Scrape wikipedia-science: 416 new, 4 updated, 438 total (kb-cron)

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Urchin_in_the_Storm-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+---
+title: "An Urchin in the Storm"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Urchin_in_the_Storm"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:07:03.761562+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+An Urchin in the Storm is a 1987 essay collection from paleontologist and science writer Stephen Jay Gould.
+
+
+== Overview ==
+All but one of the essays had originally appeared in The New York Review of Books. Grouped by theme, the sections of the book deal respectively with the irreducibility of history (and the pleasures and challenges of contingency) in its two principal domains of life and the earth, nature's complexity, the theory and consequences of biological determinism, and rationalism in explanation.  The book is dedicated to Peter Medawar and Isaiah Berlin.
+It was reviewed in The New York Times by Michiko Kakutani, who noted that although the pieces were technically book reviews, Gould "tends to use the subject at hand as a jumping-off point for more general discussions".
+
+
+== References ==

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Varieties_of_Scientific_Experience-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+---
+title: "The Varieties of Scientific Experience"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Varieties_of_Scientific_Experience"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:07:04.889674+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God is a book collecting transcribed talks on the subject of natural theology that astronomer Carl Sagan delivered in 1985 at the University of Glasgow as part of the Gifford Lectures. The book was first published posthumously in 2006, 10 years after his death. The title is a reference to The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James.
+The book was edited by Ann Druyan, who also provided an introduction section. The sixth chapter, "The God Hypothesis", was later reprinted in Christopher Hitchens' anthology The Portable Atheist.
+
+
+== References ==

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Welfare_Trait-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+---
+title: "The Welfare Trait"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Welfare_Trait"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:07:08.563356+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+The Welfare Trait: How State Benefits Affect Personality is a 2015 book by Adam Perkins, Lecturer in the Neurobiology of Personality at King's College London.
+Perkins claims that individuals with aggressive, rule-breaking and anti-social tendencies are over-represented among long-term welfare recipients. He calls this an "employment–resistant personality profile" and finds that it is heritable.
+The book was controversial. It initially attracted little attention, with the journal Nature refusing to review it. In 2016, a talk by Perkins was cancelled for fear of disruption. Perkins later wrote "I was no-platformed by student 'radicals' for telling the truth about welfare". That year, Perkins secretly gave a presentation on the book at the London Conference on Intelligence.
+The Adam Smith Institute commended the book's "praiseworthy boldness". However the argument was criticised in The Guardian for cherry-picking the data, relying too heavily on mice studies, and resembling eugenics. A professor at University College London reviewed the book negatively, claiming Perkins failed to prove causal links for his assertions, and that "his proposals are more likely to harm, then help, children."
+A 2017 review in the British Journal of Psychiatry wrote "it is true that there is good-quality evidence for the transmission of dysfunctional personality traits by epigenetic means across generations".
+In 2018, a correction to one of Perkins' papers underlying the book identified seven errors.
+
+
+== References ==

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_from_a_Height-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+---
+title: "View from a Height"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_from_a_Height"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:07:06.090024+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+View from a Height is a collection of seventeen scientific essays by American writer and scientist Isaac Asimov.  It was the second of a series of books collecting essays from The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, written between 1959 and 1962. It was first published by Doubleday & Company in 1963. The book received a review in Science Magazine. and The American Biology Teacher.
+The collection includes the essay "By Jove!", the source of the Asimov misquote describing the Solar System (besides the Sun) as "Jupiter plus debris".  The actual quote is "4 planets plus debris".
+
+
+== Contents ==
+Part I: Biology
+"That's About the Size of It" (October 1961)
+"The Egg and Wee" (June 1962)
+"That's Life!" (March 1962)
+"Not as We Know It" (September 1961)
+Part II: Chemistry
+"The Element of Perfection" (November 1960)
+"The Weighting Game" (April 1962)
+"The Evens Have It" (August 1961)
+Part III: Physics
+"Now Hear This!" (December 1960)
+"The Ultimate Split of the Second" (August 1959)
+"Order! Order!" (February 1961)
+"The Modern Demonology" (January 1962)
+"The Height of Up" (October 1959)
+Part IV: Astronomy
+"Hot Stuff" (July 1962)
+"Recipe for a Planet" (July 1961)
+"The Trojan Hearse" (December 1961)
+"By Jove!" (May 1962)
+"Superficially Speaking" (February 1962)
+
+
+== References ==
+
+
+== External links ==
+"Asimov Essays From the Mag. of F&SF". asimovonline.com. Retrieved 2020-11-28.
+"Isaac Asimov: Analysis of View From a Height". The Thunder Child. Retrieved 2020-11-28.
+"View From a Height". asimovreviews.net. Retrieved 2020-11-28.

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Want_Them_Infected-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+---
+title: "We Want Them Infected"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Want_Them_Infected"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:07:07.412956+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+We Want Them Infected: How the Failed Quest for Herd Immunity Led Doctors to Embrace the Anti-Vaccine Movement and Blinded Americans to the Threat of Covid is a 2023 book by Jonathan Howard, an American professor of neurology and psychiatry at New York University Grossman School of Medicine. The book examines the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD), an open letter advocating for herd immunity for COVID-19, which was published in October 2020 by Sunetra Gupta, Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff. The book was published by Redhawk Publications and was released on April 20, 2023.
+Howard has previously published several clinical textbooks in neurology and hosts the podcast "We Want Them Infected", which covers disinformation about the health field. The title of the book was taken from epidemiologist Paul Alexander who served in the Health and Human Services Department during the first Trump administration.
+
+
+== Synopsis ==
+The American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) located in Great Barrington, Massachusetts gathered public health academics in October 2020 to discuss a plan for the management of the COVID 19 pandemic. The AIER is a libertarian think tank which is known for spreading misinformation concerning climate change and health. AIER advocated for allowing the 60% of the population that does not have health risks to contract COVID in order to create herd immunity and end precautionary measures such as closures, masking and social distancing. AIER suggested that the 40% who were elderly or had health risks could be kept isolated from the remainder of the population and have food delivered for free. They also assumed that once a person had survived COVID, they would be immune to reinfection and that those without health risks would survive COVID without risk or long-term injury. An open letter was drafted and signed by three, only one of whom is a physician, and it is "unclear whether he ever cared for patients after completing medical school", according to a review by Bruce Werness in the Global Autism Review. The three are Sunetra Gupta (Oxford), Jay Bhattacharya (Stanford) and Martin Kulldorff (Harvard). The document was released publicly October 2020, pre-vaccines. Werness adds that, "It does not include any scientific analysis or modeling and was not peer-reviewed."
+Howard argues that this plan is "unscientific, impracticable, and dangerous" and details that health experts such as Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Anthony Fauci, David Nabarro, Devi Sridhar, David Gorski and others criticized the plan. Howard writes that the pro-herd immunity community mocked preventive measures, held a "blasé attitude toward sick children", argued that children were unlikely to die or having lasting effects from COVID, and that therefore it was their duty to become infected. The group asserted that the fear of COVID was worse than the virus itself and that there was too much emphasis on COVID numbers, which they argued were exaggerated. Howard gives harsh criticism towards the signers, stating that they gave no thought to the logistics of how 40% of the population was to be isolated from the public for months at a time. Multi-generational households would have to move people with health risks to hotel rooms, and it was suggested feeding them with Door Dash deliveries. Also he criticizes suggestions that medical personal were not heroic, death certificates were filled out incorrectly, and hospitals and doctors were benefiting financially by overdosing COVID. Howard quips "The idea that the best way to protect yourself from a virus is to get the virus is like using pregnancy as a form of contraception," and that herd immunity supporters "deliberately recycled and repurposed tropes from the AIDS pandemic."
+Once COVID vaccines became available, the "natural" herd immunity supporters spread misinformation and continued to downplay the pandemic. When challenged, they cried that they had been misunderstood and misquoted. Howard writes "'They falsely pacified millions of Americans about the dangers of COVID... relentlessly minimized the virus for young people, and trashed any and all measures to limit infections in this population.'"  The last third of the book discusses how anti-vaccine arguments that were previously used against the MMR and HPV vaccines were repurposed by doctors to cast doubt on the COVID vaccine, especially for children.
+The title of the book was taken from wording by epidemiologist Paul Alexander who served in the Health and Human Services Department during the first Trump administration.  In July 2020 he stated to top HHS officials that, "Infants, kids, teens, young people, young adults, middle aged with no conditions etc. have zero to little risk". "So we use them to develop herd ... we want them infected."
+
+
+== Reception ==
+Chief Scientific advisor for Global Autoimmune Institute Bruce Werness wrote that he read We Want Them Infected after the 2024 presidential election and wrote that he found it "disconcerting and even frightening to watch many of the individuals exposed in Dr. Howard's book being nominated for important health posts in the incoming administration."
+Christopher Lane writing for Psychology Today calls We Want Them Infected detailed and "A gripping, cautionary tale about the dangers of mainstreaming fringe ideas before turning them into federal policy, We Want Them Infected is damning, indispensable, and one-of-a-kind. It is likely to become canonical."
+Journalist Michael Hiltzik writing for the Los Angeles Times calls the book "painstakingly documented" and said that it "may be the most appalling and infuriating book you'll read about America's response to the pandemic. It's also essential reading."
+
+
+== References ==
+
+
+== External links ==
+"We want them infected" (with Dr. Jonathan Howard), Debunk the Funk with Dr. Wilson, May 12, 2023, YouTube.

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_If-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+---
+title: "What If? 2 (book)"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_If?_2_(book)"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:07:10.921522+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+What If? 2: Additional Serious Scientific Answers to Absurd Hypothetical Questions is a 2022 non-fiction book by Randall Munroe. The book seeks to provide scientific answers to hypothetical questions proposed by readers of the author's webcomic, xkcd, and blog, What If? A follow-up to Munroe's 2014 title What If?, the book was released on September 13, 2022, to generally positive reviews, with Time saying, "Science isn't easy, but in Munroe's capable hands, it surely can be fun."
+
+
+== Background ==
+Munroe, whose career began as a roboticist for NASA, began writing his webcomic xkcd in 2005, and following its success took up cartooning full-time soon after. With many of his drawings revolving around the topics of science and mathematics, Munroe soon began receiving questions from readers about those subject areas. As a result, he created a spinoff blog titled What If? where he compiled these questions and his subsequent responses. The blog formed the basis for his 2014 book What If?, which reached the top of The New York Times Best Seller list, and inspired the creation of a second volume, What If? 2.
+
+
+== Synopsis ==
+What If? 2 continues in the same vein as its predecessor in attempting to provide logical, science- and mathematics-based answers to extreme hypothetical questions and situations. The author uses techniques made famous by physicist Enrico Fermi and his Fermi problems, with which the answers to seemingly complex questions can be arrived at roughly by using data that is already known. With such techniques, Munroe is able to estimate that a Tyrannosaurus Rex released in New York City would need to eat half of one human per day in order to survive, and that it would take over 8,300 years to fill an Olympic-size swimming pool with your own saliva, among other hypotheticals.
+Munroe includes 64 questions covered in depth in this installment, each separated into its own chapter, and dozens more are answered briefly. The book's prose is humorous, and the chapters are also frequently accompanied by the author's illustrations, done in the same minimalist, stick figure style as his webcomic. Many of the book's questions were submitted by children, and these are generally preferred by Munroe, who considers them more straightforward than the elaborate scenarios often envisioned by adults.
+
+
+== Reception ==
+The book was released to generally positive reviews. Time Magazine praised Munroe's amusing prose and attention to detail, and said his answers to the questions are "thorough, deeply researched, and great fun". The Wall Street Journal wrote that "the author's playful prose style and inventive illustrations make this book eminently browsable", and Kirkus Reviews called it "[a] delight for science geeks with a penchant for oddball thought experiments".
+
+
+== References ==

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_If-1.md

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+---
+title: "What If? (book)"
+chunk: 2/2
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_If?_(book)"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:07:09.768173+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+What would happen if you tried to hit a baseball pitched at 90% the speed of light?
+Using mathematics and physics, Munroe concluded such a situation would result in a nuclear fusion explosion, and that ultimately, the result would be a ruling of hit by pitch. What If? approaches its subject matter with a sense of wit and sometimes makes use of approximations to answer questions that seem impossible to solve. Most questions demand assumptions and cross-disciplinary science skills to answer, resulting in "back-of-the-envelope" calculations. What If? is interspersed with "charmingly-amateur" stick figure illustrations.
+The book also features periodic sections titled "Weird (and Worrying) Questions from the What If? Inbox", which are short collections of questions Munroe had not answered because he did not "want to think about that". In an interview, Munroe stated that he "never got past the initial mental image" of the question "How cold would your teeth have to get in order for a cup of hot coffee to make them shatter on contact?"
+
+== Reception ==
+The book was received positively by critics. Ethan Gilsdorf of the Boston Globe stated that "it's fun to watch as Munroe tackles each question and examines every possible complication." According to Gilsdorf, What If? gives a view into "Munroe's playful yet existentially-tinged worldview" by contrasting cataclysmic scenarios with more heady ideas, such as examining the effects of a magnitude minus-7 Richter scale earthquake. The Huffington Post remarked that "What makes Munroe's work so fantastic is a combination of two elements: his commitment to trying to answer even the weirdest question with solid science, and his undeniable sense of humor." Rhett Allain of Wired praised What If? because even his 12-year-old son was able to enjoy it, though he found a minor error in one of the sections.
+Sam Hewitt of Varsity and Marla Desat of The Escapist noted that the first print run had some issues processing mathematical symbols, as a square box was displayed where a delta is supposed to be printed.
+What If? was well-received commercially upon its release and reached the top of the New York Times bestsellers list on September 21. It was also featured as the "Amazon Best Book of the Month", and was translated into 35 languages.
+
+== Notes ==
+
+== References ==

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Your_Dangerous_Idea-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+---
+title: "What Is Your Dangerous Idea?"
+chunk: 1/2
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Your_Dangerous_Idea?"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:07:12.082485+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+What Is Your Dangerous Idea?: Today's Leading Thinkers on the Unthinkable is a book edited by John Brockman, which deals with "dangerous" ideas, or ideas that some people would react to in ways that suggest a disruption of morality and ethics. Scientists, philosophers, artists, and various other groups of people have written in to the online salon called the Edge, where thinkers in several areas post and discuss their ideas.  This collection of responses forms the entirety of the book (possibly with some excluded because of the great number of posts).  The basic concept behind the book is "to gather a hundred of the most brilliant minds in the world in a room, lock them in, and have them ask each other the questions they were asking themselves".
+
+== Ideas ==
+Members of the Edge Foundation were asked this question in 2006:
+
+The history of science is replete with discoveries that were considered socially, morally, or emotionally dangerous in their time; the Copernican and Darwinian revolutions are the most obvious. What is your dangerous idea? An idea you think about (not necessarily one you originated) that is dangerous not because it is assumed to be false, but because it might be true?
+The question was suggested by Steven Pinker, a psychologist.
+People answered to this question in entries, some of which lasted several pages. These entries were posted in the Edge community forum. The ideas which were best expressed on the forum were posted in the book, organized according to subject. These ideas cover topics in physics, biology, religion, and other subjects.
+Several of the contributors are well-known within the realm of science and philosophy.  These include Steven Pinker, Freeman Dyson, Daniel Dennett, Jared Diamond, Brian Greene, Matt Ridley, Howard Gardner, Richard Dawkins, and Martin Rees, as well as many others.  Not all of the contributors study the realm of philosophy or science; several contributors are also artists or writers.
+
+=== Psychology ===
+The existence of the soul is discussed by John Horgan and Paul Bloom.  John Horgan discusses the possibility that the soul does not exist, while Paul Bloom further expands by discussing how the implication of the soul's nonexistence can have serious consequences.
+
+In contrast [to evolution by natural selection], the widespread rejection of the soul would have profound moral and legal consequences.  It would also require people to rethink what happens when they die, and give up the idea (held by some 90 percent of Americans) that their souls will survive the death of their bodies and ascend to heaven.  It is hard to get more dangerous than that. —Paul Bloom 
+Another topic many entries were based on is human behavior.  J. Craig Venter discussed the genetic base of how humans act; Jerry Coyne also wrote on the idea that people are predisposed to act in certain ways because of genetics.
+Several authors wrote on the morals of people, consciousness, and human values. Many authors discussed how ideas themselves can be dangerous, or the idea that ideas can be dangerous.  One such author, Daniel Gilbert, states, in his entry:
+
+"Dangerous" does not mean exciting or bold; it means likely to cause great harm.  The most dangerous idea is the only dangerous idea:  The idea that ideas can be dangerous. —Daniel Gilbert 
+
+=== Biology ===
+Several key ideas in biology were written about in the book, such as genetics, other life in the universe, and the origin of life.
+The origin of life was discussed by two authors, Robert Shapiro and George Dyson.  Robert Shapiro believes that the origin of life will be found in the next five years, and George Dyson believes that we do not need to understand the origin of life to make progress in molecular biology.
+
+The origin of life would be a natural (and perhaps frequent) result of the physical laws that govern the universe.  This latter thought falls directly in line with the idea of cosmic evolution, which asserts that events since the Big Bang have moved almost inevitably in the direction of life.  No miracle or immense stroke of luck was needed to get it started.  If this turns out to be the case, then we should expect to be successful when we search for life beyond this planet.  We are not the only life that inhabits this universe. —Robert Shapiro 
+
+=== Physics ===
+The anthropic principle was discussed by Leonard Susskind as well as Carlo Rovelli, who mentions it in his essay.  The anthropic principle claims that the universe is the way it is because if it was not specifically like how we see it, we would not be here to describe it. Leonard Susskind expands by talking about the idea that the anthropic principle can be seen as a threat to the mentality that every law governing the cosmos is set in stone; thus being unalterable.  
+
+What further worries many physicists is that the landscape may be so rich that almost anything can be found - any combination of physical constants, particle masses, and so forth.  This, they fear, would eliminate the predictive power of physics.  Environmental facts are nothing more than environmental facts.  They worry that if everything is possible, there will be no way to falsify the theory - or, more to the point, no way to confirm it. —Leonard Susskind 
+Susskind expresses in his entry the possibility that our universe is not the only universe (also expressed in an idea labeled "The Multiverse").  This is an idea where a large amount of universes are located in "the Landscape"; he expands by communicating that each universe has different physics laws that govern each of them, as can be seen in the quote above. The anthropic principle is also present in the idea. He claims, for example, that we are only here because our universe has the precise set of laws of physics that it has, and that very few universes have the laws of physics needed for intelligent life.

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Your_Dangerous_Idea-1.md

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+---
+title: "What Is Your Dangerous Idea?"
+chunk: 2/2
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Your_Dangerous_Idea?"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:07:12.082485+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+=== Beliefs ===
+Several different beliefs were mentioned in the essays such as the relationship between science and religion.  Sam Harris, in his essay titled "Science Must Destroy Religion," discusses different types of reason and belief as well as the conflict between science and religion.
+
+The conflict between religion and science is inherent and (very nearly) zero-sum.  The success of science often comes at the expense of religious dogma; the maintenance of religious dogma always comes at the expense of science. —Sam Harris 
+
+== Response ==
+According to Jill Murphy, a reviewer of the website "The Bookbag", What is Your Dangerous Idea? provides an easy-to-understand explanation of the topics covered in this book. She expands by writing that the ideas make the reader think about them.
+
+The joy in this book is that it is easy to understand. Science duffer that I am, I had no difficulty with any of the concepts or theories. The Edge contributors really had exceeded their game. These ideas don't challenge the reader to understand them; they challenge the reader to think about them.
+The book has also been likened to "Shakespearean science" by one reviewer, due to the similar qualities it holds with William Shakespeare's works.
+
+The result is definitely a "dessert island book"—one you would choose if marooned on an island—because most of the short answers provoke enough speculation and wonderment in your own mind to last a lifetime. You would take it for the same reasons you'd take Shakespeare—beauty and universality. Shakespeare of course has on his own already expressed poetically what these thinkers say as a matter of science; but these ones cite research.
+Another reviewer summarized the various ideas, concluding that science's progress may make us realize our limits.
+
+And so we are left with our final dangerous idea: Science's long journey down the corridors of knowledge has led us back to the realms of mystery and wonder. A method of inquiry that promised us mastery may ultimately remind us of our limits.
+Stephen Totilo, on MTV.com relates the book to gaming, in his article titled "Could Xbox Destroy the World?" The essay by Geoffrey Miller was discussed in how its topic (Fermi's paradox) could relate to how much people game. Miller states that the cause of the paradox might be that aliens become addicted to video games.
+
+== See also ==
+What We Believe But Cannot Prove: Today's Leading Thinkers on Science in the Age of Certainty
+The Third Culture: Beyond the Scientific Revolution
+Intelligent Thought: Science Versus the Intelligent Design Movement
+The Next Fifty Years: Science in the First Half of the Twenty-First Century
+Edge Foundation, Inc.
+
+== Endnotes ==
+
+=== References ===
+
+== External links ==
+Review of What Is Your Dangerous Idea.
+The Edge Foundation, where What Is Your Dangerous Idea originates.

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_We_Believe_but_Cannot_Prove-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+---
+title: "What We Believe but Cannot Prove"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_We_Believe_but_Cannot_Prove"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:07:13.350095+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+What We Believe But Cannot Prove: Today's Leading Thinkers on Science in the Age of Certainty is a non-fiction book published by Harper Perennial and edited by literary agent John Brockman that includes an introduction by novelist Ian McEwan. The book consists of responses to a question posed by the Edge Foundation, with answers as short as one sentence and as long as a few pages. Among the 107 published contributors are scientists and philosophers such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel C. Dennett, Jared Diamond, Rebecca Goldstein, Steven Pinker, Sir Martin Rees, and Craig Venter; as well as convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Some contributions were not included in the print book, including those by Benoit Mandelbrot and computer scientist John McCarthy but are among 120 responses available online.
+
+
+== Overview ==
+Each year, the Edge Foundation poses a question on its website to members of the "third culture", defined by Brockman as "those scientists and other thinkers...who, through their work and expository writing, are taking the place of the traditional intellectual in rendering visible the deeper meanings of our lives, redefining who and what we are".
+
+
+== Synopsis ==
+The essays cover a broad range of topics, including evolution, the workings of the human mind, and science itself. A common focus is the issue of extra-terrestrial life and whether humanity has a supranatural element beyond flesh and blood. Among the more esoteric topics is the question of cockroach consciousness.
+A pervasive theme, according to Publishers Weekly, is the discomfort responders felt in professing unproven beliefs, which Publishers Weekly described as "an interesting reflection of the state of science". The question inspired implicit or explicit reflection in a number of responders about the scientific method's reliance on observable, empirical and measurable evidence, with a good many of what The Observer points out as largely American responders defending against "the return to an age of uncertainty in which creationism and intelligent design hold sway in the public mind". "What's really at stake here", Wired said in its review, "is the nature of 'proof' itself".
+
+
+== Reception ==
+What We Believe But Cannot Prove received positive reviews from The Boston Globe, which printed that: "taken as a whole, this little compendium of essays will send you careening from mathematics to economics to the moral progress of the human race, and it is marvelous to watch this muddle of disciplines overlap".  The Skeptical Inquirer stated that the book "offers an impressive array of insights and challenges that will surely delight curious readers, generalists, and specialists alike".
+Science News and The Guardian described the book respectively as "a tantalizing glimpse into the future of human inquiry" and "[s]scientific pipedreams at their very best". The Daily Telegraph praised the book as "refreshing" and "intriguing and unexpected", noting that "[b]y unleashing scientists from the rigours of the established method we gain fascinating glimpses into the future directions of arcane disciplines few fully understand".
+Some reviewers criticized certain aspects of the book, including redundancy and tone. The Observer described the essays as "compelling and repetitive by turns". Publishers Weekly referred to the collection as "stimulating", but found it "unfortunate that the tone of most contributions isn't livelier and that there aren't explanations of some of the more esoteric concepts discussed", limitations which would "keep these adroit musings from finding a wider audience."
+
+
+== See also ==
+The Third Culture
+What Is Your Dangerous Idea?: Today's Leading Thinkers on the Unthinkable
+
+
+== Notes ==
+
+
+== References ==
+Brockman, John (2006). What We Believe But Cannot Prove: Today's Leading Thinkers on Science in the Age of Certainty. New York: Harper Perennial. ISBN 978-0-06-084181-2.
+
+
+== Further reading ==
+Michell, John (12 November 2005). "Toeing the party line (What We Believe But Cannot Prove: Today's Leading Thinkers on Science in the Age of Certainty)(Book Review)". The Spectator. Retrieved April 30, 2018.
+
+
+== External links ==
+Thinkers lay out the beliefs they can't prove, NPR discussion.
+The World Question Center 2005 Archived 2012-09-30 at the Wayback Machine, where the original question was posed. Has 10 pages of the 120 contributions received and author biographies plus media coverage, that include unpublished responses by Benoit Mandelbrot and others.

data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wholeness_and_the_Implicate_Order-0.md

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+---
+title: "Wholeness and the Implicate Order"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wholeness_and_the_Implicate_Order"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:07:14.521003+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Wholeness and the Implicate Order is a book by theoretical physicist David Bohm. It was originally published in 1980 by Routledge, United Kingdom.
+The book is considered a basic reference for Bohm's concepts of undivided wholeness and of implicate and explicate orders, as well as of Bohm's rheomode—an experimental language based on verbs. The book is cited, for example, by philosopher Steven M. Rosen in his book The Self-evolving Cosmos, by mathematician and theologian Kevin J. Sharpe in his book David Bohm's World, by theologian Joseph P. Farrell in Babylon's Banksters, and by theologian John C. Polkinghorne in his book One World.
+
+
+== Chapters ==
+Fragmentation and wholeness
+The rheomode – an experiment with language and thought
+Reality and knowledge considered as process
+Hidden variables in the quantum theory
+Quantum theory as an indication of a new order in physics, Part A: The development of new orders as shown through the history of physics
+Quantum theory as an indication of a new order in physics, Part B: Implicate and explicate order in physical law
+The enfolding-unfolding universe and consciousness
+
+
+== References ==
+David Bohm: Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980, Routledge, ISBN 0-203-99515-5 (Master e-book ISBN, reprint 2005)
+
+
+== See also ==
+Process philosophy