diff --git a/_index.db b/_index.db
index c0fb38f2f..fbdfc81e0 100644
Binary files a/_index.db and b/_index.db differ
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academese-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academese-0.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..50ed98173
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academese-0.md
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+---
+title: "Academese"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academese"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:08:00.060379+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Academese is the unnecessary use of jargon in academia, particularly in academic writing in social science and humanities; it is contrasted with plain language. The term is often but not always pejorative, and occasionally can be used to refer to complex but necessary terminology. Critics of academese argue that it usually creates unnecessary difficulty in communication, with the harshest critics arguing this is intentional with writers aiming to impress the readers and hide the fact that they are not saying anything of substance.
+
+
+== Related concepts ==
+In the context of medical sciences, a similar term, medicalese, exists; likewise, legal science jargon is called legalese. In the context of the English language, the term Engfish has also been used ("sounds like English but stinks like a fish"). Another related and highly pejorative term is academic bullshit.
+
+
+== History, examples of usage and criticism ==
+The usage of the word in English has been traced to at least 1917, and is attributed to Will Durant, who in his Philosophy and the Social Problem defined it as an opposite of "plain language". Academic writing, particularly in the fields of art and literary criticism, was the subject of criticism by George Orwell in his 1946 essay Politics and the English Language; similar criticisms were expressed by Steven Pinker in his 2014 essay, entitled Why Academics Stink at Writing. In 1985, Jacob L. Mey criticized academese harshly, writing that "Academese is a misuse of language, a road-block on the way to knowledge, erected by the mafia of the pseudo-scientists and their linguistic connection: it obstructs, rather than promotes communication. It discriminates against Academe's outsiders by ridiculing their ways of expressing themselves".
+Academese has been partially attributed to the rise of the postmodernist tradition. Some of the related issues have been popularized by the Sokal affair in 1996. Alan Sokal produced a text that "not only exemplifies academese in what might be one of its worst – that is, most inaccessible – forms, but also unabashedly mocks anyone who uses it", published in a purported academic journal specializing in postmodernist texts, and then published a critique of this process in another journal.
+Academese has been criticized through mock awards by several organizations. Since 1974 the National Council of Teachers of English has been awarding the "Doublespeak Award", an "ironic tribute to public speakers who have perpetuated language that is grossly deceptive, evasive, euphemistic, confusing, or self-centered". From 1995 to 1998 the journal Philosophy and Literature sponsored a 'Bad Writing Contest', which lampooned "the most stylistically lamentable passages found in scholarly books and articles published in the last few years", with philosopher Judith Butler, the winner of that contest in 1998, often cited as one of the most notorious users of academese.
+Howard S. Becker, author of several guides on academic writing addressed to young scholars, has been described as having "an aversion to academese".
+In 2012, Mark Blyth noted that in order to popularize scientific research, scholars need to "let go of the academese".
+Academese has been criticized in syndicated comic strips, including a Calvin and Hobbes comic originally published in 1993 as well as a strip in Piled Higher and Deeper.
+Academese has been described as a common stereotype of academic writing in general.
+
+
+== Purpose and characteristics ==
+Academese has been criticized for being overly complex and for being intentionally complex to impress readers. Academese can also constitute a form of power relations between those who use it and those who do not, serving to separate individuals into different groups and discriminate against those who are not fluent in it. Conversely, academese can help academics recognize one another quickly and help them socialize with one another.
+While the term is often seen as pejorative, it can be sometimes used in neutral fashion as a synonym to academic writing, or jargon in that field, some of which is considered necessary to express certain advanced concepts.
+
+
+== See also ==
+Corporate jargon
+Ethnofiction
+Journalese
+Officialese
+Wooden language
+
+
+== References ==
+
+
+== External links ==
+
+Martinez, Shantel (2013-10-01). "Tongue Tied: Resisting "Academese"". Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies. 13 (5): 379–382. doi:10.1177/1532708613496381. ISSN 1532-7086. S2CID 144162165.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method-0.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..85f6a1f25
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method-0.md
@@ -0,0 +1,34 @@
+---
+title: "Against Method"
+chunk: 1/5
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:08:01.290497+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge is a 1975 book by Austrian philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend. The central thesis of the book is that science should become an anarchic enterprise. In the context of the work, the term "anarchy" refers to epistemological anarchy, which does not remain within one single prescriptive scientific method on the grounds that any such method would restrict scientific progress. The work is notable in the history and philosophy of science partially due to its detailed case study of Galileo's hypothesis that the earth rotates on its axis and has since become a staple reading in introduction to philosophy of science courses at undergraduate and graduate levels.
+Against Method contains many verbatim excerpts from Feyerabend's earlier papers including "Explanation, Reduction, and Empiricism", "How to be a Good Empiricist: A Plea for Tolerance in Matters Epistemological", and "Problems of Empiricism, Part I." Because of this, Feyerabend claims that "[Against Method] is not a book, it is a collage." Later editions of Against Method included passages from Science in a Free Society.
+
+== Publication, Translations, and Editions ==
+Feyerabend began writing Against Method in 1968 and it was originally released as a long paper in the Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science series in 1970. At the behest of Imre Lakatos, who originally planned to write For Method in contrast to Against Method but then died, the paper was expanded into a book published in 1975. Lakatos originally encouraged Feyerabend to publish with Cambridge University Press because they would be less concerned with their reputation than smaller presses, but Feyerabend chose to publish with Verso Books (then called New Left Books). Feyerabend came to regret this decision because of their editorial choices. Three more editions were released, in 1988, 1993, and posthumously in 2010. Significant changes were made including removing or adding chapters and appendices with new, updated introductions.
+Against Method was an international best seller and, as a result, it has been translated into many languages. This includes:
+
+German translation by Hermann Vetter (revised and enlarged): Wider den Methodenzwang: Skizze einer anarchistischen Erkenntnistheorie, Suhrkamp: Frankfurt am Main 1976, 443 pp.
+Dutch translation by Hein Kray: In strijd met de methode: Aanzet tot een anarchistische kennistheorie, Meppel: Boom 1977, 375 pp.
+Portuguese translation by Octanny S. da Mota and Leonidas Hegenberg: Contra o método: Esboça de una teoria anárquica da teoria do conhecimento, Livraria Francisco Alves: Rio de Janeiro 1977, 487 pp.
+Swedish translation by Thomas Brante: Ned med metodologin! Skiss till en anarkistisk kunskapsteori, Raben and Sjogren: Zenit 1977, 326 pp.
+French translation by Baudouin Jurdant and Agnès Schlumberger: Contre la methode: Esquisse d'une théorie anarchiste de la connaissance, Seuil: Paris 1979, 350 pp.
+Italian translation by Libero Sosio: Contro il metodo: Abbozzo di una teoria anarchica della conscenza, Feltrinelli: Milan 1979, viii+262 pp.
+Spanish translation by Diego Ribes: Tratado contra el método, Tecnos: Madrid 1981, xvii+319 pp.
+Japanese translation: Hoho eno chosen: Kagakuteki sozo to chi no anakizumu, Shin'yosha: Tokyo 1981, 13+438 pp.
+Turkish translation by Ahmet İnam: Yönteme Hayır: Bir Anarşist Bilgi Kuramının Ana Hatları, Ara: Istanbul 1989, 325 pp.
+Chinese translation by Changzhong Zhou: Shanghai Translation Publishing House: Shanghai 1994, 269 pp.
+The 4th edition, released after Feyerabend's death on the 35th anniversary of the initial book release, includes an introduction from Ian Hacking.
+
+== Content ==
+
+=== Epistemological anarchism ===
+The primary thesis of Against Method is that there is no such thing as the scientific method and that it is not appropriate to impose a single methodological rule upon scientific practices. Rather, 'anything goes', meaning that scientists should be free to pursue whatever research seems interesting to them. The primary target of Against Method is 'rationalism', or the view that there are rational rules that should guide scientific practices. The German title of Against Method, Wider den Methodenzwang translates more directly to "Against the Forced Constraint of Method" emphasizing that it is the imposition of methodological rules that is rejected rather than the uses of methods altogether. Feyerabend offers two parallel arguments for this position, one conceptual and one historical. The conceptual argument aims to establish that it is always legitimate to violate established forms of scientific practice with the hopes of establishing a new form of scientific rationality. The historical argument provides examples of scientists profitably violating rules. Against Method contains dozens of case studies, though the majority of them are relegated to footnotes or passing remarks. The primary case study in Against Method is Galileo's hypothesis that the earth rotates on its axis.
+Scholars have disputed the precise meaning of epistemological anarchism. John Preston claims that 'anything goes' signals Feyerabend's abandonment of normative philosophy. In other words, while Feyerabend defended pluralism in his works in the 1950s and 60s, Against Method represents a development in Feyerabend's thought where he abandons pluralism as well as normative theorizing altogether. A more common interpretation is that 'anything goes' does not represent a positive conviction of Feyerabend's but is the conclusion of a reductio ad absurdum. 'Anything goes' is therefore not a methodological prescription but "the terrified exclamation of the rationalist who takes a closer look at history". More recently, it has been argued that epistemological anarchism is a positive methodological proposal but comes in two inconsistent guises. On the one hand, epistemological anarchism means that scientists should be opportunists who adapt their methods to the situation at hand while, on the other hand, anarchism also signifies an unrestricted pluralism and therefore constitutes a radical generalization of his earlier arguments for pluralism.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method-1.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method-1.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..35c324fe1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method-1.md
@@ -0,0 +1,12 @@
+---
+title: "Against Method"
+chunk: 2/5
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:08:01.290497+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+=== Counterinduction ===
+Feyerabend contends that for every methodological rule, there is a 'counter rule' – namely, a methodological rule that recommends the opposite of its counter – which also has value. As an example of this general hypothesis, Feyerabend defends 'counterinduction' as the counter rule to inductivism and "induction by falsification" as a valuable methodological rule. Counterinduction involves developing theories that are inconsistent with currently accepted empirical evidence, which is the opposite of the (then) commonly accepted rule that theories should be developed that are consistent with known facts. Feyerabend argues for counterinduction by showing that theories that conflict with known facts are useful for revealing 'natural interpretations' which must be made explicit so that they can be examined. Natural interpretations are interpretations of experience, expressed in language, that follow automatically and unconsciously from describing observations. After a theory has been accepted for a long period of time, it becomes habit to describe events or processes using certain concepts. Because, Feyerabend argues, observation underdetermines the ways we describe what we observe, theories that redescribe experience in new ways force us to make comparisons between old natural interpretations and new ones. This is the first step to evaluating the plausibility of either and so counterinduction aids in providing a thorough critical assessment of our acceptance of particular theories.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method-2.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method-2.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..49da7bbec
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method-2.md
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+---
+title: "Against Method"
+chunk: 3/5
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:08:01.290497+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+=== Galileo case study ===
+The primary case study in Against Method is Galileo's hypothesis that the earth rotates on its axis. According to Feyerabend's reconstruction, Galileo did not justify this hypothesis by reference to known facts, nor did he offer an unfalsified conjecture that had more empirical content than its predecessor. Rather, Galileo's hypothesis would rationally have been considered to be false by the existing evidence at the time, and it is lower in empirical content than Aristotelian theory of motion. Moreover, Galileo did not provide arguments to justify his contention but instead used propaganda.
+According to the existing evidence in the early 17th century, the position that the earth rotates on its axis would have rightly been regarded as false. For example, Galileo's theory of the tides suggested by the motion of the earth was inaccurate and the differences "were big enough to be known even to the most bleary-eyed sailor." In addition, the motion of the earth on its axis leads to the wrong predictions of the relative brightness of Mars and Venus when measured with the naked eye. To correct for these mistakes, Galileo introduces new evidence through his telescope. However, the telescope was not theoretically understood at the time. The best theory of optics was Kepler's, which Galileo did not understand personally, which says nothing about how light reflects off convex lenses. Moreover, there were well-confirmed reasons to think – as the Aristotelians thought – that light behaves differently outside of the sublunar sphere and so telescopic vision would not have any justification for being veridical. In addition, when Galileo tested the telescope with many observational astronomers in Padua, it produced indeterminate and double images, optical illusions about the placement and magnification of celestial bodies, and after images even when tested on terrestrial objects. Because of this, Galileo had no new evidence to support his conjecture that the earth completes a diurnal rotation on its axis and the existing evidence suggested that it was false.
+Galileo's hypothesis also does not follow Popper's falsificationism, which suggests that we do not use ad hoc hypotheses. Aristotle's theory of motion was a part of a broader theory of change, which included growth, decay and qualitative changes (such as changes in color). Galileo's theory of motion focuses solely on locomotion and, therefore, has less empirical content than Aristotle's theory. This also makes it more ad hoc, because it makes no new predictions and offers only a promissory note that locomotion will eventually explain everything Aristotle's theory was able to explain.
+Feyerabend does not just argue that Galileo and his followers acted "irrationally" from the perspective of inductivism and falsificationism, but that it was reasonable that they did so. This is because Galileo's conjecture was able to reveal the natural interpretations that followed from the Aristotelian worldview. Natural interpretations, defined by Feyerabend, are interpretations of phenomena which happen naturally and automatically in our perception and the ways we attach language to what we observe. After accepting a theory for a long period of time, natural interpretations become implicit and forgotten and, therefore, difficult to test. By contrasting natural interpretations with other interpretations, they are made explicit and can be tested. Therefore, to fully scrutinize the Aristotelian worldview, Feyerabend suggests that Galileo was right to conjecture a new theory that revealed its natural interpretations.
+The main example of the influence of natural interpretations that Feyerabend provided was the tower argument presented as an objection to the theory of a moving earth. Aristotelians accepted the proposition that a stone, or any solid body made of earth, dropped from a tower lands directly beneath it, shows that the earth is stationary. They thought that, if the earth moved while the stone was falling, the stone would have been "left behind." Objects would fall in a parabola instead of vertically. Since this does not happen, Aristotelians thought the earth did not move. Galileo's hypothesis reveals that this assumes that all motion is "operative" (i.e., noticeable in perception). Galileo denies this assumption and argues that the stone falls in a parabola relative to absolute space, although the notion of absolute space was not made explicit and coherent until Newton.
+However, Galileo did not present his work in this vein. If he had, Feyerabend conjectures that his new theory would have received little attention and would not have stimulated further inquiry into the Copernican system. Because of this, Galileo uses propaganda to make it seem as if his theories are implicit in the Aristotelian worldview. Specifically, Galileo makes it seem as if his conception of relative motion is embedded in Aristotelian common sense when it isn't (Aristotelian relative motion involves many moving bodies with dynamic effects noticeable in perception). According to Feyerabend, Galileo uses the technique of anamnēsis where he invites readers to "remember" that they already believed in relation motion in Galileo's sense. Using this method, he disguises how radical a break his new theory is from then common sense.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method-3.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method-3.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..1c361005c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method-3.md
@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+---
+title: "Against Method"
+chunk: 4/5
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:08:01.290497+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+=== Discovery/justification distinction ===
+Herbert Feigl criticizes Feyerabend's earlier work, including the paper edition of Against Method, for conflating the distinction between the context of discovery and the context of justification. According to this distinction, formulated by Hans Reichenbach and Karl Popper, there is no logic about how scientists develop scientific theories but there should be a logic of confirming or disconfirming scientific theories. Once this distinction is accepted, then Feyerabend's claim that 'anything goes' would be a truism and would not run against logical empiricism. Feyerabend's response in Against Method is to reject the validity of the discovery/justification distinction. He argues that while the distinction can be maintained abstractly, it does not find a "point of attack" in scientific practice. This is because the two contexts are not separated in different phases of scientific research but are always comingled. Discounting evidence, for example is often necessary for scientific discovery but is rejected when seeking justification. Justifying scientific theories has implications for what research is conducted and, therefore, questions about what is justified also affects the paths open to discovery.
+
+=== Criticism of Lakatos ===
+The first edition of Against Method contains a chapter devoted to critically discussing Lakatos' methodology of research programs, although this chapter was removed in subsequent editions. Feyerabend offers several criticisms. Lakatos claims that research programs should be permitted 'breathing space' where research programs are allowed to be pursued regardless of their lack of empirical content, internal inconsistency, or conflicts with experimental results. Feyerabend agrees with this claim but argues that applying it consistently entails that we cannot cease the pursuit of research programs after they have been degenerating (i.e., becoming increasingly ad hoc) (regardless of how long they've been degenerating for). Feyerabend uses the example of Boltzmann's atomism as a theory that was degenerating in the 19th century as a result of the Zermelo-Poincaré recurrence objection and Loschmidt’s reversibility objection but was then vindicated in the early 20th century with Einstein's development of statistical mechanics to illustrate this point. Because of this, Feyerabend claims that although Lakatos insists that he has provided rational rules for the elimination of research programs, these rules are empty because they do not forbid any kind of behavior. Therefore, Lakatos is an 'anarchist in disguise' since it provides methodological rules that do not need to be followed.
+Feyerabend provides a second criticism that ends with the same conclusion. According to Lakatos, his theory of scientific rationality only contains heuristics for its implementation rather than direct advice. Because of this, Lakatos' theory on its own provides no advice and the specific advice follows from considerations of concrete research practices. His third criticism concerns Lakatos' argument that theories of rationality should be tested against the value judgments of the 'scientific elite' in specific historical episodes. First, Feyerabend claims that the value judgments of the scientific elite are rarely uniform and so they will not uniquely choose a particular theory of scientific rationality. Second, the value judgments of scientific elites are often made on the basis of ignorance. Therefore, there seem to be strong reasons to not accept those value judgments. Third, Lakatos assumes that the standards of the scientific elite are superior to other value judgments (e.g., of witches) and therefore does not provide an argument against relativism. Finally, Feyerabend provides a 'cosmological' criticism of Lakatos' theory of rationality. Lakatos claims that theories of scientific rationality reconstruct the 'internal' growth of knowledge and ignore the 'external' (e.g., sociological, psychological, political) features of scientific practice. However, without knowledge of the external features of scientific practice, Feyerabend claims that we cannot know whether a theory of scientific rationality will actually succeed in practice.
+
+=== Scientific education ===
+Feyerabend provides numerous criticisms of scientific education in his time. He claims that the primary role of education was to stunt individual creativity by forcing them to accept and research on topics that students did not choose for themselves. He also claims that education is responsible for what he calls "intellectual pollution" where "illiterate and incompetent books flood the market, empty verbiage full of strange and esoteric terms claims to express profound insights, 'experts' without brains, without character, and without even a modicum of intellectual, stylistic, emotional temperament tell us about our 'condition' and the means of improving it." He distinguishes between a general education, which is focused on the development of free individuals, and professionalization where one learns the ideology of a specific trade. In a general education, pupils are introduced to many intellectual and cultural traditions which they then engage with critically to make free choices about how they want to live their lives. Professionalization, by contrast, introduces pupils to a single tradition and often involves teaching this tradition as epistemically superior to its rivals. Feyerabend claims that increasing pushes for professionalization were coming at the expense of a general education. Feyerabend criticizes this on ethical grounds, as it reduces students to intellectual slaves, and on the grounds that a general education is more conductive to the development of knowledge.
+
+== Scholarly reception ==
+The immediate reaction to Against Method was largely negative amongst philosophers of science, with a few notable exceptions. Most of the commentary focused on Feyerabend's philosophical arguments rather than the Galileo case study. The primary criticisms were that epistemological anarchism is nothing but a repetition of Pyrrhonian skepticism or relativism, that Feyerabend is inconsistent with himself by arguing against method while arguing for methods (like counterinduction), and that he criticizes a strawman. One positive review came from Arne Naess, who had sympathies for epistemological anarchism.
+Despite this, Against Method has remained one of the classic texts of 20th century philosophy of science and has been influential on subsequent philosophers of science (especially the Stanford School).
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method-4.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method-4.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..0a6a7630d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method-4.md
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+---
+title: "Against Method"
+chunk: 5/5
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:08:01.290497+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+== Aftermath ==
+Feyerabend responded to these criticisms in several follow-up publications, many of which he collected in Science in a Free Society. He was extremely frustrated by the quality of the reviews of Against Method, leading him to accuse them of illiteracy and a lack of competence. In his autobiography, he writes that he sometimes wishes that "he had never written that fucking book." This response led to Feyerabend's gradual removal from the academic community which also corresponded to changes of research topics in his work in the 1980s.
+
+== References ==
+
+== Further reading ==
+The first, 1970 edition, is available for download in pdf form from the Minnesota Center for Philosophy of Science (part of the University of Minnesota). Follow this link path: Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science > 4. Analyses of Theories & Methods of Physics and Psychology. 1970. Editors: M. Radner and S. Winokur > Open Access > Under the "Whoops!" message click 'Download' From the resulting file '4_Theories&Methods.zip' you need the three Feyerabend sections, 4_2_1_Feyerabend.pdf, 4_2_2_Feyerabend.pdf, 4_2_3_Feyerabend.pdf and the immediate following article on A Picture Theory of Theory Meaning (sic) (4_3_Hanson.pdf) in order to get the complete set of footnotes.
+Discussion of the book in John Preston, "Paul Feyerabend", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2009/entries/feyerabend/>
+Paul Tibbetts, Tomas Kulka, J N Hattiangadi, "Feyerabend's 'Against Method': The Case for Methodological Pluralism", Philosophy of the Social Sciences 7:3 (1977), 265–275. DOI 10.1177/004839317700700306
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_imperial_and_US_customary_measurement_systems-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_imperial_and_US_customary_measurement_systems-0.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..df090d3cd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_imperial_and_US_customary_measurement_systems-0.md
@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+---
+title: "Comparison of the imperial and US customary measurement systems"
+chunk: 1/2
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_imperial_and_US_customary_measurement_systems"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:07:50.417324+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Both the British imperial measurement system and United States customary systems of measurement derive from earlier English unit systems used prior to 1824 that were the result of a combination of the local Anglo-Saxon units inherited from Germanic tribes and Roman units.
+Having this shared heritage, the two systems are quite similar, but there are differences. The US customary system is based on English systems of the 18th century, while the imperial system was defined in 1824, almost a half-century after American independence.
+
+== Volume ==
+Volume may be measured either in terms of units of cubic length or with specific volume units. The units of cubic length (the cubic inch, cubic foot, cubic mile, etc.) are the same in the imperial and US customary systems, but they differ in their specific units of volume (the bushel, gallon, fluid ounce, etc.). 
+The US customary system has a set of units for fluids, it has a different measure for dry goods for the pint, quart and barrel, and a peck and bushel for dry goods only. The imperial system has only one set of measurements, defined independently of the US customary system.
+By the end of the 18th century, various systems of volume measurement were in use throughout the British Empire. Wine was measured with units based on the wine gallon of 231 cubic inches (3.785 L), while beer was measured with units based on an ale gallon of 282 cubic inches (4.621 L) and grain was measured with the Winchester measure, with a gallon of approximately 268.8 cubic inches (one eighth of a Winchester bushel or 4.405 L). In 1824, these units were replaced with a single system based on the imperial gallon. Originally defined as the volume of 10 pounds (4.54 kg) of distilled water (under certain conditions), then redefined by the Weights and Measures Act 1985 to be exactly 4.54609 L (≈277.42 cu in), the imperial gallon is 1.62% smaller than the pre-1824 ale gallon.
+The Winchester measure was made obsolete in the British Empire, but remained in use in the US until the 1990s. In the British Empire, the Winchester bushel was replaced with an imperial bushel of eight imperial gallons, with the subdivisions of the bushel being maintained. 
+As with US dry measures, the imperial system divides the bushel into 4 pecks, 32 quarts or 64 pints: the imperial quart and imperial pint are 3.21% larger than their US dry counterparts, whereas the imperial peck and imperial bushel were deleted from the relevant UK statute in 1968.
+Fluid measure is not as straightforward. The American colonists adopted a system based on the 231-cubic-inch wine gallon for all fluid purposes: this became the US gallon, being legally adopted in 1836. Both the imperial and US fluid gallon are divided into 4 quarts, 8 pints or 32 gills. However, whereas the US gill is divided into four US fluid ounces, the imperial gill is divided into five imperial fluid ounces. Thus, while the imperial fluid ounce is 3.924% smaller than the US fluid ounce, the imperial gallon, quart, pint and gill are all 20.095% larger than their US counterparts. 
+One avoirdupois ounce of water has an approximate volume of one imperial fluid ounce at 62 °F (16.7 °C): this convenient fluid ounce to avoirdupois ounce relation does not exist in the US system, as one US fluid ounce is 4.318% larger than the avoirdupois ounce.
+One noticeable comparison between the imperial system and the US system is between some Canadian and American beer bottles: many Canadian brewers package their beer in 12 imperial fl oz bottles, which are 341 mL each, while American brewers package their beer in 12 US fl oz bottles, which are 355 mL each. Consequently, Canadian bottles are labelled as 11.5 fl oz in US units when imported into the United States.
+Because the standard size of Canadian beer bottles predates the adoption of the metric system in Canada, the bottles are still sold and labelled in Canada as 341 mL. Canned beer in Canada is sold and labelled in 355 mL cans (12.5 imperial fl oz), and when exported to the United States, they are labelled as 12 fl oz.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_imperial_and_US_customary_measurement_systems-1.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_imperial_and_US_customary_measurement_systems-1.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..9e594c91f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_imperial_and_US_customary_measurement_systems-1.md
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+---
+title: "Comparison of the imperial and US customary measurement systems"
+chunk: 2/2
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_imperial_and_US_customary_measurement_systems"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:07:50.417324+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+== Length ==
+The international yard is defined as exactly 0.9144 metres. This definition was approved by the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand through the international yard and pound agreement of 1959, and corresponds with the previous 1930s British and American definitions of 1 inch being 25.4 mm. In all systems, a yard is 36 inches.
+The US survey foot and survey mile were maintained as separate units for surveying purposes to avoid the accumulation of error that would follow replacing them with the international versions, particularly with State Plane Coordinate Systems. The choice of unit for surveying purposes is based on the unit used when the overall framework or geodetic datum for the region was established; for example, much of the former British empire still uses the Clarke foot for surveying.
+The US survey foot is defined so that 1 metre is exactly 39.37 inches, making the international foot of 0.3048 metres exactly two parts per million shorter. This is a difference of just over 3.2 mm, or a little more than one-eighth of an inch per mile. According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the survey foot is obsolete as of 1 January 2023, and its use discouraged.
+The main units of length (inch, foot, yard and international mile) were the same in the US, though the US rarely uses some of the intermediate units today, such as the (surveyor's) chain (22 yards) and the furlong (220 yards).
+At one time, the definition of the nautical mile was based on the surface area of the Clarke ellipsoid. While the US used the full value of 1853.256 metres, in the British Commonwealth, this was rounded to 6080 feet (1853.184 m). These have been replaced by the international version (which rounds the 60th part of the 45° to the nearest metre) of 1852 metres.
+
+== Weight and mass ==
+
+Traditionally, both Britain and the US used three different weight systems: troy weight for precious metals, apothecaries' weight for medicines and avoirdupois weight for almost all other purposes. However, apothecaries' weight has now been superseded by the metric system.
+In all of these systems, the fundamental unit is the pound (lb), and all other units are defined as fractions or multiples of a pound. The tables of imperial troy mass and apothecaries' mass are the same as the corresponding United States tables, except for the British spelling "drachm" in the table of apothecaries' mass. The table of imperial avoirdupois mass is the same as the United States table up to one pound, but above that point, the tables differ.
+One important difference is the widespread use in Britain of the stone of 14 pounds (6.35029318 kg) for body weight, whereas this unit is not used in the United States, although flour was sold by a barrel of 196 pounds (14 stone) until World War II.
+Another difference arises in that Britain deleted the troy pound (373.2417216 g) and the pennyweight from the relevant statute on 1 January 1879, leaving only the troy ounce (31.1034768 g) and its decimal subdivisions, whereas the troy pound (of 12 troy ounces) and pennyweight are still legal in the United States, although they are no longer widely used.
+The imperial system has a hundredweight defined as eight stone of 14 lb each, or 112 lb (50.80234544 kg), whereas a US hundredweight is 100 lb (45.359237 kg): in both systems, 20 hundredweights make a ton.
+In the US, the terms long ton (2240 lb, 1016.0469088 kg) and short ton (2000 lb,  907.18474 kg) are used. The metric ton is the name used for the tonne (1000 kg, 2204.62262 lb), which is 1.58% less than the long ton and is 10.23% more than the short ton.
+The US customary system also includes the kip, equivalent to 1,000 pounds of force, which is also occasionally used as a unit of weight of 1,000 pounds (usually in engineering contexts).
+
+== See also ==
+Conversion of units
+History of measurement
+Systems of measurement
+Weights and measures
+
+== Notes ==
+
+== References ==
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_science-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_science-0.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..9d98d8ddb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_science-0.md
@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+---
+title: "Criticism of science"
+chunk: 1/3
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_science"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:07:57.789406+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Criticism of science addresses problems within science in order to improve science as a whole and its role in society. Criticisms come from philosophy, from social movements like feminism, and from within science itself.
+The emerging field of metascience seeks to increase the quality of and efficiency of scientific research by improving the scientific process.
+
+== Philosophical critiques ==
+
+Philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend advanced the idea of epistemological anarchism, which holds that there are no useful and exception-free methodological rules governing the progress of science or the growth of knowledge, and that the idea that science can or should operate according to universal and fixed rules is unrealistic, pernicious and detrimental to science itself. Feyerabend advocates a democratic society where science is treated as equal to other ideologies or social institutions such as religion, and education, or magic and mythology, and considers the dominance of science in society authoritarian and unjustified. He also contended (along with Imre Lakatos) that the demarcation problem of distinguishing science from pseudoscience on objective grounds is not possible and thus fatal to the notion of science running according to fixed, universal rules.
+Feyerabend also criticized science for not having evidence for its own philosophical precepts. Particularly the notion of Uniformity of Law and the Uniformity of Process across time and space, or Uniformitarianism in short, as noted by Stephen Jay Gould. "We have to realize that a unified theory of the physical world simply does not exist" says Feyerabend, "We have theories that work in restricted regions, we have purely formal attempts to condense them into a single formula, we have lots of unfounded claims (such as the claim that all of chemistry can be reduced to physics), phenomena that do not fit into the accepted framework are suppressed; in physics, which many scientists regard as the one really basic science, we have now at least three different points of view...without a promise of conceptual (and not only formal) unification". In other words, science is begging the question when it presupposes that there is a universal truth with no proof thereof.
+Historian Jacques Barzun termed science "a faith as fanatical as any in history" and warned against the use of scientific thought to suppress considerations of meaning as integral to human existence.
+Sociologist Stanley Aronowitz scrutinized science for operating with the presumption that the only acceptable criticisms of science are those conducted within the methodological framework that science has set up for itself. That science insists that only those who have been inducted into its community, through means of training and credentials, are qualified to make these criticisms. Aronowitz also alleged that while scientists consider it absurd that Fundamentalist Christianity uses biblical references to bolster their claim that the Bible is true, scientists pull the same tactic by using the tools of science to settle disputes concerning its own validity.
+New-age writer Alan Watts criticized science for operating under a materialist model of the world that he posited is simply a modified version of the Abrahamic worldview, that "the universe is constructed and maintained by a Lawmaker" (commonly identified as God or the Logos). Watts asserts that during the rise of secularism through the 18th to 20th century when scientific philosophers got rid of the notion of a lawmaker they kept the notion of law, and that the idea that the world is a material machine run by law is a presumption just as unscientific as religious doctrines that affirm it is a material machine made and run by a lawmaker.
+
+=== Epistemology ===
+David Parkin compared the epistemological stance of science to that of divination. He suggested that, to the degree that divination is an epistemologically specific means of gaining insight into a given question, science itself can be considered a form of divination that is framed from a Western view of the nature (and thus possible applications) of knowledge.
+Author and Episkopos of Discordianism Robert Anton Wilson stresses that the instruments used in scientific investigation produce meaningful answers relevant only to the instrument, and that there is no objective vantage point from which science could verify its findings since all findings are relative to begin with.
+
+=== Ethics ===
+
+Several academics have offered critiques concerning ethics in science. In Science and Ethics, for example, the professor of philosophy Bernard Rollin examines the relevance of ethics to science, and argues in favor of making education in ethics part and parcel of scientific training.
+Social science scholars, like social anthropologist Tim Ingold, and scholars from philosophy and the humanities, like critical theorist Adorno, have criticized modern science for subservience to economic and technological interests. A related criticism is the debate on positivism. While before the 19th century science was perceived to be in opposition to religion, in contemporary society science is often defined as the antithesis of the humanities and the arts.
+Many thinkers, such as Carolyn Merchant, Theodor Adorno and E. F. Schumacher considered that the 17th century Scientific Revolution shifted science from a focus on understanding nature, or wisdom, to a focus on manipulating nature, i.e. power, and that science's emphasis on manipulating nature leads it inevitably to manipulate people, as well. Science's focus on quantitative measures has led to critiques that it is unable to recognize important qualitative aspects of the world.
+
+== Critiques from within science ==
+Metascience is the use of scientific methodology to study science itself, with the goal of increasing the quality of research while reducing waste. Meta-research has identified methodological weaknesses in many areas of science. Critics argue that reforms are needed to address these weaknesses.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_science-1.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_science-1.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..e21952a38
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_science-1.md
@@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
+---
+title: "Criticism of science"
+chunk: 2/3
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_science"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:07:57.789406+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+=== Reproducibility ===
+The social sciences, such as social psychology, have long suffered from the problem of their studies being largely not reproducible. Now, medicine has come under similar pressures. In a phenomenon known as the replication crisis, journals are less likely to publish straight replication studies so it may be difficult to disprove results. Another result of publication bias is the Proteus phenomenon: early attempts to replicate results tend to contradict them. However, there are claims that this bias may be beneficial, allowing accurate meta-analysis with fewer publications.
+
+=== Cognitive biases ===
+Critics argue that the biggest bias within science is motivated reasoning, whereby scientists are more likely to accept evidence that supports their hypothesis and more likely to scrutinize findings that do not. Scientists do not practice pure induction but instead often come into science with preconceived ideas and often will, unconsciously or consciously, interpret observations to support their own hypotheses through confirmation bias. For example, scientists may re-run trials when they do not support a hypothesis but use results from the first trial when they do support their hypothesis. It is often argued that while each individual has cognitive biases, these biases are corrected for when scientific evidence converges. However, systematic issues in the publication system of academic journals can often compound these biases. Issues like publication bias, where studies with non-significant results are less likely to be published, and selective outcome reporting bias, where only the significant outcomes out of a variety of outcomes are likely to be published, are common within academic literature. These biases have widespread implications, such as the distortion of meta-analyses where only studies that include positive results are likely to be included. Statistical outcomes can be manipulated as well, for example large numbers of participants can be used and trials overpowered so that small difference cause significant effects or inclusion criteria can be changed to include those are most likely to respond to a treatment. Whether produced on purpose or not, all of these issues need to be taken into consideration within scientific research, and peer-reviewed published evidence should not be assumed to be outside of the realm of bias and error; some critics are now claiming that many results in scientific journals are false or exaggerated.
+Science has been criticized for being too conformist, and for becoming on average less disruptive.
+
+== Feminist critiques ==
+
+Feminist scholars and women scientists such as Emily Martin, Evelyn Fox Keller, Ruth Hubbard, Londa Schiebinger and Bonnie Spanier have critiqued science because they believe it presents itself as objective and neutral while ignoring its inherent gender bias. They assert that gender bias exists in the language and practice of science, as well as in the expected appearance and social acceptance of who can be scientists within society.
+Sandra Harding says that the "moral and political insights of the women's movement have inspired social scientists and biologists to raise critical questions about the ways traditional researchers have explained gender, sex, and relations within and between the social and natural worlds." Anne Fausto-Sterling is a prominent example of this kind of feminist work within biological science. Some feminists, such as Ruth Hubbard and Evelyn Fox Keller, criticize traditional scientific discourse as being historically biased towards a male perspective. A part of the feminist research agenda is the examination of the ways in which power inequities are created and/or reinforced in scientific and academic institutions.
+Other feminist scholars, such as Ann Hibner Koblitz, Lenore Blum, Mary Gray, Mary Beth Ruskai, and Pnina Abir-Am and Dorinda Outram, have criticized some gender and science theories for ignoring the diverse nature of scientific research and the tremendous variation in women's experiences in different cultures and historical periods. For example, the first generation of women to receive advanced university degrees in Europe were almost entirely in the natural sciences and medicine—in part because those fields at the time were much more welcoming of women than were the humanities. Koblitz and others who are interested in increasing the number of women in science have expressed concern that some of the statements by feminist critics of science could undermine those efforts, notably the following assertion by Keller:
+
+Just as surely as inauthenticity is the cost a woman suffers by joining men in misogynist jokes, so it is, equally, the cost suffered by a woman who identifies with an image of the scientist modeled on the patriarchal husband. Only if she undergoes a radical disidentification from self can she share masculine pleasure in mastering a nature cast in the image of woman as passive, inert, and blind.
+
+=== Language in science ===
+Emily Martin examines the metaphors used in science to support her claim that science reinforces socially constructed ideas about gender rather than objective views of nature. In her study about the fertilization process, Martin describes several cases when gender-biased perception skewed the descriptions of biological processes during fertilization and even possibly hampered the research. She asserts that classic metaphors of the strong dominant sperm racing to an idle egg are products of gendered stereotyping rather than a faithful portrayal of human fertilization. The notion that women are passive and men are active are socially constructed attributes of gender which, according to Martin, scientists have projected onto the events of fertilization and so obscuring the fact that eggs do play an active role. For example, she wrote that "even after having revealed...the egg to be a chemically active sperm catcher, even after discussing the egg's role in tethering the sperm, the research team continued for another three years to describe the sperm's role as actively penetrating the egg." Scott Gilbert, a developmental biologist at Swarthmore College supports her position: "if you don't have an interpretation of fertilization that allows you to look at the egg as active, you won't look for the molecules that can prove it. You simply won't find activities that you don't visualize."
+
+== Media and politics ==
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_science-2.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_science-2.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..4ebddc849
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_science-2.md
@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+---
+title: "Criticism of science"
+chunk: 3/3
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_science"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:07:57.789406+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+The mass media face a number of pressures that can prevent them from accurately depicting competing scientific claims in terms of their credibility within the scientific community as a whole. Determining how much weight to give different sides in a scientific debate requires considerable expertise regarding the matter. Few journalists have real scientific knowledge, and even beat reporters who know a great deal about certain scientific issues may know little about other ones they are suddenly asked to cover.
+Many issues damage the relationship of science to the media and the use of science and scientific arguments by politicians. As a very broad generalisation, many politicians seek certainties and facts whilst scientists typically offer probabilities and caveats. However, politicians' ability to be heard in the mass media frequently distorts the scientific understanding by the public. Examples in Britain include the controversy over the MMR inoculation, and the 1988 forced resignation of a government minister, Edwina Currie, for revealing the high probability that battery eggs were contaminated with Salmonella.
+Some scientists and philosophers suggest that scientific theories are more or less shaped by the dominant political, economic, or cultural models of the time, even though the scientific community may claim to be exempt from social influences and historical conditions. For example, the Russian philosopher, socialist, and zoologist Peter Kropotkin thought that the Darwinian theory of evolution overstressed a painful "we must struggle to survive" way of life, which he said was influenced by capitalism and the struggling lifestyles people lived within it. Karl Marx also thought that science was largely driven by and used as capital.
+Robert Anton Wilson, Stanley Aronowitz, and Paul Feyerabend all thought that the military-industrial complex, large corporations, and the grants that came from them had an immense influence over the research and even results of scientific experiments. Aronowitz even went as far as to say "It does not matter that the scientific community ritualistically denies its alliance with economic/industrial and military power. The evidence is overwhelming that such is the case. Thus, every major power has a national science policy; the United States Military appropriates billions each year for 'basic' as well as 'applied' research".
+
+== See also ==
+Academic bias
+Anti-intellectualism
+Antiscience
+Criticism of college and university rankings in North America
+Intellectual inbreeding
+Postmodernism
+Pseudoscience
+Pseudoskepticism
+Research paper mill
+Scientific misconduct
+Empirical limits in science
+
+== Notes and references ==
+
+== Further reading ==
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems-0.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..fb9569267
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems-0.md
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+---
+title: "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems"
+chunk: 1/6
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:07:51.634483+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo) is a 1632 book by Galileo Galilei comparing Nicolaus Copernicus's heliocentric system model with Ptolemy's geocentric model. Written in Italian, it was translated into Latin as Systema cosmicum (Cosmic System) in 1635 by Matthias Bernegger. The book was dedicated to Galileo's patron, Ferdinando II de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany, who received the first printed copy on February 22, 1632. It consists of four Socratic dialogues between the Copernican Salviati, the educated layman Sagredo and the geocentrist Simplicio. They discuss the findings of their "mutual friend the Academician" (Galileo).
+In the heliocentric system, the Earth and other planets orbit the Sun, while in the Ptolemaic system, everything in the Universe circles around the Earth. The Dialogue was published in Florence under a formal license from the Inquisition. In 1633, Galileo was found to be "vehemently suspect of heresy" based on the book, which was then placed on the Index of Forbidden Books, from which it was not removed until 1835 (after the theories it discussed had been permitted in print in 1822). In an action that was not announced at the time, the publication of anything else he had written or ever might write was also banned in Catholic countries.
+
+== Overview ==
+While writing the book, Galileo referred to it as his Dialogue on the Tides, and  when the manuscript went to the Inquisition for approval, the title was Dialogue on the Ebb and Flow of the Sea. He was ordered to remove all mention of tides from the title and to change the preface because not granting approval to such a title would look like approval of his theory of the tides using the motion of the Earth as proof. As a result, the formal title on the title page is Dialogue, which is followed by Galileo's name, academic posts, and followed by a long subtitle. The name by which the work is now known was extracted by the printer from the description on the title page when permission was given to reprint it with an approved preface by a Catholic theologian in 1744. This must be kept in mind when discussing Galileo's motives for writing the book. Although the book is presented formally as a consideration of both systems (as it needed to be in order to be published at all), there is no question that the Copernican side gets the better of the argument.
+
+=== Structure ===
+The book is presented as a series of discussions, over a span of four days, among two philosophers and a layman:
+
+Salviati argues for the Copernican position and presents some of Galileo's views directly, calling him the "Academician" in honor of Galileo's membership in the Accademia dei Lincei. He is named after Galileo's friend Filippo Salviati (1582–1614).
+Sagredo is an intelligent layman who is initially neutral. He is named after Galileo's friend Giovanni Francesco Sagredo (1571–1620).
+Simplicio, a dedicated follower of Ptolemy and Aristotle, presents the traditional views and the arguments against the Copernican position.  He is supposedly named after Simplicius of Cilicia, a sixth-century commentator on Aristotle, but it was suspected the name was a double entendre, as the Italian for "simple" (as in "simple minded") is "semplice".  Simplicio is modeled on two contemporary conservative philosophers, Lodovico delle Colombe (1565–1616?), Galileo's opponent, and Cesare Cremonini (1550–1631), a Paduan colleague who had refused to look through the telescope. Colombe was the leader of a group of Florentine opponents of Galileo's, which some of the latter's friends referred to as "the pigeon league".
+
+=== Content ===
+The discussion is not narrowly limited to astronomical topics, but ranges over much of contemporary science. Some of this is to show what Galileo considered good science, such as the discussion of William Gilbert's work on magnetism.  Other parts are important to the debate, answering erroneous arguments against the Earth's motion.
+A classic argument against Earth motion is the lack of speed sensations of the Earth surface, though it moves, by the Earth's rotation, at about 1700 km/h at the equator. In this category there is a thought experiment in which a man is below decks on a ship and cannot tell whether the ship is docked or is moving smoothly through the water: he observes water dripping from a bottle, fish swimming in a tank, butterflies flying, and so on; and their behavior is the same whether the ship is moving or not. This is a classic exposition of the inertial frame of reference and refutes the objection that if we were moving hundreds of kilometres an hour as the Earth rotated, anything that one dropped would rapidly fall behind and drift to the west.
+The bulk of Galileo's arguments may be divided into three classes:
+
+Rebuttals to the objections raised by traditional philosophers; for example, the thought experiment on the ship.
+Observations that are incompatible with the Ptolemaic model: the phases of Venus, for instance, which simply could not happen, or the apparent motions of sunspots, which could only be explained in the Ptolemaic or Tychonic systems as resulting from an implausibly complicated precession of the Sun's axis of rotation.
+Arguments showing that the elegant unified theory of the Heavens that the philosophers held, which was believed to prove that the Earth was stationary, was incorrect; for instance, the mountains of the Moon, the moons of Jupiter, and the very existence of sunspots, none of which was part of the old astronomy.
+Generally, these arguments have held up well in terms of the knowledge of the next four centuries.  Just how convincing they ought to have been to an impartial reader in 1632 remains a contentious issue. Galileo attempted a fourth class of argument:
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems-1.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems-1.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..8f091bc93
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems-1.md
@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+---
+title: "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems"
+chunk: 2/6
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:07:51.634483+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Direct physical argument for the Earth's motion, by means of an explanation of tides.
+As an account of the causation of tides or a proof of the Earth's motion, it is a failure. The fundamental argument is internally inconsistent and actually leads to the conclusion that tides do not exist. But, Galileo was fond of the argument and devoted the "Fourth Day" of the discussion to it. The degree of its failure is—like nearly anything having to do with Galileo—a matter of controversy.  On the one hand, the whole thing has recently been described in print as "cockamamie." On the other hand, Einstein used a rather different description:
+
+It was Galileo's longing for a mechanical proof of the motion of the earth which misled him into formulating a wrong theory of the tides. The fascinating arguments in the last conversation would hardly have been accepted as proof by Galileo, had his temperament not got the better of him.  [Emphasis added]
+
+=== Omissions ===
+
+The Dialogue does not treat the Tychonic system, which was becoming the preferred system of many astronomers at the time of publication and which was ultimately proven incorrect.  The Tychonic system is a motionless Earth system but not a Ptolemaic system;  it is a hybrid system of the Copernican and Ptolemaic models.  Mercury and Venus orbit the Sun (as in the Copernican system) in small circles, while the Sun in turn orbits a stationary Earth;  Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn orbit the Sun in much larger circles, which means they also orbit the Earth.  The Tychonian system is mathematically equivalent to the Copernican system, except that the Copernican system predicts a stellar parallax, while the Tychonian system predicts none.  Stellar parallax was not measurable until the 19th century, and therefore there was at the time no valid disproof of the Tychonic system on empirical grounds, nor any decisive observational evidence for the Copernican system.
+Galileo never took Tycho's system seriously, as can be seen in his correspondence, regarding it as an inadequate and physically unsatisfactory compromise. A reason for the absence of Tycho's system (in spite of many references to Tycho and his work in the book) may be sought in Galileo's theory of the tides, which provided the original title and organizing principle of the Dialogue. While the Copernican and Tychonic systems are equivalent geometrically, they are quite different dynamically. Galileo's tidal theory entailed the actual, physical movement of the Earth; that is, if true, it would have provided the kind of proof that Foucault's pendulum apparently provided two centuries later. Without reference to Galileo's tidal theory, there would be no difference between the Copernican and Tychonic systems.
+Galileo fails to discuss the possibility of non-circular orbits, although Johannes Kepler had sent him a copy of his 1609 book, Astronomia nova, in which he proposes elliptical orbits—correctly calculating that of Mars. Prince Federico Cesi's letter to Galileo of 1612 treated the two laws of planetary motion presented in the book as common knowledge; Kepler's third law was published in 1619. Four and a half decades after Galileo's death, Isaac Newton published his laws of motion and gravity, from which a heliocentric system with planets in approximately elliptical orbits is deducible.
+
+== Summary ==
+"Preface: To the Discerning Reader" refers to the ban on the "Pythagorean opinion that the earth moves" and says that the author "takes the Copernican side with a pure mathematical hypothesis". He introduces the friends Sagredo and Salviati with whom he had had discussions as well as the peripatetic philosopher Simplicio.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems-2.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems-2.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..0bc409b31
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems-2.md
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+---
+title: "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems"
+chunk: 3/6
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:07:51.634483+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+=== Day one ===
+Salviati starts with Aristotle's proof of the completeness and perfection of the world (i.e. the universe) because of its three dimensions. Simplicio points out that three was favoured by the Pythagoreans whereas Salviati cannot understand why three legs are better than two or four. He suggests that the numbers were "trifles which later spread among the vulgar" and that their definitions, such as those of straight lines and right angles, were more useful in establishing the dimensions. Simplicio's response was that Aristotle thought that in physical matters mathematical demonstration was not always needed.
+Salviati attacks Aristotle's definition of the heavens as incorruptible and unchanging whilst only the lunar-bound zone shows change. He points to the changes seen in the skies: the new stars of 1572 and 1604 and sunspots, seen through the new telescope. There is a discussion about Aristotle's use of a priori arguments. Salviati suggests that Aristotle uses Aristotle’s personal experience to choose an appropriate argument to prove just as others do and that Aristotle would change his mind in the present circumstances.
+Simplicio argues that sunspots could simply be small opaque objects passing in front of the Sun, but Salviati points out that some appear or disappear randomly and those at the edge are flattened, unlike separate bodies. Therefore, "it is better Aristotelian philosophy to say 'Heaven is alterable because my senses tell me' than 'Heaven is unalterable because Aristotle was so persuaded by reasoning.'" He adds "we possess a much better basis for reasoning about celestial things than Aristotle did...Now we, thanks to the telescope, have brought the heavens thirty or forty times closer to us than they were to Aristotle, so that we can discern many things in them that he could not see; among other things these sunspots, which were absolutely invisible to him." Experiments with a mirror are used to show that the Moon's surface must be opaque and not a perfect crystal sphere as Simplicio believes. He refuses to accept that mountains on the Moon cause shadows, or that reflected light from the Earth is responsible for the faint outline in a crescent moon.
+Sagredo holds that he considers the Earth noble because of the changes in it whereas Simplicio says that change in the Moon or stars would be useless because they do not benefit man. Salviati points out that days on the Moon are a month long and despite the varied terrain that the telescope has disclosed, it would not sustain life. Humans acquire mathematical truths slowly and hesitantly, whereas God knows the full infinity of them intuitively. And when one looks into the marvelous things men have understood and contrived, then clearly the human mind is one of the most excellent of God's works.
+
+=== Day two ===
+The second day starts by repeating that Aristotle would be changing his opinions if he saw what they were seeing. "It is the followers of Aristotle who have crowned him with authority, not he who has usurped or appropriated it to himself." There is one supreme motion—that by which the Sun, Moon, planets and fixed stars appear to be moved from east to west in the space of 24 hours. This may as logically belong to the Earth alone as to the rest of the universe. Aristotle and Ptolemy, who understood this, do not argue against any other motion than this diurnal one. Motion is relative: the position of the sacks of grain on a ship can be identical at the end of the voyage despite the movement of the ship. Why should we believe that nature moves all these extremely large bodies with inconceivable velocities rather than simply moving the moderately sized Earth? If the Earth is removed from the picture, what happens to all the movement?
+The movement of the skies from east to west is the opposite of all the other motions of the heavenly bodies which are from west to east; making the Earth rotate brings it into line with all the others. Although Aristotle argues that circular motions are not contraries, they could still lead to collisions. The great orbits of the planets take longer than the shorter: Saturn and Jupiter take many years, Mars two, whereas the Moon takes only a month. Jupiter's moons take even less. This is not changed if the Earth rotates every day, but if the Earth is stationary then we suddenly find that the sphere of the fixed stars rotates in 24 hours. Given the distances, that would more reasonably be thousands of years. In addition some of these stars have to travel faster than others: if the Pole Star was precisely at the axis, then it would be entirely stationary whereas those of the equator have unimaginable speed. The solidity of this supposed sphere is incomprehensible. Make the Earth the primum mobile and the need for this extra sphere disappears.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems-3.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems-3.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..4fcec12ec
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems-3.md
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+---
+title: "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems"
+chunk: 4/6
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:07:51.634483+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+They consider three main objections to the motion of the Earth: that a falling body would be left behind by the Earth and thus fall far to the west of its point of release; that a cannonball fired to the west would similarly fly much further than one fired to the east; and that a cannonball fired vertically would also land far to the west. Salviati shows that these do not take account of the impetus of the cannon. He also points out that attempting to prove that the Earth does not move by using vertical fall commits the logical fault of paralogism (assuming what is to be proved), because if the Earth is moving then it is only in appearance that it is falling vertically; in fact it is falling at a slant, as happens with a cannonball rising through the cannon (illustrated).
+In rebutting a work which claims that a ball falling from the Moon would take six days to arrive, the odd-number rule is introduced: a body falling 1 unit in an interval would fall 3 units in the next interval, 5 units in the subsequent one, etc. This gives rise to the rule by which the distance fallen is according to the square of the time. Using this he calculates the time is really little more than 3 hours. He also points out that density of the material does not make much difference: a lead ball might only accelerate twice as fast as one of cork. In fact, a ball falling from such a height would not fall behind but ahead of the vertical because the rotational motion would be in ever-decreasing circles. What makes the Earth move is similar to whatever moves Mars or Jupiter and is the same as that which pulls the stone to Earth. Calling it gravity does not explain what it is.
+
+=== Day three ===
+Salviati starts by dismissing the arguments of a book against the novas he has been reading overnight. Unlike comets, these were stationary and their lack of parallax easily checked and thus could not have been in the sublunary sphere. Simplicio now gives the greatest argument against the annual motion of the Earth that if it moves then it can no longer be the center of the zodiac, the world. Aristotle gives proofs that the universe is finite bounded and spherical. Salviati points out that these disappear if he denies him the assumption that it is movable, but allows the assumption initially in order not to multiply disputes.
+
+Salviati points out that if anything is the center, it must be the Sun not the Earth, because all the planets are closer or further away from the Earth at different times, Venus and Mars up to eight times. He encourages Simplicio to make a plan of the planets, starting with Venus and Mercury which are easily seen to rotate about the Sun. Mars must also go about the Sun (as well as the Earth) since it is never seen horned, unlike Venus now seen through the telescope; similarly with Jupiter and Saturn. Earth, which is between Mars with a period of two years and Venus with nine months, has a period of a year which may more elegantly be attributed to motion than a state of rest.
+Sagredo brings up two other common objections. If the Earth rotated, the mountains would soon be in a position that one would have to descend them rather than ascend.  Secondly, the motion would be so rapid that someone at the bottom of a well would have only a brief instance to glimpse a star as it traversed. Simplicio can see that the first is no different from travelling over the globe, as any who have circumnavigated but though he realizes the second is the same as if the heavens were rotating, he still does not understand it. Salviati says the first is no different from those who deny the antipodes. For the second, he encourages Simplicio to decide what fraction of the sky can be seen from down the well.
+Salviati brings up another problem, which is that Mars and Venus are not as variable as the theory would suggest. He explains that the size of a star to the human eye is affected by the brightness and the sizes are not real. This is resolved by use of the telescope which also shows the crescent shape of Venus. A further objection to the movement of the Earth, the unique existence of the Moon, has been resolved by the discovery of the moons of Jupiter, which would appear like Earth's Moon to any Jovian.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems-4.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems-4.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..ea7740bd3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems-4.md
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+---
+title: "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems"
+chunk: 5/6
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:07:51.634483+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Copernicus has succeeded in reducing some of the uneven motions of Ptolemy who had to deal with motions that sometimes go fast, sometimes slow, and sometimes backwards, by means of vast epicycles. Mars, above the Sun's sphere, often falls far below it, then soars above it. These anomalies are cured by the annual movement of the Earth. This is explained by a diagram in which the varying motion of Jupiter is shown using the Earth's orbit.
+Simplicio produces another booklet in which theological arguments are mixed with astronomic, but Salviati refuses to address the issues from Scripture. So he produces the argument that the fixed stars must be at an inconceivable distance with the smallest larger than the whole orbit of the Earth. Salviati explains that this all comes from a misrepresentation of what Copernicus said, resulting in a huge over-calculation of the size of a sixth magnitude star. But many other famous astronomers over-estimated the size of stars by ignoring the brightness factor. Not even Tycho, with his accurate instruments, set himself to measure the size of any star except the Sun and Moon. But Salviati (Galileo) was able to make a reasonable estimate simply by hanging a cord to obscure the star and measuring the distance from eye to cord.
+But still many cannot believe that the fixed stars can individually be as big or bigger than the Sun. To what end are these? Salviati maintains that "it is brash for our feebleness to attempt to judge the reasons for God's actions, and to call everything in the universe vain and superfluous which does not serve us".
+Has Tycho or any of his disciples tried to investigate in any way phenomena that might affirm or deny the movement of the Earth? Do any of them know how much variation is needed in the fixed stars? Simplicio objects to conceding that the distance of the fixed stars is too great for it to be detectable. Salviati points out how difficult it is even to detect the varying distances of Saturn. Many of the positions of the fixed stars are not known accurately and far better instruments than Tycho's are needed: say using a sight with a fixed position 60 miles away.
+Sagredo then asks Salviati to explain how the Copernican system explains the seasons and inequalities of night and day. This he does with the aid of a diagram showing the position of the Earth in the four seasons. He points out how much simpler it is than the Ptolemaic system. But Simplicio thinks Aristotle was wise to avoid too much geometry. He prefers Aristotle's axiom to avoid more than one simple motion at a time.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems-5.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems-5.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..902287635
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems-5.md
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
+---
+title: "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems"
+chunk: 6/6
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:07:51.634483+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+=== Day four ===
+They are in Sagredo's house in Venice, where tides are an important issue, and Salviati wants to show the effect of the Earth's movement on the tides. He first points out the three periods of the tides: daily (diurnal), generally with intervals of 6 hours of rising and six more of falling; monthly, seemingly from the Moon, which increases or decreases these tides; and annual, leading to different sizes at the equinoxes. He considers first the daily motion. Three varieties are observed: in some places the waters rise and fall without any forward motion; in others they move towards the east and back to the west without rising or falling; in still others there is a combination of both—this happens in Venice where the waters rise on entering and fall on leaving. In the Straits of Messina there are very swift currents between Scylla and Charybdis. In the open Mediterranean the alteration of height is small but the currents are noticeable.
+Simplicio counters with the peripatetic explanations, which are based on the depths of the sea, and the dominion of the Moon over the water, though this does not explain the risings when the Moon is below the horizon. But he admits it could be a miracle. When the water in Venice rises, where does it come from? There is little rise in Corfu or Dubrovnik. From the ocean through the Straits of Gibraltar? It's much too far away and the currents are too slow. So could the movement of the container cause the disturbance? Consider the  barges that bring water into Venice. When they hit an obstacle, the water rushes forward; when they speed up it will go to the back. For all this disturbance there is no need for new water and the level in the middle stays largely constant though the water there rushes backwards and forwards.
+Consider a point on the Earth under the joint action of the annual and diurnal movements. At one time these are added together and 12 hours later they act against each other, so there is an alternate speeding up and slowing down. So the ocean basins are affected in the same way as the barge particularly in an east-west direction. The length of the barge makes a difference to the speed of oscillations, just as the length of a plumb bob changes its speed. The depth of water also makes a difference to the size of vibrations. The primary effect only explains tides once a day; one must look elsewhere for the six-hour change, to the oscillation periods of the water. In some places, such as the Hellespont and the Aegean the periods are briefer and variable. But a north-south sea like the Red Sea has very little tide whereas the Messina Strait carries the pent up effect of two basins.
+Simplicio objects that if this accounts for the water, should it not even more be seen in the winds? Salviati suggests that the containing basins are not so effective and the air does not sustain its motion. Nevertheless, these forces are seen by the steady winds from east to west in the oceans in the tropical zone. It seems that the Moon also is taking part in the production of the daily effects, but that is repugnant to his mind. The motions of the Moon have caused great difficulty to astronomers. It's impossible to make a full account of these things given the irregular nature of the sea basins.
+
+== See also ==
+"Discourse on the Tides", 1616 Galileo essay
+
+== Further reading ==
+Kelly, Henry Ansgar (2026). "Galileo's Three Repudiations of Copernicanism – Two Coerced and One Volunteered". The Historical Journal.
+
+== Notes ==
+
+== Bibliography ==
+Drake, Stillman (1970). Galileo Studies. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0-472-08283-3.
+Linton, Christopher M. (2004). From Eudoxus to Einstein – A History of Mathematical Astronomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-82750-8.
+Sharratt, Michael (1994). Galileo: Decisive Innovator. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-56671-1.
+
+== External links ==
+
+ Media related to Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo at Wikimedia Commons
+Italian text with figures (in Italian)
+Thomas Salusbury's 1661 English translation of the Dialogue. Online copy of full text.
+Dialogo dei massimi sistemi. Fiorenza, Per Gio: Batista Landini, 1632. From the Rare Book and Special Collections Division at the Library of Congress
+Audio book version by Brian Keating
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardness_comparison-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardness_comparison-0.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..b2b112b90
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardness_comparison-0.md
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+---
+title: "Hardness comparison"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardness_comparison"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:07:52.811579+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+A variety of hardness-testing methods are available, including the Vickers, Brinell, Rockwell, Meyer and Leeb tests. Although it is impossible in many cases to give an exact conversion, it is possible to give an approximate material-specific comparison table for steels.
+
+
+== Hardness comparison table ==
+
+
+== References ==
+
+
+== Further reading ==
+ISO 18265: "Metallic materials — Conversion of hardness values" (2013)
+ASTM E140-12B(2019)e1: "Standard Hardness Conversion Tables for Metals Relationship Among Brinell Hardness, Vickers Hardness, Rockwell Hardness, Superficial Hardness, Knoop Hardness, Scleroscope Hardness, and Leeb Hardness" (2019)
+
+
+== External links ==
+Hardness Conversion Table – Brinell, Rockwell, Vickers – Various steels . (Archived) (archived November 11, 2011)
+Rockwell to Brinell conversion chart (Brinell, Rockwell A, B, C)
+Struers hardness conversion table (Vickers, Brinell, Rockwell B, C, D)
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrative_and_Comparative_Biology-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrative_and_Comparative_Biology-0.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..31215e49b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrative_and_Comparative_Biology-0.md
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+---
+title: "Integrative and Comparative Biology"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrative_and_Comparative_Biology"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:07:53.887193+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Integrative and Comparative Biology is the scientific journal for the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology (formerly the American Society of Zoologists).  Prior to volume 42 (2002), the journal was known as American Zoologist ISSN 0003-1569.
+
+
+== See also ==
+List of zoology journals
+
+
+== External links ==
+Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources-0.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..cf08f6def
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources-0.md
@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+---
+title: "Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of energy sources"
+chunk: 1/2
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:07:55.007247+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Greenhouse gas emissions are one of the environmental impacts of electricity generation. Measurement of life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions involves calculating the global warming potential (GWP) of energy sources through life-cycle assessment. These are usually sources of only electrical energy but sometimes sources of heat are evaluated. The findings are presented in units of global warming potential per unit of electrical energy generated by that source. The scale uses the global warming potential unit, the carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), and the unit of electrical energy, the kilowatt hour (kWh). The goal of such assessments is to cover the full life of the source, from material and fuel mining through construction to operation and waste management.
+In 2014, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change harmonized the carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) findings of the major electricity generating sources in use worldwide. This was done by analyzing the findings of hundreds of individual scientific papers assessing each energy source. Coal is by far the worst emitter, followed by natural gas, with solar, wind and nuclear all low-carbon. Hydropower, biomass, geothermal and ocean power may generally be low-carbon, but poor design or other factors could result in higher emissions from individual power stations.
+For all technologies, advances in efficiency, and therefore reductions in CO2e since the time of publication, have not been included. For example, the total life cycle emissions from wind power may have lessened since publication. Similarly, due to the time frame over which the studies were conducted, nuclear Generation II reactor's CO2e results are presented and not the global warming potential of Generation III reactors. Other limitations of the data include: a) missing life cycle phases, and, b) uncertainty as to where to define the cut-off point in the global warming potential of an energy source. The latter is important in assessing a combined electrical grid in the real world, rather than the established practice of simply assessing the energy source in isolation.
+
+== Global warming potential of selected electricity sources ==
+
+1 see also environmental impact of reservoirs#Greenhouse gases.
+
+List of acronyms:
+
+PC — pulverized coal
+CCS — carbon capture and storage
+IGCC — integrated gasification combined cycle
+SC — supercritical
+NGCC — natural gas combined cycle
+CSP — concentrated solar power
+PV — photovoltaic power
+
+== Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage ==
+As of 2020 whether bioenergy with carbon capture and storage can be carbon neutral or carbon negative is being researched and is controversial.
+
+== Studies after the 2014 IPCC report ==
+Individual studies show a wide range of estimates for fuel sources arising from the different methodologies used. Those on the low end tend to leave parts of the life cycle out of their analysis, while those on the high end often make unrealistic assumptions about the amount of energy used in some parts of the life cycle.
+Since the 2014 IPCC study some geothermal has been found to emit CO2 such as some geothermal power in Italy: further research is ongoing in the 2020s.
+Ocean energy technologies (tidal and wave) are relatively new, and few studies have been conducted on them. A major issue of the available studies is that they seem to underestimate the impacts of maintenance, which could be significant. An assessment of around 180 ocean technologies found that the GWP of ocean technologies varies between 15 and 105 g/kWh of CO2eq, with an average of 53 g/kWh CO2eq. In a tentative preliminary study, published in 2020, the environmental impact of subsea tidal kite technologies the GWP varied between 15 and 37, with a median value of 23.8 g/kWh), which is slightly higher than that reported in the 2014 IPCC GWP study mentioned earlier (5.6 to 28, with a mean value of 17 g/kWh CO2eq).
+In 2021 UNECE published a lifecycle analysis of environmental impact of electricity generation technologies, accounting for the following impacts: resource use (minerals, metals); land use; resource use (fossils); water use; particulate matter; photochemical ozone formation; ozone depletion; human toxicity (non-cancer); ionising radiation; human toxicity (cancer); eutrophication (terrestrial, marine, freshwater); ecotoxicity (freshwater); acidification; climate change, with the latter summarized in the table above.
+In June 2022, Électricité de France publishes a detailed Life-cycle assessment study, following the norm ISO 14040, showing the 2019 French nuclear infrastructure produces less than 4 g/kWh CO2eq.
+
+== Cutoff points of calculations and estimates of how long plants last ==
+Because most emissions from wind, solar and nuclear are not during operation, if they are operated for longer and generate more electricity over their lifetime then emissions per unit energy will be less. Therefore, their lifetimes are relevant.
+Wind farms are estimated to last 30 years: after that the carbon emissions from repowering would need to be taken into account. Solar panels from the 2010s may have a similar lifetime: however how long 2020s solar panels (such as perovskite) will last is not yet known. Some nuclear plants can be used for 80 years,  but others may have to be retired earlier for safety reasons. As of 2020 more than half the world's nuclear plants are expected to request license extensions, and there have been calls for these extensions to be better scrutinised under the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context.
+Some coal-fired power stations may operate for 50 years but others may be shut down after 20 years, or less. According to one 2019 study considering the time value of GHG emissions with techno-economic assessment considerably increases the life cycle emissions from carbon intensive fuels such as coal.
+
+== Lifecycle emissions from heating ==
+
+For residential heating in almost all countries emissions from natural gas furnaces are more than from heat pumps. But in some countries, such as the UK, there is an ongoing debate in the 2020s about whether it is better to replace the natural gas used in residential central heating with hydrogen, or whether to use heat pumps or in some cases more district heating.
+
+== Fossil gas as bridge fuel ==
+
+== Missing life cycle phases ==
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources-1.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources-1.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..24736b309
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources-1.md
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+---
+title: "Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of energy sources"
+chunk: 2/2
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:07:55.007247+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Although the life cycle assessments of each energy source should attempt to cover the full life cycle of the source from cradle-to-grave, they are generally limited to the construction and operation phase. The most rigorously studied phases are those of material and fuel mining, construction, operation, and waste management. However, missing life cycle phases exist for a number of energy sources. At times, assessments variably and sometimes inconsistently include the global warming potential that results from decommissioning the energy supplying facility, once it has reached its designed life-span. This includes the global warming potential of the process to return the power-supply site to greenfield status. For example, the process of hydroelectric dam removal is usually excluded as it is a rare practice with little practical data available. Dam removal however is becoming increasingly common as dams age. Larger dams, such as the Hoover Dam and the Three Gorges Dam, are intended to last "forever" with the aid of maintenance, a period that is not quantified. Therefore, decommissioning estimates are generally omitted for some energy sources, while other energy sources include a decommissioning phase in their assessments.
+Along with the other prominent values of the paper, the median value presented of 12 g CO2-eq/kWhe for nuclear fission, found in the 2012 Yale University nuclear power review, a paper which also serves as the origin of the 2014 IPCC's nuclear value, does however include the contribution of facility decommissioning with an "Added facility decommissioning" global warming potential in the full nuclear life cycle assessment.
+Thermal power plants, even if low carbon power biomass, nuclear or geothermal energy stations, directly add heat energy to the earth's global energy balance. As for wind turbines, they may change both horizontal and vertical atmospheric circulation. But, although both these may slightly change the local temperature, any difference they might make to the global temperature is undetectable against the far larger temperature change caused by greenhouse gases.
+
+== See also ==
+Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage
+Carbon capture and storage
+Carbon footprint
+Climate change mitigation
+Efficient energy use
+Low-carbon economy
+Nuclear power proposed as renewable energy
+
+== References ==
+
+== External links ==
+National Renewable Energy Laboratory. LCA CO2 emissions of all present day energy sources.
+Wise uranium CO2 calculator
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_mathematics_and_physics-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_mathematics_and_physics-0.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..a12a173a1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_mathematics_and_physics-0.md
@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+---
+title: "Relationship between mathematics and physics"
+chunk: 1/2
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_mathematics_and_physics"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:07:56.241240+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+The relationship between mathematics and physics has been a subject of study of philosophers, mathematicians and physicists since antiquity, and more recently also by historians and educators. Generally considered a relationship of great intimacy, mathematics has been described as "an essential tool for physics" and physics has been described as "a rich source of inspiration and insight in mathematics".
+Some of the oldest and most discussed themes are about the main differences between the two subjects, their mutual influence, the role of mathematical rigor in physics, and the problem of explaining the effectiveness of mathematics in physics.
+In his work Physics, one of the topics treated by Aristotle is about how the study carried out by mathematicians differs from that carried out by physicists. Considerations about mathematics being the language of nature can be found in the ideas of the Pythagoreans: the convictions that "Numbers rule the world" and "All is number", and two millennia later were also expressed by Galileo Galilei: "The book of nature is written in the language of mathematics".
+
+== Historical interplay ==
+Before giving a mathematical proof for the formula for the volume of a sphere, Archimedes used physical reasoning to discover the solution (imagining the balancing of bodies on a scale). Aristotle classified physics and mathematics as theoretical sciences, in contrast to practical sciences (like ethics or politics) and to productive sciences (like medicine or botany).
+From the seventeenth century, many of the most important advances in mathematics appeared motivated by the study of physics, and this continued in the following centuries (although in the nineteenth century mathematics started to become increasingly independent from physics). The creation and development of calculus were strongly linked to the needs of physics: There was a need for a new mathematical language to deal with the new dynamics that had arisen from the work of scholars such as Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton. The concept of derivative was needed, Newton did not have the modern concept of limits, and instead employed infinitesimals, which lacked a rigorous foundation at that time. During this period there was little distinction between physics and mathematics; as an example, Newton regarded geometry as a branch of mechanics. 
+Non-Euclidean geometry, as formulated by Carl Friedrich Gauss, János Bolyai, Nikolai Lobachevsky, and Bernhard Riemann, freed physics from the limitation of a single Euclidean geometry. A version of non-Euclidean geometry, called Riemannian geometry, enabled Albert Einstein to develop general relativity by providing the key mathematical framework on which he fit his physical ideas of gravity.
+In the 19th century Auguste Comte in his hierarchy of the sciences, placed physics and astronomy as less general and more complex than mathematics, as both depend on it. In 1900, David Hilbert in his 23 problems for the advancement of mathematical science, considered the axiomatization of physics as his sixth problem. The problem remains open.
+In 1930, Paul Dirac invented the Dirac delta function which produced a single value when used in an integral. 
+The mathematical rigor of this function was in doubt until the mathematician Laurent Schwartz developed on the theory of distributions.
+Connections between the two fields sometimes only require identifying similar concepts by different names, as shown in the 1975 Wu–Yang dictionary, that related concepts of gauge theory with differential geometry.
+
+== Physics is not mathematics ==
+
+Despite the close relationship between math and physics, they are not synonyms. In mathematics objects can be defined exactly and logically related, but the object need have no relationship to experimental measurements. In physics, definitions are abstractions or idealizations, approximations adequate when compared to the natural world. In 1960, Georg Rasch noted that no models are ever true, not even Newton's laws, emphasizing that models should not be evaluated based on truth but on their applicability for a given purpose. For example, Newton built a physical model around definitions like his second law of motion 
+  
+    
+      
+        
+          F
+        
+        =
+        m
+        
+          a
+        
+      
+    
+    {\displaystyle \mathbf {F} =m\mathbf {a} }
+  
+ based on observations, leading to the development of calculus and highly accurate planetary mechanics, but later this definition was superseded by improved models of mechanics. Mathematics deals with entities whose properties can be known with certainty. According to David Hume, only statements that deal solely with ideas themselves—such as those encountered in mathematics—can be demonstrated to be true with certainty, while any conclusions pertaining to experiences of the real world can only be achieved via "probable reasoning". This leads to a situation that was put by Albert Einstein as "No number of experiments can prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." The ultimate goal in research in pure mathematics are rigorous proofs, while in physics heuristic arguments may sometimes suffice in leading-edge research. In short, the methods and goals of physicists and mathematicians are different. Nonetheless, according to Roland Omnès, the axioms of mathematics are not mere conventions, but have physical origins.
+
+=== Mathematics is physics ===
+A well-known dictum of the Russian and Soviet mathematician Vladimir Arnold is "Mathematics is the part of physics where experiments are cheap". While the  phrase generated controversy and even parodies, Arnold has defended it.
+Mathematicians Arthur Jaffe and Frank Quinn have noted trends in mathematics towards more focus on intuition even at the cost of rigor and suggest this trend is due to interactions between math and physics. In the framework of Willard van Orman Quine's epistemological holism, our beliefs, even in mathematics, are subjected to the "tribunal of experience", just like in physics.
+
+== Role of rigor in physics ==
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_mathematics_and_physics-1.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_mathematics_and_physics-1.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..ae82740ec
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_mathematics_and_physics-1.md
@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+---
+title: "Relationship between mathematics and physics"
+chunk: 2/2
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_mathematics_and_physics"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:07:56.241240+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+Rigor is indispensable in pure mathematics. But many definitions and arguments found in the physics literature involve concepts and ideas that are not up to the standards of rigor in mathematics.
+For example,
+Freeman Dyson characterized quantum field theory as having two "faces". The outward face looked at nature and there the predictions of quantum field theory are exceptionally successful. The inward face looked at mathematical foundations and found inconsistency and mystery. The success of the physical theory comes despite its lack of rigorous mathematical backing.
+Some mathematicians, such as Arthur Jaffe and Frank Quinn, argue that non-rigorous mathematical work can sometimes bring benefits too.
+
+== Philosophical problems ==
+Some of the problems considered in the philosophy of mathematics are the following:
+
+Explain the effectiveness of mathematics in the study of the physical world: "At this point an enigma presents itself which in all ages has agitated inquiring minds. How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality?" —Albert Einstein, in Geometry and Experience (1921).
+Clearly delineate mathematics and physics: For some results or discoveries, it is difficult to say to which area they belong: to the mathematics or to physics.
+What is the geometry of physical space?
+What is the origin of the axioms of mathematics?
+How does the already existing mathematics influence in the creation and development of physical theories?
+Is arithmetic analytic or synthetic? (from Immanuel Kant, see Analytic–synthetic distinction)
+What is essentially different between doing a physical experiment to see the result and making a mathematical calculation to see the result? (from the Turing–Wittgenstein debate)
+Do Gödel's incompleteness theorems imply that physical theories will always be incomplete? (from Stephen Hawking)
+Is mathematics invented or discovered? (millennia-old question, raised among others by Mario Livio)
+
+== Education ==
+In recent times the two disciplines have most often been taught separately, despite all the interrelations between physics and mathematics. This led some professional mathematicians who were also interested in mathematics education, such as Felix Klein, Richard Courant, Vladimir Arnold and Morris Kline, to strongly advocate teaching mathematics in a way more closely related to the physical sciences. The initial courses of mathematics for college students of physics are often taught by mathematicians, despite the differences in "ways of thinking" of physicists and mathematicians about those traditional courses and how they are used in the physics courses classes thereafter.
+
+== See also ==
+
+== References ==
+
+== Further reading ==
+Darling, David (1993-07-14). Equations of Eternity. Hyperion. ISBN 1-56282-875-4.
+Arnold, V. I. (1999). "Mathematics and physics: mother and daughter or sisters?". Physics-Uspekhi. 42 (12): 1205–1217. Bibcode:1999PhyU...42.1205A. doi:10.1070/pu1999v042n12abeh000673. S2CID 250835608.
+Arnold, V. I. (1998). "On teaching mathematics". Russian Mathematical Surveys. 53 (1). Translated by A. V. Goryunov: 229–236. Bibcode:1998RuMaS..53..229A. doi:10.1070/RM1998v053n01ABEH000005. S2CID 250833432. Archived from the original on 28 April 2017. Retrieved 29 May 2014.
+Atiyah, M.; Dijkgraaf, R.; Hitchin, N. (1 February 2010). "Geometry and physics". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 368 (1914): 913–926. Bibcode:2010RSPTA.368..913A. doi:10.1098/rsta.2009.0227. PMC 3263806. PMID 20123740.
+Boniolo, Giovanni; Budinich, Paolo; Trobok, Majda, eds. (2005). The Role of Mathematics in Physical Sciences: Interdisciplinary and Philosophical Aspects. Dordrecht: Springer. ISBN 978-1-4020-3106-9.
+Colyvan, Mark (2001). "The Miracle of Applied Mathematics" (PDF). Synthese. 127 (3): 265–277. doi:10.1023/A:1010309227321. S2CID 40819230. Retrieved 30 May 2014.
+Dirac, Paul (1938–1939). "The Relation between Mathematics and Physics". Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. 59 Part II: 122–129. Retrieved 30 March 2014.
+Feynman, Richard P. (1992). "The Relation of Mathematics to Physics". The Character of Physical Law (Reprint ed.). London: Penguin Books. pp. 35–58. ISBN 978-0-14-017505-9.
+Hardy, G. H. (2005). A Mathematician's Apology (PDF) (First electronic ed.). University of Alberta Mathematical Sciences Society. Archived from the original (PDF) on 9 October 2021. Retrieved 30 May 2014.
+Hitchin, Nigel (2007). "Interaction between mathematics and physics". ARBOR Ciencia, Pensamiento y Cultura. 725. Retrieved 31 May 2014.
+Harvey, Alex (2012). "The Reasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Physical Sciences". General Relativity and Gravitation. 43 (2011): 3057–3064. arXiv:1212.5854. Bibcode:2011GReGr..43.3657H. doi:10.1007/s10714-011-1248-9. S2CID 121985996.
+Neumann, John von (1947). "The Mathematician". Works of the Mind. 1 (1): 180–196. (part 1) (part 2).
+Poincaré, Henri (1907). The Value of Science (PDF). Translated by George Bruce Halsted. New York: The Science Press.
+Schlager, Neil; Lauer, Josh, eds. (2000). "The Intimate Relation between Mathematics and Physics". Science and Its Times: Understanding the Social Significance of Scientific Discovery. Vol. 7: 1950 to Present. Gale Group. pp. 226–229. ISBN 978-0-7876-3939-6.
+Vafa, Cumrun (2000). "On the Future of Mathematics/Physics Interaction". Mathematics: Frontiers and Perspectives. USA: AMS. pp. 321–328. ISBN 978-0-8218-2070-4.
+Witten, Edward (1986). Physics and Geometry (PDF). Proceedings of the International Conference of Mathematicians. Berkeley, California. pp. 267–303. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-12-28. Retrieved 2014-05-27.
+Eugene Wigner (1960). "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences". Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics. 13 (1): 1–14. Bibcode:1960CPAM...13....1W. doi:10.1002/cpa.3160130102. S2CID 6112252. Archived from the original on 2011-02-28. Retrieved 2014-05-27.
+
+== External links ==
+Gregory W. Moore – Physical Mathematics and the Future (July 4, 2014)
+IOP Institute of Physics – Mathematical Physics: What is it and why do we need it? (September 2014)
+Feynman explaining the differences between mathematics and physics in a video available on YouTube
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_the_World_Picture-0.md b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_the_World_Picture-0.md
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..ba7d2a760
--- /dev/null
+++ b/data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_the_World_Picture-0.md
@@ -0,0 +1,31 @@
+---
+title: "The Age of the World Picture"
+chunk: 1/1
+source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_the_World_Picture"
+category: "reference"
+tags: "science, encyclopedia"
+date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:08:02.490744+00:00"
+instance: "kb-cron"
+---
+
+"The Age of the World Picture" or "The Age of the World View" (German: Die Zeit des Weltbildes) is a 1938 lecture by Martin Heidegger in which he addresses the metaphysical ground of modern science.
+It was published in the essay collection Off the Beaten Track in 1950.
+
+
+== English translations ==
+The essay has been translated as "The Age of the World View" by Marjorie Grene (1951) 
+and as "The Age of the World Picture" by William Lovitt (1977) and Julian Young (2002).
+
+
+== Critique ==
+Sidonie Kellerer believes that Heidegger published the text to show his “inner resistance” after the mid-1930s against the Nazi regime and as evidence for his early refusal of National Socialism and his rejection of a modern ideology that resulted in the totalitarian system. Emphasizing the differences between the published text and the original lecture delivered in 1938, she thinks that the differences show "the artful falsifications" used by Heidegger in order to re-establish his reputation.
+
+
+== References ==
+
+
+== External links ==
+The Age of the World Picture: Hermeneutics and the Weltanschauung Theory
+The Age of the World-Picture is a Fine Thirty-Two (at the Time of Writing)
+The Age of the World Picture
+Paranoia in the Age of the World Picture: The Global "Limits of Enlightenment"
\ No newline at end of file