailingly abandoned it, although it was not comprehensively tested until much later. +Halfway through the century, iridology was invented by the Hungarian physician Ignaz von Peczely. The theory would remain popular throughout the 20th century as well. + +Spiritualism (sometimes referred to as "Modern Spiritualism" or "Spiritism") or "Modern American Spiritualism" grew phenomenally during the period. The American version of this movement has been traced to the Fox sisters who in 1848 began claiming the ability to communicate with the dead. The religious movement would remain popular until the 1920s, when renowned magician Harry Houdini began exposing famous mediums and other performers as frauds (see also Harry Houdini#Debunking spiritualists). While the religious beliefs of Spiritualism are not presented as science, and thus are not properly considered pseudoscientific, the movement did spawn numerous pseudoscientific phenomena such as ectoplasm and spirit photography. +The principles of homeopathy were first formulated in 1796, by German physician Samuel Hahnemann. At the time, mainstream medicine was a primitive affair and still made use of techniques such as bloodletting. Homeopathic medicine by contrast consisted of extremely diluted substances, which meant that patients basically received water. Compared to the damage often caused by conventional medicine, this was an improvement. During the 1830s homeopathic institutions and schools spread across the US and Europe. Despite these early successes, homeopathy was not without its critics. Its popularity was on the decline before the end of the 19th century, though it has been revived in the 20th century. +The supposed Martian canals were first reported in 1877, by the Italian astronomer Giovanni Schiaparelli. The belief in them peaked in the late 19th century, but was widely discredited in the beginning of the 20th century. +The publication of Atlantis: The Antediluvian World by politician and author Ignatius L. Donnelly in 1882, renewed interest in the ancient idea of Atlantis. This highly advanced society supposedly existed several millennia before the rise of civilizations like Ancient Egypt. It was first mentioned by Plato, as a literary device in two of his dialogues. Other stories of lost continents, such as Mu and Lemuria also arose during the late 19th century. +In 1881 the Dutch Vereniging tegen de Kwakzalverij (English: Society against Quackery) was formed to oppose pseudoscientific trends in medicine. It is still active. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_pseudoscience-1.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_pseudoscience-1.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..5cb66919b --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_pseudoscience-1.md @@ -0,0 +1,34 @@ +--- +title: "History of pseudoscience" +chunk: 2/2 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_pseudoscience" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:24.281319+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +== 20th century == +Among the most notable developments to pseudoscience in the 20th century are the rise of Creationism, the demise of Spiritualism, and the first formulation of ancient astronaut theories. +Reflexology, the idea that an undetectable life force connects various parts of the body to the feet and sometimes the hands and ears, was introduced in the US in 1913 as 'zone therapy'. +Creationism arose during the 20th century as a result of various other historical developments. When the modern evolutionary synthesis overcame the eclipse of Darwinism in the first half of the 20th century, American fundamentalist Christians began opposing the teaching of the theory of evolution in public schools. They introduced numerous laws to this effect, one of which was notoriously upheld by the Scopes Trial. +In the second half of the century the Space Race caused a renewed interest in science and worry that the USA was falling behind on the Soviet Union. Stricter science standards were adopted and led to the re-introduction of the theory of evolution in the curriculum. The laws against teaching evolution were now ruled unconstitutional, because they violated the separation of church and state. Attempting to evade this ruling, the Christian fundamentalists produced a supposedly secular alternative to evolution, Creationism. Perhaps the most influential publication of this new pseudoscience was The Genesis Flood by young Earth creationists John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris. +The dawn of the space age also inspired various versions of ancient astronaut theories. While differences between the specific theories exists, they share the idea that intelligent extraterrestrials visited Earth in the distant past and made contact with then living humans. Popular authors, such as Erich von Däniken and Zecharia Sitchin, began publishing in the 1960s. Among the most notable publications in the genre is Chariots of the Gods?, which appeared in 1968. +Late in the 20th century several prominent skeptical foundations were formed to counter the growth of pseudosciences. In the US, the most notable of these are, in chronological order, the Center for Inquiry (1991), The Skeptics Society (1992), the James Randi Educational Foundation (1996), and the New England Skeptical Society (1996). The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, which has similar goals, had already been founded in 1976. It became part of the Center for Inquiry as part of the foundation of the latter in 1991. In the Netherlands Stichting Skepsis was founded in 1987. + +== 21st century == +At the beginning of the 21st century, a variety of pseudoscientific theories remain popular and new ones continue to crop up. +The Flat Earth is the idea that the Earth is flat. It is believed to have existed for thousands of years, but studies show this is a relatively new theory that begun in the 1990s when the internet starting up allowed such ideas to spread much quicker. +Creationism, in the form of Intelligent Design, suffered a major legal defeat in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial. Judge John E. Jones III ruled that Intelligent Design is inseparable from Creationism, and its teaching in public schools violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The trial sparked much interest, and was the subject of several documentaries including the award-winning NOVA production Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial (2007). +The pseudoscientific idea that vaccines cause autism originated in the 1990s, but became prominent in the media during the first decade of the 21st century. Despite a broad scientific consensus against the idea that there is a link between vaccination and autism, several celebrities have joined the debate. Most notable of these is Jenny McCarthy, whose son has autism. +In February 2009, surgeon Andrew Wakefield, who published the original research supposedly indicating a link between vaccines and autism, was reported to have fixed the data by The Sunday Times. A hearing by the General Medical Council began in March 2007, examining charges of professional misconduct. On 24 May 2010, he was struck off the United Kingdom medical register, effectively banning him from practicing medicine in Britain. +The most notable development in the ancient astronauts genre was the opening of Erich von Däniken's Mystery Park in 2003. While the park had a good first year, the number of visitors was much lower than the expected 500,000 a year. This caused financial difficulties, which led to the closure of the park in 2006. + +== See also == + +=== Histories of specific pseudosciences === +History of astrology +History of creationism +History of perpetual motion machines + +== References == \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_randomness-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_randomness-0.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..d9617031f --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_randomness-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@ +--- +title: "History of randomness" +chunk: 1/4 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_randomness" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:25.408997+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +In ancient history, the concepts of chance and randomness were intertwined with that of fate. Many ancient peoples threw dice to determine fate, and this later evolved into games of chance. At the same time, most ancient cultures used various methods of divination to attempt to circumvent randomness and fate. Beyond religion and games of chance, randomness has been attested for sortition since at least ancient Athenian democracy in the form of a kleroterion. +The formalization of odds and chance was perhaps earliest done by the Chinese 3,000 years ago. The Greek philosophers discussed randomness at length, but only in non-quantitative forms. It was only in the sixteenth century that Italian mathematicians began to formalize the odds associated with various games of chance. The invention of modern calculus had a positive impact on the formal study of randomness. In the 19th century the concept of entropy was introduced in physics. +The early part of the twentieth century saw a rapid growth in the formal analysis of randomness, and mathematical foundations for probability were introduced, leading to its axiomatization in 1933. At the same time, the advent of quantum mechanics changed the scientific perspective on determinacy. In the mid to late 20th-century, ideas of algorithmic information theory introduced new dimensions to the field via the concept of algorithmic randomness. +Although randomness had often been viewed as an obstacle and a nuisance for many centuries, in the twentieth century computer scientists began to realize that the deliberate introduction of randomness into computations can be an effective tool for designing better algorithms. In some cases, such randomized algorithms are able to outperform the best deterministic methods. + +== Antiquity to the Middle Ages == + +Pre-Christian people along the Mediterranean threw dice to determine fate, and this later evolved into games of chance. There is also evidence of games of chance played by ancient Egyptians, Hindus and +Chinese, dating back to 2100 BC. The Chinese used dice before the Europeans, and have a long history of playing games of chance. +Over 3,000 years ago, the problems concerned with the tossing of several coins were considered in the I Ching, one of the oldest Chinese mathematical texts, that probably dates to 1150 BC. The two principal elements yin and yang were combined in the I Ching in various forms to produce Heads and Tails permutations of the type HH, TH, HT, etc. and the Chinese seem to have been aware of Pascal's triangle long before the Europeans formalized it in the 17th century. However, Western philosophy focused on the non-mathematical aspects of chance and randomness until the 16th century. +The development of the concept of chance throughout history has been very gradual. Historians have wondered why progress in the field of randomness was so slow, given that humans have encountered chance since antiquity. Deborah J. Bennett suggests that ordinary people face an inherent difficulty in understanding randomness, although the concept is often taken as being obvious and self-evident. She cites studies by Kahneman and Tversky; these concluded that statistical principles are not learned from everyday experience because people do not attend to the detail necessary to gain such knowledge. +The Greek philosophers were the earliest Western thinkers to address chance and randomness. Around 400 BC, Democritus presented a view of the world as governed by the unambiguous laws of order and considered randomness as a subjective concept that only originated from the inability of humans to understand the nature of events. He used the example of two men who would send their servants to bring water at the same time to cause them to meet. The servants, unaware of the plan, would view the meeting as random. +Aristotle saw chance and necessity as opposite forces. He argued that nature had rich and constant patterns that could not be the result of chance alone, but that these patterns never displayed the machine-like uniformity of necessary determinism. He viewed randomness as a genuine and widespread part of the world, but as subordinate to necessity and order. Aristotle classified events into three types: certain events that happen necessarily; probable events that happen in most cases; and unknowable events that happen by pure chance. He considered the outcome of games of chance as unknowable. +Around 300 BC Epicurus proposed the concept that randomness exists by itself, independent of human knowledge. He believed that in the atomic world, atoms would swerve at random along their paths, bringing about randomness at higher levels. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_randomness-1.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_randomness-1.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..70cf15218 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_randomness-1.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +--- +title: "History of randomness" +chunk: 2/4 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_randomness" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:25.408997+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +For several centuries thereafter, the idea of chance continued to be intertwined with fate. Divination was practiced in many cultures, using diverse methods. The Chinese analyzed the cracks in turtle shells, while the Germans, who according to Tacitus had the highest regards for lots and omens, utilized strips of bark. In the Roman Empire, chance was personified by the Goddess Fortuna. The Romans would partake in games of chance to simulate what Fortuna would have decided. In 49 BC, Julius Caesar allegedly decided on his fateful decision to cross the Rubicon after throwing dice. +Aristotle's classification of events into the three classes: certain, probable and unknowable was adopted by Roman philosophers, but they had to reconcile it with deterministic Christian teachings in which even events unknowable to man were considered to be predetermined by God. About 960 Bishop Wibold of Cambrai correctly enumerated the 56 different outcomes (without permutations) of playing with three dice. No reference to playing cards has been found in Europe before 1350. The Church preached against card playing, and card games spread much more slowly than games based on dice. The Christian Church specifically forbade divination; and wherever Christianity went, divination lost most of its old-time power. +Over the centuries, many Christian scholars wrestled with the conflict between the belief in free will and its implied randomness, and the idea that God knows everything that happens. Saints Augustine and Aquinas tried to reach an accommodation between foreknowledge and free will, but Martin Luther argued against randomness and took the position that God's omniscience renders human actions unavoidable and determined. In the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas viewed randomness not as the result of a single cause, but of several causes coming together by chance. While he believed in the existence of randomness, he rejected it as an explanation of the end-directedness of nature, for he saw too many patterns in nature to have been obtained by chance. +The Greeks and Romans had not noticed the magnitudes of the relative frequencies of the games of chance. For centuries, chance was discussed in Europe with no mathematical foundation and it was only in the 16th century that Italian mathematicians began to discuss the outcomes of games of chance as ratios. In his 1565 Liber de Lude Aleae (a gambler's manual published after his death) Gerolamo Cardano wrote one of the first formal tracts to analyze the odds of winning at various games. + +== 17th–19th centuries == + +Around 1620 Galileo wrote a paper called On a discovery concerning dice that used an early probabilistic model to address specific questions. In 1654, prompted by Chevalier de Méré's interest in gambling, Blaise Pascal corresponded with Pierre de Fermat, and much of the groundwork for probability theory was laid. Pascal's Wager was noted for its early use of the concept of infinity, and the first formal use of decision theory. The work of Pascal and Fermat influenced Leibniz's work on the infinitesimal calculus, which in turn provided further momentum for the formal analysis of probability and randomness. +The first known suggestion for viewing randomness in terms of complexity was made by Leibniz in an obscure 17th-century document discovered after his death. Leibniz asked how one could know if a set of points on a piece of paper were selected at random (e.g. by splattering ink) or not. Given that for any set of finite points there is always a mathematical equation that can describe the points, (e.g. by Lagrangian interpolation) the question focuses on the way the points are expressed mathematically. Leibniz viewed the points as random if the function describing them had to be extremely complex. Three centuries later, the same concept was formalized as algorithmic randomness by A. N. Kolmogorov and Gregory Chaitin as the minimal length of a computer program needed to describe a finite string as random. +The Doctrine of Chances, the first textbook on probability theory was published in 1718 and the field continued to grow thereafter. The frequency theory approach to probability was first developed by Robert Ellis and John Venn late in the 19th century. + +While the mathematical elite was making progress in understanding randomness from the 17th to the 19th century, the public at large continued to rely on practices such as fortune telling in the hope of taming chance. Fortunes were told in a multitude of ways both in the Orient (where fortune telling was later termed an addiction) and in Europe by Romanis and others. English practices such as the reading of eggs dropped in a glass were exported to Puritan communities in North America. + +The term entropy, which is now a key element in the study of randomness, was coined by Rudolf Clausius in 1865 as he studied heat engines in the context of the second law of thermodynamics. Clausius was the first to state "entropy always increases". +From the time of Newton until about 1890, it was generally believed that if one knows the initial state of a system with great accuracy, and if all the forces acting on the system can be formulated with equal accuracy, it would be possible, in principle, to make predictions of the state of the universe for an infinitely long time. The limits to such predictions in physical systems became clear as early as 1893 when Henri Poincaré showed that in the three-body problem in astronomy, small changes to the initial state could result in large changes in trajectories during the numerical integration of the equations. +During the 19th century, as probability theory was formalized and better understood, the attitude towards "randomness as nuisance" began to be questioned. Goethe wrote: + +The tissue of the world +is built from necessities and randomness; +the intellect of men places itself between both +and can control them; +it considers the necessity +and the reason of its existence; +it knows how randomness can be +managed, controlled, and used. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_randomness-2.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_randomness-2.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..23deb0553 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_randomness-2.md @@ -0,0 +1,18 @@ +--- +title: "History of randomness" +chunk: 3/4 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_randomness" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:25.408997+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +The words of Goethe proved prophetic, when in the 20th century randomized algorithms were discovered as powerful tools. By the end of the 19th century, Newton's model of a mechanical universe was fading away as the statistical view of the collision of molecules in gases was studied by Maxwell and Boltzmann. Boltzmann's equation S = k loge W (inscribed on his tombstone) first related entropy with logarithms. + +== 20th century == + +During the 20th century, the five main interpretations of probability theory (e.g., classical, logical, frequency, propensity and subjective) became better understood, were discussed, compared and contrasted. A significant number of application areas were developed in this century, from finance to physics. In 1900 Louis Bachelier applied Brownian motion to evaluate stock options, effectively launching the fields of financial mathematics and stochastic processes. +Émile Borel was one of the first mathematicians to formally address randomness in 1909, and introduced normal numbers. In 1919 Richard von Mises gave the first definition of algorithmic randomness via the impossibility of a gambling system. He advanced the frequency theory of randomness in terms of what he called the collective, i.e. a random sequence. Von Mises regarded the randomness of a collective as an empirical law, established by experience. He related the "disorder" or randomness of a collective to the lack of success of attempted gambling systems. This approach led him to suggest a definition of randomness that was later refined and made mathematically rigorous by Alonzo Church by using computable functions in 1940. Von Mises likened the principle of the impossibility of a gambling system to the principle of the conservation of energy, a law that cannot be proven, but has held true in repeated experiments. +Von Mises never totally formalized his rules for sub-sequence selection, but in his 1940 paper "On the concept of random sequence", Alonzo Church suggested that the functions used for place settings in the formalism of von Mises be computable functions rather than arbitrary functions of the initial segments of the sequence, appealing to the Church–Turing thesis on effectiveness. +The advent of quantum mechanics in the early 20th century and the formulation of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in 1927 saw the end to the Newtonian mindset among physicists regarding the determinacy of nature. In quantum mechanics, there is not even a way to consider all observable elements in a system as random variables at once, since many observables do not commute. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_randomness-3.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_randomness-3.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..f6efe5e1f --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_randomness-3.md @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ +--- +title: "History of randomness" +chunk: 4/4 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_randomness" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:25.408997+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +By the early 1940s, the frequency theory approach to probability was well accepted within the Vienna circle, but in the 1950s Karl Popper proposed the propensity theory. Given that the frequency approach cannot deal with "a single toss" of a coin, and can only address large ensembles or collectives, the single-case probabilities were treated as propensities or chances. The concept of propensity was also driven by the desire to handle single-case probability settings in quantum mechanics, e.g. the probability of decay of a specific atom at a specific moment. In more general terms, the frequency approach can not deal with the probability of the death of a specific person given that the death can not be repeated multiple times for that person. Karl Popper echoed the same sentiment as Aristotle in viewing randomness as subordinate to order when he wrote that "the concept of chance is not opposed to the concept of law" in nature, provided one considers the laws of chance. +Claude Shannon's development of Information theory in 1948 gave rise to the entropy view of randomness. In this view, randomness is the opposite of determinism in a stochastic process. Hence if a stochastic system has entropy zero it has no randomness and any increase in entropy increases randomness. Shannon's formulation defaults to Boltzmann's 19th century formulation of entropy in case all probabilities are equal. Entropy is now widely used in diverse fields of science from thermodynamics to quantum chemistry. +Martingales for the study of chance and betting strategies were introduced by Paul Lévy in the 1930s and were formalized by Joseph L. Doob in the 1950s. The application of random walk hypothesis in financial theory was first proposed by Maurice Kendall in 1953. It was later promoted by Eugene Fama and Burton Malkiel. +Random strings were first studied in the 1960s by A. N. Kolmogorov (who had provided the first axiomatic definition of probability theory in 1933), Chaitin and Martin-Löf. The algorithmic randomness of a string was defined as the minimum size of a program (e.g. in bits) executed on a universal computer that yields the string. Chaitin's Omega number later related randomness and the halting probability for programs. +In 1964, Benoît Mandelbrot suggested that most statistical models approached only a first stage of dealing with indeterminism, and that they ignored many aspects of real world turbulence. In his 1997 he defined seven states of randomness ranging from "mild to wild", with traditional randomness being at the mild end of the scale. +Despite mathematical advances, reliance on other methods of dealing with chance, such as fortune telling and astrology continued in the 20th century. The government of Myanmar reportedly shaped 20th century economic policy based on fortune telling and planned the move of the capital of the country based on the advice of astrologers. White House Chief of Staff Donald Regan criticized the involvement of astrologer Joan Quigley in decisions made during Ronald Reagan's presidency in the 1980s. Quigley claims to have been the White House astrologer for seven years. +During the 20th century, limits in dealing with randomness were better understood. The best-known example of both theoretical and operational limits on predictability is weather forecasting, simply because models have been used in the field since the 1950s. Predictions of weather and climate are necessarily uncertain. Observations of weather and climate are uncertain and incomplete, and the models into which the data are fed are uncertain. In 1961, Edward Lorenz noticed that a very small change to the initial data submitted to a computer program for weather simulation could result in a completely different weather scenario. This later became known as the butterfly effect, often paraphrased as the question: "Does the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas?". A key example of serious practical limits on predictability is in geology, where the ability to predict earthquakes either on an individual or on a statistical basis remains a remote prospect. +In the late 1970s and early 1980s, computer scientists began to realize that the deliberate introduction of randomness into computations can be an effective tool for designing better algorithms. In some cases, such randomized algorithms outperform the best deterministic methods. + +== Notes == + +== References == + +== See also == +Chaparro, Luis F. (April 2020). "A brief history of randomness". +Sheynin, O.B. (1991). "The notion of randomness from Aristotle to Poincaré" (PDF). Mathématiques et sciences humaines. 114: 41–55. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_policy-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_policy-0.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..ee8ecbf9a --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_policy-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ +--- +title: "History of science policy" +chunk: 1/4 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_policy" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:21.965426+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +Through history, the systems of economic support for scientists and their work have been important determinants of the character and pace of scientific research. The ancient foundations of the sciences were driven by practical and religious concerns and or the pursuit of philosophy more generally. From the Middle Ages until the Age of Enlightenment, scholars sought various forms of noble and religious patronage or funded their own work through medical practice. In the 18th and 19th centuries, many disciplines began to professionalize, and both government-sponsored "prizes" and the first research professorships at universities drove scientific investigation. In the 20th century, a variety of sources, including government organizations, military funding, patent profits, corporate sponsorship, and private philanthropies, have shaped scientific research. + +== Ancient science == + +Most early advances in mathematics, astronomy and engineering were byproducts of more immediate and practical goals. Surveying and accounting needs drove ancient Egyptian, Babylonian, Chinese, and Indian mathematics, while calendars created for religious and agricultural purposes drove early astronomy. +Modern science owes much of its heritage to ancient Greek philosophers; influential work in astronomy, mechanics, geometry, medicine, and natural history was part of the general pursuit of philosophy. Architectural knowledge, especially in ancient Greece and Rome, also contributed to the development of mathematics, though the extent of the connection between architectural knowledge and more abstract mathematics and mechanics is unclear. +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. General levies of labor and grain were collected to fund great public works in China, including the accumulation of grain for distribution in times of famine, for the building of levees to control flooding by the great rivers of China, for the building of canals and locks to connect rivers of China, some of which flowed in opposite directions to each other, and for the building of bridges across these rivers. These projects required a civil service, the scholars, some of whom demonstrated great mastery of hydraulics. + +== In the Middle Ages == + +H. Floris Cohen's historiography of the Scientific Revolution (How Modern Science Came into the World) credits the Umayyad caliphates and especially the Abbasid caliphates support for the translation movement from the Greek, Persian, and Syriac literature to Arabic. These translations were undertaken by the library of the House of Wisdom in Baghdad. Al-Kindi, Al-Battani, Ibn Sahl and Ibn al-Haytham flourished under the liberal policies of these caliphates. + +=== Arabic-language science policy === + +Science in the Islamic world during the Middle Ages followed various models, and modes of funding varied based primarily on scholars. It was extensive patronage and strong intellectual policies implemented by specific rulers that allowed scientific knowledge to develop in many areas. The most prominent example of this is with the Translation Movement of the ninth century that was facilitated by early Abbasid Caliphs. Other wealthy patrons also supported this movement and accelerated the process of acquiring, translating and interpreting ancient works of philosophy and science. Funding for translation was ongoing throughout the reign of certain caliphs, and it turned out that certain scholars became experts in the works they translated and in turn received further support for continuing to develop certain sciences. As these sciences received wider attention from the elite, more scholars were invited and funded to study particular sciences. Examples of translators and scholars who benefited from this type of support were al-Khawarizmi, Hunayn Ibn Ishaq and the Banu Musa. Patronage was primarily allocated to practical sciences which would be beneficial to the society at the time. Funding was reserved for those who were well versed in certain disciplines, and was not given based on religious affiliation. For this reason we find Jewish, Christian and mixed Muslim scholars working in Baghdad and other locations, often with one another. +A notable feature of many scholars working under Muslim rule in medieval times is that they were often polymaths. Examples include the work on Optics, Math and Astronomy of Ibn al-Haytham, or the work on Biology, Theology and Arabic literature of al-Jahiz. Many of these scholars were encouraged through patronage to take a multidisciplinary approach to their work and to dabble in multiple fields. Those individuals who were knowledgeable on a wide variety of subjects, especially practical topics, were respected and well-cared for in their societies. +Funding of science existed in many Muslim empires outside the Abbasids and continued even after the Mongol invasions into the Middle East. Results of patronage in Medieval Islamic areas include the House of Wisdom in Baghdad, the Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Bimaristans across the Middle East and Persia, and famous observatories, such at that of Ulugh Beg in Samarqand. It is also significant to note that later Muslim empires (Ottomans, Safavid, Mughal empires) also supported science in their own ways, even though their scientific achievements were not as prominent on a global level. + +== 16th and 17th centuries == +In Italy, Galileo noted that individual taxation of minute amounts could fund large sums to the State, which could then fund his research on the trajectory of cannonballs, noting that "each individual soldier was being paid from coin collected by a general tax of pennies and farthings, while even a million of gold would not suffice to pay the entire army." +In Great Britain, Lord Chancellor Sir Francis Bacon had a formative effect on science policy with his identification of "experiments of .. light, more penetrating into nature [than what others know]", which today we call the crucial experiment. Governmental approval of the Royal Society recognized a scientific community which exists to this day. British prizes for research spurred the development of an accurate, portable chronometer, which directly enabled reliable navigation and sailing on the high seas, and also funded Babbage's computer. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_policy-1.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_policy-1.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..baf66f0eb --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_policy-1.md @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ +--- +title: "History of science policy" +chunk: 2/4 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_policy" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:21.965426+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +=== Patronage === +Most of the important astronomers and natural philosophers (as well as artists) in the 16th and 17th centuries depended on the patronage of powerful religious or political figures to fund their work. Patronage networks extended all the way from Emperors and Popes to regional nobles to artisans to peasants; even university positions were based to some extent on patronage. Scholarly careers in this period were driven by patronage, often starting in undistinguished universities or local schools or courts, and traveling closer or farther from centers of power as their fortunes rose and fell. +Patronage, and the desire for more, also shaped the work and publications of scientists. Effusive dedications to current or potential patrons can be found in almost every scholarly publication, while the interests of a patron in a specific topic was a strong incentive to pursue said topic—or reframe one's work in terms of it. Galileo, for example, first presented the telescope as a naval instrument to military- and commerce-focused Republic of Venice; when he sought the more prestigious patronage of the Medici court in Florence, he instead promoted the astronomical potential of the device (by naming the moons of Jupiter after the Medicis). +A scholar's patron not only supported his research financially, but also provided credibility by associating results with the authority of the patron. This function of patronage was gradually subsumed by scientific societies, which also initially drew upon their royal charters for authority but eventually came to be sources of credibility on their own. + +=== Self-funded science === +Self-funding and independent wealth were also crucial funding sources for scientists, from the Renaissance at least until the late 19th century. Many scientists derived income from tangential but related activities: Galileo sold instruments; Kepler published horoscopes; Robert Hooke designed buildings and built watches; and most anatomists and natural historians practiced or taught medicine. Those with independent means were sometimes known as gentlemen scientists. + +=== Exploration and commerce === +Military and commercial voyages, though not intended for scientific purposes, were especially important for the dramatic growth of natural historical knowledge during the "Age of Exploration." Scholars and nobles in seafaring nations, first Spain and Portugal followed Italy, France and England, amassed unprecedented collections of biological specimens in cabinets of curiosities, which galvanized interest in diversity and taxonomy. + +== 18th and 19th centuries == +Gradually, a science policy arose that ideas be as free as the air (air being a free good, not just a public good). Steven Johnson, in The invention of air (a 2008 book on Enlightenment Europe and America, especially on Joseph Priestley) quotes Thomas Jefferson: "That ideas should spread freely from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, ... like the air ... incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation." +In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, as the pace of technological progress increased before and during the Industrial Revolution, most scientific and technological research was carried out by individual inventors using their own funds. For example, Joseph Priestley was a clergyman and educator, who spoke freely with others, especially those in his scientific community, including Benjamin Franklin, a self-made man who retired from the printing business. + +=== Scientific societies === +The professionalization of science, begun in the nineteenth century, was further enabled by the creation of scientific organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences in 1863, the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in 1911, and state funding of universities of their respective nations. + +=== Professionalization === + +=== Industry === +A system of patents was developed to allow inventors a period of time (often twenty years) to commercialise their inventions and recoup a profit, although in practice many found this difficult. The talents of an inventor are not those of a businessman, and there are many examples of inventors (e.g. Charles Goodyear) making rather little money from their work whilst others were able to market it. + +=== Research universities === +The concept of the research university first arose in early 19th-century Prussia in Germany, where Wilhelm von Humboldt championed his vision of Einheit von Lehre und Forschung (the unity of teaching and research), as a means of producing an education that focused on the main areas of knowledge (the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities) rather than on the previous goals of the university education, which was to develop an understanding of truth, beauty, and goodness. +Roger L. Geiger, "the leading historian of the American research university,"[14] has argued that "the model for the American research university was established by five of the nine colonial colleges chartered before the American Revolution (Harvard, Yale, Pennsylvania, Princeton, and Columbia); five state universities (Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, and California); and five private institutions conceived from their inception as research universities (MIT, Cornell, Johns Hopkins, Stanford, and Chicago)."[15][16] The American research university first emerged in the late 19th century, when these fifteen institutions began to graft graduate programs derived from the German model onto undergraduate programs derived from the British model.[15] \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_policy-2.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_policy-2.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..488233b82 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_policy-2.md @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@ +--- +title: "History of science policy" +chunk: 3/4 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_policy" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:21.965426+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +== 1900–1945 == +In the twentieth century, scientific and technological research became increasingly systematised, as corporations developed, and discovered that continuous investment in research and development could be a key element of success in a competitive strategy. It remained the case, however, that imitation by competitors—circumventing or simply flouting patents, especially those registered abroad—was often just as successful a strategy for companies focused on innovation in matters of organisation and production technique, or even in marketing. A classic example is that of Wilkinson Sword and Gillette in the disposable razor market, where the former has typically had the technological edge, and the latter the commercial one. +Swedish industrialist Alfred Nobel's will directed that his vast fortune be utilized to establish prizes in the scientific fields of medicine, physics and chemistry as well as literature and peace. The Nobel Prize served to provide financial incentives for scientists, elevated leading scientists to unprecedented visibility, and provided an example for other philanthropists of the industrial era to provide private sources of funding for scientific research and education. Ironically, it was not an era of peace that followed, but rather wars fought on unprecedented international scale that led to expanded state interest in the funding of science. + +=== War research === +The desire for more advanced weapons during World War I inspired significant investments in scientific research and applied engineering in both Germany and allied countries. World War II spawned even more widespread scientific research and engineering development in such fields as nuclear chemistry and nuclear physics as scientists raced to contribute to the development of radar, the proximity fuse, and the atomic bomb. In Germany, scientists such as Werner Heisenberg were being pushed by the leaders of the German war effort, including Adolf Hitler to evaluate the feasibility of developing atomic weapons in time for them to have an effect on the outcome of the war. Meanwhile, allied countries in the late 1930s and 1940s committed monumental resources to wartime scientific research. In the United States, these efforts were initially led by the National Defense Research Committee. Later, the Office of Scientific Research and Development, organized and administered by the MIT engineer Vannevar Bush, took up the effort of coordinating government efforts in support of science. +Following the United States entry into the second world war, the Manhattan Project emerged as a massive coordinated program to pursue development of nuclear weapons. Leading scientists such as Robert Oppenheimer, Glenn T. Seaborg, Enrico Fermi and Edward Teller were among the thousands of civilian scientists and engineers employed in the unprecedented wartime efforts. Entire communities were created to support the scientific and industrial aspects of the nuclear efforts in Los Alamos, New Mexico; Oak Ridge, Tennessee; the Hanford site in Washington and elsewhere. The Manhattan Project cost $1,889,604,000 of which $69,681,000 was dedicated to research and development. The Manhattan Project is regarded as a major milestone in the trend towards government funding of big science. + +== 1945–2000 == + +=== Cold War science policy === +In the United States, the foundation for post-WWII science policy was laid out in Vannevar Bush's Science – the Endless Frontier, submitted to President Truman in 1945. Vannevar Bush was President Roosevelt's science advisor and became one of the most influential science advisors as in his essay, he pioneered how we decide on science policy today. Vannevar Bush, director of the office of scientific research and development for the U.S. government, wrote in July 1945 that "science is a proper concern of government" This report led to the creation of the National Science Foundation in 1950 to support civilian scientific research. +During the Cold War era, the former Soviet Union invested heavily in science, attempting to match American achievements in nuclear science and its military and industrial applications. At the same time, the United States invested heavily in advancing its own nuclear research and development activities through a system of National laboratories managed by the newly formed Atomic Energy Commission in collaboration with the University of California, Berkeley and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. This era of competition in science and weapons development was known as the arms race. In October 1957, the Soviet Union's successful launch of Sputnik spurred a strong reaction in the United States and a period of competition between the two new world superpowers in a space race. In reaction to Sputnik, President Eisenhower formed the President's Science Advisory Commission (PSAC). Its November 1960 report, "Scientific Progress, the Universities, and the Federal Government," was also known as the "Seaborg Report" after University of California, Berkeley Chancellor Glenn T. Seaborg, the 1951 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry. The Seaborg Report, which emphasized federal funding for science and pure research, is credited with influencing the federal policy towards academic science for the next eight years. PSAC member John Bardeen observed: "There was a time not long ago when science was so starved for funds that one could say almost any increase was desirable, but this is no longer true. We shall have to review our science budgets with particular care to [maintaining] a healthy rate of growth on a broad base and not see our efforts diverted into unprofitable channels." +President John F. Kennedy's appointment of Seaborg as Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission in 1961, put a respected scientist in a prominent government post where he could influence science policy for the next 11 years. In an address at Rice University in 1962, President Kennedy escalated the American commitment to the space program by identifying an important objective in the space race: "We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard." [1]. Federal funding for both pure and applied research reached unprecedented levels as the era of Big Science continued throughout the Cold War, largely due to desires to win the arms race and space race, but also because of American desires to make advances in medicine. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_policy-3.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_policy-3.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..9881b9c2e --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_policy-3.md @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +--- +title: "History of science policy" +chunk: 4/4 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_policy" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:21.965426+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +=== State funding cuts === +Starting with the first Oil shock, an economic crisis hit the western world which made it more difficult for the states to maintain their uncritical funding of research and teaching. In the United Kingdom, the University Grants Committee started to lower their annual block grant for certain universities as soon as 1974. This was compounded by the access to power of the Thatcher government in 1979, who pledged a radical reduction of public spending. Between 1979 and 1981, more cuts in the block grant threatened universities and became opportunities seized by certain actors (heads of departments, vice-chancellors, etc.) for radical reorganisation and reorientation of the university's research. +In 1970 in the United States, the Military Authorization Act forbade the DOD to support research unless it had "direct or apparent relationship +to a specific military function." This cut the ability of the government to fund basic research. + +=== Selectivity === +In order to administer severely depleted resources in a (theoretically) transparent manner, several selectivity mechanisms were developed through the 1980s and 1990s. In the United Kingdom, the funding cuts of 1984–1986 were accompanied by an assessment of the quality of research. This was done by estimating outside research income (from research councils and private business), as well as "informed prejudice" by the experts on the UGC. This became the first Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), soon to be followed by many others. +In France, selectivity is exercised through various means. The CNRS evaluates regularly its units and researchers. For this reason, through the 1980s–90s, the government has attempted to privilege funding for researchers with a CNRS affiliation. With the creation of a contract system finalised in 1989, all research was submitted to approval of the university for inclusion in the contract passed with the Education Ministry. This allowed universities to select and privilege research and researchers they considered better than others (usually those associated to the CNRS or other grands corps de recherche). +Critics of selectivity systems decry their inherent biases. Many selectivity systems such as the RAE estimate the quality of research by its income (especially private income), and therefore favour expensive disciplines at the expense of cheap ones (see Matthew effect). They also favour more applied research (liable to attract business funding) at the expense of more fundamental science. These systems (as well as others such as bibliometry) are also open to abuse and fixing. + +== 21st-century policy == +The NSF and OSTP have established a Science of Science and Innovation Policy program known as SciSIP, aimed at understanding the field itself. +The European Union manages research funding through the Framework Programmes for Research and Technological Development. + +== See also == +Big Science +National laboratories +Space race +History of military science +Research and development +Science policy + +== References == \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chemical_elements_named_after_places-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chemical_elements_named_after_places-0.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..fa38c33d2 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chemical_elements_named_after_places-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@ +--- +title: "List of chemical elements named after places" +chunk: 1/1 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chemical_elements_named_after_places" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:20.813012+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +Of the 118 chemical elements, 41 are named after, or have names associated with, places around the world or among astronomical objects. 32 of these have names tied to the Earth and the other 10 have names connected to bodies in the Solar System. +The first table below lists terrestrial locations (excluding the entire Earth taken as a whole) and the last table lists astronomical objects which the chemical elements are named after. + + +== Terrestrial locations == + + + +== Astronomical objects == + +* - The element mercury was named directly for the deity, with only indirect naming connection to the planet (see etymology of mercury). +** - Phosphorus was the Ancient Greek name for the planet Venus. (see history of phosphorus). + + +== See also == +List of chemical elements named after people +List of chemical element name etymologies + + +== References == \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictet's_experiment-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictet's_experiment-0.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..b88ca695e --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictet's_experiment-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +--- +title: "Pictet's experiment" +chunk: 1/1 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictet's_experiment" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:19.688874+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +Pictet's experiment is the demonstration of the reflection of heat and the apparent reflection of cold in a series of experiments performed in 1790 (reported in English in 1791 in An Essay on Fire) by Marc-Auguste Pictet—ten years before the discovery of infrared heating of the Earth by the Sun. The apparatus for most of the experiments used two concave mirrors facing one another at a distance. An object placed at the focus of one mirror would have heat and light reflected by the mirror and focused. An object at the focus of the counterpart mirror would do the same. Placing a hot object at one focus and a thermometer at the other would register an increase in temperature on the thermometer. This was sometimes demonstrated with the explosion of a flammable mix of gasses in a blackened balloon, as described and depicted by John Tyndall in 1863. +After "demonstrating that radiant heat, even when it was not accompanied by any light, could be reflected and focused like light", Pictet used the same apparatus to demonstrate the apparent reflection of cold in a similar manner. This demonstration was important to Benjamin Thompson, Count Rumford who argued for the existence of "frigorific rays" conveying cold. Rumford's continuation of the experiments and promotion of the topic caused the name to be attached to the experiment. +The apparent reflection of cold if a cold object is placed in one focus surprised Pictet and two scholars writing about the experiment in 1985 noted "most physicists, on seeing it demonstrated for the first time, find it surprising and even puzzling." The confusion may be resolved by understanding that all objects in the system—including the thermometer—are constantly radiating heat. Pictet described this as "the thermometer acts the same part relatively to the snow as the bullet [heat source] in relation to the thermometer." Addition of a very cold object adds an effective heat sink versus a room temperature object which would not, in the net, cool or warm a thermometer in the other focus. + + +== Modern replications and demonstrations == +There are relatively few published examples of demonstrations or recreation of the experiment. Two physicists in the University of Washington system reported on demonstrations to students and colleagues and produced directions for re-creating the experiment in 1985 as part of an investigation into the role of the experiment in the history of physics. Physicists at Sofia University in Bulgaria reported on reproducing the experiment for high school students in 2017. + + +== References == + + +== External links == +The Pictet Cabinet: The art of teaching science through experiment, a 2011 pamphlet from the Musée d'histoire des sciences de la Ville de Genève (Museum of the History of Science of the City of Geneva) +"Are There Rays of Cold?", an undated video demonstration in Russian from the Moscow Engineering Physics Institute \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoscience-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoscience-0.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..12d2c5a66 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoscience-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ +--- +title: "Protoscience" +chunk: 1/2 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoscience" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:23.132251+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +In the philosophy of science, protoscience (adj. protoscientific) is a research field that has the characteristics of an undeveloped science that may ultimately develop into an established science. Philosophers use protoscience to understand the history of science and distinguish protoscience from science and pseudoscience. +The word "protoscience" is a hybrid Greek-Latin compound of the roots proto- + scientia, meaning a first or primeval rational knowledge. +Examples of protoscience include alchemy, Wegener's original theory of continental drift and political economy (the predecessor to the modern economic sciences). + +== History == +Protoscience as a research field with the characteristics of an undeveloped science appeared in the early 20th century. In 1910, Jones described the field of political economy as it began the transition to the modern field of economics: + +I confess to a personal predilection for some term such as proto-science, pre-science, or nas-science, to give expression to what I conceive to be the true state of affairs, which I take to be this, that economics and kindred subjects are not sciences, but are on the way to become sciences. +Thomas Kuhn later provided a more precise description, protoscience as a field that generates testable conclusions, faces "incessant criticism and continually strive for a fresh start," but currently, like art and philosophy, appears to have failed to progress in a way similar to the progress seen in the established sciences. He applies protoscience to the fields of natural philosophy, medicine and the crafts in the past that ultimately became established sciences. Philosophers later developed more precise criteria to identify protoscience using the cognitive field concept. +The historian Scott Hendrix argued that the English word "science" as it is used by 21st century English speakers means modern science and that the use of the word to describe pre-modern scholars is misleading. "[E]ven an astute reader is prompted to classify intellectual exercises of the past as 'scientific'...based upon how closely those activities appear to mirror the activities of a modern scientist." Noting that natural philosophy was a far more neutral term than "science", Hendrix recommended that term be used instead when discussing pre-modern scholars of the natural world. "[T]here are sound reasons for a return to the use of the term natural philosophy that, for all its imprecision, reveals rather than imposes meaning on the past." + +== Thought collective == + +This material is from Ludwik Fleck § Thought collective +Thomas Kuhn later discovered that Fleck 1935 had voiced concepts that predated Kuhn's own work. That is, +Fleck wrote that the development of truth in scientific research was an unattainable ideal as different researchers were locked into thought collectives (or thought-styles). This means "that a pure and direct observation cannot exist: in the act of perceiving objects the observer, i.e. the epistemological subject, is always influenced by the epoch and the environment to which he belongs, that is by what Fleck calls the thought style". Thought style throughout Fleck's work is closely associated with representational style. A "fact" was a relative value, expressed in the language or symbolism of the thought collective in which it belonged, and subject to the social and temporal structure of this collective. He argued, however, that within the active cultural style of a thought collective, knowledge claims or facts were constrained by passive elements arising from the observations and experience of the natural world. This passive resistance of natural experience represented within the stylized means of the thought collective could be verified by anyone adhering to the culture of the thought collective, and thus facts could be agreed upon within any particular thought style. Thus while a fact may be verifiable within its own collective, it may be unverifiable in others. He felt that the development of scientific facts and concepts was not unidirectional and does not consist of just accumulating new pieces of information, but at times required changing older concepts, methods of observations, and forms of representation. This changing of prior knowledge is difficult because a collective attains over time a specific way of investigating, bringing with it a blindness to alternative ways of observing and conceptualization. Change was especially possible when members of two thought collectives met and cooperated in observing, formulating hypothesis and ideas. He strongly advocated comparative epistemology. He also notes some features of the culture of modern natural sciences that recognize provisionality and evolution of knowledge along the value of pursuit of passive resistances. This approach anticipated later developments in social constructionism, and especially the development of critical science and technology studies. + +== Conceptual framework == + +=== Cognitive field === +Philosophers describe protoscience using the cognitive field concept. In every society, there are fields of knowledge (cognitive fields). The cognitive field consists of a community of individuals within a society with a domain of inquiry, a philosophical worldview, logical/mathematical tools, specific background knowledge from neighboring fields, a set of problems investigated, accumulated knowledge from the community, aims and methods. Cognitive fields are either belief fields or research fields. A cognitive research field invariably changes over time due to research; research fields include natural sciences, applied sciences, mathematics, technology, medicine, jurisprudence, social sciences and the humanities. A belief field (faith field) is "a cognitive field which either does not change at all or changes due to factors other than research (such as economic interest, political or religious pressure, or brute violence)." Belief fields include political ideology, religion, pseudodoctrines and pseudoscience. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoscience-1.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoscience-1.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..3c4332eb1 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoscience-1.md @@ -0,0 +1,64 @@ +--- +title: "Protoscience" +chunk: 2/2 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoscience" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:23.132251+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +=== Science field === +A science field is a research field that satisfies 12 conditions: 1) all components of the science field invariably change over time from research in the field, especially logical/mathematical tools and specific background/presuppositions from other fields; 2) the research community has special training, "hold strong information links", initiates or continues the "tradition of inquiry"; 3) researchers have autonomy to pursue research and receive support from the host society; 4) the researchers worldview is the real world as contains "lawfully changing concrete" objects, an adequate view of the scientific method, a vision of organized science achieving truthfull descriptions and explanations, ethical principles for conducting research, and the free search for truthful, deep and systematic understanding; 5) up-to-date logical/mathematical tools precisely determine and process information; +6) the domain of research are real objects/entities; 7) specific background knowledge is up-to-date, confirmed data, hypotheses and theories from relevant neighboring fields; 8) the set of problems investigated are from the domain of inquiry or within the research field; 9) the accumulated knowledge includes worldview-compatible, up-to-date testworthy/testable theories, hypotheses and data, and special knowledge previously accumlated in the research field; 10) the aims are find and apply laws and theories in the domain of inquiry, systemize acquired knonwledge, generalized information into theories, and improve research methods; 11) appropriate scientific methods are "subject to test, correction and justification"; 12) the research field is connected with a wider research field with similar capable researchers capable of "scientific inference, action and discussion", similar hosting society, a domain of inquiry containing the domain of inquiry of the narrower field, and shared worldview, logical/mathematical tools, background knowledge, accumulated knowledge, aims and methods. + +=== Protoscience === +Philosophers define protoscience as an undeveloped science field, undeveloped meaning an incomplete or approximate science field. Mario Bunge defined a protoscience as a research field that approximately satisfies a similar set of the 12 science conditions. A protoscience that is evolving to ultimately satisfy all 12 conditions is an emerging or developing science. Bunge states, "The difference between protoscience and pseudoscience parallels that between error and deception." A protoscience may not survive or evolve to a science or pseudoscience. Kuhn was skeptical about any remedy that would reliably transform a protoscience to a science stating, "I claim no therapy to assist the transformation of a proto-science to a science, nor do I suppose anything of this sort is to be had." +Raimo Tuomela defined a protoscience as a research field that satisfies 9 of the 12 science conditions; a protoscience fails to satisfy the up-to-date conditions for logic/mathematical tools, specific background knowledge from neighboring fields, and accumulated knowledge (5, 7, 9), and there is reason to believe the protoscience will ultimately satisfy all 12 conditions. Protosciences and belief fields are both non-science fields, but only a protoscience can become a science field. Tuomela emphasizes that the cognitive field concept refers to "ideal types" and there may be some persons within a science field with non-scientific "attitudes, thinking and actions"; therefore, it may be better to apply scientific and non-scientific to "attitudes, thinking and actions" rather than directly to cognitive fields. + +== Developmental stages of science == +Bunge stated that protoscience may occur as the second stage of a five-stage process in the development of science. Each stage has a theoretical and empirical aspect: + +Prescience has unchecked speculation theory and unchecked data. +Protoscience has hypotheses without theory accompanied by observation and occasional measurement, but no experiment. +Deuteroscience has hypotheses formulated mathematically without theory accompanied by systematic measurement, and experiment on perceptible traits of perceptible objects. +Tritoscience has mathematical models accompanied by systematic measurements and experiments on perceptible and imperceptible traits of perceptible and imperceptible objects. +Tetartoscience has mathematical models and comprehensive theories accompanied by precise systematic measurements and experiments on perceptible and imperceptible traits of perceptible and imperceptible objects. + +== Origin of protoscience == +Protoscience may arise from the philosophical inquiry that anticipates science. Philosophers anticipated the development of astronomy, atomic theory, evolution and linguistics. The Greek philosopher Anaximander (610–546 BC) viewed the earth as a non-moving free-floating cylinder in space. The atomist doctrine of Democritus (460–370 BC) to Epicurus (341–270 BC) was that objects were composed of non-visible small particles. Anaximander had anticipated that humans may have developed from more primitive organisms. Wittgenstein's study of language preceded the linguistic studies of J. L. Austin and John Searle. Popper describes how scientific theory arises from myths such as atomism and the corpuscular theory of light. Popper states that the Copernican system was "inspired by a Neo-Platonic worship of the light of the Sun who had to occupy the center because of his nobility", leading to "testable components" that ultimately became "fruitful and important." +Some scholars use the term "primitive protoscience" to describe ancient myths that help explain natural phenomena at a time prior to the development of the scientific method. + +== Protoscience examples == + +=== Physical science === +Ancient astronomical protoscience was recorded as astronomical images and records inscribed on stones, bones and cave walls. +Luigi Ferdinando Marsili (1658–1730) contributed to protoscience oceanography, describing the ocean currents of the Bosporus and physical oceanography, and Benjamin Franklin contributed by identifying the currents of the Gulf Stream. +Philosophers consider physics before Galileo and Huygens, chemistry before Lavoisier, medicine before Virchow and Bernard, electricity before the mid-eighteenth century, and the study of heredity and phylogeny before the mid-nineteenth century as protosciences that eventually became established science. +Prior to 1905, leading scientists, Ostwald and Mach, viewed atomic and molecular-kinetic theory as a protoscience, a theory indirectly supported by chemistry and statistical thermodynamics; however, Einstein's theory of Brownian motion, and Perrin's experimental verification led to widespread acceptance of atomic and molecular-kinetic theory as established science. +The early stage of plate tectonics, beginning with Wegener's theory of continental drift, was a protoscience until experimental research confirmed the theory many years later. The initial widespread rejection of Wegener's theory is an example of the importance of not dismissing a protoscience. + +=== Psychology === +Critics state that psychology is a protoscience because some practices occur that prevent falsification of research hypotheses. Folk psychology and coaching psychology are protosciences. + +=== Medicine === +The use of scientifically invalid biomarkers to identify adverse outcomes is a protoscience practice in medicine. The process for reporting adverse medical events is a protoscience because it relies on uncorroborated data and unsystematic methods. + +=== Technology === +Hatleback describes cybersecurity as a protoscience that lacks transparency in experimentation, scientific laws, and sound experimental design in some cases; however cybersecurity has the potential to become a science. + +== See also == +History of science +Hypothesis +Pseudoscience +Methodical culturalism +Natural philosophy +Obsolete scientific theories +Pathological science + +== Notes == + +== References == + +== External links == +"Questions to help distinguish a pseudoscience from a protoscience". 7 January 2012. Archived from the original on 2012-01-07. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_mathematics_and_physics-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_mathematics_and_physics-0.md index a12a173a1..817a7d194 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_mathematics_and_physics-0.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_mathematics_and_physics-0.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/2 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_mathematics_and_physics" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:07:56.241240+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:26.526982+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_mathematics_and_physics-1.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_mathematics_and_physics-1.md index ae82740ec..7eb4e8777 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_mathematics_and_physics-1.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_mathematics_and_physics-1.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 2/2 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_mathematics_and_physics" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:07:56.241240+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:26.526982+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-0.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..cfa05be42 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ +--- +title: "Relationship between science and religion" +chunk: 1/16 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:27.836352+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +The relationship between science and religion involves discussions that interconnect the study of the natural world, history, philosophy, and theology. Even though the ancient and medieval worlds did not have conceptions resembling the modern understandings of "science" or of "religion", certain elements of modern ideas on the subject recur throughout history. The pair-structured phrases "religion and science" and "science and religion" first emerged in the literature during the 19th century. This coincided with the refining of "science" (from the studies of "natural philosophy") and of "religion" as distinct concepts in the preceding few centuries—partly due to professionalization of the sciences, the Protestant Reformation, colonization, and globalization. Since then the relationship between science and religion has been characterized in terms of "conflict", "harmony", "complexity", and "mutual independence", among others. +Both science and religion are complex social and cultural endeavors that may vary across cultures and change over time. Most scientific and technical innovations until the scientific revolution were achieved by societies organized by religious traditions. Ancient pagan, Islamic, and Christian scholars pioneered individual elements of the scientific method. Roger Bacon, often credited with formalizing the scientific method, was a Franciscan friar, and medieval Christians who studied nature emphasized natural explanations. Confucian thought, whether religious or non-religious in nature, has held different views of science over time. Many 21st-century Buddhists view science as complementary to their beliefs, although the philosophical integrity of such Buddhist modernism has been challenged. While the classification of the material world by the ancient Indians and Greeks into air, earth, fire, and water was more metaphysical, and figures like Anaxagoras questioned certain popular views of Greek divinities, medieval Middle Eastern scholars empirically classified materials. +Events in Europe such as the Galileo affair of the early 17th century, associated with the scientific revolution and the Age of Enlightenment, led scholars such as John William Draper to postulate (c. 1874) a conflict thesis, suggesting that religion and science have been in conflict methodologically, factually, and politically throughout history. Some contemporary philosophers and scientists, such as Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, Peter Atkins, and Donald Prothero subscribe to this thesis; however, such views have not been held by historians of science for a very long time. +Many scientists, philosophers, and theologians throughout history, from Augustine of Hippo to Thomas Aquinas to Francisco Ayala, Kenneth R. Miller, and Francis Collins, have seen compatibility or interdependence between religion and science. Biologist Stephen Jay Gould regarded religion and science as "non-overlapping magisteria", addressing fundamentally separate forms of knowledge and aspects of life. Some historians of science and mathematicians, including John Lennox, Thomas Berry, and Brian Swimme, propose an interconnection between science and religion, while others such as Ian Barbour believe there are even parallels. Public acceptance of scientific facts may sometimes be influenced by religious beliefs such as in the United States, where some reject the concept of evolution by natural selection, especially regarding Human beings. Nevertheless, the American National Academy of Sciences has written that "the evidence for evolution can be fully compatible with religious faith", +a view endorsed by many religious denominations. + +== History == \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-1.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-1.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..ebefdd51d --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-1.md @@ -0,0 +1,21 @@ +--- +title: "Relationship between science and religion" +chunk: 2/16 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:27.836352+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +=== Concepts of science and religion === +The concepts of "science" and "religion" are a recent invention: "religion" emerged in the 17th century in the midst of colonization, globalization and as a consequence of the Protestant reformation. "Science" emerged in the 19th century in the midst of attempts to narrowly define those who studied nature. Originally what is now known as "science" was pioneered as "natural philosophy". +It was in the 19th century that the terms "Buddhism", "Hinduism", "Taoism", "Confucianism" and "World Religions" first emerged. In the ancient and medieval world, the etymological Latin roots of both science (scientia) and religion (religio) were understood as inner qualities of the individual or virtues, never as doctrines, practices, or actual sources of knowledge. +The 19th century also experienced the concept of "science" receiving its modern shape with new titles emerging such as "biology" and "biologist", "physics", and "physicist", among other technical fields and titles; institutions and communities were founded, and unprecedented applications to and interactions with other aspects of society and culture occurred. The term scientist was coined by the naturalist-theologian William Whewell in 1834 and it was applied to those who sought knowledge and understanding of nature. From the ancient world, starting with Aristotle, to the 19th century, the practice of studying nature was commonly referred to as "natural philosophy". Isaac Newton's book Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687), whose title translates to "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy", reflects the then-current use of the words "natural philosophy", akin to "systematic study of nature". Even in the 19th century, a treatise by Lord Kelvin and Peter Guthrie Tait's, which helped define much of modern physics, was titled Treatise on Natural Philosophy (1867). +It was in the 17th century that the concept of "religion" received its modern shape despite the fact that ancient texts like the Bible, the Quran, and other texts did not have a concept of religion in the original languages and neither did the people or the cultures in which these texts were written. In the 19th century, Max Müller noted that what is called ancient religion today, would have been called "law" in antiquity. For example, there is no precise equivalent of "religion" in Hebrew, and Judaism does not distinguish clearly between religious, national, racial, or ethnic identities. The Sanskrit word "dharma", sometimes translated as "religion", also means law or duty. Throughout classical India, the study of law consisted of concepts such as penance through piety and ceremonial as well as practical traditions. Medieval Japan at first had a similar union between "imperial law" and universal or "Buddha law", but these later became independent sources of power. Throughout its long history, Japan had no concept of "religion" since there was no corresponding Japanese word, nor anything close to its meaning, but when American warships appeared off the coast of Japan in 1853 and forced the Japanese government to sign treaties demanding, among other things, freedom of religion, the country had to contend with this Western idea. + +=== Middle Ages and Renaissance === +The development of sciences (especially natural philosophy) in Western Europe during the Middle Ages, has a considerable foundation in the works of the Arabs who translated Greek and Latin compositions. The works of Aristotle played a major role in the institutionalization, systematization, and expansion of reason. Christianity accepted reason within the ambit of faith. In Christendom, ideas articulated via divine revelation were assumed to be true, and thus via the law of non-contradiction, it was maintained that the natural world must accord with this revealed truth. Any apparent contradiction would indicate either a misunderstanding of the natural world or a misunderstanding of revelation. The prominent scholastic Thomas Aquinas writes in the Summa Theologica concerning apparent contradictions: + +"In discussing questions of this kind two rules are to observed, as Augustine teaches (Gen. ad lit. i, 18). The first is, to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering. The second is that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it, if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest Holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing." (Summa 1a, 68, 1) +where the referenced text from Augustine of Hippo reads: \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-10.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-10.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..51bc4151d --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-10.md @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ +--- +title: "Relationship between science and religion" +chunk: 11/16 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:27.836352+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +==== Reconciliation in Britain in the early 20th century ==== +In Reconciling Science and Religion: The Debate in Early-twentieth-century Britain, historian of biology Peter J. Bowler argues that in contrast to the conflicts between science and religion in the U.S. in the 1920s (most famously the Scopes Trial), during this period Great Britain experienced a concerted effort at reconciliation, championed by intellectually conservative scientists, supported by liberal theologians but opposed by younger scientists and secularists and conservative Christians. These attempts at reconciliation fell apart in the 1930s due to increased social tensions, moves towards neo-orthodox theology and the acceptance of the modern evolutionary synthesis. +In the 20th century, several ecumenical organizations promoting a harmony between science and Christianity were founded, most notably the American Scientific Affiliation, The Biologos Foundation, Christians in Science, The Society of Ordained Scientists, and The Veritas Forum. + +=== Confucianism and traditional Chinese religion === +The historical process of Confucianism has largely been antipathic towards scientific discovery. However the religio-philosophical system itself is more neutral on the subject than such an analysis might suggest. In his writings On Heaven, Xunzi espoused a proto-scientific world view. However, during the Han Synthesis the more anti-empirical Mencius was favored and combined with Daoist skepticism regarding the nature of reality. Likewise, during the medieval period, Zhu Xi argued against technical investigation and specialization proposed by Chen Liang. After contact with the West, scholars such as Wang Fuzhi would rely on Buddhist/Daoist skepticism to denounce all science as a subjective pursuit limited by humanity's fundamental ignorance of the true nature of the world. +The Jesuits from Europe taught Western math and science to the Chinese bureaucrats in hopes of religious conversion. This process saw several challenges of both European and Chinese spiritual and scientific beliefs. The keynote text of Chinese scientific philosophy, The Book of Changes (or Yi Jing) was initially mocked and disregarded by the Westerners. In return, Confucian scholars Dai Zhen and Ji Yun found the concept of phantoms laughable and ridiculous. The Book of Changes outlined orthodoxy cosmology in the Qing, including yin and yang and the five cosmic phases. Sometimes the missionary exploits proved dangerous for the Westerners. Jesuit missionaries and scholars Ferdinand Vervbiest and Adam Schall were punished after using scientific methods to determine the exact time of the 1664 eclipse. However, the European mission eastward did not only cause conflict. Joachim Bouvet, a theologian who held equal respect for both the Bible and the Book of Changes, was productive in his mission of spreading the Christian faith. +After the May Fourth Movement, attempts to modernize Confucianism and reconcile it with scientific understanding were attempted by many scholars including Feng Youlan and Xiong Shili. Given the close relationship that Confucianism shares with Buddhism, many of the same arguments used to reconcile Buddhism with science also readily translate to Confucianism. However, modern scholars have also attempted to define the relationship between science and Confucianism on Confucianism's own terms and the results have usually led to the conclusion that Confucianism and science are fundamentally compatible. + +=== Hinduism === + +In Hinduism, the dividing line between objective sciences and spiritual knowledge (adhyatma vidya) is a linguistic paradox. Hindu scholastic activities and ancient Indian scientific advancements were so interconnected that many Hindu scriptures are also ancient scientific manuals and vice versa. In 1835, English was made the primary language for teaching in higher education in India, exposing Hindu scholars to Western secular ideas; this started a renaissance regarding religious and philosophical thought. Hindu sages maintained that logical argument and rational proof using Nyaya is the way to obtain correct knowledge. The scientific level of understanding focuses on how things work and from where they originate, while Hinduism strives to understand the ultimate purposes for the existence of living things. To obtain and broaden the knowledge of the world for spiritual perfection, many refer to the Bhāgavata for guidance because it draws upon a scientific and theological dialogue. Hinduism offers methods to correct and transform itself in course of time. For instance, Hindu views on the development of life include a range of viewpoints in regards to evolution, creationism, and the origin of life within the traditions of Hinduism. For instance, it has been suggested that Wallace-Darwininan evolutionary thought was a part of Hindu thought centuries before modern times. The Shankara and the Sāmkhya did not have a problem with the theory of evolution, but instead, argued about the existence of God and what happened after death. These two distinct groups argued among each other's philosophies because of their texts, not the idea of evolution. With the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of Species, many Hindus were eager to connect their scriptures to Darwinism, finding similarities between Brahma's creation, Vishnu's incarnations, and evolution theories. +Samkhya, the oldest school of Hindu philosophy prescribes a particular method to analyze knowledge. According to Samkhya, all knowledge is possible through three means of valid knowledge – \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-11.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-11.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..ebe63cb45 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-11.md @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +--- +title: "Relationship between science and religion" +chunk: 12/16 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:27.836352+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +Pratyakṣa or Dṛṣṭam – direct sense perception, +Anumāna – logical inference and +Śabda or Āptavacana – verbal testimony. +Nyaya, the Hindu school of logic, accepts all these 3 means and in addition accepts one more – Upamāna (comparison). +The accounts of the emergence of life within the universe vary in description, but classically the deity called Brahma, from a Trimurti of three deities also including Vishnu and Shiva, is described as performing the act of 'creation', or more specifically of 'propagating life within the universe' with the other two deities being responsible for 'preservation' and 'destruction' (of the universe) respectively. In this respect some Hindu schools do not treat the scriptural creation myth literally and often the creation stories themselves do not go into specific detail, thus leaving open the possibility of incorporating at least some theories in support of evolution. Some Hindus find support for, or foreshadowing of evolutionary ideas in scriptures, namely the Vedas. +The incarnations of Vishnu (Dashavatara) is almost identical to the scientific explanation of the sequence of biological evolution of man and animals. The sequence of avatars starts from an aquatic organism (Matsya), to an amphibian (Kurma), to a land-animal (Varaha), to a humanoid (Narasimha), to a dwarf human (Vamana), to 5 forms of well developed human beings (Parashurama, Rama, Balarama/Buddha, Krishna, Kalki) who showcase an increasing form of complexity (Axe-man, King, Plougher/Sage, wise Statesman, mighty Warrior). In fact, many Hindu gods are represented with features of animals as well as those of humans, leading many Hindus to easily accept evolutionary links between animals and humans. In India, the home country of Hindus, educated Hindus widely accept the theory of biological evolution. In a survey of 909 people, 77% of respondents in India agreed with Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution, and 85 per cent of God-believing people said they believe in evolution as well. +As per Vedas, another explanation for the creation is based on the five elements: earth, water, fire, air and aether. +The Hindu religion traces its beginnings to the Vedas. Everything that is established in the Hindu faith such as the gods and goddesses, doctrines, chants, spiritual insights, etc. flow from the poetry of Vedic hymns. The Vedas offer an honor to the sun and moon, water and wind, and to the order in Nature that is universal. This naturalism is the beginning of what further becomes the connection between Hinduism and science. + +=== Islam === + +From an Islamic standpoint, science, the study of nature, is considered to be linked to the concept of Tawhid (the Oneness of God), as are all other branches of knowledge. In Islam, nature is not seen as a separate entity, but rather as an integral part of Islam's holistic outlook on God, humanity, and the world. The Islamic view of science and nature is continuous with that of religion and God. This link implies a sacred aspect to the pursuit of scientific knowledge by Muslims, as nature itself is viewed in the Qur'an as a compilation of signs pointing to the Divine. It was with this understanding that science was studied and understood in Islamic civilizations, specifically during the eighth to sixteenth centuries, prior to the colonization of the Muslim world. Robert Briffault, in The Making of Humanity, asserts that the very existence of science, as it is understood in the modern sense, is rooted in the scientific thought and knowledge that emerged in Islamic civilizations during this time. Ibn al-Haytham, an Arab Muslim, was an early proponent of the concept that a hypothesis must be proved by experiments based on confirmable procedures or mathematical evidence—hence understanding the scientific method 200 years before Renaissance scientists. Ibn al-Haytham described his theology: + +I constantly sought knowledge and truth, and it became my belief that for gaining access to the effulgence and closeness to God, there is no better way than that of searching for truth and knowledge. +With the decline of Islamic Civilizations in the late Middle Ages and the rise of Europe, the Islamic scientific tradition shifted into a new period. Institutions that had existed for centuries in the Muslim world looked to the new scientific institutions of European powers. This changed the practice of science in the Muslim world, as Islamic scientists had to confront the western approach to scientific learning, which was based on a different philosophy of nature. From the time of this initial upheaval of the Islamic scientific tradition to the present day, Muslim scientists and scholars have developed a spectrum of viewpoints on the place of scientific learning within the context of Islam, none of which are universally accepted or practiced. However, most maintain the view that the acquisition of knowledge and scientific pursuit in general is not in disaccord with Islamic thought and religious belief. + +During the thirteenth century, the Caliphate system in the Islamic Empire fell, and scientific discovery thrived. The Islamic Civilization has a long history of scientific advancement; and their theological practices catalyzed a great deal of scientific discovery. In fact, it was due to necessities of Muslim worship and their vast empire that much science and philosophy was created. People needed to know in which direction they needed to pray toward to face Mecca. Many historians through time have asserted that all modern science originates from ancient Greek scholarship; but scholars like Martin Bernal have claimed that most ancient Greek scholarship relied heavily on the work of scholars from ancient Egypt and the Levant. Ancient Egypt was the foundational site of the Hermetic School, which believed that the sun represented an invisible God. Amongst other things, Islamic civilization was key because it documented and recorded Greek scholarship. + +==== Ahmadiyya ==== \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-12.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-12.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..1aa908924 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-12.md @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ +--- +title: "Relationship between science and religion" +chunk: 13/16 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:27.836352+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +The Ahmadiyya movement emphasize that "there is no contradiction between Islam and science". For example, Ahmadi Muslims universally accept in principle the process of evolution, albeit divinely guided, and actively promote it. Over the course of several decades the movement has issued various publications in support of the scientific concepts behind the process of evolution, and frequently engages in promoting how religious scriptures, such as the Qur'an, supports the concept. For general purposes, the second Khalifa of the community, Mirza Basheer-ud-Din Mahmood Ahmad says: + +The Holy Quran directs attention towards science, time and again, rather than evoking prejudice against it. The Quran has never advised against studying science, lest the reader should become a non-believer; because it has no such fear or concern. The Holy Quran is not worried that if people will learn the laws of nature its spell will break. The Quran has not prevented people from science, rather it states, "Say, 'Reflect on what is happening in the heavens and the earth.'" (Al Younus) + +=== Jainism === + +==== Biology ==== +Jainism classifies life into two main divisions those who are static by nature (sthavar) and those who are mobile (trasa). +Jain texts describes life in plant long before Jagdish Chandra Bose proved that plants have life. In the Jain philosophy the plant lives are termed as 'Vanaspatikaya'. + +==== Jainism and non-creationism ==== + +Jain theory of causality holds that a cause and its effect are always identical in nature and an immaterial entity like a creator God cannot be the cause of a material entity like the universe. According to Jain belief, it is not possible to create matter out of nothing.[a] The universe and its constituents– soul, matter, space, time, and natural laws have always existed (a static universe, similar to that proposed by the steady state cosmological model). + +== Surveys on scientists and the general public == + +=== Scientists === + +Between 1901 and 2000, 654 Nobel prize laureates belonged to 28 different religions. Most (65%) have identified Christianity in its various forms as their religious preference. Specifically on the science-related prizes, Christians have won a total of 73% of all the Chemistry, 65% in Physics, 62% in Medicine, and 54% in all Economics awards. Jewish descent (including Jewish atheists) have won 17% of the prizes in Chemistry, 26% in Medicine, and 23% in Physics. Atheists, Agnostics, and Freethinkers (does not include Jewish atheists) have won 7% of the prizes in Chemistry, 9% in Medicine, and 5% in Physics. Muslims have won 13 prizes (three were in scientific categories). +According to scholar Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi, between 1901–2001, about 57% of laureates in scientific fields were Christians, and 26% were of Jewish descent (including Jewish atheists). + +==== Global ==== +According to a global study on scientists, a significant portion of scientists around the world have religious identities, beliefs, and practices overall. Furthermore, the majority of scientists do not believe there is inherent conflict in being religious and a scientist and stated that "the conflict perspective on science and religion is an invention of the West" since such a view is not prevalent among most of scientists around the world. Instead of seeing religion and science as 'always in conflict' they rather view it through the lenses of various cultural dimensions to the relations between religion and science. In an international study, very few scientists stated that scientific training or knowledge played a role in any declines in personal religiosity. + +==== Europe ==== +According to a study from 2023 "30–39% of Western-European researchers identify with "some religious affiliation". "30–37% of scientists identify as non-believers or atheists, and an additional 10–28% as agnostic (with wide geographical differences)". \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-13.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-13.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..608a7b40b --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-13.md @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ +--- +title: "Relationship between science and religion" +chunk: 14/16 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:27.836352+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +==== United States ==== +In 1916, 1,000 leading American scientists were randomly chosen from American Men of Science and 42% believed God existed, 42% disbelieved, and 17% had doubts/did not know; however, when the study was replicated 80 years later using American Men and Women of Science in 1996, the results were very much the same with 39% believing God exists, 45% disbelieved, and 15% had doubts/did not know. In the same 1996 survey, for scientists in the fields of biology, mathematics, and physics/astronomy, belief in a god that is "in intellectual and affective communication with humankind" was most popular among mathematicians (about 45%) and least popular among physicists (about 22%). +In terms of belief in God among elite scientists, such as "great scientists" in the "American Men of Science" or members of the National Academies of Science; 53% disbelieved, 21% were agnostic, and 28% believed in 1914; 68% disbelieved, 17% were agnostic, and 15% believed in 1933; and 72% disbelieved, 21% were agnostic, and 7% believed in 1998. However Eugenie Scott argued that there are methodological issues in the study, including ambiguity in the questions such using a personal definition of God instead of broader definitions of God. A study with simplified wording to include impersonal or non-interventionist ideas of God concluded that 40% of "prominent scientists" in the US believe in a god. +Others have also observed some methodological issues which impacted the results. +A survey conducted between 2005 and 2007 by Elaine Howard Ecklund of University at Buffalo, The State University of New York of 1,646 natural and social science professors at 21 US research universities found that, in terms of belief in God or a higher power, more than 60% expressed either disbelief or agnosticism and more than 30% expressed belief. More specifically, nearly 34% answered "I do not believe in God" and about 30% answered "I do not know if there is a God and there is no way to find out." In the same study, 28% said they believed in God and 8% believed in a higher power that was not God. Ecklund stated that scientists were often able to consider themselves spiritual without religion or belief in god. Ecklund and Scheitle concluded, from their study, that the individuals from non-religious backgrounds disproportionately had self-selected into scientific professions and that the assumption that becoming a scientist necessarily leads to loss of religion is untenable since the study did not strongly support the idea that scientists had dropped religious identities due to their scientific training. Instead, factors such as upbringing, age, and family size were significant influences on religious identification since those who had religious upbringing were more likely to be religious and those who had a non-religious upbringing were more likely to not be religious. The authors also found little difference in religiosity between social and natural scientists. +In terms of perceptions, most social and natural scientists from 21 American universities did not perceive conflict between science and religion, while 37% did. However, in the study, scientists who had experienced limited exposure to religion tended to perceive conflict. In the same study they found that nearly one in five atheist scientists who are parents (17%) are part of religious congregations and have attended a religious service more than once in the past year. Some of the reasons for doing so are their scientific identity (wishing to expose their children to all sources of knowledge so they can make up their own minds), spousal influence, and desire for community. +A 2009 report by the Pew Research Center found that members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) were "much less religious than the general public," with 51% believing in some form of deity or higher power. Specifically, 33% of those polled believe in God, 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power, and 41% did not believe in either God or a higher power. 48% say they have a religious affiliation, equal to the number who say they are not affiliated with any religious tradition. 17% were atheists, 11% were agnostics, 20% were nothing in particular, 8% were Jewish, 10% were Catholic, 16% were Protestant, 4% were Evangelical, 10% were other religion. The survey also found younger scientists to be "substantially more likely than their older counterparts to say they believe in God". Among the surveyed fields, chemists were the most likely to say they believe in God. +Elaine Ecklund conducted a study from 2011 to 2014 involving the general US population, including rank and file scientists, in collaboration with the AAAS. The study noted that 76% of the scientists identified with a religious tradition. 85% of evangelical scientists had no doubts about the existence of God, compared to 35% of the whole scientific population. In terms of religion and science, 85% of evangelical scientists saw no conflict (73% collaboration, 12% independence), while 75% of the whole scientific population saw no conflict (40% collaboration, 35% independence). +Religious beliefs of US professors were examined using a nationally representative sample of more than 1,400 professors. They found that in the social sciences: 23% did not believe in God, 16% did not know if God existed, 43% believed God existed, and 16% believed in a higher power. Out of the natural sciences: 20% did not believe in God, 33% did not know if God existed, 44% believed God existed, and 4% believed in a higher power. Overall, out of the whole study: 10% were atheists, 13% were agnostic, 19% believe in a higher power, 4% believe in God some of the time, 17% had doubts but believed in God, 35% believed in God and had no doubts. +In 2005, Farr Curlin, a University of Chicago Instructor in Medicine and a member of the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics, noted in a study that doctors tend to be science-minded religious people. He helped author a study that "found that 76 percent of doctors believe in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife." Furthermore, "90 percent of doctors in the United States attend religious services at least occasionally, compared to 81 percent of all adults." He reasoned, "The responsibility to care for those who are suffering and the rewards of helping those in need resonate throughout most religious traditions.". A study from 2017 showed 65% of physicians believe in God. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-14.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-14.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..465421514 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-14.md @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ +--- +title: "Relationship between science and religion" +chunk: 15/16 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:27.836352+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +==== Other or multiple countries ==== +According to the Study of Secularism in Society and Culture's report on 1,100 scientists in India: 66% are Hindu, 14% did not report a religion, 10% are atheist/no religion, 3% are Muslim, 3% are Christian, 4% are Buddhist, Sikh or other. 39% have a belief in a god, 6% have belief in a god sometimes, 30% do not believe in a god but believe in a higher power, 13% do not know if there is a god, and 12% do not believe in a god. 49% believe in the efficacy of prayer, 90% strongly agree or somewhat agree with approving degrees in Ayurvedic medicine. Furthermore, the term "secularism" is understood to have diverse and simultaneous meanings among Indian scientists: 93% believe it to be tolerance of religions and philosophies, 83% see it as involving separation of church and state, 53% see it as not identifying with religious traditions, 40% see it as absence of religious beliefs, and 20% see it as atheism. Accordingly, 75% of Indian scientists had a "secular" outlook in terms of being tolerant of other religions. +According to the Religion Among Scientists in International Context (RASIC) study on 1,581 scientists from the United Kingdom and 1,763 scientists from India, along with 200 interviews: 65% of U.K. scientists identified as nonreligious and only 6% of Indian scientists identify as nonreligious, 12% of scientists in the U.K. attend religious services on a regular basis and 32% of scientists in India do. In terms of the Indian scientists, 73% of scientists responded that there are basic truths in many religions, 27% said they believe in God and 38% expressed belief in a higher power of some kind. In terms of perceptions of conflict between science and religion, less than half of both U.K. scientists (38%) and Indian scientists (18%) perceived conflict between religion and science. +According to Elaine Ecklund's research on 1,293 atheist scientists from the US and UK, a majority of atheist scientists came from a nonreligious upbringing and never had a religious affiliation. Also, fewer than half of the atheist scientists who were exposed to religion in their youth said science played a role in them becoming an atheist. + +=== General public === + +Global studies which have pooled data on religion and science from 1981 to 2001, have noted that countries with greater faith in science also often have stronger religious beliefs, while less religious countries have more skepticism of the impact of science and technology. +Other research cites the National Science Foundation's finding that America has more favorable public attitudes towards science than Europe, Russia, and Japan despite differences in levels of religiosity in these cultures. +Other cross-national studies have found no correlations supporting the contention that religiosity undermines interest in science topics or activities among the general populations globally. +Cross-cultural studies indicate that people tend to use both natural and supernatural explanations for explaining numerous things about the world such as illness, death, and origins. In other words, they do not think of natural and supernatural explanations as antagonistic or dichotomous, but instead see them as coexisting and complementary. The reconciliation of natural and supernatural explanations is normal and pervasive from a psychological standpoint across cultures. + +==== Europe ==== +A study conducted on adolescents from Christian schools in Northern Ireland, noted a positive relationship between attitudes towards Christianity and science once attitudes towards scientism and creationism were accounted for. +A study on people from Sweden concludes that though the Swedes are among the most non-religious, paranormal beliefs are prevalent among both the young and adult populations. This is likely due to a loss of confidence in institutions such as the Church and Science. +Concerning specific topics like creationism, it is not an exclusively American phenomenon. A poll on adult Europeans revealed that 40% believed in naturalistic evolution, 21% in theistic evolution, 20% in special creation, and 19% are undecided; with the highest concentrations of young earth creationists in Switzerland (21%), Austria (20%), Germany (18%). Other countries such as Netherlands, Britain, and Australia have experienced growth in such views as well. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-15.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-15.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..f2dbed107 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-15.md @@ -0,0 +1,31 @@ +--- +title: "Relationship between science and religion" +chunk: 16/16 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:27.836352+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +==== United States ==== +According to a 2015 Pew Research Center Study on the public perceptions on science, people's perceptions on conflict with science have more to do with their perceptions of other people's beliefs than their own personal beliefs. For instance, the majority of people with a religious affiliation (68%) saw no conflict between their own personal religious beliefs and science while the majority of those without a religious affiliation (76%) perceived science and religion to be in conflict. The study noted that people who are not affiliated with any religion, also known as "religiously unaffiliated", often have supernatural beliefs and spiritual practices despite them not being affiliated with any religion and also that "just one-in-six religiously unaffiliated adults (16%) say their own religious beliefs conflict with science." Furthermore, the study observed, "The share of all adults who perceive a conflict between science and their own religious beliefs has declined somewhat in recent years, from 36% in 2009 to 30% in 2014. Among those who are affiliated with a religion, the share of people who say there is a conflict between science and their personal religious beliefs dropped from 41% to 34% during this period." +In a 2024 Pew research center report, only 35% of "nones" (atheist, agnostics, and nothing in particular on religious affiliation) believe that the natural world is all there is, while the majority of nones (63%) believe there are spiritual things beyond the world; and the majority of nones (56%) also believe there are some things that science cannot explain. +The 2013 MIT Survey on Science, Religion and Origins examined the views of religious people in America on origins science topics like evolution, the Big Bang, and perceptions of conflicts between science and religion. It found that a large majority of religious people see no conflict between science and religion and only 11% of religious people belong to religions openly rejecting evolution. The fact that the gap between personal and official beliefs of their religions is so large suggests that part of the problem, might be defused by people learning more about their own religious doctrine and the science it endorses, thereby bridging this belief gap. The study concluded that "mainstream religion and mainstream science are neither attacking one another nor perceiving a conflict." Furthermore, they note that this conciliatory view is shared by most leading science organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). +A study was made in collaboration with the AAAS collecting data on the general public from 2011 to 2014, with the focus on evangelicals and evangelical scientists. Even though evangelicals make up only 26% of the US population, the study found that nearly 70 percent of all evangelical Christians do not view science and religion as being in conflict with each other (48% saw them as complementary and 21% saw them as independent) while 73% of the general US population saw no conflict either. +According to Elaine Ecklund's 2018 study, the majority of religious groups see religion and science in collaboration or independent of each other, while the majority of groups without religion see science and religion in conflict. +Other lines of research on perceptions of science among the American public conclude that most religious groups see no general epistemological conflict with science and they have no differences with nonreligious groups in the propensity of seeking out scientific knowledge, although there may be subtle epistemic or moral conflicts when scientists make counterclaims to religious tenets. Findings from the Pew Center note similar findings and also note that the majority of Americans (80–90%) show strong support for scientific research, agree that science makes society and individual's lives better, and 8 in 10 Americans would be happy if their children were to become scientists. Even strict creationists tend to have very favorable views on science. +According to a 2007 poll by the Pew Forum, "while large majorities of Americans respect science and scientists, they are not always willing to accept scientific findings that squarely contradict their religious beliefs." The Pew Forum states that specific factual disagreements are "not common today", though 40% to 50% of Americans do not accept the evolution of humans and other living things, with the "strongest opposition" coming from evangelical Christians at 65% saying life did not evolve. 51% of the population believes humans and other living things evolved: 26% through natural selection only, 21% somehow guided, 4% do not know. In the U.S., biological evolution is the only concrete example of conflict where a significant portion of the American public denies scientific consensus for religious reasons. In terms of advanced industrialized nations, the United States is the most religious. +A 2009 study from the Pew Research Center on Americans perceptions of science, showed a broad consensus that most Americans, including most religious Americans, hold scientific research and scientists themselves in high regard. The study showed that 84% of Americans say they view science as having a mostly positive impact on society. Among those who attend religious services at least once a week, the number is roughly the same at 80%. Furthermore, 70% of U.S. adults think scientists contribute "a lot" to society. +A 2011 study on a national sample of US college students examined whether these students viewed the science / religion relationship as reflecting primarily conflict, collaboration, or independence. The study concluded that the majority of undergraduates in both the natural and social sciences do not see conflict between science and religion. Another finding in the study was that it is more likely for students to move away from a conflict perspective to an independence or collaboration perspective than towards a conflict view. +In the US, people who had no religious affiliation were no more likely than the religious population to have New Age beliefs and practices. + +== See also == + +== References == + +== Sources == + +== Further reading == + +== External links == \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-2.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-2.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..fb7457200 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-2.md @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ +--- +title: "Relationship between science and religion" +chunk: 3/16 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:27.836352+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +"In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture." (Gen. ad lit. i, 18) +In medieval universities, the faculty for natural philosophy and theology were separate, and discussions pertaining to theological issues were often not allowed to be undertaken by the faculty of philosophy. Natural philosophy, as taught in the arts faculties of the universities, was seen as an essential area of study in its own right and was considered necessary for almost every area of study. It was an independent field, separated from theology, and enjoyed a good deal of intellectual freedom as long as it was restricted to the natural world. In general, there was religious support for natural science by the late Middle Ages and a recognition that it was an important element of learning. +The extent to which medieval science led directly to the new philosophy of the scientific revolution remains a subject for debate, but it certainly had a significant influence. +The Middle Ages laid ground for the developments that took place in science, during the Renaissance which immediately succeeded it. By 1630, ancient authority from classical literature and philosophy, as well as their necessity, started eroding, although scientists were still expected to be fluent in Latin, the international language of Europe's intellectuals. With the sheer success of science and the steady advance of rationalism, the individual scientist gained prestige. Along with the inventions of this period, especially the printing press by Johannes Gutenberg, allowing for the dissemination of the Bible in vernacular languages. This allowed more people to read and learn from the scripture, leading to the Evangelical movement. The people who spread this message concentrated more on individual agency rather than the structures of the Church. + +==== Medieval Contributors ==== +Some medieval contributors to science included: Boethius (c. 477–524), John Philoponus (c. 490–570), Bede the Venerable (c. 672–735), Alcuin of York (c. 735–804), Leo the Mathematician (c. 790–869), Gerbert of Aurillac (c. 946–1003), Constantine the African (c. 1020–1087), Adelard of Bath (c. 1080–1152), Robert Grosseteste (c. 1168–1253), St. Albert the Great (c. 1200–1280), Roger Bacon (c. 1214–1294), William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347), Jean Burdian (c. 1301–1358), Thomas Bradwardine (1300–1349), Nicole Oresme (c. 1320–1382), Nicholas of Cusa (c. 1401–1464). + +=== Modern period === + +In the 17th century, founders of the Royal Society largely held conventional and orthodox religious views, and a number of them were prominent Churchmen. While theological issues that had the potential to be divisive were typically excluded from formal discussions of the early Society, many of its fellows nonetheless believed that their scientific activities provided support for traditional religious belief. Clerical involvement in the Royal Society remained high until the mid-nineteenth century when science became more professionalized. +Albert Einstein supported the compatibility of some interpretations of religion with science. In "Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium" published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York in 1941, Einstein stated: + +Accordingly, a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance and loftiness of those superpersonal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation. They exist with the same necessity and matter-of-factness as he himself. In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be, and outside of its domain value judgments of all kinds remain necessary. Religion, on the other hand, deals only with evaluations of human thought and action: it cannot justifiably speak of facts and relationships between facts. According to this interpretation the well-known conflicts between religion and science in the past must all be ascribed to a misapprehension of the situation which has been described. +Einstein thus expresses views of ethical non-naturalism (contrasted to ethical naturalism). +Prominent modern scientists who are atheists include evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins and Nobel Prize–winning physicist Steven Weinberg. Prominent scientists advocating religious belief include Nobel Prize–winning physicist and United Church of Christ member Charles Townes, evangelical Christian and past head of the Human Genome Project Francis Collins, and climatologist John T. Houghton. + +== Perspectives == +The kinds of interactions that might arise between science and religion have been categorized by theologian, Anglican priest, and physicist John Polkinghorne: (1) conflict between the disciplines, (2) independence of the disciplines, (3) dialogue between the disciplines where they overlap and (4) integration of both into one field. +This typology is similar to ones used by theologians Ian Barbour and John Haught. More typologies that categorize this relationship can be found among the works of other science and religion scholars such as theologian and biochemist Arthur Peacocke. + +=== Incompatibility === \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-3.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-3.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..298a04a2a --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-3.md @@ -0,0 +1,22 @@ +--- +title: "Relationship between science and religion" +chunk: 4/16 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:27.836352+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +According to Guillermo Paz-y-Miño-C and Avelina Espinosa, the historical conflict between evolution and religion is intrinsic to the incompatibility between scientific rationalism/empiricism and the belief in supernatural causation/faith. According to evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne, views on evolution and levels of religiosity in some countries, along with the existence of books explaining reconciliation between evolution and religion, indicate that people have trouble in believing both at the same time, thus implying incompatibility. According to physical chemist Peter Atkins, "whereas religion scorns the power of human comprehension, science respects it." Planetary scientist Carolyn Porco describes a hope that "the confrontation between science and formal religion will come to an end when the role played by science in the lives of all people is the same played by religion today." +Geologist and paleontologist Donald Prothero has stated that religion is the reason "questions about evolution, the age of the earth, cosmology, and human evolution nearly always cause Americans to flunk science literacy tests compared to other nations." However, Jon Miller, who studies science literacy across nations, states that Americans in general are slightly more scientifically literate than Europeans and the Japanese. +According to cosmologist and astrophysicist Lawrence Krauss, compatibility or incompatibility is a theological concern, not a scientific concern. In Lisa Randall's view, questions of incompatibility or otherwise are not answerable, since by accepting revelations one is abandoning rules of logic which are needed to identify if there are indeed contradictions between holding certain beliefs. Daniel Dennett holds that incompatibility exists because religion is not problematic to a certain point before it collapses into a number of excuses for keeping certain beliefs, in light of evolutionary implications. +According to theoretical physicist Steven Weinberg, teaching cosmology and evolution to students should decrease their self-importance in the universe, as well as their religiosity. Evolutionary developmental biologist PZ Myers' view is that all scientists should be atheists, and that science should never accommodate any religious beliefs. Physicist Sean M. Carroll claims that since religion makes claims that are supernatural, both science and religion are incompatible. +Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins is openly hostile to religion because he believes it actively debauches the scientific enterprise and education involving science. According to Dawkins, religion "subverts science and saps the intellect". He believes that when science teachers attempt to expound on evolution, there is hostility aimed towards them by parents who are skeptical because they believe it conflicts with their own religious beliefs, and that even in some textbooks have had the word 'evolution' systematically removed. He has worked to argue the negative effects that he believes religion has on education of science. +According to Renny Thomas' study on Indian scientists, atheistic scientists in India called themselves atheists even while accepting that their lifestyle is very much a part of tradition and religion. Thus, they differ from Western atheists in that for them following the lifestyle of a religion is not antithetical to atheism. + +==== Criticism ==== +Others such as Francis Collins, George F. R. Ellis, Kenneth R. Miller, Katharine Hayhoe, George Coyne and Simon Conway Morris argue for compatibility since they do not agree that science is incompatible with religion and vice versa. They argue that science provides many opportunities to look for and find God in nature and to reflect on their beliefs. According to Kenneth Miller, he disagrees with Jerry Coyne's assessment and argues that since significant portions of scientists are religious and the proportion of Americans believing in evolution is much higher, it implies that both are indeed compatible. Elsewhere, Miller has argued that when scientists make claims on science and theism or atheism, they are not arguing scientifically at all and are stepping beyond the scope of science into discourses of meaning and purpose. What he finds particularly odd and unjustified is in how atheists often come to invoke scientific authority on their non-scientific philosophical conclusions like there being no point or no meaning to the universe as the only viable option when the scientific method and science never have had any way of addressing questions of meaning or God in the first place. Furthermore, he notes that since evolution made the brain and since the brain can handle both religion and science, there is no natural incompatibility between the concepts at the biological level. +Karl Giberson argues that when discussing compatibility, some scientific intellectuals often ignore the viewpoints of intellectual leaders in theology and instead argue against less informed masses, thereby, defining religion by non-intellectuals and slanting the debate unjustly. He argues that leaders in science sometimes trump older scientific baggage and that leaders in theology do the same, so once theological intellectuals are taken into account, people who represent extreme positions like Ken Ham and Eugenie Scott will become irrelevant. Cynthia Tolman notes that religion does not have a method per se partly because religions emerge through time from diverse cultures, but when it comes to Christian theology and ultimate truths, she notes that people often rely on scripture, tradition, reason, and experience to test and gauge what they experience and what they should believe. + +==== Conflict thesis ==== \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-4.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-4.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..1bd2960ba --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-4.md @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +--- +title: "Relationship between science and religion" +chunk: 5/16 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:27.836352+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +The conflict thesis, which holds that religion and science have been in conflict continuously throughout history, was popularized in the 19th century by John William Draper's and Andrew Dickson White's accounts. It was in the 19th century that relationship between science and religion became an actual formal topic of discourse, while before this no one had pitted science against religion or vice versa, though occasional complex interactions had been expressed before the 19th century. Most contemporary historians of science now reject the conflict thesis in its original form and no longer support it. Instead, it has been superseded by subsequent historical research which has resulted in a more nuanced understanding. Historian of science, Gary Ferngren, has stated: "Although popular images of controversy continue to exemplify the supposed hostility of Christianity to new scientific theories, studies have shown that Christianity has often nurtured and encouraged scientific endeavour, while at other times the two have co-existed without either tension or attempts at harmonization. If Galileo and the Scopes trial come to mind as examples of conflict, they were the exceptions rather than the rule." +Most historians today have moved away from a conflict model, which is based mainly on two historical episodes (Galileo and Darwin), toward compatibility theses (either the integration thesis or non-overlapping magisteria) or toward a "complexity" model, because religious figures were on both sides of each dispute and there was no overall aim by any party involved to discredit religion. +An often cited example of conflict, that has been clarified by historical research in the 20th century, was the Galileo affair, whereby interpretations of the Bible were used to attack ideas by Copernicus on heliocentrism. By 1616 Galileo went to Rome to try to persuade Catholic Church authorities not to ban Copernicus' ideas. In the end, a decree of the Congregation of the Index was issued, declaring that the ideas that the Sun stood still and that the Earth moved were "false" and "altogether contrary to Holy Scripture", and suspending Copernicus's De Revolutionibus until it could be corrected. Galileo was found "vehemently suspect of heresy", namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the center of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves. He was required to "abjure, curse and detest" those opinions. However, before all this, Pope Urban VIII had personally asked Galileo to give arguments for and against heliocentrism in a book, and to be careful not to advocate heliocentrism as physically proven since the scientific consensus at the time was that the evidence for heliocentrism was very weak. The Church had merely sided with the scientific consensus of the time. Pope Urban VIII asked that his own views on the matter be included in Galileo's book. Only the latter was fulfilled by Galileo. Whether unknowingly or deliberately, Simplicio, the defender of the Aristotelian/Ptolemaic geocentric view in Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was often portrayed as an unlearned fool who lacked mathematical training. Although the preface of his book claims that the character is named after a famous Aristotelian philosopher (Simplicius in Latin, Simplicio in Italian), the name "Simplicio" in Italian also has the connotation of "simpleton". Unfortunately for his relationship with the Pope, Galileo put the words of Urban VIII into the mouth of Simplicio. Most historians agree Galileo did not act out of malice and felt blindsided by the reaction to his book. However, the Pope did not take the suspected public ridicule lightly, nor the physical Copernican advocacy. Galileo had alienated one of his biggest and most powerful supporters, the Pope, and was called to Rome to defend his writings. +The actual evidences that finally proved heliocentrism came centuries after Galileo: the stellar aberration of light by James Bradley in the 18th century, the orbital motions of binary stars by William Herschel in the 19th century, the accurate measurement of the stellar parallax in the 19th century, and Newtonian mechanics in the 17th century. According to physicist Christopher Graney, Galileo's own observations did not actually support the Copernican view, but were more consistent with Tycho Brahe's hybrid model where that Earth did not move and everything else circled around it and the Sun. +British philosopher A. C. Grayling, still believes there is competition between science and religions in areas related to the origin of the universe, the nature of human beings and the possibility of miracles. + +=== Independence === +A modern view, described by Stephen Jay Gould as "non-overlapping magisteria" (NOMA), is that science and religion deal with fundamentally separate aspects of human experience and so, when each stays within its own domain, they co-exist peacefully. While Gould spoke of independence from the perspective of science, W. T. Stace viewed independence from the perspective of the philosophy of religion. Stace felt that science and religion, when each is viewed in its own domain, are both consistent and complete. They originate from different perceptions of reality, as Arnold O. Benz points out, but meet each other, for example, in the feeling of amazement and in ethics. +The USA's National Academy of Sciences supports the view that science and religion are independent. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-5.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-5.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..c63ca65f9 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-5.md @@ -0,0 +1,25 @@ +--- +title: "Relationship between science and religion" +chunk: 6/16 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:27.836352+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to put science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist. +According to Archbishop John Habgood, both science and religion represent distinct ways of approaching experience and these differences are sources of debate. He views science as descriptive and religion as prescriptive. He stated that if science and mathematics concentrate on what the world ought to be, in the way that religion does, it may lead to improperly ascribing properties to the natural world as happened among the followers of Pythagoras in the sixth century B.C. In contrast, proponents of a normative moral science take issue with the idea that science has no way of guiding "oughts". Habgood also stated that he believed that the reverse situation, where religion attempts to be descriptive, can also lead to inappropriately assigning properties to the natural world. A notable example is the now defunct belief in the Ptolemaic (geocentric) planetary model that held sway until changes in scientific and religious thinking were brought about by Galileo and proponents of his views. +In the view of the Lubavitcher rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, non-Euclidean geometry such as Lobachevsky's hyperbolic geometry and Riemann's elliptic geometry proved that Euclid's axioms, such as, "there is only one straight line between two points", are in fact arbitrary. Therefore, science, which relies on arbitrary axioms, can never refute Torah, which is absolute truth. + +==== Parallels in method ==== +According to Ian Barbour, Thomas S. Kuhn asserted that science is made up of paradigms that arise from cultural traditions, which is similar to the secular perspective on religion. +Michael Polanyi asserted that it is merely a commitment to universality that protects against subjectivity and has nothing at all to do with personal detachment as found in many conceptions of the scientific method. Polanyi further asserted that all knowledge is personal and therefore the scientist must be performing a very personal if not necessarily subjective role when doing science. Polanyi added that the scientist often merely follows intuitions of "intellectual beauty, symmetry, and 'empirical agreement'". Polanyi held that science requires moral commitments similar to those found in religion. +Two physicists, Charles A. Coulson and Harold K. Schilling, both claimed that "the methods of science and religion have much in common." Schilling asserted that both fields—science and religion—have "a threefold structure—of experience, theoretical interpretation, and practical application." Coulson asserted that science, like religion, "advances by creative imagination" and not by "mere collecting of facts," while stating that religion should and does "involve critical reflection on experience not unlike that which goes on in science." Religious language and scientific language also show parallels (cf. rhetoric of science). + +=== Dialogue === + +The religion and science community consists of those scholars who involve themselves with what has been called the "religion-and-science dialogue" or the "religion-and-science field." The community belongs to neither the scientific nor the religious community, but is said to be a third overlapping community of interested and involved scientists, priests, clergymen, theologians and engaged non-professionals. Institutions interested in the intersection between science and religion include the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science, the Ian Ramsey Centre, and the Faraday Institute. Journals addressing the relationship between science and religion include Theology and Science and Zygon. Eugenie Scott has written that the "science and religion" movement is, overall, composed mainly of theists who have a healthy respect for science and may be beneficial to the public understanding of science. She contends that the "Christian scholarship" movement is not a problem for science, but that the "Theistic science" movement, which proposes abandoning methodological materialism, does cause problems in understanding of the nature of science. The Gifford Lectures were established in 1885 to further the discussion between "natural theology" and the scientific community. This annual series continues and has included William James, John Dewey, Carl Sagan, and many other professors from various fields. +The modern dialogue between religion and science is rooted in Ian Barbour's 1966 book Issues in Science and Religion. Since that time it has grown into a serious academic field, with academic chairs in the subject area, and two dedicated academic journals, Zygon and Theology and Science. Articles are also sometimes found in mainstream science journals such as American Journal of Physics +and Science. +Philosopher Alvin Plantinga has argued that there is superficial conflict but deep concord between science and religion, and that there is deep conflict between science and naturalism. Plantinga, in his book Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism, heavily contests the linkage of naturalism with science, as conceived by Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and like-minded thinkers; while Daniel Dennett thinks that Plantinga stretches science to an unacceptable extent. Philosopher Maarten Boudry, in reviewing the book, has commented that he resorts to creationism and fails to "stave off the conflict between theism and evolution." Cognitive scientist Justin L. Barrett, by contrast, reviews the same book and writes that "those most needing to hear Plantinga's message may fail to give it a fair hearing for rhetorical rather than analytical reasons." \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-6.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-6.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..9fa6a55da --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-6.md @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ +--- +title: "Relationship between science and religion" +chunk: 7/16 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:27.836352+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +=== Integration === +As a general view, this holds that while interactions are complex between influences of science, theology, politics, social, and economic concerns, the productive engagements between science and religion throughout history should be duly stressed as the norm. +Scientific and theological perspectives often coexist peacefully. Christian and non-Christian religions have historically integrated well with scientific ideas, as in the ancient Egyptian technological mastery applied to monotheistic ends, the scientific advances made by Muslim scholars during the Ottoman Empire and mathematics under Hinduism and Buddhism. Even many 19th-century Christian communities welcomed scientists who claimed that science was not at all concerned with discovering the ultimate nature of reality. According to Lawrence M. Principe, the Johns Hopkins University Drew Professor of the Humanities, from a historical perspective this points out that much of the current-day clashes occur between limited extremists—both religious and scientistic fundamentalists—over a very few topics, and that the movement of ideas back and forth between scientific and theological thought has been more usual. To Principe, this perspective would point to the fundamentally common respect for written learning in religious traditions of rabbinical literature, Christian theology, and the Islamic Golden Age, including a Transmission of the Classics from Greek to Islamic to Christian traditions which helped spark the Renaissance. Religions have also given key participation in development of modern universities and libraries; centers of learning & scholarship were coincident with religious institutions—whether pagan, Muslim, or Christian. + +== Individual religions == + +=== Baháʼí Faith === + +A fundamental principle of the Baháʼí Faith is the harmony of religion and science. Baháʼí scripture asserts that true science and true religion can never be in conflict. `Abdu'l-Bahá, the son of the founder of the religion, stated that religion without science is superstition and that science without religion is materialism. He also admonished that true religion must conform to the conclusions of science. + +=== Buddhism === + +Buddhism and science have been regarded as compatible by numerous authors. Some philosophic and psychological teachings found in Buddhism share points in common with modern Western scientific and philosophic thought. For example, Buddhism encourages the impartial investigation of nature (an activity referred to as Dhamma-Vicaya in the Pali Canon)—the principal object of study being oneself. Buddhism and science both show a strong emphasis on causality. However, Buddhism does not focus on materialism. +Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama, mentions that empirical scientific evidence supersedes the traditional teachings of Buddhism when the two are in conflict. In his book The Universe in a Single Atom he wrote, "My confidence in venturing into science lies in my basic belief that as in science, so in Buddhism, understanding the nature of reality is pursued by means of critical investigation." He also stated, "If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false," he says, "then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims." + +=== Christianity === \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-7.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-7.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..9f84a3050 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-7.md @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +--- +title: "Relationship between science and religion" +chunk: 8/16 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:27.836352+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +Among early Christian teachers, Tertullian (c. 160–220) held a generally negative opinion of Greek philosophy, while Origen (c. 185–254) regarded it much more favorably and required his students to read nearly every work available to them. +Earlier attempts at reconciliation of Christianity with Newtonian mechanics appear quite different from later attempts at reconciliation with the newer scientific ideas of evolution or relativity. Many early interpretations of evolution polarized themselves around a struggle for existence. These ideas were significantly countered by later findings of universal patterns of biological cooperation. According to John Habgood, the universe seems to be a mix of good and evil, beauty and pain, and that suffering may somehow be part of the process of creation. Habgood holds that Christians should not be surprised that suffering may be used creatively by God, given their faith in the symbol of the Cross. +Robert John Russell has examined consonance and dissonance between modern physics, evolutionary biology, and Christian theology. +Christian philosophers Augustine of Hippo (354–430) and Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) held that scriptures can have multiple interpretations on certain areas where the matters were far beyond their reach, therefore one should leave room for future findings to shed light on the meanings. The "Handmaiden" tradition, which saw secular studies of the universe as a very important and helpful part of arriving at a better understanding of scripture, was adopted throughout Christian history from early on. Also the sense that God created the world as a self operating system is what motivated many Christians throughout the Middle Ages to investigate nature. +Modern historians of science such as J.L. Heilbron, Alistair Cameron Crombie, David Lindberg, Edward Grant, Thomas Goldstein, and Ted Davis have reviewed the popular notion that medieval Christianity was a negative influence in the development of civilization and science. In their views, not only did the monks save and cultivate the remnants of ancient civilization during the barbarian invasions, but the medieval church promoted learning and science through its sponsorship of many universities which, under its leadership, grew rapidly in Europe in the 11th and 12th centuries. Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Church's "model theologian", not only argued that reason is in harmony with faith, he even recognized that reason can contribute to understanding revelation, and so encouraged intellectual development. He was not unlike other medieval theologians who sought out reason in the effort to defend his faith. Some modern scholars, such as Stanley Jaki, have claimed that Christianity with its particular worldview, was a crucial factor for the emergence of modern science. +David C. Lindberg states that the widespread popular belief that the Middle Ages was a time of ignorance and superstition due to the Christian church is a "caricature". According to Lindberg, while there are some portions of the classical tradition which suggest this view, these were exceptional cases. It was common to tolerate and encourage critical thinking about the nature of the world. The relation between Christianity and science is complex and cannot be simplified to either harmony or conflict, according to Lindberg. Lindberg reports that "the late medieval scholar rarely experienced the coercive power of the church and would have regarded himself as free (particularly in the natural sciences) to follow reason and observation wherever they led. There was no warfare between science and the church." Ted Peters in Encyclopedia of Religion writes that although there is some truth in the "Galileo's condemnation" story but through exaggerations, it has now become "a modern myth perpetuated by those wishing to see warfare between science and religion who were allegedly persecuted by an atavistic and dogma-bound ecclesiastical authority". In 1992, the Catholic Church's seeming vindication of Galileo attracted much comment in the media. +A degree of concord between science and religion can be seen in religious belief and empirical science. The belief that God created the world and therefore humans, can lead to the view that he arranged for humans to know the world. This is underwritten by the doctrine of imago dei. In the words of Thomas Aquinas, "Since human beings are said to be in the image of God in virtue of their having a nature that includes an intellect, such a nature is most in the image of God in virtue of being most able to imitate God". +During the Enlightenment, a period "characterized by dramatic revolutions in science" and the rise of Protestant challenges to the authority of the Catholic Church via individual liberty, the authority of Christian scriptures became strongly challenged. As science advanced, acceptance of a literal version of the Bible became "increasingly untenable" and some in that period presented ways of interpreting scripture according to its spirit on its authority and truth. +After the Black Death in Europe, there occurred a generalized decrease in faith in the Catholic Church. The "Natural Sciences" during the Medieval Era focused largely on scientific arguments. The Copernicans, who were generally a small group of privately sponsored individuals, were deemed Heretics by the Church in some instances. Copernicus and his work challenged the view held by the Catholic Church and the common scientific view at the time, yet according to scholar J. L. Heilbron, the Roman Catholic Church sometimes provided financial support to the Copernicans. In doing so, the Church did support and promote scientific research when the goals in question were in alignment with those of the faith, so long as the findings were in line with the rhetoric of the Church. A case example is the Catholic need for an accurate calendar. Calendar reform was a touchy subject: civilians doubted the accuracy of the mathematics and were upset that the process unfairly selected curators of the reform. The Roman Catholic Church needed a precise date for the Easter Sabbath, and thus the Church was highly supportive of calendar reform. The need for the correct date of Easter was also the impetus of cathedral construction. Cathedrals essentially functioned as massive scale sun dials and, in some cases, camera obscuras. They were efficient scientific devices because they rose high enough for their naves to determine the summer and winter solstices. Heilbron contends that as far back as the twelfth century, the Roman Catholic Church was funding scientific discovery and the recovery of ancient Greek scientific texts. However, the Copernican revolution challenged the view held the Catholic Church and placed the Sun at the center of the Solar System. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-8.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-8.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..6431b73d8 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-8.md @@ -0,0 +1,24 @@ +--- +title: "Relationship between science and religion" +chunk: 9/16 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:27.836352+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +==== Perspectives on evolution ==== +In recent history, the theory of evolution has been at the center of some controversy between Christianity and science. Christians who accept a literal interpretation of the biblical account of creation find incompatibility between Darwinian evolution and their interpretation of the Christian faith. Creation science or scientific creationism is a branch of creationism that attempts to provide scientific support for a literal reading of the Genesis creation narrative in the Book of Genesis and attempts to disprove generally accepted scientific facts, theories and scientific paradigms about the geological history of the Earth, cosmology of the early universe, +the chemical origins of life and biological evolution. It began in the 1960s as a fundamentalist Christian effort in the United States to prove Biblical inerrancy and falsify the scientific evidence for evolution. It has since developed a sizable religious following in the United States, with creation science ministries branching worldwide. In 1925, The State of Tennessee passed the Butler Act, which prohibited the teaching of the theory of evolution in all schools in the state. Later that year, a similar law was passed in Mississippi, and likewise, Arkansas in 1927. In 1968, these "anti-monkey" laws were struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States as unconstitutional, "because they established a religious doctrine violating both the First and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution." +Most scientists have rejected creation science for several reasons, including that its claims do not refer to natural causes and cannot be tested. In 1987, the United States Supreme Court ruled that creationism is religion, not science, and cannot be advocated in public school classrooms. In 2018, the Orlando Sentinel reported that "Some private schools in Florida that rely on public funding teach students" Creationism. +Theistic evolution attempts to reconcile Christian beliefs and science by accepting the scientific understanding of the age of the Earth and the process of evolution. It includes a range of beliefs, including views described as evolutionary creationism, which accepts some findings of modern science but also upholds classical religious teachings about God and creation in Christian context. + +==== Roman Catholicism ==== + +While refined and clarified over the centuries, the Roman Catholic position on the relationship between science and religion is one of harmony, and has maintained the teaching of natural law as set forth by Thomas Aquinas. For example, regarding scientific study such as that of evolution, the church's unofficial position is an example of theistic evolution, stating that faith and scientific findings regarding human evolution are not in conflict, though humans are regarded as a special creation, and that the existence of God is required to explain both monogenism and the spiritual component of human origins. Catholic schools have included all manners of scientific study in their curriculum for many centuries. +Galileo once stated that "The intention of the Holy Spirit is to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go." In 1981, Pope John Paul II, then leader of the Roman Catholic Church, spoke of the relationship this way: "The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer". +Pope Francis, in his encyclical letter Laudato si', affirms his opinion that "science and religion, with their distinctive approaches to understanding reality, can +enter into an intense dialogue fruitful for both". + +==== Influence of a biblical worldview on early modern science ==== \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-9.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-9.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..61a0e3217 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion-9.md @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ +--- +title: "Relationship between science and religion" +chunk: 10/16 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_science_and_religion" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:27.836352+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +According to Andrew Dickson White's 1896 book A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, a biblical world view affected negatively the progress of science through time. Dickinson also argues that immediately following the Reformation matters were even worse. The interpretations of Scripture by Luther and Calvin became as sacred to their followers as the Scripture itself. For instance, when Georg Calixtus ventured, in interpreting the Psalms, to question the accepted belief that "the waters above the heavens" were contained in a vast receptacle upheld by a solid vault, he was bitterly denounced as heretical. Today, much of the scholarship in which the conflict thesis was originally based is considered to be inaccurate. For instance, the claim that early Christians rejected scientific findings by the Greco-Romans is false, since the "handmaiden" view of secular studies was seen to shed light on theology. This view was widely adapted throughout the early medieval period and afterwards by theologians (such as Augustine) and ultimately resulted in fostering interest in knowledge about nature through time. Also, the claim that people of the Middle Ages widely believed that the Earth was flat was first propagated in the same period that originated the conflict thesis and is still very common in popular culture. Modern scholars regard this claim as mistaken, as the contemporary historians of science David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers write: "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference." From the fall of Rome to the time of Columbus, all major scholars and many vernacular writers interested in the physical shape of the earth held a spherical view with the exception of Lactantius and Cosmas. +H. Floris Cohen argued for a biblical Protestant, but not excluding Catholicism, influence on the early development of modern science. He presented Dutch historian R. Hooykaas' argument that a biblical world-view holds all the necessary antidotes for the hubris of Greek rationalism: a respect for manual labour, leading to more experimentation and empiricism, and a supreme God that left nature open to emulation and manipulation. It supports the idea early modern science rose due to a combination of Greek and biblical thought. +Oxford historian Peter Harrison is another who has argued that a biblical worldview was significant for the development of modern science. Harrison contends that Protestant approaches to the book of scripture had significant, if largely unintended, consequences for the interpretation of the book of nature. Harrison has also suggested that literal readings of the Genesis narratives of the Creation and Fall motivated and legitimated scientific activity in seventeenth-century England. For many of its seventeenth-century practitioners, science was imagined to be a means of restoring a human dominion over nature that had been lost as a consequence of the Fall. +Historian and professor of religion Eugene M. Klaaren holds that "a belief in divine creation" was central to an emergence of science in seventeenth-century England. The philosopher Michael Foster has published analytical philosophy connecting Christian doctrines of creation with empiricism. Historian William B. Ashworth has argued against the historical notion of distinctive mind-sets and the idea of Catholic and Protestant sciences. Historians James R. Jacob and Margaret C. Jacob have argued for a linkage between seventeenth-century Anglican intellectual transformations and influential English scientists (e.g., Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton). John Dillenberger and Christopher B. Kaiser have written theological surveys, which also cover additional interactions occurring in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. Philosopher of Religion, Richard Jones, has written a philosophical critique of the "dependency thesis" which assumes that modern science emerged from Christian sources and doctrines. Though he acknowledges that modern science emerged in a religious framework, that Christianity greatly elevated the importance of science by sanctioning and religiously legitimizing it in the medieval period, and that Christianity created a favorable social context for it to grow; he argues that direct Christian beliefs or doctrines were not primary sources of scientific pursuits by natural philosophers, nor was Christianity, in and of itself, exclusively or directly necessary in developing or practicing modern science. +Oxford University historian and theologian John Hedley Brooke wrote that "when natural philosophers referred to laws of nature, they were not glibly choosing that metaphor. Laws were the result of legislation by an intelligent deity. Thus the philosopher René Descartes (1596–1650) insisted that he was discovering the "laws that God has put into nature." Later Newton would declare that the regulation of the solar system presupposed the "counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being." Historian Ronald L. Numbers stated that this thesis "received a boost" from mathematician and philosopher Alfred North Whitehead's Science and the Modern World (1925). Numbers has also argued, "Despite the manifest shortcomings of the claim that Christianity gave birth to science—most glaringly, it ignores or minimizes the contributions of ancient Greeks and medieval Muslims—it too, refuses to succumb to the death it deserves." The sociologist Rodney Stark of Baylor University, argued in contrast that "Christian theology was essential for the rise of science." +Protestantism had an important influence on science. According to the Merton Thesis there was a positive correlation between the rise of Puritanism and Protestant Pietism on the one hand and early experimental science on the other. The Merton Thesis has two separate parts: Firstly, it presents a theory that science changes due to an accumulation of observations and improvement in experimental techniques and methodology; secondly, it puts forward the argument that the popularity of science in 17th-century England and the religious demography of the Royal Society (English scientists of that time were predominantly Puritans or other Protestants) can be explained by a correlation between Protestantism and the scientific values. In his theory, Robert K. Merton focused on English Puritanism and German Pietism as having been responsible for the development of the scientific revolution of the 17th and 18th centuries. Merton explained that the connection between religious affiliation and interest in science was the result of a significant synergy between the ascetic Protestant values and those of modern science. Protestant values encouraged scientific research by allowing science to study God's influence on the world and thus providing a religious justification for scientific research. +Some scholars have noted a direct tie between "particular aspects of traditional Christianity" and the rise of science. Other scholars and historians attribute Christianity to having contributed to the rise of the Scientific Revolution. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repression_of_science_in_the_Soviet_Union-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repression_of_science_in_the_Soviet_Union-0.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..a7318fcf2 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repression_of_science_in_the_Soviet_Union-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,37 @@ +--- +title: "Repression of science in the Soviet Union" +chunk: 1/2 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repression_of_science_in_the_Soviet_Union" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:30.233071+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +Many fields of scientific research in the Soviet Union were banned or suppressed with various justifications. All humanities and social sciences were tested for strict accordance with dialectical materialism. These tests served as a cover for political suppression of scientists who engaged in research labeled as "idealistic" or "bourgeois". Many scientists were fired, others were arrested and sent to Gulags. The suppression of scientific research began during the Stalin era and continued after his death. +The ideologically motivated persecution damaged many fields of Soviet science. + +== Examples == + +=== Biology === + +In the mid-1930s, the agronomist Trofim Lysenko started a campaign against genetics and was supported by Stalin. If the field of genetics' connection to Nazis wasn't enough, Mendelian genetics was also suppressed due to beliefs that it was "bourgeoisie science" and its association with the priest Gregor Mendel due to hostility to religion because of the Soviet policy of state atheism. +In 1950, the Soviet government organized the Joint Scientific Session of the USSR Academy of Sciences and the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences, the "Pavlovian session". Several prominent Soviet physiologists (L.A. Orbeli, P.K. Anokhin, Aleksey Speransky, Ivane Beritashvili) were accused of deviating from Pavlov's teaching. As a consequence of the Pavlovian session, Soviet physiologists were forced to accept a dogmatic ideology; the quality of physiological research deteriorated and Soviet physiology excluded itself from the international scientific community. Later Soviet biologists heavily criticised Lysenko's theories and pseudo-scientific methods. + +=== Cybernetics === + +Cybernetics was also outlawed as bourgeois pseudoscience during Stalin's reign. Norbert Wiener's 1948 book Cybernetics was condemned and translated only in 1958. A 1954 edition of the Brief Philosophical Dictionary condemned cybernetics for "mechanistically equating processes in live nature, society and in technical systems, and thus standing against materialistic dialectics and modern scientific physiology developed by Ivan Pavlov". (However this article was removed from the 1955 reprint of the dictionary.) After an initial period of doubts, Soviet cybernetics took root, but this early attitude hampered the development of computing in the Soviet Union. + +=== History === + +Soviet historiography (the way in which history was and is written by scholars of the Soviet Union) was significantly influenced by the strict control by the authorities aimed at propaganda of communist ideology and Soviet power. +Since the late 1930s, Soviet historiography treated the party line and reality as one and the same. As such, if it was a science, it was a science in service of a specific political and ideological agenda, commonly employing historical negationist methods. In the 1930s, historic archives were closed and original research was severely restricted. Historians were required to pepper their works with references – appropriate or not – to Stalin and other "Marxist-Leninist classics", and to pass judgment – as prescribed by the Party – on pre-revolution historic Russian figures. +Many works of Western historians were forbidden or censored, many areas of history were also forbidden for research as, officially, they never happened. Translations of foreign historiography were often produced in a truncated form, accompanied with extensive censorship and corrective footnotes. For example, in the Russian 1976 translation of Basil Liddell Hart's History of the Second World War pre-war purges of Red Army officers, the secret protocol to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, many details of the Winter War, the occupation of the Baltic states, the Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, Western Allied assistance to the Soviet Union during the war, many other Western Allies' efforts, the Soviet leadership's mistakes and failures, criticism of the Soviet Union and other content were censored out. +Of note was the ban of the theory about the Varangian origin of Kievan Rus for ideological reasons. + +=== Linguistics === +At the beginning of Stalin's rule, the dominant figure in Soviet linguistics was Nikolai Yakovlevich Marr, who argued that language is a class construction and that language structure is determined by the economic structure of society. Stalin, who had previously written about language policy as People's Commissar for Nationalities, read a letter by Arnold Chikobava criticizing the theory. He "summoned Chikobava to a dinner that lasted from 9 p.m. to 7 a.m. taking notes diligently." In this way he grasped enough of the underlying issues to oppose this simplistic Marxist formalism, ending Marr's ideological dominance over Soviet linguistics. Stalin's principal work in the field was a small essay, "Marxism and Linguistic Questions." +The term "semiotics" was banned, and the researchers used the obfuscated term "secondary modeling systems" (Russian: Вторичные моделирующие системы) coined by Juri Lotman and Vladimir Uspensky in 1964; see Tartu–Moscow Semiotic School. + +=== Pedology === +Pedology was a popular area of research on the basis of numerous orphanages created after the Russian Civil War. Soviet pedology was a combination of pedagogy and psychology of human development, that heavily relied on various tests. It was officially banned in 1936 after a special decree of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union "On Pedolodical Perversions in the Narkompros System" on July 4, 1936. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repression_of_science_in_the_Soviet_Union-1.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repression_of_science_in_the_Soviet_Union-1.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..f5f2f840e --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repression_of_science_in_the_Soviet_Union-1.md @@ -0,0 +1,46 @@ +--- +title: "Repression of science in the Soviet Union" +chunk: 2/2 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repression_of_science_in_the_Soviet_Union" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:30.233071+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +=== Physics === +In the late 1940s, some areas of physics, were also criticized on grounds of "idealism". +In quantum mechanics Soviet physicists Dmitry Blokhintsev, Yaakov Terletsky and K. V. Nikolsky developed a version of the statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics, which was seen as more adhering to the principles of dialectical materialism. +Special and general relativity were a matter of controversy among the Soviet scientists since 1920. Some of them argued that this theory is grounded in Machism (acutely criticized by Vladimir Lenin in his Materialism and Empiriocriticism), others were a group of so-called "mechanists" (see Mechanists and dialecticians controversy), later "Young Stalinists" joined the ranks of the relativity theory. At the same time a considerable number of prominent Soviet physicists defended the relativity theory. The attacks on the relativity theory intensified in 1949 under the auspices of the struggle against the "physical idealism" in the work of Leonid Mandelstam. Initially Sergey Vavilov, President of the Academy of Sciences of the Soviet Union, managed to defend Mandelstam, but in 1952 the political attacks on "reactionary Einsteinianism" intensified further. This pseudoscientific campaign sizzled after the death of Stalin. +Although initially planned, the process of "ideological cleansing" in physics did not go as far as defining an "ideologically correct" version of physics and purging those scientists who refused to conform to it, because this was recognized as potentially too harmful to the Soviet nuclear program. During 1949-1951 there was "antiresonance campaign" against the theory of resonance, during which scientists who supported it were accused of "cosmopolitan" sympathies and repressed. As Anna Krylov writes on the perils of ideological intrusion into science, "Stalin rolled back the planned campaign against physics and instructed Beria to give physicists some space; this led to significant advances and accomplishments by Soviet scientists in several domains. However, neither Stalin nor the subsequent Soviet leaders were able to let go of the controls completely. Government control over science turned out to be a grand failure, and the attempt to patch the widening gap between the West and the East by espionage did not help. Today Russia is hopelessly behind the West in both technology and quality of life." + +=== Sociology === +After the Russian Revolution, sociology was gradually "politicized, Bolshevisized and eventually, Stalinized". In 1920s a position had formed in the Soviet Union that historical materialism is in fact Marxist sociology, and the major discussion was whether to use the terms "sociology" and "historical materialism" synonymously or to abandon the term "sociology" altogether and consider it to be an anti-Marxist bourgeois science. From 1930s to 1950s, the independent discipline of sociology virtually ceased to exist in the Soviet Union. Even in the era where it was allowed to be practiced, and not replaced by Marxist philosophy, it was always dominated by Marxist thought; hence sociology in the Soviet Union and the entire Eastern Bloc represented, to a significant extent, only one branch of sociology: Marxist sociology. With the death of Joseph Stalin and the 20th Party Congress in 1956, restrictions on sociological research were somewhat eased, and finally, after the 23rd Party Congress in 1966, sociology in Soviet Union was once again officially recognized as an acceptable branch of science. + +=== Reliability of data === +The quality (accuracy and reliability) of data published in the Soviet Union and used in historical research is another issue raised by various Sovietologists. The Marxist theoreticians of the Party considered statistics as a social science; hence many applications of statistical mathematics were curtailed, particularly during the Stalin era. Under central planning, nothing could occur by accident. The law of large numbers and the idea of random deviation were decreed as "false theories". Statistical journals and university departments were closed; world-renowned statisticians like Andrey Kolmogorov and Eugen Slutsky abandoned statistical research. +As with all Soviet historiography, reliability of Soviet statistical data varied from period to period. The first revolutionary decade and the period of Stalin's dictatorship both appear highly problematic with regards to statistical reliability; very little statistical data was published from 1936 to 1956 (see Soviet Census (1937)). The reliability of data improved after 1956 when some missing data was published and Soviet experts themselves published some adjusted data for Stalin's era; however the quality of documentation deteriorated. +While on occasion statistical data useful in historical research might have been completely invented by the Soviet authorities, there is little evidence that most statistics were significantly affected by falsification or insertion of false data with the intent to confound the West. Data was however falsified both during collection – by local authorities who would be judged by the central authorities based on whether their figures reflected the central economy prescriptions – and by internal propaganda, with its goal to portray the Soviet state in most positive light to its very citizens. Nonetheless, the policy of not publishing, or simply not collecting, data that was deemed unsuitable for various reasons was much more common than simple falsification; hence there are many gaps in Soviet statistical data. Inadequate or lacking documentation for much of Soviet statistical data is also a significant problem. + +== Theme in literature == +Vladimir Dudintsev, White Garments (1987), a fictionalized story about Soviet geneticists working during the Lysenkoism era + +== See also == +Academic freedom +Antiscience +Anti-intellectualism +Bourgeois pseudoscience +Censorship in the Soviet Union +Deutsche Physik +First Department +Historical negationism +Political correctness +Politicization of science +Science and technology in the Soviet Union +Soviet historiography +Alexander Veselovsky, a case of suppressed literary research +Stalin and the Scientists + +== References == + +Я. В. Васильков, М. Ю. Сорокина (eds.), Люди и судьбы. Биобиблиографический словарь востоковедов жертв политического террора в советский период (1917–1991) ("People and Destiny. Bio-Bibliographic Dictionary of Orientalists – Victims of the political terror during the Soviet period (1917–1991)"), Петербургское Востоковедение (2003). online edition \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_Renaissance-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_Renaissance-0.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..97e43c593 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_Renaissance-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +--- +title: "Science in the Renaissance" +chunk: 1/3 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_Renaissance" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:29.093609+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +Science in the Renaissance was predominantly an extension of medieval traditions of natural philosophy but also produced new ideas and methods in mathematics, anatomy and astronomy and included a revolution in the European understanding of the Earth's geography. The collection of ancient scientific texts began in earnest at the start of the 15th century and continued up to the Fall of Constantinople in 1453, and the invention of printing allowed a faster propagation of new ideas. Some scholars have argued that the era was scientifically backward because Renaissance humanists favored human-centered subjects like politics and history over study of natural philosophy or applied mathematics. More recently, however, scholars have acknowledged the positive impact of the rediscovery of lost or obscure texts and the increased focus on the study of language and the correct reading of texts, while also emphasizing how the invention and rapid spread of the moveable type printing press and the encounter with the Americas served as necessary preconditions for the Scientific Revolution of the 17th century. + +== Context == + +During and after the Renaissance of the 12th century, Europe experienced an intellectual revitalization, especially with regard to the investigation of the natural world. In the 14th century, however, a series of events that would come to be known as the Crisis of the Late Middle Ages was underway. When the Black Death came, it wiped out so many lives it affected the entire system. It brought a sudden end to the previous period of massive scientific change. The plague killed 25–50% of the people in Europe, especially in the crowded conditions of the towns, where the heart of innovations lay. Recurrences of the plague and other disasters caused a continuing decline of population for a century. + +== The Renaissance == +The 14th century saw the beginning of the cultural movement of the Renaissance. By the early 15th century, an international search for ancient manuscripts was underway and would continue unabated until the Fall of Constantinople in 1453, when many Byzantine scholars had to seek refuge in the West, particularly Italy. Likewise, the invention of the printing press was to have great effect on European society: the facilitated dissemination of the printed word democratized learning and allowed a faster propagation of new ideas. +Initially, there were no new developments in physics or astronomy, and the reverence for classical sources further enshrined the Aristotelian and Ptolemaic views of the universe. Renaissance philosophy lost much of its rigor as the rules of logic and deduction were seen as secondary to intuition and emotion. At the same time, Renaissance humanism stressed that nature came to be viewed as an animate spiritual creation that was not governed by laws or mathematics. Only later, when no more manuscripts could be found, did humanists turn from collecting to editing and translating them, and new scientific work began with the work of such figures as Copernicus, Cardano, and Vesalius. +Marie Boas Hall coined the term "Scientific Renaissance" to designate the period leading up to the Scientific Revolution. More recently, Peter Dear has argued for a two-phase model of early modern science: a Scientific Renaissance of the 15th and 16th centuries, focused on the restoration of the natural knowledge of the ancients; and a Scientific Revolution of the 17th century, when scientists shifted from recovery to innovation. + +== Important developments == + +=== Printing === + +From a single print shop in Mainz, Germany around 1440, the movable type printing-press had spread to no less than around 270 cities in Central, Western and Eastern Europe and had already produced more than 20 million volumes by the end of the 15th century. Printing made scholarly books more widely accessible, allowing researchers to consult ancient texts freely and to compare their own observations with those of fellow scholars. Printing ended the manuscript culture of the Middle Ages, where facts were few and far between, and replaced it with a printing culture where reliable and documented facts rapidly proliferated and became the secure foundation for scientific knowledge. + +=== Geography and the New World === + +In the history of geography, the key classical text was the Geographia of Claudius Ptolemy (2nd century). It was translated into Latin in the 15th century by Jacopo d'Angelo. It was widely read in manuscript and went through many print editions after it was first printed in 1475. Regiomontanus worked on preparing an edition for print prior to his death; his manuscripts were consulted by later mathematicians in Nuremberg. Ptolemy's Geographia became the basis for most maps made in Europe throughout the 15th century. Even as new knowledge began to replace the content of old maps, the rediscovery of Ptolemy's mapping system, including the use of coordinates and projection, helped to redefine the overall field of cartography as a scientific pursuit rather than an artistic one. +The information provided by Ptolemy, as well as Pliny the Elder and other classical sources, was soon seen to be in contradiction to the lands explored in the Age of Discovery. The new discoveries revealed shortcomings in classical knowledge and opened the European imagination to new possibilities. In particular, Christopher Columbus' voyage to the New World in 1492 helped set the tone for what would soon after become a wave of European expansion. Thomas More's Utopia was inspired partly by the discovery of the New World. Most maps developed prior to this period grossly underestimated the extent of the lands separating Europe from India on a westward route through the New World; however, through contributions of explorers such as Ferdinand Magellan, efforts were made to create more accurate maps during this period. + +=== Alchemy and chemistry === \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_Renaissance-1.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_Renaissance-1.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..a56d5fb4c --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_Renaissance-1.md @@ -0,0 +1,27 @@ +--- +title: "Science in the Renaissance" +chunk: 2/3 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_Renaissance" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:29.093609+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +While differing in some respects, alchemy and chemistry often had similar goals during the Renaissance period, and together they are sometimes referred to as chymistry. Alchemy is the study of the transmutation of materials through obscure processes. Although it is often viewed as a pseudoscientific endeavor, many of its practitioners utilized widely accepted scientific theories of their times to formulate hypotheses about the constituents of matter and the ways matter could be changed. One of the main aims of alchemists was to find a method of creating gold and other precious metals from the transmutation of base materials. A common belief of alchemists was that there is an essential substance from which all other substances formed, and that if you could reduce a substance to this original material, you could then construct it into another substance, like lead to gold. Medieval alchemists worked with two main elements or "principles", sulphur and mercury. +Paracelsus was a chymist and physician of the Renaissance period who believed that, in addition to sulphur and mercury, salt served as one of the primary alchemical principles from which everything else was made. Paracelsus was also instrumental in helping to put chemical practices to practical medicinal use through a recognition that the body operates through processes which may be seen as chemical in nature. These lines of thinking directly conflicted with many long-held traditional beliefs, such as those popularized by Aristotle; however, Paracelsus was insistent that questioning principles of nature was essential to continue the general growth of knowledge. +Despite its frequent basis in what may be considered scientific practices by modern standards, numerous factors caused chymistry as a discipline to remain separate from general academia until near the end of the Renaissance, when it finally began appearing as a portion of some university education. The commercial nature of chymistry at the time, along with the lack of classical basis for the practice, were some of the contributing factors which led to the general view of the discipline as a craft rather than a respectable academic discipline. + +=== Astronomy === + +The astronomy of the late Middle Ages was based on the geocentric model described by Claudius Ptolemy in antiquity. Probably very few practicing astronomers or astrologers actually read Ptolemy's Almagest, which had been translated into Latin by Gerard of Cremona in the 12th century. Instead they relied on introductions to the Ptolemaic system such as the De sphaera mundi of Johannes de Sacrobosco and the genre of textbooks known as Theorica planetarum. For the task of predicting planetary motions they turned to the Alfonsine tables, a set of astronomical tables based on the Almagest models but incorporating some later modifications, mainly the trepidation model attributed to Thabit ibn Qurra. Contrary to popular belief, astronomers of the Middle Ages and Renaissance did not resort to "epicycles on epicycles" in order to correct the original Ptolemaic models—until one comes to Copernicus himself. +Sometime around 1450, mathematician Georg Purbach (1423–1461) began a series of lectures on astronomy at the University of Vienna. Regiomontanus (1436–1476), who was then one of his students, collected his notes on the lecture and later published them as Theoricae novae planetarum in the 1470s. This "New Theorica" replaced the older theorica as the textbook of advanced astronomy. Purbach also began to prepare a summary and commentary on the Almagest. He died after completing only six books, however, and Regiomontanus continued the task, consulting a Greek manuscript brought from Constantinople by Cardinal Bessarion. When it was published in 1496, the Epitome of the Almagest made the highest levels of Ptolemaic astronomy widely accessible to many European astronomers for the first time. + +The last major event in Renaissance astronomy was the work of Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543). He was among the first generation of astronomers to be trained with the Theoricae novae and the Epitome. Shortly before 1514 he began to revive Aristarchus's idea that the Earth revolves around the Sun. He spent the rest of his life attempting a mathematical proof of heliocentrism. In De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, published in 1543, Copernicus attempted to align his work as closely as possible with Ptolemaic tradition. A comparison of his work with the Almagest shows that he followed Ptolemy's methods and even his order of presentation. Yet, in order to purge astronomy of the equant—which violated the theological and philosophical ideal that all celestial motion must be perfect and uniform—Copernicus challenged Ptolemy's geocentrism, an orthodoxy that had prevailed for over a millennium. Copernicus' heliostatic model (with a stationary Sun located near, though not precisely at, the mathematical center of the heavens) retained several false Ptolemaic assumptions such as the planets' circular orbits, epicycles, and uniform speeds, but also included such accurate ideas as: + +The Earth is one of several planets revolving around the Sun in a determined order. +The Earth rotates daily on its axis and revolves annually about the Sun. +Retrograde motion of the planets is explained by the Earth's motion. +The distance from the Earth to the Sun is small compared to the distance from the Sun to the stars. + +=== Mathematics === \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_Renaissance-2.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_Renaissance-2.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..b5f280eb1 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_Renaissance-2.md @@ -0,0 +1,38 @@ +--- +title: "Science in the Renaissance" +chunk: 3/3 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_Renaissance" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:12:29.093609+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +The accomplishments of Greek mathematicians survived throughout Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages through a long and indirect history. Much of the work of Euclid, Archimedes, and Apollonius, along with later authors such as Hero and Pappus, were copied and studied in both Byzantine culture and in Islamic centers of learning. Translations of these works began already in the 12th century, with the work of translators in Spain and Sicily, working mostly from Arabic and Greek sources into Latin. Two of the most prolific were Gerard of Cremona and William of Moerbeke. +The greatest of all translation efforts, however, took place in the 15th and 16th centuries in Italy, as attested by the numerous manuscripts dating from this period currently found in European libraries. Virtually all leading mathematicians of the era were obsessed with the need for restoring the mathematical works of the ancients. Not only did humanists assist mathematicians with the retrieval of Greek manuscripts, they also took an active role in translating these work into Latin, often commissioned by religious leaders such as Nicholas V and Cardinal Bessarion. +Some of the leading figures in this effort include Regiomontanus, who made a copy of the Latin Archimedes and had a program for printing mathematical works; Commandino (1509–1575), who likewise produced an edition of Archimedes, as well as editions of works by Euclid, Hero, and Pappus; and Maurolyco (1494–1575), who not only translated the work of ancient mathematicians but added much of his own work to these. Their translations ensured that the next generation of mathematicians would be in possession of techniques far in advance of what it was generally available during the Middle Ages. +It must be borne in mind that the mathematical output of the 15th and 16th centuries was not exclusively limited to the works of the ancient Greeks. Some mathematicians, such as Tartaglia and Luca Paccioli, welcomed and expanded on the medieval traditions of both Islamic scholars and people like Jordanus and Fibonnacci. Giordano Bruno was also one to critique the works of people like Aristotle, whom he believed to have a flawed logic and developed a mathematical doctrine for the computation of partial physics, with Bruno attempting to transform theories of nature. + +=== Physics === +The progress being made in mathematics was complemented by advancements in physics, with people attempting to bridge the gap between the two fields and question Aristotelian ideas. The revived investigation of physics opened up many opportunities in subfields like mechanics, optics, navigation, and cartography. +Mechanical theories had originated with the Greeks, especially Aristotle and Archimedes. Mechanics and philosophy had been related disciplines in ancient Greece, and only in the Renaissance did the two subjects begin to split. A lot of the work of developing new mechanical ideas and theories was carried out by Italians such as Rafael Bombelli, though the Fleming Simon Stevin also provided many ideas. +Navigation was an important topic of the time, and many innovations were made that, with the introduction of better ships and applications of the compass, would later lead to geographical discoveries. The calculations involved in navigation proved to be difficult, with the technology of the time unable to accuately predict weather or determine one's geographic position. Determining one's longitude proved especially challenging, since one's local time need to be calculated on the basis of an astronomical observation. One theory that was tested was to record the time of an eclipse and use Regiomontanus' Ephemerides to compare it with Nuremberg time or Zacuto's Almanach perpetuum to compare it with Salamanca time, though the margin of error in such calculations was unacceptably great (around 25.5 degrees). Until longitude could be accurately determined, navigators had to rely on dead reckoning, with its many uncertainties. + +=== Medicine === + +With the Renaissance came an increase in experimental investigation, principally in the field of dissection and body examination, thus advancing our knowledge of human anatomy. The development of modern neurology began in the 16th century with Andreas Vesalius, who described the anatomy of the brain and other organs; he had little knowledge of the brain's function, thinking that it resided mainly in the ventricles. Understanding of medical sciences and diagnosis improved, but with little direct benefit to health care. Few effective drugs existed, beyond opium and quinine. William Harvey provided a refined and complete description of the circulatory system. The most useful tomes in medicine, used both by students and expert physicians, were materiae medicae and pharmacopoeiae. + +== See also == +Continuity thesis +The Copernican Question +Renaissance magic +Renaissance technology + +== Notes == + +== References == +Dear, Peter. Revolutionizing the Sciences: European Knowledge and Its Ambitions, 1500–1700. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001. +Debus, Allen G. Man and Nature in the Renaissance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978. +Grafton, Anthony, et al. New Worlds, Ancient Texts: The Power of Tradition and the Shock of Discovery. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1992. +Grant, Edward (1971). Physical Science in the Middle Ages. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521292948. +Hall, Marie Boas. The Scientific Renaissance, 1450–1630. New York: Dover Publications, 1962, 1994. \ No newline at end of file