diff --git a/_index.db b/_index.db index 8c5ba85f0..25de162bb 100644 Binary files a/_index.db and b/_index.db differ diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_integrity-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_integrity-0.md index 9f1bd34a0..8a7b5c3f9 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_integrity-0.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_integrity-0.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/7 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_integrity" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:15:01.659613+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:33.558998+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_integrity-1.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_integrity-1.md index cfd0cf2dc..eb0911968 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_integrity-1.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_integrity-1.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 2/7 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_integrity" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:15:01.659613+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:33.558998+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_integrity-2.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_integrity-2.md index 49cad64fd..8b59a0087 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_integrity-2.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_integrity-2.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 3/7 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_integrity" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:15:01.659613+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:33.558998+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_integrity-3.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_integrity-3.md index 711504ec9..8b4cea8fd 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_integrity-3.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_integrity-3.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 4/7 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_integrity" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:15:01.659613+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:33.558998+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_integrity-4.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_integrity-4.md index 18a3e872c..d824e5197 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_integrity-4.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_integrity-4.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 5/7 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_integrity" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:15:01.659613+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:33.558998+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_integrity-5.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_integrity-5.md index c27d2b2b2..f12d5e94b 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_integrity-5.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_integrity-5.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 6/7 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_integrity" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:15:01.659613+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:33.558998+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_integrity-6.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_integrity-6.md index 19e181457..c706f7517 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_integrity-6.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_integrity-6.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 7/7 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_integrity" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:15:01.659613+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:33.558998+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law-0.md index aef24e10b..36777889c 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law-0.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law-0.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/6 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:01:31.866245+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:34.904998+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law-1.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law-1.md index d41048dec..a29ed800d 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law-1.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law-1.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 2/6 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:01:31.866245+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:34.904998+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law-2.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law-2.md index 5a7f42a65..58d2ffd38 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law-2.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law-2.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 3/6 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:01:31.866245+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:34.904998+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law-3.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law-3.md index 4fb54a1fa..012a64f09 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law-3.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law-3.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 4/6 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:01:31.866245+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:34.904998+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law-4.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law-4.md index 2aa2620aa..6dd3a1a58 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law-4.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law-4.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 5/6 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:01:31.866245+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:34.904998+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law-5.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law-5.md index 0f196fa9b..6d280550d 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law-5.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law-5.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 6/6 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:01:31.866245+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:34.904998+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_priority-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_priority-0.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..388580093 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_priority-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +--- +title: "Scientific priority" +chunk: 1/1 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_priority" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:36.061644+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +In science, priority is the credit given to the individual or group of individuals who first made the discovery or proposed the theory. Fame and honours usually go to the first person or group to publish a new finding, even if several researchers arrived at the same conclusion independently and at the same time. Thus, between two or more independent discoverers, the first to publish is the legitimate winner. Hence, the tradition is often referred to as the priority rule, the procedure of which can be summed up in the phrase "publish or perish", because there are generally no prizes for second place in science academia. In a way, the race to be first inspires risk-taking that can lead to scientific breakthroughs which is beneficial to the society (such as discovery of malaria transmission, DNA, HIV, etc.). On the other hand, it can create unhealthy competition and incentives to publish low-quality findings (e.g., quantity over quality or committing scientific misconduct), which can lead to an unreliable published literature and harm scientific progress. + + +== Priority disputes == +Priority becomes a difficult issue usually in the context of priority disputes, where the priority for a given theory, understanding, or discovery comes into question. In most cases historians of science disdain retrospective priority disputes as enterprises which generally lack understanding about the nature of scientific change and usually involve gross misreadings of the past to support the idea of a long-lost priority claim. Historian and biologist Stephen Jay Gould once remarked that "debates about the priority of ideas are usually among the most misdirected in the history of science." +Richard Feynman told Freeman Dyson that he avoided priority disputes by "Always giv[ing] the bastards more credit than they deserve." Dyson remarked that he also follows this rule, and that this practice is "remarkably effective for avoiding quarrels and making friends." +The Leibniz–Newton calculus controversy was a high-profile priority dispute in the 17th century. + + +== See also == +List of scientific priority disputes +Multiple discovery +Priority right in patent law +Stigler's law +Binomial nomenclature, where priority is usually enforced through rules + + +== References == + + +== Further reading == +Barbalet, J., "Science and Emotions", pp. 132–150 in Barbalet, J.(ed), Emotions and Sociology (Sociological Review Monograph), Blackwell Publishing, (Oxford), 2002. +Boring, E.G., "Cognitive Dissonance: Its Use in Science", Science, Vol.145, No.3633, (14 August 1964), pp. 680–685. +Boring, E.G., "The Problem of Originality in Science", The American Journal of Psychology, Vol.39, Nos.1-4, (December 1927), pp. 70–90. +Hanson, N.R., Patterns of Discovery: An Inquiry into the Conceptual Foundations of Science, Cambridge University Press, (Cambridge), 1962. +Merton, R.K., "Priorities in Scientific Discovery: A Chapter in the Sociology of Science", American Sociological Review, Vol.22, No.6, (December 1957), pp. 635–659. +Merton, R.K., "Science and Democratic Social Structures", pp. 604–615 in Merton, R.K., Social Theory and Social Structure (1968 Enlarged Edition), The Free Press, (New York), 1968 [originally published as "A Note on Science and Democracy", Journal of Legal and Political Sociology, Vol.1, Nos.1-2, (1942), pp. 115–126]. +Samelson, F., "History, Origin Myth and Ideology: "Discovery" of Social Psychology", Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, Vol.4, No.2, (October 1974), pp. 217–232. +Samelson, F., "Whig and Anti-Whig Histories — And other Curiosities of Social Psychology", Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, Vol.36, No.4, (Fall 2000), pp. 499–506. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_protocol-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_protocol-0.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..5062e13ac --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_protocol-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +--- +title: "Scientific protocol" +chunk: 1/1 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_protocol" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:37.385028+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +In natural and social science research, a protocol is most commonly a predefined procedural method in the design and implementation of an experiment. Protocols are written whenever it is desirable to standardize a laboratory method to ensure successful replication of results by others in the same laboratory or by other laboratories. Additionally, and by extension, protocols have the advantage of facilitating the assessment of experimental results through peer review. In addition to detailed procedures, equipment, and instruments, protocols will also contain study objectives, reasoning for experimental design, reasoning for chosen sample sizes, safety precautions, and how results were calculated and reported, including statistical analysis and any rules for predefining and documenting excluded data to avoid bias. +Similarly, a protocol may refer to the procedural methods of health organizations, commercial laboratories, manufacturing plants, etc. to ensure their activities (e.g., blood testing at a hospital, testing of certified reference materials at a calibration laboratory, and manufacturing of transmission gears at a facility) are consistent to a specific standard, encouraging safe use and accurate results. +Finally, in the field of social science, a protocol may also refer to a "descriptive record" of observed events or a "sequence of behavior" of one or more organisms, recorded during or immediately after an activity (e.g., how an infant reacts to certain stimuli or how gorillas behave in natural habitat) to better identify "consistent patterns and cause-effect relationships." These protocols may take the form of hand-written journals or electronically documented media, including video and audio capture. + + +== Experiment and study protocol == +Various fields of science, such as environmental science and clinical research, require the coordinated, standardized work of many participants. Additionally, any associated laboratory testing and experiment must be done in a way that is both ethically sound and results can be replicated by others using the same methods and equipment. As such, rigorous and vetted testing and experimental protocols are required. In fact, such predefined protocols are an essential component of Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) and Good Clinical Practice (GCP) regulations. Protocols written for use by a specific laboratory may incorporate or reference standard operating procedures (SOP) governing general practices required by the laboratory. A protocol may also reference applicable laws and regulations that are applicable to the procedures described. Formal protocols typically require approval by one or more individuals—including for example a laboratory directory, study director, and/or independent ethics committee—before they are implemented for general use. Clearly defined protocols are also required by research funded by the National Institutes of Health. +In a clinical trial, the protocol is carefully designed to safeguard the health of the participants as well as answer specific research questions. A protocol describes what types of people may participate in the trial; the schedule of tests, procedures, medications, and dosages; and the length of the study. While in a clinical trial, participants following a protocol are seen regularly by research staff to monitor their health and to determine the safety and effectiveness of their treatment. Since 1996, clinical trials conducted are widely expected to conform to and report the information called for in the CONSORT Statement, which provides a framework for designing and reporting protocols. Though tailored to health and medicine, ideas in the CONSORT statement are broadly applicable to other fields where experimental research is used. +Protocols will often address: + +safety: Safety precautions are a valuable addition to a protocol, and can range from requiring goggles to provisions for containment of microbes, environmental hazards, toxic substances, and volatile solvents. Procedural contingencies in the event of an accident may be included in a protocol or in a referenced SOP. +procedures: Procedural information may include not only safety procedures but also procedures for avoiding contamination, calibration of equipment, equipment testing, documentation, and all other relevant issues. These procedural protocols can be used by skeptics to invalidate any claimed results if flaws are found. +equipment used: Equipment testing and documentation includes all necessary specifications, calibrations, operating ranges, etc. Environmental factors such as temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, and other factors can often have effects on results. Documenting these factors should be a part of any good procedure. +reporting: A protocol may specify reporting requirements. Reporting requirements would include all elements of the experiments design and protocols and any environmental factors or mechanical limitations that might affect the validity of the results. +calculations and statistics: Protocols for methods that produce numerical results generally include detailed formulas for calculation of results. A formula may also be included for preparation of reagents and other solutions required for the work. Methods of statistical analysis may be included to guide interpretation of the data. +bias: Many protocols include provisions for avoiding bias in the interpretation of results. Approximation error is common to all measurements. These errors can be absolute errors from limitations of the equipment or propagation errors from approximate numbers used in calculations. Sample bias is the most common and sometimes the hardest bias to quantify. Statisticians often go to great lengths to ensure that the sample used is representative. For instance political polls are best when restricted to likely voters and this is one of the reasons why web polls cannot be considered scientific. The sample size is another important concept and can lead to biased data simply due to an unlikely event. A sample size of 10, i.e., polling 10 people, will seldom give valid polling results. Standard deviation and variance are concepts used to quantify the likely relevance of a given sample size. The placebo effect and observer bias often require the blinding of patients and researchers as well as a control group. +Best practice recommends publishing the protocol of the review before initiating it to reduce the risk of unplanned research duplication and to enable transparency, and consistency between methodology and protocol. + + +=== Blinded protocols === +A protocol may require blinding to avoid bias. A blind can be imposed on any participant of an experiment, including subjects, researchers, technicians, data analysts, and evaluators. In some cases, while blinding would be useful, it is impossible or unethical. A good clinical protocol ensures that blinding is as effective as possible within ethical and practical constrains. +During the course of an experiment, a participant becomes unblinded if they deduce or otherwise obtain information that has been masked to them. Unblinding that occurs before the conclusion of a study is a source of experimental error, as the bias that was eliminated by blinding is re-introduced. Unblinding is common in blind experiments, and must be measured and reported. Reporting guidelines recommend that all studies assess and report unblinding. In practice, very few studies assess unblinding. +An experimenter may have latitude defining procedures for blinding and controls but may be required to justify those choices if the results are published or submitted to a regulatory agency. When it is known during the experiment which data was negative there are often reasons to rationalize why that data shouldn't be included. Positive data are rarely rationalized the same way. + + +== See also == + + +== References == \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_study-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_study-0.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..622b34196 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_study-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,39 @@ +--- +title: "Scientific study" +chunk: 1/1 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_study" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:38.701672+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +Scientific study is a creative action to increase knowledge by systematically collecting, interpreting, and evaluating data. According to the hypothetico-deductive paradigm, it should encompass: + +The contextualization of the problem; +A hypothesis for explaining the problem considering existing theoretical approaches; +A verification of the hypotheses by an experiment; +Analysis of the test outcome. +Scientific study involves scientific theory, scientific method, scientific models, experiments and physical situations. It may refer to: + +Scientific method, a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, based on empirical or measurable evidence that is subject to the principles of logic and reasoning +Observational study, draws inferences about the possible effect of a treatment on subjects, where the assignment of subjects into a treated group versus a control group is outside the control of the investigator +Randomized controlled trial, a type of scientific experiment, often in the medical field, where the people being studied are randomly allocated one of the different treatments +Science, a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. +Scientific learning includes testing of theories and provide a basis for scientific knowledge. + + +== History == +Aristotle is believed to be the first to begin the study of any subject from the contextualization of the issue, i.e., by collecting, analyzing, and grouping all relevant facts. By determining their meaning and relations with each other, he developed a systematic and factually correct basis that allowed him to generalize about underlying rules or principles. Aristotle introduced two modes of generalizing by highlighting two directions – deductive and inductive – within inquiry methods: one guides from observed specific instance to the general principles; the other controversially, from the fundamental to instances or implications of principles. The notion of syllogism, a means of deductive reasoning as proceeding from previously established general rules or facts down to particular instances, was introduced by Aristotle. His treatise is recognized as one of the earliest systematic study on the nature of scientific inquiry. +Francis Bacon developed the notion of the scientific study by proposing methodical collection of observations. This idea of a gradual ascent to reliable general claims, even though it seems obvious now, was innovative in that era and contributed to changing an approach to research design. +Galileo Galilei contributed to modern approaches to collecting, interpreting, and evaluating data by stating that the laws of nature are mathematical and proposing the standards of length and time in conducting experiments. Galileo originated grounds for a method of scientific study, the so-called hypothetico-deductive method, generally used in modern scientific research. + + +== See also == +Experiment +Scientific modelling +Scientific theory +Reality + + +== References == \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_temper-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_temper-0.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..96d0a2720 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_temper-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,35 @@ +--- +title: "Scientific temper" +chunk: 1/1 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_temper" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:40.005469+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +The term scientific temper is broadly defined as "a modest open-minded temper—develop new light, new knowledge, new experiments, even when their results are unfavourable to preconceived opinions and long-cherished theories." It is a way of life (defined in this context as an individual and social process of thinking and acting) which uses the scientific method and which may, consequently, include questioning, observing physical reality, testing, hypothesizing, analyzing, and communicating (not necessarily in that order). Discussion, argument and analysis are vital parts of scientific temper. It aims to inculcate the values of scientific thinking, appreciate scientific development, and drive away superstition, religious bigotry, and all forms of pseudo-science. + + +== Development of Scientific Temperament in World == +Scientific temper as a notion existed for a long time, and the origin of the term is unknown. The exact terminology became frequently used in the mid-19th century. A Jesuit scholar Thomas Aloysius Hughes gave a short definition in 1893, saying, "A scientific temper... means a scrupulous and rigid exactness... [which] is the outcome of exact science." + +In his Conway Memorial Lecture in 1922, Bertrand Russell used the example of Albert Einstein to explain the meaning of scientific temper:We have had in recent years a brilliant example of the scientific temper of mind in the theory of relativity and its reception by the world. Einstein, a German-Swiss-Jew pacifist, was appointed to a research professorship by the German Government in the early days of the War; his predictions were verified by an English expedition which observed the eclipse of 1919, very soon after the Armistice. His theory upsets the whole theoretical framework of traditional physics; it is almost as damaging to orthodox dynamics as Darwin was to Genesis. Yet physicists everywhere have shown complete readiness to accept his theory as soon as it appeared that the evidence was in its favour. But none of them, least of all Einstein himself, would claim that he has said the last word. He has not built a monument of infallible dogma to stand for all time. There are difficulties he cannot solve; his doctrines will have to be modified in their turn as they have modified Newton's. This critical undogmatic receptiveness is the true attitude of science.Beginning in 1946, Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of independent India, popularized the use of the phrase "scientific temper" to further propagate the notion. He gave a descriptive explanation in The Discovery of India:The scientific temper points out the way along which man should travel. It is the temper of a free man. We live in a scientific age, so we are told, but there is little evidence of this temper in the people anywhere or even their leaders. +[What is needed] is the scientific approach, the adventurous and yet critical temper of science, the search for truth and new knowledge, the refusal to accept anything without testing and trial, the capacity to change previous conclusions in the face of new evidence, the reliance on observed fact and not on pre-conceived theory, the hard discipline of the mind—all this is necessary, not merely for the application of science but for life itself and the solution of its many problems.Nehru wrote that the scientific temper goes beyond the domains to which science is conventionally understood to be limited to, and deals also with the consideration of ultimate purposes, beauty, goodness and truth. He contended that the scientific temper is the opposite of the method of religion, which relies on emotion and intuition and is (mis)applied "to everything in life, even to those things which are capable of intellectual inquiry and observation." While religion tends to close the mind and produce "intolerance, credulity and superstition, emotionalism and irrationalism", and "a temper of a dependent, unfree person", a scientific temper "is the temper of a free man." He also indicated that the scientific temper goes beyond objectivity and fosters creativity and progress. He envisioned that the spread of scientific temper would be accompanied by a shrinking of the domain of religion, and "the exciting adventure of fresh and never ceasing discoveries, of new panoramas opening out and new ways of living, adding to [life's] fullness and ever making it richer and more complete." He also stated, "It is science alone that can solve the problems of hunger and poverty, of insanitation and illiteracy, of superstition and deadening custom and tradition, of vast resources running to waste, of a rich country inhabited by starving people." + + +== Recognition in India == + + +=== Fundamental duty of Indian citizen === +India is the first and only country to explicitly adopt scientific temper in its constitution. In the forty-second amendment in 1976, Article 51 A(h) was added under the Fundamental Duties that states:[It shall be the duty of every citizen of India] To develop scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform. + + +=== Government actions === +The first major programme under the Government of India to popularise scientific temper among the people was the Vigyan Mandir (temple of knowledge/science) experiment in 1953. It was created by S. S. Bhatnagar, at the time Head of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), in Delhi and launched by Nehru on 15 August. Its purpose was to "disseminate scientific information of interest to the rural population" and the centres were furnished with scientific tools, films, and books. +CSIR started publishing a popular science periodical Vigyan Pragati (Progress in Science) in Hindi in 1952. It introduced an English monthly journal Science Reporter in 1964, and then an Urdu quarterly journal Science Ki Dunia. In 1982, the National Council for Science and Technology Communication (NCSTC) was established under the Department of Science and Technology. NCSTC "is mandated to communicate Science and Technology to masses, stimulate scientific and technological temper and coordinate and orchestrate such efforts throughout the country." +NCSTC organises annual programmes such as National Science Day and National Mathematics Day, the National Children's Science Congress, National Teacher's Science Congress, and Science Express. It specifically dedicated the National Science Day on 28 February 2014 to the theme "Fostering Scientific Temper" to spread Nehru's vision. +The National Institute of Science Communication and Information Resources launched the scholarly serial Journal of Scientific Temper in 2013. + + +== References == \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory-0.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..de689fd1e --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,44 @@ +--- +title: "Scientific theory" +chunk: 1/7 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:41.183216+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be or that has been repeatedly tested and has corroborating evidence in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment. In circumstances not amenable to experimental testing, theories are evaluated through principles of abductive reasoning. Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge. +A scientific theory differs from a scientific fact: a fact is an observation, while a theory connects and explains multiple observations. Furthermore, a theory is expected to make predictions which could be confirmed or refuted with additional observations. Stephen Jay Gould wrote that: "...facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts." +A theory differs from a scientific law in that a law is an empirical description of a relationship between facts and/or other laws. For example, Newton's Law of Gravity is a mathematical equation that can be used to predict the attraction between bodies, but it is not a theory to explain how gravity works. +The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to theory for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common vernacular usage of theory. In everyday speech, theory can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, whereas in a scientific context it most often refers to an explanation that has already been tested and is widely accepted as valid. +The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain and its simplicity. As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be modified and ultimately rejected if it cannot be made to fit the new findings; in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then required. Some theories are so well-established that they are unlikely ever to be fundamentally changed (for example, scientific theories such as evolution, heliocentric theory, cell theory, theory of plate tectonics, germ theory of disease, etc.). In certain cases, a scientific theory or scientific law that fails to fit all data can still be useful (due to its simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions. An example is Newton's laws of motion, which are a highly accurate approximation to special relativity at velocities that are small relative to the speed of light. +Scientific theories are testable and make verifiable predictions. They describe the causes of a particular natural phenomenon and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (for example, electricity, chemistry, and astronomy). As with other forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are both deductive and inductive, aiming for predictive and explanatory power. Scientists use theories to further scientific knowledge, as well as to facilitate advances in technology or medicine. Scientific hypotheses can never be "proven" because scientists are not able to fully confirm that their hypothesis is true. Instead, scientists say that the study "supports" or is consistent with their hypothesis. + +== Types == +Albert Einstein described two different types of scientific theories: "Constructive theories" and "principle theories". Constructive theories are constructive models for phenomena: for example, kinetic theory. Principle theories are empirical generalisations, one such example being Newton's laws of motion. + +== Characteristics == +The structural elements of a scientific theory include: + +A purpose, for example to improve understanding or to challenge an existing understanding, +A target phenomenon, what the theory is about, +A conceptual order, providing a relationship among the key variables and highlighting key aspects of the phenomenon to be understood by the theory, +intellectual insight, the theory should give a qualified reader a better or different way of thinking about the phenomenon, something outside common sense, +relevance criteria, a means of assessing the success of the theory in creating new understanding, +empirical support, experimental data or observations confirming the predictions of the theory, +boundary conditions, inclusion and exclusion conditions and its possible application arenas. + +=== Essential criteria === + +For any theory to be accepted within most academia there is usually one simple criterion. The essential criterion is that the theory must be observable and repeatable. The aforementioned criterion is essential to prevent fraud and perpetuate science itself. +The defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no observable predictions is not a scientific theory at all. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is not applicable. +A body of descriptions of knowledge can be called a theory if it fulfills the following criteria: + +It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics). +It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. +It is consistent with preexisting experimental results and at least as accurate in its predictions as are any preexisting theories. +These qualities are certainly true of such established theories as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, the modern evolutionary synthesis, etc. + +=== Other criteria === +In addition, most scientists prefer to work with a theory that meets the following qualities: \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory-1.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory-1.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..e9d64410b --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory-1.md @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +--- +title: "Scientific theory" +chunk: 2/7 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:41.183216+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +It can be subjected to minor adaptations to account for new data that do not fit it perfectly, as they are discovered, thus increasing its predictive capability over time. +It is among the most parsimonious explanations, economical in the use of proposed entities or explanatory steps as per Occam's razor. This is because for each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there may be an extremely large, perhaps even incomprehensible, number of possible and more complex alternatives, because one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypotheses to prevent them from being falsified; therefore, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are more testable. + +=== Definitions from scientific organizations === +The United States National Academy of Sciences defines scientific theories as follows: + +The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the Sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. +From the American Association for the Advancement of Science: + +A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory". It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact. +Note that the term theory would not be appropriate for describing untested but intricate hypotheses or even scientific models. + +== Formation == + +The scientific method involves the proposal and testing of hypotheses, by deriving predictions from the hypotheses about the results of future experiments, then performing those experiments to see whether the predictions are valid. This provides evidence either for or against the hypothesis. When enough experimental results have been gathered in a particular area of inquiry, scientists may propose an explanatory framework that accounts for as many of these as possible. This explanation is also tested, and if it fulfills the necessary criteria (see above), then the explanation becomes a theory. This can take many years, as it can be difficult or complicated to gather sufficient evidence. +Once all of the criteria have been met, it will be widely accepted by scientists (see scientific consensus) as the best available explanation of at least some phenomena. It will have made predictions of phenomena that previous theories could not explain or could not predict accurately, and it will have many repeated bouts of testing. The strength of the evidence is evaluated by the scientific community, and the most important experiments will have been replicated by multiple independent groups. +Theories do not have to be perfectly accurate to be scientifically useful. For example, the predictions made by classical mechanics are known to be inaccurate in the relativistic realm, but they are almost exactly correct at the comparatively low velocities of common human experience. In chemistry, there are many acid-base theories providing highly divergent explanations of the underlying nature of acidic and basic compounds, but they are very useful for predicting their chemical behavior. Like all knowledge in science, no theory can ever be completely certain, since it is possible that future experiments might conflict with the theory's predictions. However, theories supported by the scientific consensus have the highest level of certainty of any scientific knowledge; for example, that all objects are subject to gravity or that life on Earth evolved from a common ancestor. + +Acceptance of a theory does not require that all of its major predictions be tested if it is already supported by sufficient evidence. For example, certain tests may be unfeasible or technically difficult. As a result, theories may make predictions that have not yet been confirmed or proven incorrect; in this case, the predicted results may be described informally with the term "theoretical". These predictions can be tested at a later time, and if they are incorrect, this may lead to the revision or rejection of the theory. As Richard Feynman puts it:It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory-2.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory-2.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..5efc913d8 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory-2.md @@ -0,0 +1,29 @@ +--- +title: "Scientific theory" +chunk: 3/7 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:41.183216+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +== Modification and improvement == +If experimental results contrary to a theory's predictions are observed, scientists first evaluate whether the experimental design was sound, and if so they confirm the results by independent replication. A search for potential improvements to the theory then begins. Solutions may require minor or major changes to the theory, or none at all if a satisfactory explanation is found within the theory's existing framework. Over time, as successive modifications build on top of each other, theories consistently improve and greater predictive accuracy is achieved. Since each new version of a theory (or a completely new theory) must have more predictive and explanatory power than the last, scientific knowledge consistently becomes more accurate over time. +If modifications to the theory or other explanations seem to be insufficient to account for the new results, then a new theory may be required. Since scientific knowledge is usually durable, this occurs much less commonly than modification. Furthermore, until such a theory is proposed and accepted, the previous theory will be retained. This is because it is still the best available explanation for many other phenomena, as verified by its predictive power in other contexts. For example, it has been known since 1859 that the observed perihelion precession of Mercury violates Newtonian mechanics, but the theory remained the best explanation available until relativity was supported by sufficient evidence. Also, while new theories may be proposed by a single person or by many, the cycle of modifications eventually incorporates contributions from many different scientists. +After the changes, the accepted theory will explain more phenomena and have greater predictive power (if it did not, the changes would not be adopted); this new explanation will then be open to further replacement or modification. If a theory does not require modification despite repeated tests, this implies that the theory is very accurate. This also means that accepted theories continue to accumulate evidence over time, and the length of time that a theory (or any of its principles) remains accepted often indicates the strength of its supporting evidence. + +=== Unification === + +In some cases, two or more theories may be replaced by a single theory that explains the previous theories as approximations or special cases, analogous to the way a theory is a unifying explanation for many confirmed hypotheses; this is referred to as unification of theories. For example, electricity and magnetism are now known to be two aspects of the same phenomenon, referred to as electromagnetism. +When the predictions of different theories appear to contradict each other, this is also resolved by either further evidence or unification. For example, physical theories in the 19th century implied that the Sun could not have been burning long enough to allow certain geological changes as well as the evolution of life. This was resolved by the discovery of nuclear fusion, the main energy source of the Sun. Contradictions can also be explained as the result of theories approximating more fundamental (non-contradictory) phenomena. For example, atomic theory is an approximation of quantum mechanics. Current theories describe three separate fundamental phenomena of which all other theories are approximations; The potential unification of these is sometimes called the Theory of Everything. + +=== Example: Relativity === +In 1905, Albert Einstein published the theory of special relativity. +He started with a principle known for three hundred years, since the time of Galileo Galilei: the principle of relativity and a prediction from a well established theory for electromagnetism known as Maxwell's equations, the prediction that the speed of light in a vacuum does not depend on relative motion of the source and receiver. Einstein proposed, or hypothesized, that the concept of Galilean relativity should be modified to align mechanical physics with electromagnetism. In addition to unifying two branches of physics, this modification led to specific consequences such as time dilation and length contraction. Careful, repeated experiments have both confirmed Einstein's postulates are valid and that the predictions of the special theory of relativity match experiment. +Einstein next sought to generalize the invariance principle to all reference frames, whether inertial or accelerating. Rejecting Newtonian gravitation—a central force acting instantly at a distance—Einstein presumed a gravitational field. In 1907, Einstein's equivalence principle implied that a free fall within a uniform gravitational field is equivalent to inertial motion. By extending special relativity's effects into three dimensions, general relativity extended length contraction into space contraction, conceiving of 4D space-time as the gravitational field that alters geometrically and sets all local objects' pathways. Even massless energy exerts gravitational motion on local objects by "curving" the geometrical "surface" of 4D space-time. Yet unless the energy is vast, its relativistic effects of contracting space and slowing time are negligible when merely predicting motion. Although general relativity is embraced as the more explanatory theory via scientific realism, Newton's theory remains successful as merely a predictive theory via instrumentalism. To calculate trajectories, engineers and NASA still use Newton's equations, which are simpler to operate. + +== Theories and laws == + +Both scientific laws and scientific theories are produced from the scientific method through the formation and testing of hypotheses and can predict the behavior of the natural world. Both are also typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. However, scientific laws are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions. Scientific theories are broader in scope and give overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics. Theories are supported by evidence from many different sources and may contain one or several laws. +A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence have been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory; a law will always remain a law. Both theories and laws could potentially be falsified by countervailing evidence. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory-3.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory-3.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..81b32b645 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory-3.md @@ -0,0 +1,33 @@ +--- +title: "Scientific theory" +chunk: 4/7 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:41.183216+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +=== Theories and facts === +A scientific theory does not turn into a fact. Scientific facts are observations that theories organize and explain. As new facts appear, a theory may be revised or new theories may emerge that encompass these additional facts. While American vernacular speech uses "theory" as similar to a "guess" in opposition to a "fact", in science the word "theory" means a model that is expected to explain a wide range of facts. + +== About theories == + +=== Theories as axioms === +The logical positivists thought of scientific theories as statements in a formal language. First-order logic is an example of a formal language. The logical positivists envisaged a similar scientific language. In addition to scientific theories, the language also included observation sentences ("the sun rises in the east"), definitions, and mathematical statements. The phenomena explained by the theories, if they could not be directly observed by the senses (for example, atoms and radio waves), were treated as theoretical concepts. In this view, theories function as axioms: predicted observations are derived from the theories much like theorems are derived in Euclidean geometry. However, the predictions are then tested against reality to verify the predictions, and the "axioms" can be revised as a direct result. +The phrase "the received view of theories" is used to describe this approach. Terms commonly associated with it are "linguistic" (because theories are components of a language) and "syntactic" (because a language has rules about how symbols can be strung together). Problems in defining this kind of language precisely, e.g., are objects seen in microscopes observed or are they theoretical objects, led to the effective demise of logical positivism in the 1970s. + +=== Theories as models === + +The semantic view of theories, which identifies scientific theories with models rather than propositions, has replaced the received view as the dominant position in theory formulation in the philosophy of science. A model is a logical framework intended to represent reality (a "model of reality"), similar to the way that a map is a graphical model that represents the territory of a city or country. + +In this approach, theories are a specific category of models that fulfil the necessary criteria (see above). One can use language to describe a model; however, the theory is the model (or a collection of similar models), and not the description of the model. A model of the Solar System, for example, might consist of abstract objects that represent the Sun and the planets. These objects have associated properties, e.g., positions, velocities, and masses. The model parameters, e.g., Newton's Law of Gravitation, determine how the positions and velocities change with time. This model can then be tested to see whether it accurately predicts future observations; astronomers can verify that the positions of the model's objects over time match the actual positions of the planets. For most planets, the Newtonian model's predictions are accurate; for Mercury, it is slightly inaccurate and the model of general relativity must be used instead. +The word "semantic" refers to the way that a model represents the real world. The representation (literally, "re-presentation") describes particular aspects of a phenomenon or the manner of interaction among a set of phenomena. For instance, a scale model of a house or of the Solar System is clearly not an actual house or an actual Solar System; the aspects of an actual house or the actual Solar System represented in a scale model are, only in certain limited ways, representative of the actual entity. A scale model of a house is not a house; but to someone who wants to learn about houses, analogous to a scientist who wants to understand reality, a sufficiently detailed scale model may suffice. + +==== Differences between theory and model ==== + +Several commentators have stated that the distinguishing characteristic of theories is that they are explanatory as well as descriptive, while models are only descriptive (although still predictive in a more limited sense). Philosopher Stephen Pepper also distinguished between theories and models and said in 1948 that general models and theories are predicated on a "root" metaphor that constrains how scientists theorize and model a phenomenon and thus arrive at testable hypotheses. +Engineering practice makes a distinction between "mathematical models" and "physical models"; the cost of fabricating a physical model can be minimized by first creating a mathematical model using a computer software package, such as a computer-aided design tool. The component parts are each themselves modelled, and the fabrication tolerances are specified. An exploded view drawing is used to lay out the fabrication sequence. Simulation packages for displaying each of the subassemblies allow the parts to be rotated, and magnified, in realistic detail. Software packages for creating the bill of materials for construction allow subcontractors to specialize in assembly processes, which spreads the cost of manufacturing machinery among multiple customers. See: Computer-aided engineering, Computer-aided manufacturing, and 3D printing + +=== Assumptions in formulating theories === +An assumption (or axiom) is a statement that is accepted without evidence. For example, assumptions can be used as premises in a logical argument. Isaac Asimov described assumptions as follows: \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory-4.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory-4.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..07da8ae2b --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory-4.md @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@ +--- +title: "Scientific theory" +chunk: 5/7 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:41.183216+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +...it is incorrect to speak of an assumption as either true or false, since there is no way of proving it to be either (If there were, it would no longer be an assumption). It is better to consider assumptions as either useful or useless, depending on whether deductions made from them correspond to reality...Since we must start somewhere, we must have assumptions, but at least let us have as few assumptions as possible. +Certain assumptions are necessary for all empirical claims (e.g. the assumption that reality exists). However, theories do not generally make assumptions in the conventional sense (statements accepted without evidence). While assumptions are often incorporated during the formation of new theories, these are either supported by evidence (such as from previously existing theories) or the evidence is produced in the course of validating the theory. This may be as simple as observing that the theory makes accurate predictions, which is evidence that any assumptions made at the outset are correct or approximately correct under the conditions tested. +Conventional assumptions, without evidence, may be used if the theory is only intended to apply when the assumption is valid (or approximately valid). For example, the special theory of relativity assumes an inertial frame of reference. The theory makes accurate predictions when the assumption is valid, and does not make accurate predictions when the assumption is not valid. Such assumptions are often the point with which older theories are succeeded by new ones (the general theory of relativity works in non-inertial reference frames as well). +The term "assumption" is actually broader than its standard use, etymologically speaking. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) and online Wiktionary indicate its Latin source as assumere ("accept, to take to oneself, adopt, usurp"), which is a conjunction of ad- ("to, towards, at") and sumere (to take). The root survives, with shifted meanings, in the Italian assumere and Spanish sumir. The first sense of "assume" in the OED is "to take unto (oneself), receive, accept, adopt". The term was originally employed in religious contexts as in "to receive up into heaven", especially "the reception of the Virgin Mary into heaven, with body preserved from corruption", (1297 CE) but it was also simply used to refer to "receive into association" or "adopt into partnership". Moreover, other senses of assumere included (i) "investing oneself with (an attribute)", (ii) "to undertake" (especially in Law), (iii) "to take to oneself in appearance only, to pretend to possess", and (iv) "to suppose a thing to be" (all senses from OED entry on "assume"; the OED entry for "assumption" is almost perfectly symmetrical in senses). Thus, "assumption" connotes other associations than the contemporary standard sense of "that which is assumed or taken for granted; a supposition, postulate" (only the 11th of 12 senses of "assumption", and the 10th of 11 senses of "assume"). + +== Descriptions == + +=== From philosophers of science === +Karl Popper described the characteristics of a scientific theory as follows: \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory-5.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory-5.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..00b26dd49 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory-5.md @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ +--- +title: "Scientific theory" +chunk: 6/7 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:41.183216+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory—if we look for confirmations. +Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory—an event which would have refuted the theory. +Every "good" scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things from happening. The more a theory forbids, the better it is. +A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice. +Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks. +Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory, and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of "corroborating evidence".) +Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, might still be upheld by their admirers—for example by introducing post hoc (after the fact) some auxiliary hypothesis or assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory post hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status, by tampering with evidence. The temptation to tamper can be minimized by first taking the time to write down the testing protocol before embarking on the scientific work. +Popper summarized these statements by saying that the central criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its "falsifiability, or refutability, or testability". Echoing this, Stephen Hawking states, "A theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations." He also discusses the "unprovable but falsifiable" nature of theories, which is a necessary consequence of inductive logic, and that "you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory". +Several philosophers and historians of science have, however, argued that Popper's definition of theory as a set of falsifiable statements is wrong because, as Philip Kitcher has pointed out, if one took a strictly Popperian view of "theory", observations of Uranus when first discovered in 1781 would have "falsified" Newton's celestial mechanics. Rather, people suggested that another planet influenced Uranus' orbit—and this prediction was indeed eventually confirmed. +Kitcher agrees with Popper that "There is surely something right in the idea that a science can succeed only if it can fail." He also says that scientific theories include statements that cannot be falsified, and that good theories must also be creative. He insists we view scientific theories as an "elaborate collection of statements", some of which are not falsifiable, while others—those he calls "auxiliary hypotheses", are. +According to Kitcher, good scientific theories must have three features: + +Unity: "A science should be unified.... Good theories consist of just one problem-solving strategy, or a small family of problem-solving strategies, that can be applied to a wide range of problems." +Fecundity: "A great scientific theory, like Newton's, opens up new areas of research.... Because a theory presents a new way of looking at the world, it can lead us to ask new questions, and so to embark on new and fruitful lines of inquiry.... Typically, a flourishing science is incomplete. At any time, it raises more questions than it can currently answer. But incompleteness is not vice. On the contrary, incompleteness is the mother of fecundity.... A good theory should be productive; it should raise new questions and presume those questions can be answered without giving up its problem-solving strategies." +Auxiliary hypotheses that are independently testable: "An auxiliary hypothesis ought to be testable independently of the particular problem it is introduced to solve, independently of the theory it is designed to save." (For example, the evidence for the existence of Neptune is independent of the anomalies in Uranus's orbit.) +Like other definitions of theories, including Popper's, Kitcher makes it clear that a theory must include statements that have observational consequences. But, like the observation of irregularities in the orbit of Uranus, falsification is only one possible consequence of observation. The production of new hypotheses is another possible and equally important result. + +=== Analogies and metaphors === +The concept of a scientific theory has also been described using analogies and metaphors. For example, the logical empiricist Carl Gustav Hempel likened the structure of a scientific theory to a "complex spatial network:" + + Its terms are represented by the knots, while the threads connecting the latter correspond, in part, to the definitions and, in part, to the fundamental and derivative hypotheses included in the theory. The whole system floats, as it were, above the plane of observation and is anchored to it by the rules of interpretation. These might be viewed as strings which are not part of the network but link certain points of the latter with specific places in the plane of observation. By virtue of these interpretive connections, the network can function as a scientific theory: From certain observational data, we may ascend, via an interpretive string, to some point in the theoretical network, thence proceed, via definitions and hypotheses, to other points, from which another interpretive string permits a descent to the plane of observation. +Michael Polanyi made an analogy between a theory and a map: \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory-6.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory-6.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..8ee9bd4d2 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory-6.md @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ +--- +title: "Scientific theory" +chunk: 7/7 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:41.183216+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +A theory is something other than myself. It may be set out on paper as a system of rules, and it is the more truly a theory the more completely it can be put down in such terms. Mathematical theory reaches the highest perfection in this respect. But even a geographical map fully embodies in itself a set of strict rules for finding one's way through a region of otherwise uncharted experience. Indeed, all theory may be regarded as a kind of map extended over space and time. +A scientific theory can also be thought of as a book that captures the fundamental information about the world, a book that must be researched, written, and shared. In 1623, Galileo Galilei wrote: + +Philosophy [i.e. physics] is written in this grand book—I mean the universe—which stands continually open to our gaze, but it cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and interpret the characters in which it is written. It is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometrical figures, without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it; without these, one is wandering around in a dark labyrinth. +The book metaphor could also be applied in the following passage, by the contemporary philosopher of science Ian Hacking: + +I myself prefer an Argentine fantasy. God did not write a Book of Nature of the sort that the old Europeans imagined. He wrote a Borgesian library, each book of which is as brief as possible, yet each book of which is inconsistent with every other. No book is redundant. For every book there is some humanly accessible bit of Nature such that that book, and no other, makes possible the comprehension, prediction and influencing of what is going on...Leibniz said that God chose a world which maximized the variety of phenomena while choosing the simplest laws. Exactly so: but the best way to maximize phenomena and have simplest laws is to have the laws inconsistent with each other, each applying to this or that but none applying to all. + +== In physics == +In physics, the term theory is generally used for a mathematical framework—derived from a small set of basic postulates (usually symmetries—like equality of locations in space or in time, or identity of electrons, etc.)—that is capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems. A good example is classical electromagnetism, which encompasses results derived from gauge symmetry (sometimes called gauge invariance) in a form of a few equations called Maxwell's equations. The specific mathematical aspects of classical electromagnetic theory are termed "laws of electromagnetism", reflecting the level of consistent and reproducible evidence that supports them. Within electromagnetic theory generally, there are numerous hypotheses about how electromagnetism applies to specific situations. Many of these hypotheses are already considered to be adequately tested, with new ones always in the making and perhaps untested. An example of the latter might be the radiation reaction force. As of 2009, its effects on the periodic motion of charges are detectable in synchrotrons, but only as averaged effects over time. Some researchers are now considering experiments that could observe these effects at the instantaneous level (i.e. not averaged over time). + +== Examples == +Note that many fields of inquiry do not have specific named theories, e.g. developmental biology. Scientific knowledge outside a named theory can still have a high level of certainty, depending on the amount of evidence supporting it. Also note that since theories draw evidence from many fields, the categorization is not absolute. + +Biology: cell theory, theory of evolution (modern evolutionary synthesis), abiogenesis, germ theory, particulate inheritance theory, dual inheritance theory, Young–Helmholtz theory, opponent process, cohesion-tension theory +Chemistry: collision theory, kinetic theory of gases, Lewis theory, molecular theory, molecular orbital theory, transition state theory, valence bond theory +Physics: atomic theory, Big Bang theory, Dynamo theory, perturbation theory, theory of relativity (successor to classical mechanics), quantum field theory +Earth science: Climate change theory (from climatology), plate tectonics theory (from geology), theories of the origin of the Moon, theories for the Moon illusion +Astronomy: Stellar evolution, solar nebular model, stellar nucleosynthesis + +== Explanatory notes == + +== References == + +== Further reading == +Sellers, Piers (17 August 2016). "Space, Climate Change, and the Real Meaning of Theory". The New Yorker. Retrieved 18 August 2016. Essay by a British/American meteorologist and NASA astronaut on anthopogenic global warming and "theory". \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism-0.md index fc03c84c5..3ba1be78d 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism-0.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism-0.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 1/4 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:08:47.652343+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:42.382331+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism-1.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism-1.md index 5ca2ec2bc..35c76face 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism-1.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism-1.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 2/4 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:08:47.652343+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:42.382331+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism-2.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism-2.md index 29fd8f271..73b9628b2 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism-2.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism-2.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 3/4 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:08:47.652343+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:42.382331+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism-3.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism-3.md index 7d11d76de..153f28645 100644 --- a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism-3.md +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism-3.md @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ chunk: 4/4 source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism" category: "reference" tags: "science, encyclopedia" -date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:08:47.652343+00:00" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:42.382331+00:00" instance: "kb-cron" --- diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_research-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_research-0.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..c6be33459 --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_research-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ +--- +title: "Secondary research" +chunk: 1/1 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_research" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:43.696884+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +Secondary research involves the summary, collation and/or synthesis of existing research. Secondary research is contrasted with primary research in that primary research involves the generation of data, whereas secondary research uses primary research sources as a source of data for analysis. A notable marker of primary research is the inclusion of a "methods" section, where the authors describe how the data was generated. +Common examples of secondary research include textbooks, encyclopedias, news articles, review articles, and meta analyses. +When conducting secondary research, authors may draw data from published academic papers, government documents, statistical databases, and historical records. + + +== Fields == +The term is widely used in fields such as history, legal research, market research, and Wikipedia editing. The principal methodology in health secondary research is the systematic review, commonly using meta-analytic statistical techniques. Other methods of synthesis, like realist reviews and meta-narrative reviews, have been developed in the 21st century. +Secondary market research includes the reuse by a second party of any data collected from a first party such as telephone interviews or surveys. Secondary market research can be broken up into two categories: information from internal sources such as an agency or company, and information from external sources held outside an organization or agency. Secondary market research uses information from the past, reuses data already collected, and is more economical. + + +== Primary research vs secondary research == +Primary research is research that is collected firsthand and is original to the person using it. When conducting primary research, the goal is to answer questions that have not been answered in the published literature. Additionally, the research has to be verified by others to help eliminate one's own biases. Primary research can be a survey, observation, or an interview. This type of research tends to be more time consuming and can be costly. If possible, secondary research should be done before primary research. +Secondary research is based on already published data and information gathered from other conducted studies. It is a common practice by researchers to conduct secondary research before primary research in order to determine what information is not already available. Secondary research is an easy place to start when starting a new research project. Secondary research can vary in credibility depending on where the data is coming from and who is sharing research. + + +== References == \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias-0.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..4ef7057ea --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias-0.md @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ +--- +title: "Selection bias" +chunk: 1/2 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:44.818866+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +Selection bias is the bias introduced by the selection of individuals, groups, or data for analysis in such a way that the association between exposure and outcome among those selected for analysis differs from the association among those eligible. It typically occurs when researchers condition on a factor that is influenced both by the exposure and the outcome (or their causes), creating a false association between them. Selection bias encompasses several forms of bias, including differential loss-to-follow-up, incidence–prevalence bias, volunteer bias, healthy-worker bias, and nonresponse bias. + +== Types of bias == + +=== Sampling bias === +Sampling bias is systematic error due to a non-random sample of a population, causing some members of the population to be less likely to be included than others, resulting in a biased sample, defined as a statistical sample of a population (or non-human factors) in which all participants are not equally balanced or objectively represented. It is mostly classified as a subtype of selection bias, sometimes specifically termed sample selection bias, but some classify it as a separate type of bias. +A distinction of sampling bias (albeit not a universally accepted one) is that it undermines the external validity of a test (the ability of its results to be generalized to the rest of the population), while selection bias mainly addresses internal validity for differences or similarities found in the sample at hand. In this sense, errors occurring in the process of gathering the sample or cohort cause sampling bias, while errors in any process thereafter cause selection bias. +Examples of sampling bias include self-selection, pre-screening of trial participants, discounting trial subjects/tests that did not run to completion and migration bias by excluding subjects who have recently moved into or out of the study area, length-time bias, where slowly developing disease with better prognosis is detected, and lead time bias, where disease is diagnosed earlier for participants than in comparison populations, although the average course of disease is the same. + +=== Time interval === +Early termination of a trial at a time when its results support the desired conclusion. +A trial may be terminated early at an extreme value (often for ethical reasons), but the extreme value is likely to be reached by the variable with the largest variance, even if all variables have a similar mean. + +=== Exposure === +Susceptibility bias +Clinical susceptibility bias, when one disease predisposes for a second disease, and the treatment for the first disease erroneously appears to predispose to the second disease. For example, postmenopausal syndrome gives a higher likelihood of also developing endometrial cancer, so estrogens given for the postmenopausal syndrome may receive a higher than actual blame for causing endometrial cancer. +Protopathic bias, when a treatment for the first symptoms of a disease or other outcome appear to cause the outcome. It is a potential bias when there is a lag time from the first symptoms and start of treatment before actual diagnosis. It can be mitigated by lagging, that is, exclusion of exposures that occurred in a certain time period before diagnosis. +Indication bias, a potential mixup between cause and effect when exposure is dependent on indication, e.g. a treatment is given to people in high risk of acquiring a disease, potentially causing a preponderance of treated people among those acquiring the disease. This may cause an erroneous appearance of the treatment being a cause of the disease. + +=== Data === +Partitioning (dividing) data with knowledge of the contents of the partitions, and then analyzing them with tests designed for blindly chosen partitions. +Post hoc alteration of data inclusion based on arbitrary or subjective reasons, including: +Cherry picking, which actually is not selection bias, but confirmation bias, when specific subsets of data are chosen to support a conclusion (e.g. citing examples of plane crashes as evidence of airline flight being unsafe, while ignoring the far more common example of flights that complete safely. See: availability heuristic) +Rejection of bad data on (1) arbitrary grounds, instead of according to previously stated or generally agreed criteria or (2) discarding "outliers" on statistical grounds that fail to take into account important information that could be derived from "wild" observations. + +=== Studies === +Selection of which studies to include in a meta-analysis (see also combinatorial meta-analysis). +Performing repeated experiments and reporting only the most favorable results, perhaps relabelling lab records of other experiments as "calibration tests", "instrumentation errors" or "preliminary surveys". +Presenting the most significant result of a data dredge as if it were a single experiment (which is logically the same as the previous item, but is seen as much less dishonest). + +=== Attrition === +Attrition bias is a kind of selection bias caused by attrition (loss of participants), discounting trial subjects/tests that did not run to completion. It is closely related to the survivorship bias, where only the subjects that "survived" a process are included in the analysis or the failure bias, where only the subjects that "failed" a process are included. It includes dropout, nonresponse (lower response rate), withdrawal and protocol deviators. It gives biased results where it is unequal in regard to exposure and/or outcome. For example, in a test of a dieting program, the researcher may simply reject everyone who drops out of the trial, but most of those who drop out are those for whom it was not working. Different loss of subjects in intervention and comparison group may change the characteristics of these groups and outcomes irrespective of the studied intervention. +Lost to follow-up, is another form of Attrition bias, mainly occurring in medicinal studies over a lengthy time period. Non-Response or Retention bias can be influenced by a number of both tangible and intangible factors, such as; wealth, education, altruism, initial understanding of the study and its requirements. Researchers may also be incapable of conducting follow-up contact resulting from inadequate identifying information and contact details collected during the initial recruitment and research phase. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias-1.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias-1.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..c3fbc53ff --- /dev/null +++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias-1.md @@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ +--- +title: "Selection bias" +chunk: 2/2 +source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias" +category: "reference" +tags: "science, encyclopedia" +date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:17:44.818866+00:00" +instance: "kb-cron" +--- + +=== Observer selection === +Philosopher Nick Bostrom has argued that data are filtered not only by study design and measurement, but by the necessary precondition that there has to be someone doing a study. In situations where the existence of the observer or the study is correlated with the data, observation selection effects occur, and anthropic reasoning is required. +An example is the past impact event record of Earth: if large impacts cause mass extinctions and ecological disruptions precluding the evolution of intelligent observers for long periods, no one will observe any evidence of large impacts in the recent past (since they would have prevented intelligent observers from evolving). Hence there is a potential bias in the impact record of Earth. Astronomical existential risks might similarly be underestimated due to selection bias, and an anthropic correction has to be introduced. + +=== Volunteer bias === + +Self-selection bias or a volunteer bias in studies offer further threats to the validity of a study as these participants may have intrinsically different characteristics from the target population of the study. Studies have shown that volunteers tend to come from a higher social standing than from a lower socio-economic background. Furthermore, another study shows that women are more probable to volunteer for studies than men. Volunteer bias is evident throughout the study life-cycle, from recruitment to follow-ups. More generally speaking volunteer response can be put down to individual altruism, a desire for approval, personal relation to the study topic and other reasons. + +=== Malmquist bias === + +Malmquist bias in observational astronomy is a bias caused by the limit of the detector sensitivity. Because the apparent luminosity decreases for the distant objects, at a greater distance the only brighter objects can be observed. This will create the false correlation between the distance and the luminosity. + +== Mitigation == +In the general case, selection biases cannot be overcome with statistical analysis of existing data alone, though Heckman correction may be used in special cases. An assessment of the degree of selection bias can be made by examining correlations between exogenous (background) variables and a treatment indicator. However, in regression models, it is correlation between unobserved determinants of the outcome and unobserved determinants of selection into the sample which bias estimates, and this correlation between unobservables cannot be directly assessed by the observed determinants of treatment. +When data are selected for fitting or forecast purposes, a coalitional game can be set up so that a fitting or forecast accuracy function can be defined on all subsets of the data variables. + +== Related issues == +Selection bias is closely related to: + +publication bias or reporting bias, the distortion produced in community perception or meta-analyses by not publishing uninteresting (usually negative) results, or results which go against the experimenter's prejudices, a sponsor's interests, or community expectations. +confirmation bias, the general tendency of humans to give more attention to whatever confirms our pre-existing perspective; or specifically in experimental science, the distortion produced by experiments that are designed to seek confirmatory evidence instead of trying to disprove the hypothesis. +exclusion bias, results from applying different criteria to cases and controls in regards to participation eligibility for a study/different variables serving as basis for exclusion. + +== See also == + +== References == \ No newline at end of file