# kb

id: pasteur-s-quadrant-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasteur's_quadrant-0.md
category: reference
title: Pasteur's quadrant
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasteur's_quadrant
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:44:37.455516+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: pasteur-s-quadrant-20260505-0
summary:
Pasteur's quadrant is a classification of scientific research projects that seek fundamental understanding of scientific problems, while also having immediate use for society. Louis Pasteur's research is thought to exemplify this type of method, which bridges the gap between "basic" and "applied" research. The term was introduced by Donald E. Stokes in his book, Pasteur's Quadrant. == Other quadrants == As shown in the following table, scientific research can be classified by whether it advances human knowledge by seeking a fundamental understanding of nature, or whether it is primarily motivated by the need to solve immediate problems. The result is three distinct classes of research: Pure basic research, exemplified by the work of Niels Bohr, early 20th century atomic physicist. Pure applied research, exemplified by the work of Thomas Edison, inventor. Use-inspired basic research, described here as "Pasteur's Quadrant". == Usage == Pasteur's quadrant is useful in distinguishing various perspectives within science, engineering and technology. For example, Daniel A. Vallero and Trevor M. Letcher in their book Unraveling Environmental Disasters applied the device to disaster preparedness and response. University science programs are concerned with knowledge-building, whereas engineering programs at the same university will apply existing and emerging knowledge to address


id: scholarly-peer-review-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review-0.md
category: reference
title: Scholarly peer review
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:44:38.682666+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: scholarly-peer-review-20260505-0
summary:
Scholarly peer review or academic peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of having a draft version of a researcher's methods and findings reviewed (usually anonymously) by experts (or "peers") in the same field. Peer review is widely used for helping the academic publisher (i.e., the editor-in-chief, the editorial board, or the program committee) decide whether the work should be accepted, considered acceptable with revisions, or rejected for official publication in an academic journal, a monograph, or in the proceedings of an academic conference. If the identities of authors are not revealed to each other, the procedure is called dual-anonymous peer review. Academic peer review requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) academic field, who are qualified and able to perform reasonably impartial review. Impartial review, especially of work in less narrowly defined or inter-disciplinary fields, may be difficult to accomplish, and the significance (good or bad) of an idea may never be widely appreciated among its contemporaries. Peer review is generally considered necessary to academic quality and is used in most major scholarly journals. However, peer review does not prevent publication of invalid research, and as experimentally controlled studies of this process


id: scholarly-peer-review-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review-1.md
category: reference
title: Scholarly peer review
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:44:38.682666+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: scholarly-peer-review-20260505-0
summary:
Workload. A small group of editors/assessors cannot devote sufficient time to each of the many articles submitted to many journals. Miscellany of ideas. Were the editor/assessor to judge all submitted material themselves, approved material would solely reflect their opinion. Limited expertise. An editor/assessor cannot be expected to be sufficiently expert in all areas covered by a single journal or funding agency to adequately judge all submitted material. Reviewers are often anonymous and independent. However, some reviewers may choose to waive their anonymity, and in other limited circumstances, such as the examination of a formal complaint against the referee, or a court order, the reviewer's identity may have to be disclosed. Anonymity may be unilateral or reciprocal (single- or double-blinded reviewing). Since reviewers are normally selected from experts in the fields discussed in the article, the process of peer review helps to keep some invalid or unsubstantiated claims out of the body of published research and knowledge. Scholars will read published articles outside their limited area of detailed expertise, and then rely, to some degree, on the peer-review process to have provided reliable and credible research that they can build upon for subsequent or related research. Significant scandal ensues when an


id: scholarly-peer-review-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review-2.md
category: reference
title: Scholarly peer review
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:44:38.682666+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: scholarly-peer-review-20260505-0
summary:
to unconditionally accept the manuscript or the proposal, to accept it in the event that its authors improve it in certain ways to reject it, but encourage revision and invite re-submission to reject it outright. During this process, the role of the referees is advisory. The editor(s) is typically under no obligation to accept the opinions of the referees. However, the editor will most often follow the advice of the referees. Furthermore, the referees in scientific publication do not act as a group, do not communicate with each other, and typically are not aware of each other's identities or evaluations. Proponents argue that if the reviewers of a paper are unknown to each other, the editor(s) can more easily verify the objectivity of the reviews. There is usually no requirement that the referees achieve consensus, with the decision instead often made by the editor(s) based on her best judgement of the arguments. In situations where multiple referees disagree substantially about the quality of a work, there are a number of strategies for reaching a decision. The paper may be rejected outright, or the editor may choose which reviewer's point the authors should address. When a publisher receives very positive and


id: scholarly-peer-review-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review-3.md
category: reference
title: Scholarly peer review
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:44:38.682666+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: scholarly-peer-review-20260505-0
summary:
== Recruiting referees == At a journal or book publisher, the task of picking reviewers typically falls to an editor. When a manuscript arrives, an editor solicits reviews from scholars or other experts who may or may not have already expressed a willingness to referee for that journal or book division. Granting agencies typically recruit a panel or committee of reviewers in advance of the arrival of applications. Referees are supposed to inform the editor of any conflict of interests that might arise. Journals or individual editors may invite a manuscript's authors to name people whom they consider qualified to referee their work. For some journals this is a requirement of submission. Authors are sometimes also given the opportunity to name natural candidates who should be disqualified, in which case they may be asked to provide justification (typically expressed in terms of conflict of interest). Editors solicit author input in selecting referees because academic writing typically is very specialized. Editors often oversee many specialties, and can not be experts in all of them. But after an editor selects referees from the pool of candidates, the editor typically is obliged not to disclose the referees' identities to the authors, and in


id: scholarly-peer-review-20260505-4
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review-4.md
category: reference
title: Scholarly peer review
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:44:38.682666+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: scholarly-peer-review-20260505-0
summary:
=== Internal and external peer review === External peer review is the ordinary process of peer review for scholarly journals. The first evidence of formal external peer reviews dates back to 1752, and it became widely used and more standardized after World War II. In this process, scholars who are not beholden to the journal or the author review submitted articles, and in doing so, restrain academic and scientific journals from using solely their own commercial interests as a guide on what to publish. Nature began requiring external peer review in 1973, and other journals quickly followed suit. Internal peer review is having a colleague in the same department or academic institution read over a paper before submitting it to a journal for external peer review. For example, economists in the same government agency may review their peers' papers, as a type of peer professional accountability. People such as Nobel laureate Dan Shechtman and organizations such as the US National Institute of Standards and Technology use internal peer review because they believe that it gives them an opportunity to improve papers before submitting them to a journal. Internal peer review is also recommended for authors with weak writing skills. Unlike


id: scholarly-peer-review-20260505-5
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review-5.md
category: reference
title: Scholarly peer review
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:44:38.682666+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: scholarly-peer-review-20260505-0
summary:
=== Transparent peer review === In transparent peer review the documents relating to the publication of the paper are published alongside the paper. This includes the initial report made by the peer reviewer, the authors' response to it, and the acceptance letter by the editor. The names of the reviewers may still be kept anonymous even in transparent peer review. === Pre- and post-publication peer review === The process of peer review is not restricted to the publication process managed by academic journals. In particular, some forms of peer review can occur before an article is submitted to a journal and/or after it is published by the journal. ==== Pre-publication peer review ==== Manuscripts are typically reviewed by colleagues before submission, and if the manuscript is uploaded to preprint servers, such as ArXiv, BioRxiv or SSRN, researchers can read and comment on the manuscript. The practice to upload to preprint servers, and the activity of discussion heavily depend on the field, and it allows an open pre-publication peer review. The advantage of this method is speed and transparency of the review process. Anyone can give feedback, typically in form of comments, and typically not anonymously. These comments are also public,


id: scholarly-peer-review-20260505-6
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review-6.md
category: reference
title: Scholarly peer review
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:44:38.682666+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: scholarly-peer-review-20260505-0
summary:
Result-blind peer review or results blind peer review, first proposed 1966: Reviewers receive an edited version of the submitted paper which omits the results and conclusion section. In a two-stage version, a second round of reviews or editorial judgment is based on the full paper version, which was first proposed in 1977. Conclusion-blind review, proposed by Robin Hanson in 2007 extends this further asking all authors to submit a positive and a negative version, and only after the journal has accepted the article authors reveal which is the real version. Pre-accepted articles or outcome-unbiased journals or advance publication review or registered reports or prior to results submission or early acceptance extends study pre-registration to the point that journals accepted or reject papers based on the version of the paper written before the results or conclusions have been made (an enlarged study protocol), but instead describes the theoretical justification, experimental design, and statistical analysis. Only once the proposed hypothesis and methodology have been accepted by reviewers, the authors would collect the data or analyze previously collected data. A limited variant of a pre-accepted article was The Lancet's study protocol review from 1997 to 2015 reviewed and published randomized trial protocols with


id: scholarly-peer-review-20260505-7
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review-7.md
category: reference
title: Scholarly peer review
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:44:38.682666+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: scholarly-peer-review-20260505-0
summary:
Scholarly peer review has been subject to several criticisms, and various proposals for reforming the system have been suggested over the years. Many studies have emphasized the problems inherent to the process of peer review. Moreover, Ragone et al. have shown that there is a low correlation between peer review outcomes and the future impact measured by citations. Various biomedical editors in particular have expressed criticism of peer review. A Cochrane review found little empirical evidence that peer review ensures quality in biomedical research, while a second systematic review and meta-analysis found a need for evidence-based peer review in biomedicine given the paucity of assessment of the interventions designed to improve the process. To an outsider, the anonymous, pre-publication peer review process is opaque. Certain journals are accused of not carrying out stringent peer review in order to more easily expand their customer base, particularly in journals where authors pay a fee before publication. Richard Smith, MD, former editor of the British Medical Journal, has claimed that peer review is "ineffective, largely a lottery, anti-innovatory, slow, expensive, wasteful of scientific time, inefficient, easily abused, prone to bias, unable to detect fraud and irrelevant; Several studies have shown that peer review


id: scholarly-peer-review-20260505-8
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review-8.md
category: reference
title: Scholarly peer review
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:44:38.682666+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: scholarly-peer-review-20260505-0
summary:
=== Peer review and trust === Researchers have peer-reviewed manuscripts prior to publishing them in a variety of ways since the 18th century. The main goal of this practice is to improve the relevance and accuracy of scientific discussions. Even though experts often criticize peer review for a number of reasons, the process is still often considered the "gold standard" of science. Occasionally however, peer review approves studies that are later found to be wrong and rarely deceptive or fraudulent results are discovered prior to publication. Thus, there seems to be an element of discord between the ideology behind and the practice of peer review. By failing to effectively communicate that peer review is imperfect, the message conveyed to the wider public is that studies published in peer-reviewed journals are "true" and that peer review protects the literature from flawed science. A number of well-established criticisms exist of many elements of peer review. In the following we describe cases of the wider impact inappropriate peer review can have on public understanding of scientific literature. Multiple examples across several areas of science find that scientists elevated the importance of peer review for research that was questionable or corrupted. For example, climate


id: scholarly-peer-review-20260505-9
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review-9.md
category: reference
title: Scholarly peer review
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:44:38.682666+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: scholarly-peer-review-20260505-0
summary:
The belief that scholars are incapable of evaluating the quality of work on their own, that they are in need of a gatekeeper to inform them of what is good and what is not. The belief that scholars need a "guardian" to make sure they are doing good work. Others argue that authors most of all have a vested interest in the quality of a particular piece of work. Only the authors could have, as Feynman (1974) puts it, the "extra type of integrity that is beyond not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist." If anything, the current peer review process and academic system could penalize, or at least fail to incentivize, such integrity. Instead, the credibility conferred by the "peer-reviewed" label could diminish what Feynman calls the culture of doubt necessary for science to operate a self-correcting, truth-seeking process. The effects of this can be seen in the ongoing replication crisis, hoaxes, and widespread outrage over the inefficacy of the current system. It's common to think that more oversight is the answer, as peer reviewers are not at all lacking in skepticism. But the


id: scholarly-peer-review-20260505-10
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review-10.md
category: reference
title: Scholarly peer review
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:44:38.682666+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: scholarly-peer-review-20260505-0
summary:
=== Allegations of bias and suppression === The interposition of editors and reviewers between authors and readers may enable the intermediators to act as gatekeepers. Some sociologists of science argue that peer review makes the ability to publish susceptible to control by elites and to personal jealousy. The peer review process may sometimes impede progress and may be biased against novelty. A linguistic analysis of review reports suggests that reviewers focus on rejecting the applications by searching for weak points, and not on finding the high-risk/high-gain groundbreaking ideas that may be in the proposal. Reviewers tend to be especially critical of conclusions that contradict their own views, and lenient towards those that match them. At the same time, established scientists are more likely than others to be sought out as referees, particularly by high-prestige journals/publishers. As a result, ideas that harmonize with the established experts' are more likely to see print and to appear in premier journals than are iconoclastic or revolutionary ones. This accords with Thomas Kuhn's well-known observations regarding scientific revolutions. A theoretical model has been established whose simulations imply that peer review and over-competitive research funding foster mainstream opinion to monopoly. Criticisms of traditional anonymous peer review


id: scholarly-peer-review-20260505-11
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review-11.md
category: reference
title: Scholarly peer review
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarly_peer_review
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:44:38.682666+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: scholarly-peer-review-20260505-0
summary:
==== Plagiarism ==== Reviewers generally lack access to raw data, but do see the full text of the manuscript, and are typically familiar with recent publications in the area. Thus, they are in a better position to detect plagiarism of prose than fraudulent data. A few cases of such textual plagiarism by historians, for instance, have been widely publicized. On the scientific side, a poll of 3,247 scientists funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health found 0.3% admitted faking data and 1.4% admitted plagiarism. Additionally, 4.7% of the same poll admitted to self-plagiarism or autoplagiarism, in which an author republishes the same material, data, or text, without citing their earlier work. Self-plagiarisms are less likely to be detected in double-blinded peer reviews. ==== Examples ==== "Perhaps the most widely recognized failure of peer review is its inability to ensure the identification of high-quality work. The list of important scientific papers that were rejected by some peer-reviewed journals goes back at least as far as the editor of Philosophical Transaction's 1796 rejection of Edward Jenner's report of the first vaccination against smallpox." The Soon and Baliunas controversy involved the publication in 2003 of a review study written by aerospace engineer


id: personoid-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personoid-0.md
category: reference
title: Personoid
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personoid
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:44:39.870655+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: personoid-20260505-0
summary:
Personoid is the concept coined by Stanisław Lem, a Polish science-fiction writer, in Non Serviam, from his book A Perfect Vacuum (1971). His personoids are an abstraction of functions of human mind and they live in computers; they do not need any human-like physical body. In cognitive and software modeling, personoid is a research approach to the development of intelligent autonomous agents. In frame of the IPK (Information, Preferences, Knowledge) architecture, it is a framework of abstract intelligent agent with a cognitive and structural intelligence. It can be seen as an essence of high intelligent entities. From the philosophical and systemics perspectives, personoid societies can also be seen as the carriers of a culture. According to N. Gessler, the personoids study can be a base for the research on artificial culture and culture evolution. == Personoids on TV and cinema == Welt am Draht (1973) The Thirteenth Floor (1999) == See also == Android Humanoid Intelligence Artificial Intelligence Culture Computer Science Cognitive Science Anticipatory science Memetics == References == Stanisław Lem's book Próżnia Doskonała (1971). The collection of book reviews of nonexistent books. Translated into English by Michael Kandel as A Perfect Vacuum (1983). Personetics. Personoids Organizations Framework: An Approach


id: pilot-experiment-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_experiment-0.md
category: reference
title: Pilot experiment
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_experiment
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:44:41.187055+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: pilot-experiment-20260505-0
summary:
A pilot experiment, pilot study, pilot test or pilot project is a small-scale preliminary study conducted to evaluate feasibility, duration, cost, adverse events, and improve upon the study design prior to performance of a full-scale research project. == Implementation == Pilot experiments are frequently carried out before large-scale quantitative research, in an attempt to avoid time and money being used on an inadequately designed project. A pilot study is usually carried out on members of the relevant population. A pilot study is used to formulate the design of the full-scale experiment which then can be adjusted. The pilot study is potentially a critical insight to clinical trial design, recruitment and sample size of participants, treatment testing, and statistical analysis to improve the power of testing the hypothesis of the study. Analysis from the pilot experiment can be added to the full-scale (and more expensive) experiment to improve the chances of a clear outcome. == Applications == In sociology, pilot studies can be referred to as small-scale studies that will help identify design issues before the main research is done. Although pilot experiments have a well-established tradition, their usefulness as a strategy for change has been questioned, at least in the


id: positivism-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism-0.md
category: reference
title: Positivism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:44:42.580777+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: positivism-20260505-0
summary:
Positivism is a philosophical school that holds that all genuine knowledge is either true by definition or positive – the latter meaning a posteriori facts derived by reason and logic from sensory experience. Other ways of knowing, such as intuition, introspection, or religious faith, are rejected or considered meaningless. Although the positivist approach has been a recurrent theme in the history of Western thought, modern positivism was first articulated in the early 19th century by Auguste Comte. His school of sociological positivism holds that society, like the physical world, operates according to scientific laws. After Comte, positivist schools arose in logic, psychology, economics, historiography, and other fields of thought. Generally, positivists attempted to introduce scientific methods to their respective fields. Since the turn of the 20th century, positivism, although still popular, has declined under criticism within the social sciences by antipositivists and critical theorists, among others, for its alleged scientism, reductionism, overgeneralizations, and methodological limitations. Positivism also exerted an unusual influence on Kardecism. == Etymology == The English noun positivism in this meaning was imported in the 19th century from the French word positivisme, derived from positif in its philosophical sense of 'imposed on the mind by experience'. The corresponding


id: positivism-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism-1.md
category: reference
title: Positivism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:44:42.580777+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: positivism-20260505-0
summary:
The most important thing to determine was the natural order in which the sciences stand—not how they can be made to stand, but how they must stand, irrespective of the wishes of any one. ... This Comte accomplished by taking as the criterion of the position of each the degree of what he called "positivity," which is simply the degree to which the phenomena can be exactly determined. This, as may be readily seen, is also a measure of their relative complexity, since the exactness of a science is in inverse proportion to its complexity. The degree of exactness or positivity is, moreover, that to which it can be subjected to mathematical demonstration, and therefore mathematics, which is not itself a concrete science, is the general gauge by which the position of every science is to be determined. Generalizing thus, Comte found that there were five great groups of phenomena of equal classificatory value but of successively decreasing positivity. To these he gave the names astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, and sociology. Comte offered an account of social evolution, proposing that society undergoes three phases in its quest for the truth according to a general "law of three stages". Comte intended


id: positivism-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism-2.md
category: reference
title: Positivism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:44:42.580777+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: positivism-20260505-0
summary:
Comte's fame today owes in part to Emile Littré, who founded The Positivist Review in 1867. As an approach to the philosophy of history, positivism was appropriated by historians such as Hippolyte Taine. Many of Comte's writings were translated into English by the Whig writer, Harriet Martineau, regarded by some as the first female sociologist. Debates continue to rage as to how much Comte appropriated from the work of his mentor, Saint-Simon. He was nevertheless influential: Brazilian thinkers turned to Comte's ideas about training a scientific elite in order to flourish in the industrialization process. Brazil's national motto, Ordem e Progresso ("Order and Progress") was taken from the positivism motto, "Love as principle, order as the basis, progress as the goal", which was also influential in Poland. In later life, Comte developed a 'religion of humanity' for positivist societies in order to fulfil the cohesive function once held by traditional worship. In 1849, he proposed a calendar reform called the 'positivist calendar'. For close associate John Stuart Mill, it was possible to distinguish between a "good Comte" (the author of the Course in Positive Philosophy) and a "bad Comte" (the author of the secular-religious system). The system was unsuccessful but


id: positivism-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism-3.md
category: reference
title: Positivism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:44:42.580777+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: positivism-20260505-0
summary:
=== Historical positivism === In historiography, historical or documentary positivism is the belief that historians should pursue the objective truth of the past by allowing historical sources to "speak for themselves", without additional interpretation. In the words of the French historian Fustel de Coulanges, as a positivist, "It is not I who am speaking, but history itself". The heavy emphasis placed by historical positivists on documentary sources led to the development of methods of source criticism, which seek to expunge bias and uncover original sources in their pristine state. The origin of the historical positivist school is particularly associated with the 19th-century German historian Leopold von Ranke, who argued that the historian should seek to describe historical truth "wie es eigentlich gewesen ist" ("as it actually was")—though subsequent historians of the concept, such as Georg Iggers, have argued that its development owed more to Ranke's followers than Ranke himself. Historical positivism was critiqued in the 20th century by historians and philosophers of history from various schools of thought, including Ernst Kantorowicz in Weimar Germany—who argued that "positivism ... faces the danger of becoming Romantic when it maintains that it is possible to find the Blue Flower of truth without preconceptions"—and


id: positivism-20260505-4
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism-4.md
category: reference
title: Positivism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:44:42.580777+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: positivism-20260505-0
summary:
== Criticism == Historically, positivism has been criticized for its reductionism, i.e., for contending that all "processes are reducible to physiological, physical or chemical events," "social processes are reducible to relationships between and actions of individuals," and that "biological organisms are reducible to physical systems." The consideration that laws in physics may not be absolute but relative, and, if so, this might be even more true of social sciences, was stated, in different terms, by G. B. Vico in 1725. Vico, in contrast to the positivist movement, asserted the superiority of the science of the human mind (the humanities, in other words), on the grounds that natural sciences tell us nothing about the inward aspects of things. Wilhelm Dilthey fought strenuously against the assumption that only explanations derived from science are valid. He reprised Vico's argument that scientific explanations do not reach the inner nature of phenomena and it is humanistic knowledge that gives us insight into thoughts, feelings and desires. Dilthey was in part influenced by the historism of Leopold von Ranke (1795–1886). The contesting views over positivism are reflected both in older debates (see the Positivism dispute) and current ones over the proper role of science in the


id: positivism-20260505-5
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism-5.md
category: reference
title: Positivism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:44:42.580777+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: positivism-20260505-0
summary:
Although Karl Marx's theory of historical materialism drew upon positivism, the Marxist tradition would also go on to influence the development of antipositivist critical theory. Critical theorist Jürgen Habermas critiqued pure instrumental rationality (in its relation to the cultural "rationalisation" of the modern West) as a form of scientism, or science "as ideology". He argued that positivism may be espoused by "technocrats" who believe in the inevitability of social progress through science and technology. New movements, such as critical realism, have emerged in order to reconcile postpositivist aims with various so-called 'postmodern' perspectives on the social acquisition of knowledge. Max Horkheimer criticized the classic formulation of positivism on two grounds. First, he claimed that it falsely represented human social action. The first criticism argued that positivism systematically failed to appreciate the extent to which the so-called social facts it yielded did not exist 'out there', in the objective world, but were themselves a product of socially and historically mediated human consciousness. Positivism ignored the role of the 'observer' in the constitution of social reality and thereby failed to consider the historical and social conditions affecting the representation of social ideas. Positivism falsely represented the object of study by reifying social


id: positivism-20260505-6
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism-6.md
category: reference
title: Positivism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:44:42.580777+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: positivism-20260505-0
summary:
== Positivism today == Echoes of the "positivist" and "antipositivist" debate persist today, though this conflict is hard to define. Authors writing in different epistemological perspectives do not phrase their disagreements in the same terms and rarely actually speak directly to each other. To complicate the issues further, few practising scholars explicitly state their epistemological commitments, and their epistemological position thus has to be guessed from other sources such as choice of methodology or theory. However, no perfect correspondence between these categories exists, and many scholars critiqued as "positivists" are actually postpositivists. One scholar has described this debate in terms of the social construction of the "other", with each side defining the other by what it is not rather than what it is, and then proceeding to attribute far greater homogeneity to their opponents than actually exists. Thus, it is better to understand this not as a debate but as two different arguments: the "antipositivist" articulation of a social meta-theory which includes a philosophical critique of scientism, and "positivist" development of a scientific research methodology for sociology with accompanying critiques of the reliability and validity of work that they see as violating such standards. Strategic positivism aims to bridge these


id: positivism-20260505-7
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism-7.md
category: reference
title: Positivism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:44:42.580777+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: positivism-20260505-0
summary:
Any sound scientific theory, whether of time or of any other concept, should in my opinion be based on the most workable philosophy of science: the positivist approach put forward by Karl Popper and others. According to this way of thinking, a scientific theory is a mathematical model that describes and codifies the observations we make. A good theory will describe a large range of phenomena on the basis of a few simple postulates and will make definite predictions that can be tested. ... If one takes the positivist position, as I do, one cannot say what time actually is. All one can do is describe what has been found to be a very good mathematical model for time and say what predictions it makes. == See also == Cliodynamics Científico Charvaka Determinism Gödel's incompleteness theorems London Positivist Society Nature versus nurture Physics envy Scientific politics Sociological naturalism The New Paul and Virginia Vladimir Solovyov == Notes == == References == Amory, Frederic. "Euclides da Cunha and Brazilian Positivism". Luso-Brazilian Review. 36 (1 (Summer 1999)): 87–94. Armenteros, Carolina. 2017. "The Counterrevolutionary Comte: Theorist of the Two Powers and Enthusiastic Medievalist." In The Anthem Companion to Auguste Comte, edited by Andrew


id: post-normal-science-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-normal_science-0.md
category: reference
title: Post-normal science
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-normal_science
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:44:43.904474+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: post-normal-science-20260505-0
summary:
Post-normal science (PNS) was developed in the 1990s by Silvio Funtowicz and Jerome R. Ravetz. It is a problem-solving strategy appropriate when "facts [are] uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent", conditions often present in policy-relevant research. In those situations, PNS recommends suspending temporarily the traditional scientific ideal of truth, concentrating on quality as assessed by internal and extended peer communities. PNS can be considered as complementing the styles of analysis based on risk and cost-benefit analysis prevailing at that time and integrating concepts of a new critical science developed in previous works by the same authors. PNS is not a new scientific method following Aristotle and Bacon, a new paradigm in the Kuhnian sense, or an attempt to reach a new 'normal'. It is instead, a set of insights to guide actionable and robust knowledge production for policy decision making and action in challenges like pandemics, ecosystems collapse, biodiversity loss and, in general, sustainability transitions. == Context == According to its proponents Silvio Funtowicz and Jerome R. Ravetz, the name "post-normal science" echoes the seminal work on modern science by Thomas Kuhn. For Carrozza PNS can be "framed in terms of a call for the 'democratization of


id: post-normal-science-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-normal_science-1.md
category: reference
title: Post-normal science
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-normal_science
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:44:43.904474+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: post-normal-science-20260505-0
summary:
== Applications == Beside its dominating influence in the literature on 'futures', PNS is considered to have influenced the ecological 'conservation versus preservation debate', especially via its reading by American pragmatist Bryan G. Norton. According to Jozef Keulartz the PNS concept of "extended peer community" influenced how Norton's developed his 'convergence hypothesis'. The hypothesis posits that ecologists of different orientation will converge once they start thinking 'as a mountain', or as a planet. For Norton this will be achieved via deliberative democracy, which will pragmatically overcome the black and white divide between conservationists and preservationists. More recently it has been argued that conservation science, embedded as it is in a multi-layered governance structures of policy-makers, practitioners, and stakeholders, is itself an 'extended peer community', and as a result conservation has always been 'post-normal'. Other authors attribute to PNS the role of having stimulated the take up of transdisciplinary methodological frameworks, reliant on the social constructivist perspective embedded in PNS. Post-normal science is intended as applicable to most instances where the use of evidence is contested due to different norms and values. Typical instances are in the use of evidence based policy and in evaluation. As summarized in a recent work


id: postnormal-times-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postnormal_times-0.md
category: reference
title: Postnormal times
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postnormal_times
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:44:45.401782+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: postnormal-times-20260505-0
summary:
Postnormal times (PNT) is a concept developed by Ziauddin Sardar as a development of post-normal science. Sardar describes the present as "postnormal times", "in an in-between period where old orthodoxies are dying, new ones have yet to be born, and very few things seem to make sense." == Context == In support of engaging communities of various scope and scale on how to best navigate PNT and imagine preferred pathways toward the future(s), Sardar and Sweeney published an article in the journal Futures outlining The Three Tomorrows method, which fills a gap in the field as "many methods of futures and foresight seldom incorporate pluralism and diversity intrinsically in their frameworks, and few, if any, emphasize the dynamic and merging nature of futures possibilities, or highlight the ignorance and uncertainties we constantly confront". == Theory and criticism == Rakesh Kapoor criticized PNT in 2011 as a Western concept that does not apply to India and other emerging markets. Sam Cole criticised the three Cs of PNT (chaos, complexity and contradictions) as "Alliterative Logic, theorizing through alliterative word-triads that is not based on empirical evidence". Jay Gary has suggested that PNT is embryonic, needs a more robust framework, and should be


id: prediction-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction-0.md
category: reference
title: Prediction
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:44:50.620904+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: prediction-20260505-0
summary:
A prediction (from Latin prae- 'before' and dictum 'something said') or forecast is a statement about a future event or about future data. Predictions are often, but not always, based upon experience or knowledge of forecasters. There is no universal agreement about the exact difference between "prediction" and "estimation"; different authors and disciplines ascribe different connotations. Future events are necessarily uncertain, so guaranteed accurate information about the future is impossible. Prediction can be useful to assist in making plans about possible developments. == Opinion == In a non-statistical sense, the term "prediction" is often used to refer to an informed guess or opinion. A prediction of this kind might be informed by a predicting person's abductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, deductive reasoning, and experience; and may be useful—if the predicting person is a knowledgeable person in the field. The Delphi method is a technique for eliciting such expert-judgement-based predictions in a controlled way. This type of prediction might be perceived as consistent with statistical techniques in the sense that, at minimum, the "data" being used is the predicting expert's cognitive experiences forming an intuitive "probability curve." == Statistics == In statistics, prediction is a part of statistical inference. One particular approach


id: prediction-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction-1.md
category: reference
title: Prediction
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:44:50.620904+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: prediction-20260505-0
summary:
In science, a prediction is a rigorous, often quantitative, statement, forecasting what would be observed under specific conditions; for example, according to theories of gravity, if an apple fell from a tree it would be seen to move towards the center of the Earth with a specified and constant acceleration. The scientific method is built on testing statements that are logical consequences of scientific theories. This is done through repeatable experiments or observational studies. A scientific theory whose predictions are contradicted by observations and evidence will be rejected. New theories that generate many new predictions can more easily be supported or falsified (see predictive power). Notions that make no testable predictions are usually considered not to be part of science (protoscience or nescience) until testable predictions can be made. Mathematical equations and models, and computer models, are frequently used to describe the past and future behaviour of a process within the boundaries of that model. In some cases the probability of an outcome, rather than a specific outcome, can be predicted, for example in much of quantum physics. In microprocessors, branch prediction permits avoidance of pipeline emptying at branch instructions. In engineering, possible failure modes are predicted and avoided by


id: prediction-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction-2.md
category: reference
title: Prediction
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:44:50.620904+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: prediction-20260505-0
summary:
== Sports == Predicting the outcome of sporting events is a business which has grown in popularity in recent years. Handicappers predict the outcome of games using a variety of mathematical formulas, simulation models or qualitative analysis. Early, well known sports bettors, such as Jimmy the Greek, were believed to have access to information that gave them an edge. Information ranged from personal issues, such as gambling or drinking to undisclosed injuries; anything that may affect the performance of a player on the field. Recent times have changed the way sports are predicted. Predictions now typically consist of two distinct approaches: Situational plays and statistical based models. Situational plays are much more difficult to measure because they usually involve the motivation of a team. Dan Gordon, noted handicapper, wrote "Without an emotional edge in a game in addition to value in a line, I won't put my money on it". These types of plays consist of: Betting on the home underdog, betting against Monday Night winners if they are a favorite next week, betting the underdog in "look ahead" games etc. As situational plays become more widely known they become less useful because they will impact the way the line


id: prediction-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction-3.md
category: reference
title: Prediction
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:44:50.620904+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: prediction-20260505-0
summary:
Predictions have often been made, from antiquity until the present, by using paranormal or supernatural means such as prophecy or by observing omens. Methods including water divining, astrology, numerology, fortune telling, interpretation of dreams, and many other forms of divination, have been used for millennia to attempt to predict the future. These means of prediction have not been proven by scientific experiments. In literature, vision and prophecy are literary devices used to present a possible timeline of future events. They can be distinguished by vision referring to what an individual sees happen. The book of Revelation, in the New Testament, thus uses vision as a literary device in this regard. It is also prophecy or prophetic literature when it is related by an individual in a sermon or other public forum. Divination is the attempt to gain insight into a question or situation by way of an occultic standardized process or ritual. It is an integral part of witchcraft and has been used in various forms for thousands of years. Diviners ascertain their interpretations of how a querent should proceed by reading signs, events, or omens, or through alleged contact with a supernatural agency, most often described as an angel


id: preference-test-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preference_test-0.md
category: reference
title: Preference test
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preference_test
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:44:51.746709+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: preference-test-20260505-0
summary:
A preference test is an experiment in which animals are allowed free access to multiple environments which differ in one or more ways. Various aspects of the animal's behaviour can be measured with respect to the alternative environments, such as latency and frequency of entry, duration of time spent, range of activities observed, or relative consumption of a goal object in the environment. These measures can be recorded either by the experimenter or by motion detecting software. Strength of preference can be inferred by the magnitude of the difference in the response, but see "Advantages and disadvantages" below. Statistical testing is used to determine whether observed differences in such measures support the conclusion that preference or aversion has occurred. Prior to testing, the animals are usually given the opportunity to explore the environments to habituate and reduce the effects of novelty. Preference tests can be used to test for preferences of only one characteristic of an environment, e.g. cage colour, or multiple characteristics e.g. a choice between hamster wheel, Habitrail tunnels or additional empty space for extended locomotion. == Types of test == === Two choices === The simplest of preference tests offers a choice between two alternatives. This can


id: principle-of-similitude-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_similitude-0.md
category: reference
title: Principle of similitude
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_similitude
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:44:52.932326+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: principle-of-similitude-20260505-0
summary:
The principle of similitude is a supplement to the scientific method advocated by John Strutt (Lord Rayleigh) (1842–1919) that requires that any suggested scientific law be examined for its relationship to similar laws. The principle of similitude is very often used in scientific studies. For example, the study of blood flow known as hemodynamics. This study sometimes require the modeling of blood vessels in vitro. Here, the principle of similitude plays a huge role in ensuring the conditions of the model reproduces all aspects of behavior as the blood vessel in study. Various techniques are implemented when applying the principle of similitude. A well known technique is dimensional analysis. == References == Lord Rayleigh (1915). "The principle of similitude". Nature. 95 (66): 591. Bibcode:1915Natur..95...66R. doi:10.1038/095066c0.


id: probabilistic-logic-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probabilistic_logic-0.md
category: reference
title: Probabilistic logic
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probabilistic_logic
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:44:54.389289+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: probabilistic-logic-20260505-0
summary:
Probabilistic logic (also probability logic and probabilistic reasoning) involves the use of probability and logic to deal with uncertain situations. Probabilistic logic extends traditional logic truth tables with probabilistic expressions. A difficulty of probabilistic logics is their tendency to multiply the computational complexities of their probabilistic and logical components. Other difficulties include the possibility of counter-intuitive results, such as in case of belief fusion in Dempster–Shafer theory. Source trust and epistemic uncertainty about the probabilities they provide, such as defined in subjective logic, are additional elements to consider. The need to deal with a broad variety of contexts and issues has led to many different proposals. == Logical background == There are numerous proposals for probabilistic logics. Very roughly, they can be categorized into two different classes: those logics that attempt to make a probabilistic extension to logical entailment, such as Markov logic networks, and those that attempt to address the problems of uncertainty and lack of evidence (evidentiary logics). That the concept of probability can have different meanings may be understood by noting that, despite the mathematization of probability in the Enlightenment, mathematical probability theory remains, to this very day, entirely unused in criminal courtrooms, when evaluating the "probability"


id: probabilistic-logic-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probabilistic_logic-1.md
category: reference
title: Probabilistic logic
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probabilistic_logic
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:44:54.389289+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: probabilistic-logic-20260505-0
summary:
The term "probabilistic logic" was first used by John von Neumann in a series of Caltech lectures 1952 and 1956 paper "Probabilistic logics and the synthesis of reliable organisms from unreliable components", and subsequently in a paper by Nils Nilsson published in 1986, where the truth values of sentences are probabilities. The proposed semantical generalization induces a probabilistic logical entailment, which reduces to ordinary logical entailment when the probabilities of all sentences are either 0 or 1. This generalization applies to any logical system for which the consistency of a finite set of sentences can be established. Gaifman and Snir have developed a globally consistent and empirically satisfactory unification of classic probability theory and first-order logic that is suitable for inductive reasoning. Their theory assigns probabilities or degrees of beliefs to sentences consistent with the knowledge base (probability 1 for facts and axioms), consistent with the standard (Kolmogorov) probability axioms and logical deduction, and allows (Bayesian) inductive reasoning and learning in the limit. Most importantly, unlike most alternative proposals, it allows confirmation of universally quantified hypotheses. The theory has also been extended to higher-order logic. Both solutions are purely theoretical but have spawned practical approximations. The central concept in the


id: progressive-contextualization-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_contextualization-0.md
category: reference
title: Progressive contextualization
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_contextualization
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:44:55.585570+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: progressive-contextualization-20260505-0
summary:
Progressive contextualization (PC) is a scientific method pioneered and developed by Andrew P. Vayda and research team between 1979 and 1984. The method was developed to help understand cause of damage and destruction of forest and land during the New Order Regime in Indonesia, as well as practical ethnography. Vayda proposed the Progressive contextualization method due to his dissatisfaction with several conventional anthropological methods to describe accurately and quickly cases of illegal logging, land destruction and the network of actor-investor protecting the actions, as well as various consequences detrimental to the environment and social life. The essence of this method is to track and assess: what the actor (actor-based) or network of certain actors (actor-based network) does in a certain location and time the series of consequences (intended or unintended) that result from what the actors and/or networks do, in a time and space that can be different from the original time and space, as long as it is in accordance with the interest of the research and the available time. Therefore, the PC method does not have to be bound to a certain research place and time pre-determined in the research design. It rejects the assumption of ecological and


id: protoscience-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoscience-0.md
category: reference
title: Protoscience
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoscience
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:44:56.796921+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: protoscience-20260505-0
summary:
In the philosophy of science, protoscience (adj. protoscientific) is a research field that has the characteristics of an undeveloped science that may ultimately develop into an established science. Philosophers use protoscience to understand the history of science and distinguish protoscience from science and pseudoscience. The word "protoscience" is a hybrid Greek-Latin compound of the roots proto- + scientia, meaning a first or primeval rational knowledge. Examples of protoscience include alchemy, Wegener's original theory of continental drift and political economy (the predecessor to the modern economic sciences). == History == Protoscience as a research field with the characteristics of an undeveloped science appeared in the early 20th century. In 1910, Jones described the field of political economy as it began the transition to the modern field of economics: I confess to a personal predilection for some term such as proto-science, pre-science, or nas-science, to give expression to what I conceive to be the true state of affairs, which I take to be this, that economics and kindred subjects are not sciences, but are on the way to become sciences. Thomas Kuhn later provided a more precise description, protoscience as a field that generates testable conclusions, faces "incessant criticism and continually strive


id: protoscience-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoscience-1.md
category: reference
title: Protoscience
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoscience
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:44:56.796921+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: protoscience-20260505-0
summary:
=== Science field === A science field is a research field that satisfies 12 conditions: 1) all components of the science field invariably change over time from research in the field, especially logical/mathematical tools and specific background/presuppositions from other fields; 2) the research community has special training, "hold strong information links", initiates or continues the "tradition of inquiry"; 3) researchers have autonomy to pursue research and receive support from the host society; 4) the researchers worldview is the real world as contains "lawfully changing concrete" objects, an adequate view of the scientific method, a vision of organized science achieving truthfull descriptions and explanations, ethical principles for conducting research, and the free search for truthful, deep and systematic understanding; 5) up-to-date logical/mathematical tools precisely determine and process information; 6) the domain of research are real objects/entities; 7) specific background knowledge is up-to-date, confirmed data, hypotheses and theories from relevant neighboring fields; 8) the set of problems investigated are from the domain of inquiry or within the research field; 9) the accumulated knowledge includes worldview-compatible, up-to-date testworthy/testable theories, hypotheses and data, and special knowledge previously accumlated in the research field; 10) the aims are find and apply laws and theories in the


id: provenance-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provenance-0.md
category: reference
title: Provenance
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provenance
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:44:58.110534+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: provenance-20260505-0
summary:
Provenance (from French provenir 'to come from/forth') is the chronology of the ownership, custody or location of a historical object. The term was originally mostly used in relation to works of art, but is now used in similar senses in a wide range of fields, including archaeology, paleontology, archival science, economy, computing, and scientific enquiry in general. The primary purpose of tracing the provenance of an object or entity is normally to provide contextual and circumstantial evidence for its original production or discovery, by establishing, as far as practicable, its later history, especially the sequences of its formal ownership, custody and places of storage. The practice has a particular value in helping authenticate objects. Comparative techniques, expert opinions and the results of scientific tests may also be used to these ends, but establishing provenance is essentially a matter of documentation. The term dates to the 1780s in English. Provenance is conceptually comparable to the legal term chain of custody. For museums and the art trade, in addition to helping establish the authorship and authenticity of an object, provenance has become increasingly important in helping establish the moral and legal validity of a chain of custody, given the increasing amount of


id: provenance-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provenance-1.md
category: reference
title: Provenance
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provenance
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:44:58.110534+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: provenance-20260505-0
summary:
The objective of provenance research is to produce a complete list of owners (together, where possible, with the supporting documentary proof) from when the painting was commissioned or in the artist's studio through to the present time. In practice, there are likely to be gaps in the list and documents that are missing or lost. The documented provenance should also list when the painting has been part of an exhibition and a bibliography of when it has been discussed, or illustrated in print. Where the research is proceeding backwards, to discover the previous provenance of a painting whose current ownership and location are known, it is important to record the physical details of the painting – style, subject, signature, materials, dimensions, frame, etc. The titles of paintings and the attribution to a particular artist may change over time. The size of the work and its description can be used to identify earlier references to the painting. The back of a painting can contain significant provenance information. There may be exhibition marks, dealer stamps, gallery labels and other indications of previous ownership. There may be shipping labels. In the BBC TV programme Fake or Fortune? the provenance of the painting Bords


id: provenance-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provenance-2.md
category: reference
title: Provenance
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provenance
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:44:58.110534+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: provenance-20260505-0
summary:
== Books == In the case of books, the study of provenance refers to the study of the ownership of individual copies of books. It is usually extended to include the study of the circumstances in which individual copies of books have changed ownership, and of evidence left in books that shows how readers interacted with them. Provenance studies may shed light on the books themselves, providing evidence of the role particular titles have played in social, intellectual and literary history. Such studies may also add to our knowledge of particular owners of books. For instance, looking at the books owned by a writer may help to show which works influenced him or her. Many provenance studies are historically focused, and concentrated on books owned by writers, politicians and public figures. The recent ownership of books is studied, however, as is evidence of how ordinary or anonymous readers have interacted with books. Provenance can be studied both by examining the books themselves, for instance looking at inscriptions, marginalia, bookplates, book rhymes, and bindings, and by reference to external sources of information such as auction catalogues. == Pianos == Provenance for pianos is authenticated before a piano is inducted into a


id: provenance-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provenance-3.md
category: reference
title: Provenance
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provenance
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:44:58.110534+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: provenance-20260505-0
summary:
Archaeology and anthropology researchers use the word provenience (or alternatively find-spot) to refer to the exact location of discovery of an artifact, a bone or other remains, a soil sample, or a feature within an ancient site, whereas the word provenance covers an object's complete documented history. Ideally, in modern excavations, the provenience is recorded in three dimensions on a site grid with great precision, and may also be recorded on video to provide additional proof and context. In older work, often undertaken by amateurs, only the general site or approximate area may be known, especially when an artifact was found outside a professional excavation and its specific position not recorded. The term provenience appeared in the 1880s, about a century after provenance. Outside of academic contexts, it has been used as a synonymous variant spelling of provenance, especially in American English. Digital analytical methods have also been applied to the reconstruction of archaeological provenience. For example, a 2025 study used high-resolution three-dimensional surface comparison to identify ancient Egyptian artefacts produced from the same mould, contributing to the reassessment of their original context. Any given antiquity may have both a provenience, where it was found, and a provenance, where it


id: provenance-20260505-4
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provenance-4.md
category: reference
title: Provenance
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provenance
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:44:58.110534+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: provenance-20260505-0
summary:
=== Computer science === Within computer science, informatics uses the term "provenance" to mean the lineage of data, as per data provenance, with research in the last decade extending the conceptual model of causality and relation to include processes that act on data and agents that are responsible for those processes. See, for example, the proceedings of the International Provenance Annotation Workshop (IPAW) and Theory and Practice of Provenance (TaPP). Semantic web standards bodies, including the World Wide Web Consortium in 2014, have ratified a standard data model for provenance representation known as PROV which draws from many of the better-known provenance representation systems that preceded it, such as the Proof Markup Language and the Open Provenance Model. Interoperability is a design goal of most recent computer science provenance theories and models, for example the Open Provenance Model (OPM) 2008 generation workshop aimed at "establishing inter-operability of systems" through information exchange agreements. Data models and serialisation formats for delivering provenance information typically reuse existing metadata models where possible to enable this. Both the OPM Vocabulary and the PROV Ontology make extensive use of metadata models such as Dublin Core and Semantic Web technologies such as the Web Ontology Language (OWL).


id: provenance-20260505-5
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provenance-5.md
category: reference
title: Provenance
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provenance
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:44:58.110534+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: provenance-20260505-0
summary:
== Computers and law == The term provenance is used when ascertaining the source of goods such as computer hardware to assess if they are genuine or counterfeit. Chain of custody is an equivalent term used in law, especially for evidence in criminal or commercial cases. Software provenance encompasses the origin of software and its licensing terms. For example, when incorporating a free, open source or proprietary software component in an application, one may wish to understand its provenance to ensure that licensing requirements are fulfilled and that other software characteristics can be understood. Data provenance covers the provenance of computerized data. There are two main aspects of data provenance: ownership of the data and data usage. Ownership will tell the user who is responsible for the source of the data, ideally including information on the originator of the data. Data usage gives details regarding how the data has been used and modified and often includes information on how to cite the data source or sources. Data provenance is of particular concern with electronic data, as data sets are often modified and copied without proper citation or acknowledgement of the originating data set. Databases make it easy to select specific


id: pseudoskepticism-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism-0.md
category: reference
title: Pseudoskepticism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:44:59.310494+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: pseudoskepticism-20260505-0
summary:
Pseudoskepticism (also spelled as pseudoscepticism) is a philosophical or scientific position that appears to be that of skepticism or scientific skepticism but in reality is a form of dogmatism. == Nineteenth and early twentieth centuries == An early use of the word was in self-denigration: on 31 August 1869, Swiss philosopher Henri-Frédéric Amiel wrote in his diary: My instinct is in harmony with the pessimism of Buddha and of Schopenhauer. It is a doubt which never leaves me, even in my moments of religious fervor. Nature is indeed for me a Maïa; and I look at her, as it were, with the eyes of an artist. My intelligence remains skeptical. What, then, do I believe in? I do not know. And what is it I hope for? It would be difficult to say. Folly! I believe in goodness, and I hope that good will prevail. Deep within this ironical and disappointed being of mine there is a child hidden — a frank, sad, simple creature, who believes in the ideal, in love, in holiness, and all heavenly superstitions. A whole millennium of idyls sleeps in my heart; I am a pseudo-skeptic, a pseudo-scoffer. It soon acquired its usual meaning where


id: pseudoskepticism-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism-1.md
category: reference
title: Pseudoskepticism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:44:59.310494+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: pseudoskepticism-20260505-0
summary:
== Subsequent usage == Susan Blackmore, who lost her initial belief in parapsychology and in 1991 became a CSICOP fellow, later described what she termed the "worst kind of pseudoskepticism": There are some members of the skeptics' groups who clearly believe they know the right answer prior to inquiry. They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, or trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves (heaven forbid!), but only in promoting their own particular belief structure and cohesion. Hugo Anthony Meynell from the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Calgary, labels the "extreme position that all significant evidence supporting paranormal phenomena is a result of deception or lies" as pseudoskepticism. While Truzzi's characterization was aimed at the holders of majority views whom he considered were excessively impatient of minority opinions, the term has been used to describe advocates of minority intellectual positions who engage in pseudoskeptical behavior when they characterize themselves as "skeptics" despite cherry picking evidence that conforms to a preexisting belief. Thus according to Richard Cameron Wilson, some advocates of AIDS denial are indulging in "bogus scepticism" when they argue in this way. Wilson argues that the characteristic feature of


id: pubpeer-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubPeer-0.md
category: reference
title: PubPeer
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubPeer
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:00.453238+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: pubpeer-20260505-0
summary:
PubPeer is a website that allows users to discuss and review scientific research after publication, i.e. post-publication peer review, established in 2012. The site has served as a whistleblowing platform, in that it highlighted shortcomings in several high-profile papers, in some cases leading to retractions and to accusations of scientific fraud, as noted by Retraction Watch. Contrary to most platforms, it allows anonymous post-publication commenting, a controversial feature which is the main factor for its success. Consequently, accusations of libel have been levelled at some of PubPeer's users; correspondingly the website has since 2016 told commentators to use only facts that can be publicly verified. Questions have been raised about the copyright ownership of PubPeer's often-anonymous contents. In 2021 a study found that "more than two-thirds of comments [on PubPeer] are posted to report some type of misconduct, mainly about image manipulation". Health sciences and life sciences were shown to have most comments, and most comments reporting publishing fraud and data manipulation. Social science and humanities disciplines in turn had fewer comments, but the highest percentage comments about critical reviews about theory and highlight methodological flaws. The research concluded that "while biochemists access the site to report misconduct... social scientists


id: quietism-philosophy-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quietism_(philosophy)-0.md
category: reference
title: Quietism (philosophy)
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quietism_(philosophy)
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:01.593491+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: quietism-philosophy-20260505-0
summary:
Quietism in philosophy sees the role of philosophy as broadly therapeutic or remedial. Quietist philosophers believe that philosophy has no positive thesis to contribute; rather, it defuses confusions in the linguistic and conceptual frameworks of other subjects, including non-quietist philosophy. For quietists, advancing knowledge or settling debates (particularly those between realists and non-realists) is not the job of philosophy, rather philosophy should liberate the mind by diagnosing confusing concepts. == Status within philosophy == Crispin Wright said that "Quietism is the view that significant metaphysical debate is impossible." It has been described as "the view or stance that entails avoidance of substantive philosophical theorizing and is usually associated with certain forms of skepticism, pragmatism, and minimalism about truth. More particularly, it is opposed to putting forth positive theses and developing constructive arguments." Quietism by its nature is not a philosophical school as understood in the sense of a systematic body of truths. The objective of quietism is to show that philosophical positions or theories cannot solve problems, settle debates or advance knowledge. It is often raised in discussion as an opposite position to both philosophical realism and anti-realism. Specifically, quietists deny that there is any substantial debate between the positions


id: replicate-biology-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicate_(biology)-0.md
category: reference
title: Replicate (biology)
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicate_(biology)
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:07.232020+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: replicate-biology-20260505-0
summary:
In the biological sciences, replicates are an experimental units that are treated identically. Replicates are an essential component of experimental design because they provide an estimate of between sample error. Without replicates, scientists are unable to assess whether observed treatment effects are due to the experimental manipulation or due to random error. There are also analytical replicates which is when an exact copy of a sample is analyzed, such as a cell, organism or molecule, using exactly the same procedure. This is done in order to check for analytical error. In the absence of this type of error replicates should yield the same result. However, analytical replicates are not independent and cannot be used in tests of the hypothesis because they are still the same sample. == See also == Self-replication Fold change == References ==


id: replication-crisis-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-0.md
category: reference
title: Replication crisis
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:08.741659+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: replication-crisis-20260505-0
summary:
The replication crisis, also known as the reproducibility or replicability crisis, refers to widespread failures to reproduce published scientific results. Because the reproducibility of empirical results is the cornerstone of the scientific method, such failures undermine the credibility of theories and challenge substantial parts of scientific knowledge. Psychology and medicine have been focal points for replication efforts, with researchers systematically reexamining classic studies to verify their reliability and, when failures emerge, to identify the underlying causes. Data strongly indicates that other natural and social sciences are also affected. The phrase "replication crisis" was coined in the early 2010s as part of a growing awareness of the problem. Considerations of causes and remedies have given rise to a new scientific discipline known as metascience, which uses methods of empirical research to examine empirical research practice. Researchers distinguish two forms of reproducibility. Reproducibility in a narrow sense refers to reexamining and validating the analysis of a set of data. The second category, replication, involves repeating an experiment or study with new, independent data to verify the original conclusions. == Background == === Replication === Replication has been called "the cornerstone of science". Environmental health scientist Stefan Schmidt began a 2009 review with


id: replication-crisis-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-1.md
category: reference
title: Replication crisis
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:08.741659+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: replication-crisis-20260505-0
summary:
A null hypothesis test is a decision procedure which takes in some data, and outputs either H 0 {\displaystyle H_{0}} or H 1 {\displaystyle H_{1}} . If it outputs H 1 {\displaystyle H_{1}} , it is usually stated as "there is a statistically significant effect" or "the null hypothesis is rejected". Often, the statistical test is a (one-sided) threshold test, which is structured as follows: Gather data D {\displaystyle D} . Compute a test statistic t [ D ] {\displaystyle t[D]} for the data. Compare the test statistic against a critical value/threshold t threshold {\displaystyle t_{\text{threshold}}} . If t [ D ] > t threshold {\displaystyle t[D]>t_{\text{threshold}}} , then output H 1 {\displaystyle H_{1}} , else, output H 0 {\displaystyle H_{0}} . A two-sided threshold test is similar, but with two thresholds, such that it outputs H 1 {\displaystyle H_{1}} if either t [ D ] < t threshold − {\displaystyle t[D]<t_{\text{threshold}}^{-}} or t [ D ] > t threshold + {\displaystyle t[D]>t_{\text{threshold}}^{+}} There are 4 possible outcomes of a null hypothesis test: false negative, true negative, false positive, true positive. A false negative means that H 0 {\displaystyle H_{0}} is true, but the test outcome is H 1 {\displaystyle


id: replication-crisis-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-2.md
category: reference
title: Replication crisis
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:08.741659+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: replication-crisis-20260505-0
summary:
Social priming failures: In the early 2010s, two direct replication attempts failed to reproduce results from social psychologist John Bargh's much-cited "elderly-walking" study (originally published in 1996). This experiment was part of a series of three studies that had been widely cited throughout the years, was regularly taught in university courses, and had inspired many conceptual replications. These replication failures triggered intense disagreement between replication researchers and the original authors. Notably, many of the conceptual replications of the original studies also failed to replicate in subsequent direct replications. Experiments on extrasensory perception: Social psychologist Daryl Bem conducted a series of experiments supposedly providing evidence for the controversial phenomenon of extrasensory perception. Bem faced substantial criticism of his study's methodology. Reanalysis of his data found no evidence for extrasensory perception. The experiment also failed to replicate in subsequent direct replications. According to Romero, what the community found particularly upsetting was that many of the flawed procedures and statistical tools used in Bem's studies were part of common research practice in psychology. Biomedical replication failures: Scientists from biotech companies Amgen and Bayer Healthcare reported alarmingly low replication rates (11–20%) of landmark findings in preclinical oncological research. P-hacking studies and questionable research practices:


id: replication-crisis-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-3.md
category: reference
title: Replication crisis
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:08.741659+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: replication-crisis-20260505-0
summary:
=== In psychology === Several factors have combined to put psychology at the center of the conversation. Some areas of psychology once considered solid, such as social priming and ego depletion, have come under increased scrutiny due to failed replications. Much of the focus has been on social psychology, although other areas of psychology such as clinical psychology, developmental psychology, and educational research have also been implicated. In August 2015, the first open empirical study of reproducibility in psychology was published, called The Reproducibility Project: Psychology. Coordinated by psychologist Brian Nosek, researchers redid 100 studies in psychological science from three high-ranking psychology journals (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, and Psychological Science). Of 97 original studies with significant effects, 36% replicated successfully (p value below 0.05), with effect sizes averaging half the original magnitude. Among non-replications, 25% directly contradicted the original while 49% were inconclusive due to underpowered designs. The same paper examined the reproducibility rates and effect sizes by journal and discipline. Study replication rates were 23% for the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48% for Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, and 38% for Psychological Science. Studies


id: replication-crisis-20260505-4
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-4.md
category: reference
title: Replication crisis
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:08.741659+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: replication-crisis-20260505-0
summary:
=== Across fields === A 2016 survey by Nature on 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility found that more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiment results (including 87% of chemists, 77% of biologists, 69% of physicists and engineers, 67% of medical researchers, 64% of earth and environmental scientists, and 62% of all others), and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. But fewer than 20% had been contacted by another researcher unable to reproduce their work. The survey found that fewer than 31% of researchers believe that failure to reproduce results means that the original result is probably wrong, although 52% agree that a significant replication crisis exists. Most researchers said they still trust the published literature. In 2010, Fanelli (2010) found that 91.5% of psychiatry/psychology studies confirmed the effects they were looking for, and concluded that the odds of this happening (a positive result) was around five times higher than in fields such as astronomy or geosciences. Fanelli argued that this is because researchers in "softer" sciences have fewer constraints to their conscious and unconscious biases. Early analysis of result-blind peer review, which is less


id: replication-crisis-20260505-5
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-5.md
category: reference
title: Replication crisis
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:08.741659+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: replication-crisis-20260505-0
summary:
Academic "publish or perish" culture exacerbates publication bias. Intense pressure to publish in recognized journals, driven by hypercompetitive environments and bibliometric career evaluations, incentivizes researchers to prioritize publishable results over validity. According to Fanelli, this pushes scientists to employ a number of strategies aimed at making results "publishable". In the context of publication bias, this can mean adopting behaviors aimed at making results positive or statistically significant, often at the expense of their validity. According to Center for Open Science founder Brian Nosek and his colleagues, "publish or perish" culture created a situation whereby the goals and values of single scientists (e.g., publishability) are not aligned with the general goals of science (e.g., pursuing scientific truth). This is detrimental to the validity of published findings. Philosopher Brian D. Earp and psychologist Jim A. C. Everett argue that, although replication is in the best interests of academics and researchers as a group, features of academic psychological culture discourage replication by individual researchers. They argue that performing replications can be time-consuming, and take away resources from projects that reflect the researcher's original thinking. They are harder to publish, largely because they are unoriginal, and even when they can be published they are


id: replication-crisis-20260505-6
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-6.md
category: reference
title: Replication crisis
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:08.741659+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: replication-crisis-20260505-0
summary:
==== In medicine ==== Irreproducible medical studies commonly share these characteristics: investigators not being blinded to the experimental versus the control arms; failure to repeat experiments; lack of positive and negative controls; failing to report all the data; inappropriate use of statistical tests; and use of reagents that were not appropriately validated. ==== In AI research ==== In machine learning research, a range of questionable practices have emerged due to intense pressure to achieve state-of-the-art benchmark results. Common evaluation questionable practices include "benchmark overfitting" by repeatedly tuning hyperparameters on held-out test sets, selectively reporting the best of multiple random seeds or experimental runs, and "metric hacking" through unreported post hoc decisions such as choice of tokenization or evaluation scripts that inflate scores. Researchers also frequently cherry-pick tasks or datasets where their proposed model outperforms baselines, omit negative or lower-performing results, and obscure compute budgets to present energy-intensive methods as efficient. Such practices can give a misleading impression of model progress and hinder fair comparisons across methods. Moreover, many machine learning studies suffer from irreproducible research practices that impede replication and auditing. Key issues include incomplete disclosure of training details—such as dataset preprocessing, exact model hyperparameters, random seeds, and hardware configurations—and


id: replication-crisis-20260505-7
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-7.md
category: reference
title: Replication crisis
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:08.741659+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: replication-crisis-20260505-0
summary:
=== Statistical issues === ==== Low statistical power ==== Low statistical power hinders replication for three reasons: (1) low-power replications have reduced ability to detect true effects, (2) low-power original studies produce biased effect size estimates leading to undersized replications, and (3) low-power original studies yield results unlikely to reflect true effects. Mathematically, the probability of replicating a previous publication that rejected a null hypothesis H 0 {\displaystyle H_{0}} in favor of an alternative H 1 {\displaystyle H_{1}} is ( significance ) P r ( H 0 | publication ) + ( power ) P r ( H 1 | publication ) ≤ ( power ) {\displaystyle ({\text{significance}})Pr(H_{0}|{\text{publication}})+({\text{power}})Pr(H_{1}|{\text{publication}})\leq ({\text{power}})} assuming significance is less than power. Thus, low power implies low probability of replication, regardless of how the previous publication was designed, and regardless of which hypothesis is really true. Stanley and colleagues estimated the average statistical power of psychological literature by analyzing data from 200 meta-analyses. They found that on average, psychology studies have between 33.1% and 36.4% statistical power. These values are quite low compared to the 80% considered adequate statistical power for an experiment. Across the 200 meta-analyses, the median of studies with adequate statistical power was between


id: replication-crisis-20260505-8
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-8.md
category: reference
title: Replication crisis
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:08.741659+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: replication-crisis-20260505-0
summary:
Various statistical methods can be applied to make the p-value appear smaller than it really is. This need not be malicious, as moderately flexible data analysis, routine in research, can increase the false-positive rate to above 60%. For example, if one collects some data, applies several different significance tests to it, and publishes only the one that happens to have a p-value less than 0.05, then the total p-value for "at least one significance test reaches p < 0.05" can be much larger than 0.05, because even if the null hypothesis were true, the probability that one out of many significance tests is extreme is not itself extreme. Typically, a statistical study has multiple steps, with several choices at each step, such as during data collection, outlier rejection, choice of test statistic, choice of one-tailed or two-tailed test, etc. These choices in the "garden of forking paths" multiply, creating many "researcher degrees of freedom". The effect is similar to the file-drawer problem, as the paths not taken are not published. Consider a simple illustration. Suppose the null hypothesis is true, and we have 20 possible significance tests to apply to the dataset. Also suppose the outcomes to the significance tests


id: replication-crisis-20260505-9
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-9.md
category: reference
title: Replication crisis
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:08.741659+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: replication-crisis-20260505-0
summary:
==== Statistical heterogeneity ==== As also reported by Stanley and colleagues, a further reason studies might fail to replicate is high heterogeneity of the to-be-replicated effects. Heterogeneity (variance in research findings due to multiple true effect sizes rather than one) is measured by the I-squared statistic, which quantifies unexplained variation in effect sizes across studies. This variation can be due to differences in experimental methods, populations, cohorts, and statistical methods between replication studies. Heterogeneity poses a challenge to studies attempting to replicate previously found effect sizes. When heterogeneity is high, subsequent replications have a high probability of finding an effect size radically different than that of the original study. Importantly, significant levels of heterogeneity are also found in direct/exact replications of a study. Stanley and colleagues discuss this while reporting a study by quantitative behavioral scientist Richard Klein and colleagues, where the authors attempted to replicate 15 psychological effects across 36 different sites in Europe and the U.S. In the study, Klein and colleagues found significant amounts of heterogeneity in 8 out of 16 effects (I-squared = 23% to 91%). Importantly, while the replication sites intentionally differed on a variety of characteristics, such differences could account for very little heterogeneity


id: replication-crisis-20260505-10
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-10.md
category: reference
title: Replication crisis
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:08.741659+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: replication-crisis-20260505-0
summary:
and the probability of replicating the statistical study is P r ( replication | find H 1 ) = P r ( find H 1 | H 1 ) P r ( H 1 | find H 1 ) + P r ( find H 1 | H 0 ) P r ( H 0 | find H 1 ) {\displaystyle Pr({\text{replication}}|{\text{ find }}H_{1})=Pr({\text{find }}H_{1}|H_{1})Pr(H_{1}|{\text{ find }}H_{1})+Pr({\text{find }}H_{1}|H_{0})Pr(H_{0}|{\text{ find }}H_{1})} which is also different from P r ( H 1 | find H 1 ) {\displaystyle Pr(H_{1}|{\text{ find }}H_{1})} . In particular, for a fixed level of significance, the probability of replication increases with power, and prior probability for H 1 {\displaystyle H_{1}} . If the prior probability for H 1 {\displaystyle H_{1}} is small, then one would require a high power for replication. For example, if the prior probability of the null hypothesis is P r ( H 0 ) = 0.9 {\displaystyle Pr(H_{0})=0.9} , and the study found a positive result, then the posterior probability for H 1 {\displaystyle H_{1}} is P r ( H 1 | find H 1 ) = 0.50 {\displaystyle Pr(H_{1}|{\text{ find }}H_{1})=0.50} , and the replication probability is P r ( replication |


id: replication-crisis-20260505-11
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-11.md
category: reference
title: Replication crisis
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:08.741659+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: replication-crisis-20260505-0
summary:
== Consequences == When effects are wrongly stated as relevant in the literature, failure to detect this by replication will lead to the canonization of such false facts. A 2021 study found that papers in leading general interest, psychology and economics journals with findings that could not be replicated tend to be cited more over time than reproducible research papers, likely because these results are surprising or interesting. The trend is not affected by publication of failed reproductions, after which only 12% of papers that cite the original research will mention the failed replication. Further, experts are able to predict which studies will be replicable, leading the authors of the 2021 study, Marta Serra-Garcia and Uri Gneezy, to conclude that experts apply lower standards to interesting results when deciding whether to publish them. === Public awareness and perceptions === Concerns have been expressed within the scientific community that the general public may consider science less credible due to failed replications. Research supporting this concern is sparse, but a nationally representative survey in Germany showed that more than 75% of Germans have not heard of replication failures in science. The study also found that most Germans have positive perceptions of replication


id: replication-crisis-20260505-12
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-12.md
category: reference
title: Replication crisis
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:08.741659+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: replication-crisis-20260505-0
summary:
In response to concerns in psychology about publication bias and data dredging, more than 140 psychology journals have adopted result-blind peer review. In this approach, studies are accepted not on the basis of their findings and after the studies are completed, but before they are conducted and on the basis of the methodological rigor of their experimental designs, and the theoretical justifications for their statistical analysis techniques before data collection or analysis is done. Early analysis of this procedure has estimated that 61% of result-blind studies have led to null results, in contrast to an estimated 5% to 20% in earlier research. In addition, large-scale collaborations between researchers working in multiple labs in different countries that regularly make their data openly available for different researchers to assess have become much more common in psychology. ==== Pre-registration of studies ==== Scientific publishing has begun using pre-registration reports to address the replication crisis. The registered report format requires authors to submit a description of the study methods and analyses prior to data collection. Once the method and analysis plan is vetted through peer-review, publication of the findings is provisionally guaranteed, based on whether the authors follow the proposed protocol. One goal of


id: replication-crisis-20260505-13
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-13.md
category: reference
title: Replication crisis
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:08.741659+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: replication-crisis-20260505-0
summary:
==== Cross-validation ==== One common statistical problem is overfitting, that is, when researchers fit a regression model over a large number of variables but a small number of data points. For example, a typical fMRI study of emotion, personality, and social cognition has fewer than 100 subjects, but each subject has 10,000 voxels. The study would fit a sparse linear regression model that uses the voxels to predict a variable of interest, such as self-reported stress. But the study would then report on the p-value of the model on the same data it was fitted to. The standard approach in statistics, where data is split into a training and a validation set, is resisted because test subjects are expensive to acquire. One possible solution is cross-validation, which allows model validation while also allowing the whole dataset to be used for model-fitting. === Replication efforts === ==== Funding ==== In July 2016, the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research made €3 million available for replication studies. The funding is for replication based on reanalysis of existing data and replication by collecting and analysing new data. Funding is available in the areas of social sciences, health research and healthcare innovation. In 2013, the


id: replication-crisis-20260505-14
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-14.md
category: reference
title: Replication crisis
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:08.741659+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: replication-crisis-20260505-0
summary:
The dominant scientific and statistical model of causation is the linear model. The linear model assumes that mental variables are stable properties which are independent of each other. In other words, these variables are not expected to influence each other. Instead, the model assumes that the variables will have an independent, linear effect on observable outcomes. Social scientists Sebastian Wallot and Damian Kelty-Stephen argue that the linear model is not always appropriate. An alternative is the complex system model which assumes that mental variables are interdependent. These variables are not assumed to be stable, rather they will interact and adapt to each specific context. They argue that the complex system model is often more appropriate in psychology, and that the use of the linear model when the complex system model is more appropriate will result in failed replications. ...psychology may be hoping for replications in the very measurements and under the very conditions where a growing body of psychological evidence explicitly discourages predicting replication. Failures to replicate may be plainly baked into the potentially incomplete, but broadly sweeping failure of human behavior to conform to the standard of independen[ce] ... ==== Replication should seek to revise theories ==== Replication is


id: reproducibility-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility-0.md
category: reference
title: Reproducibility
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:09.848006+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: reproducibility-20260505-0
summary:
Reproducibility, closely related to replicability and repeatability, is a major principle underpinning the scientific method. For the findings of a study to be reproducible means that results obtained by an experiment or an observational study or in a statistical analysis of a data set should be achieved again with a high degree of reliability when the study is replicated. There are different kinds of replication but typically replication studies involve different researchers using the same methodology. Only after one or several such successful replications should a result be recognized as scientific knowledge. == History == The first to stress the importance of reproducibility in science was the Anglo-Irish chemist Robert Boyle, in England in the 17th century. Boyle's air pump was designed to generate and study vacuum, which at the time was a very controversial concept. Indeed, distinguished philosophers such as René Descartes and Thomas Hobbes denied the very possibility of vacuum existence. Historians of science Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer, in their 1985 book Leviathan and the Air-Pump, describe the debate between Boyle and Hobbes, ostensibly over the nature of vacuum, as fundamentally an argument about how useful knowledge should be gained. Boyle, a pioneer of the experimental method,


id: reproducibility-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility-1.md
category: reference
title: Reproducibility
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:09.848006+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: reproducibility-20260505-0
summary:
=== Reproducible research method === The term reproducible research refers to the idea that scientific results should be documented in such a way that their deduction is fully transparent. This requires a detailed description of the methods used to obtain the data and making the full dataset and the code to calculate the results easily accessible. This is the essential part of open science. To make any research project computationally reproducible, general practice involves all data and files being clearly separated, labelled, and documented. All operations should be fully documented and automated as much as practicable, avoiding manual intervention where feasible. The workflow should be designed as a sequence of smaller steps that are combined so that the intermediate outputs from one step directly feed as inputs into the next step. Version control should be used as it lets the history of the project be easily reviewed and allows for the documenting and tracking of changes in a transparent manner. A basic workflow for reproducible research involves data acquisition, data processing and data analysis. Data acquisition primarily consists of obtaining primary data from a primary source such as surveys, field observations, experimental research, or obtaining data from an existing source.


id: reproducibility-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility-2.md
category: reference
title: Reproducibility
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:09.848006+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: reproducibility-20260505-0
summary:
== Noteworthy irreproducible results == Hideyo Noguchi became famous for correctly identifying the bacterial agent of syphilis, but also claimed that he could culture this agent in his laboratory. Nobody else has been able to produce this latter result. In March 1989, University of Utah chemists Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann reported the production of excess heat that could only be explained by a nuclear process ("cold fusion"). The report was astounding given the simplicity of the equipment: it was essentially an electrolysis cell containing heavy water and a palladium cathode which rapidly absorbed the deuterium produced during electrolysis. The news media reported on the experiments widely, and it was a front-page item on many newspapers around the world (see science by press conference). Over the next several months others tried to replicate the experiment, but were unsuccessful. Nikola Tesla claimed as early as 1899 to have used a high frequency current to light gas-filled lamps from over 25 miles (40 km) away without using wires. In 1904 he built Wardenclyffe Tower on Long Island to demonstrate means to send and receive power without connecting wires. The facility was never fully operational and was not completed due to economic problems,


id: reproducibility-project-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility_Project-0.md
category: reference
title: Reproducibility Project
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility_Project
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:10.989762+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: reproducibility-project-20260505-0
summary:
The Reproducibility Project is a series of crowdsourced collaborations aiming to reproduce published scientific studies, finding high rates of results which could not be replicated. It has resulted in two major initiatives focusing on the fields of psychology and cancer biology. The project has brought attention to the replication crisis, and has contributed to shifts in scientific culture and publishing practices to address it. The project was led by the Center for Open Science and its co-founder, Brian Nosek, who started the project in November 2011. == Results == Brian Nosek of University of Virginia and colleagues sought out to replicate 100 different studies, all published in 2008. The project pulled these studies from three different journals, Psychological Science, the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, and the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, published in 2008 to see if they could get the same results as the initial findings. 97 of the original studies had significant effects, but of those 97, only 36% of the replications yielded significant findings (p value below 0.05), and the effects were often smaller than those in the original papers. The authors emphasized that the findings reflect a problem that affects all


id: research-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research-0.md
category: reference
title: Research
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:12.257936+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: research-20260505-0
summary:
Research is creative and systematic work undertaken to increase the stock of knowledge. It involves the collection, organization, and analysis of evidence to increase understanding of a topic, characterized by a particular attentiveness to controlling sources of bias and error. These activities are characterized by accounting and controlling for biases. A research project may be an expansion of past work in the field. To test the validity of instruments, procedures, or experiments, research may replicate elements of prior projects or the project as a whole. The primary purposes of basic research (as opposed to applied research) are documentation, discovery, interpretation, and the research and development (R&D) of methods and systems for the advancement of human knowledge. Approaches to research depend on epistemologies, which vary considerably both within and between humanities and sciences. There are several forms of research: scientific, humanities, artistic, economic, social, business, marketing, practitioner research, life, technological, etc. The scientific study of research practices is known as meta-research. A researcher is a person who conducts research. == Etymology == The word research is derived from the Middle French "recherche", which means "to go about seeking", the term itself being derived from the Old French term "recerchier", a compound


id: research-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research-1.md
category: reference
title: Research
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:12.257936+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: research-20260505-0
summary:
=== Artistic research === Artistic research, also seen as 'practice-based research', can take form when creative works are considered both the research and the object of research itself. It is the debatable body of thought which offers an alternative to purely scientific methods in research in its search for knowledge and truth. The controversial trend of artistic teaching becoming more academics-oriented is leading to artistic research being accepted as the primary mode of enquiry in art as in the case of other disciplines. One of the characteristics of artistic research is that it must accept subjectivity as opposed to the classical scientific methods. As such, it is similar to the social sciences in using qualitative research and intersubjectivity as tools to apply measurement and critical analysis. Artistic research has been defined by the School of Dance and Circus (Dans och Cirkushögskolan, DOCH), Stockholm in the following manner – "Artistic research is to investigate and test with the purpose of gaining knowledge within and for our artistic disciplines. It is based on artistic practices, methods, and criticality. Through presented documentation, the insights gained shall be placed in a context." Artistic research aims to enhance knowledge and understanding with presentation of the


id: research-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research-2.md
category: reference
title: Research
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:12.257936+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: research-20260505-0
summary:
Identification of research problem Literature review Specifying the purpose of research Determining specific research questions Specification of a conceptual framework, sometimes including a set of hypotheses Choice of a methodology (for data collection) Data collection Verifying data Analyzing and interpreting the data Reporting and evaluating research Communicating the research findings and, possibly, recommendations The steps generally represent the overall process; however, they should be viewed as an ever-changing iterative process rather than a fixed set of steps. Most research begins with a general statement of the problem, or rather, the purpose for engaging in the study. The literature review identifies flaws or holes in previous research which provides justification for the study. Often, a literature review is conducted in a given subject area before a research question is identified. A gap in the current literature, as identified by a researcher, then engenders a research question. The research question may be parallel to the hypothesis. The hypothesis is the supposition to be tested. The researcher(s) collects data to test the hypothesis. The researcher(s) then analyzes and interprets the data via a variety of statistical methods, engaging in what is known as empirical research. The results of the data analysis in rejecting


id: research-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research-3.md
category: reference
title: Research
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:12.257936+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: research-20260505-0
summary:
Exploratory research, which helps to identify and define a problem or question. Constructive research, which tests theories and proposes solutions to a problem or question. Empirical research, which tests the feasibility of a solution using empirical evidence. There are two major types of empirical research design: qualitative research and quantitative research. Researchers choose qualitative or quantitative methods according to the nature of the research topic they want to investigate and the research questions they aim to answer: Qualitative research Qualitative research refers to much more subjective non-quantitative, use different methods of collecting data, analyzing data, interpreting data for meanings, definitions, characteristics, symbols metaphors of things. Qualitative research further classified into the following types: Ethnography: This research mainly focus on culture of group of people which includes share attributes, language, practices, structure, value, norms and material things, evaluate human lifestyle. Ethno: people, Grapho: to write, this disciple may include ethnic groups, ethno genesis, composition, resettlement and social welfare characteristics. Phenomenology: It is very powerful strategy for demonstrating methodology to health professions education as well as best suited for exploring challenging problems in health professions educations. In addition, PMP researcher Mandy Sha argued that a project management approach is necessary to control


id: research-20260505-4
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research-4.md
category: reference
title: Research
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:12.257936+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: research-20260505-0
summary:
In many disciplines, Western methods of conducting research are predominant. Researchers are overwhelmingly taught Western methods of data collection and study. The increasing participation of indigenous peoples as researchers has brought increased attention to the scientific lacuna in culturally sensitive methods of data collection. Western methods of data collection may not be the most accurate or relevant for research on non-Western societies. For example, "Hua Oranga" was created as a criterion for psychological evaluation in Māori populations, and is based on dimensions of mental health important to the Māori people – "taha wairua (the spiritual dimension), taha hinengaro (the mental dimension), taha tinana (the physical dimension), and taha whanau (the family dimension)". Even though Western dominance seems to be prominent in research, some scholars, such as Simon Marginson, argue for "the need [for] a plural university world". Marginson argues that the East Asian Confucian model could take over the Western model. This could be due to changes in funding for research both in the East and the West. Focused on emphasizing educational achievement, East Asian cultures, mainly in China and South Korea, have encouraged the increase of funding for research expansion. In contrast, in the Western academic world, notably in


id: research-20260505-5
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research-5.md
category: reference
title: Research
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:12.257936+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: research-20260505-0
summary:
Academic publishing is a system that is necessary for academic scholars to peer review the work and make it available for a wider audience. The system varies widely by field and is also always changing, if often slowly. Most academic work is published in journal article or book form. There is also a large body of research that exists in either a thesis or dissertation form. These forms of research can be found in databases explicitly for theses and dissertations. In publishing, STM publishing is an abbreviation for academic publications in science, technology, and medicine. Most established academic fields have their own scientific journals and other outlets for publication, though many academic journals are somewhat interdisciplinary, and publish work from several distinct fields or subfields. The kinds of publications that are accepted as contributions of knowledge or research vary greatly between fields, from the print to the electronic format. A study suggests that researchers should not give great consideration to findings that are not replicated frequently. It has also been suggested that all published studies should be subjected to some measure for assessing the validity or reliability of its procedures to prevent the publication of unproven findings. Business models are


id: research-ethics-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_ethics-0.md
category: reference
title: Research ethics
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_ethics
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:13.584991+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: research-ethics-20260505-0
summary:
Research ethics is a discipline within the study of applied ethics. Its scope ranges from general scientific integrity and misconduct to the treatment of human and animal subjects. The social responsibilities of scientists and researchers are not traditionally included and are less well defined. The discipline is most developed in medical research. Beyond the issues of falsification, fabrication, and plagiarism that arise in every scientific field, research design in human subject research and animal testing are the areas that raise ethical questions most often. The list of historic cases includes many large-scale violations and crimes against humanity such as Nazi human experimentation and the Tuskegee syphilis experiment which led to international codes of research ethics. No approach has been universally accepted, but typically cited codes are the 1947 Nuremberg Code, the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki, and the 1978 Belmont Report. Today, research ethics committees, such as those of the US, UK, and EU, govern and oversee the responsible conduct of research. One major goal being to reduce questionable research practices. Research in other fields such as social sciences, information technology, biotechnology, or engineering may generate ethical concerns. == History == The list of historic cases includes many large scale violations


id: research-transparency-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_transparency-0.md
category: reference
title: Research transparency
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_transparency
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:14.744472+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: research-transparency-20260505-0
summary:
Research transparency is a major aspect of scientific research. It covers a variety of scientific principles and practices: reproducibility, data and code sharing, citation standards or verifiability. The definitions and norms of research transparency significantly differ depending on the disciplines and fields of research. Due to the lack of consistent terminology, research transparency has frequently been defined negatively by addressing non-transparent usages (which are part of questionable research practices). After 2010, recurrent issues of research methodology have been increasingly acknowledged as structural crisis, that involve deep changes at all stages of the research process. Transparency has become a key value of the open science movement, which evolved from an initial focus on publishing to encompass a large diversity of research outputs. New common standards for research transparency, like the TOP Guidelines, aims to build and strengthen open research culture across disciplines and epistemic cultures. == Definitions == === Confused terminologies === There is no widespread consensus on the definition of research transparency. Differences between disciplines and epistemic cultures has largely contributed to different acceptions. The reproduction of past research has been a leading source of dissent. In an experimental setting, reproduction relies on the same set-up and apparatus, while replication


id: research-transparency-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_transparency-1.md
category: reference
title: Research transparency
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_transparency
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:14.744472+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: research-transparency-20260505-0
summary:
=== A new dimension of open science? === Transparency has been increasingly acknowledged as an important component of open science. Until the 2010s, definitions of open science have been mostly focused on technical access and enhanced participation and collaboration between academics and non-academics. In 2016, Liz Lyon identified transparency as a "third dimension" of open science, due to the fact that "the concept of transparency and the associated term 'reproducibility', have become increasingly important in the current interdisciplinary research environment." According to Kevin Elliott, the open science movement "encompasses a number of different initiatives aimed at somewhat different forms of transparency." First drafted in 2014, the TOP guidelines have significantly contributed to bring transparency on the agenda of the open science movements. They aim to promote an "open research culture" and implement "strong incentives to be more transparent". They rely on eight standards, with different levels of compliance. While the standards are modular, they also aim to articulate a consistent ethos of science as "they also complement each other, in that commitment to one standard may facilitate adoption of others.". This open science framework of transparency has been in turn coopted by leading contributors and institutions on the topic of


id: research-transparency-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_transparency-2.md
category: reference
title: Research transparency
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_transparency
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:14.744472+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: research-transparency-20260505-0
summary:
=== Preconditions of the transparency crisis (1945–2000) === The development of big science after the Second World War has created unprecedented challenges for research transparency. The generalization of statistical methods across a large number of fields, as well as the increasing breadth and complexity of research projects, entailed a series of concerns about the lack of proper documentation of the scientific process. Due to the expansion of the published research output, new quantitative methods for literature surveys have been developed under the label of meta-analysis or meta-science. These rely on the assumption that quantitative results and the details of the experimental and observational framework are sound (such as the size or the composition of the sample). In 1966, Stanley Schor and Irving Karten published one of the first generic evaluation of statistical methods in 67 leading medical journals. While few outright problematic papers were found, "in almost 73% of the reports read (those needing revision and those which should have been rejected), conclusions were drawn when the justification for these conclusions was invalid" In the 1970s and the 1980s, scientific misconducts gradually ceased to be presented as individual misconducts and became collective problems that need to be addressed by scientific


id: research-transparency-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_transparency-3.md
category: reference
title: Research transparency
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_transparency
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:14.744472+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: research-transparency-20260505-0
summary:
=== Research transparency and open science (2015–) === Since 2000, the open science movement has expanded beyond access to scientific outputs (publication, data or software) to encompass the entire process of scientific production. In 2018, Vicente-Saez and Martinez-Fuentes have attempted to map the common values shared by the standard definitions of open science in the English-speaking scientific literature indexed on Scopus and the Web of Science. Access is no longer the main dimension of open science, as it has been extended by more recent commitments toward transparency, collaborative work and social impact. Through this process, open science has been increasingly structured over a consisting set of ethical principles: "novel open science practices have developed in tandem with novel organising forms of conducting and sharing research through open repositories, open physical labs, and transdisciplinary research platforms. Together, these novel practices and organising forms are expanding the ethos of science at universities." The global scale of the open science movement and its integration in a large variety of technical tools, standards and regulations makes it possible to overcome the "classic collective action problem" embodied by research transparency: there is a structural discrepancy between the stated objective of scientific institutions and the lack


id: research-transparency-20260505-4
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_transparency-4.md
category: reference
title: Research transparency
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_transparency
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:14.744472+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: research-transparency-20260505-0
summary:
==== Result reproducibility ==== Goodman, Fanelli and Ioannidis define result reproducibility as "obtaining the same results from the conduct of an independent study whose procedures are as closely matched". Result reproducibility is comparable to replication in an experimental context and reproducibility in a computational context. The definition of replicability retained in the National Academies of Science, largely applies to it: "obtaining consistent results across studies aimed at answering the same scientific question, each of which has obtained its own data.". The reproducibility crisis met in experimental disciplines like psychology or medicine is mostly a crisis of "result reproducibility", since it concerns research that cannot been simply re-executed, but involve the independent recreation of the experimental design. As such it is arguably the most debated form of research transparency in the recent years. Result reproducibility is harder to achieve than other forms of research transparency. It involve a variety of issues that may include computational reproducibility, accuracy of scientific measurement and diversity of methodological approaches. There are no universal standard to determine how close are the original procedures matched and criterium may vary depending on the disciplines or, even on the field of research. Consequently, meta-analysis of reproducibility have faced significant


id: research-transparency-20260505-5
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_transparency-5.md
category: reference
title: Research transparency
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research_transparency
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:14.744472+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: research-transparency-20260505-0
summary:
=== Sharing of research outputs === Data sharing has been early on identified as major potential solution to the reproducibility crisis and the lack of solid guidelines for statistical indicators. In 2005, John Ioannidis hypothesized that "some kind of registration or networking of data collections or investigators within fields may be more feasible than registration of each and every hypothesis-generating experiment." The sharing of research outputs is covered by three standards of the TOPs guidelines: on Data transparency (2), Analytic/code methods transparency (3) and Research materials transparency (4). All the relevant data, code and research materials are to be stored on a "trusted repository" and all analysis being already reproduced independently prior to publication. === Extended citation standards === While citation standards are commonly applied to academic reference, there is much less formalization for all the other research output, such as data, code, primary sources or qualitative assessments. In 2012, the American Political Science Association adopted new policies for open qualitative research. They covered three dimensions of transparency: data transparency (in the sense of precise bibliographic data to the original sources), analytic transparency (in regards to claims extrapolated from the cited sources) and production transparency (in reference to the editorial


id: retrodiction-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrodiction-0.md
category: reference
title: Retrodiction
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrodiction
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:16.005780+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: retrodiction-20260505-0
summary:
Retrodiction is the act of making a prediction about the past. It is also known as postdiction (but this should not be confused with the use of the term in criticisms of parapsychological research). == Activity == The activity of retrodiction (or postdiction) involves moving backwards in time, step-by-step, in as many stages as are considered necessary, from the present into the speculated past to establish the ultimate cause of a specific event (for instance, in the case of reverse engineering, forensics, etc.). Given that retrodiction is a process in which "past observations, events and data are used as evidence to infer the process(es) that produced them" and that diagnosis "involve[s] going from visible effects such as symptoms, signs and the like to their prior causes", the essential balance between prediction and retrodiction could be characterized as: retrodiction : diagnosis :: prediction : prognosis regardless of whether the prognosis is of the course of the disease in the absence of treatment, or of the application of a specific treatment regimen to a specific disorder in a particular patient: "We consider diagnostic inference to be based on causal thinking, although in doing diagnosis one has to mentally reverse the time order


id: role-of-chance-in-scientific-discoveries-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_chance_in_scientific_discoveries-0.md
category: reference
title: Role of chance in scientific discoveries
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role_of_chance_in_scientific_discoveries
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:17.281687+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: role-of-chance-in-scientific-discoveries-20260505-0
summary:
The role of chance, or "luck", in science comprises all ways in which unexpected discoveries are made. Many domains, especially psychology, are concerned with the way science interacts with chance –particularly "serendipity" (accidents that, through sagacity, are transformed into opportunity). Psychologist Kevin Dunbar and colleagues estimate that between 30% and 50% of all scientific discoveries are accidental in some sense (see examples below). Scientists themselves in the 19th and 20th century acknowledged the role of fortunate luck or serendipity in discoveries. Psychologist Alan A. Baumeister says a scientist must be "sagacious" (attentive and clever) to benefit from an accident. Dunbar quotes Louis Pasteur's saying that "Chance favors only the prepared mind". The prepared mind, Dunbar suggests, is one trained for observational rigor. Dunbar adds that there is a great deal of writing about the role that serendipity ("happy accidents") plays in the scientific method. Research suggests that scientists are taught various heuristics and practices that allow their investigations to benefit, and not suffer, from accidents. First, careful control conditions allow scientists to properly identify something as "unexpected". Once a finding is recognized as legitimately unexpected and in need of explaining, researchers can attempt to explain it: They work across various


id: royal-commission-on-animal-magnetism-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-0.md
category: reference
title: Royal Commission on Animal Magnetism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:20.529918+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: royal-commission-on-animal-magnetism-20260505-0
summary:
The Royal Commission on Animal Magnetism involved two entirely separate and independent French Royal Commissions, each appointed by Louis XVI in 1784, that were conducted simultaneously by a committee composed of four physicians from the Paris Faculty of Medicine (Faculté de médecine de Paris) and five scientists from the Royal Academy of Sciences (Académie des sciences) (the "Franklin Commission", named for Benjamin Franklin), and a second committee composed of five physicians from the Royal Society of Medicine (Société Royale de Médecine) (the "Society Commission"). Each Commission took five months to complete its investigations. The "Franklin" Report was presented to the King on 11 August 1784 – and was immediately published and very widely circulated throughout France and neighbouring countries – and the "Society" Report was presented to the King five days later on 16 August 1784. The "Franklin Commission's" investigations are notable as a very early "classic" example of a systematic controlled trial, which not only applied "sham" and "genuine" procedures to patients with "sham" and "genuine" disorders, but, significantly, was the first to use the "blindfolding" of both the investigators and their subjects. The report of the ["Franklin"] Royal Commission of 1784 ... is a masterpiece of its genre,


id: royal-commission-on-animal-magnetism-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-1.md
category: reference
title: Royal Commission on Animal Magnetism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:20.529918+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: royal-commission-on-animal-magnetism-20260505-0
summary:
From the perspective of a given phenomenon, one can look down to the entities and activities composing it. One can look up to the higher-level mechanisms of which it is a component. One can look back to the mechanisms that come before it or by which it developed. One can look forward to what comes after it. [And, finally] one can look around to see the wider context with which it operates. === Tensions within the royal family === Prior to his arrival in Paris in 1777 – with a letter of recommendation from Chancellor von Kaunitz of the Habsburg monarchy to the Austrian Ambassador to France, the Comte de Mercy-Argenteau (who, in turn, introduced Mesmer to Jean-Baptiste Le Roy (1720–1800), the Director of the Academy of Sciences) – Mesmer was already known to Marie Antoinette. At the urging of her two closest friends, Marie-Paule Angélique d’Albert de Luynes (1744–1781), "the Duchesse de Chaulnes" and Marie Thérèse Louise de Savoie-Carignan (1749–1792), "the Princess of Lamballe", both of whom "had benefited from Mesmer's treatment", Marie Antoinette had been able to arrange for both Mesmer and d'Eslon to be officially "interviewed" by (an otherwise unidentified) representative of the King on 14 March


id: royal-commission-on-animal-magnetism-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-2.md
category: reference
title: Royal Commission on Animal Magnetism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:20.529918+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: royal-commission-on-animal-magnetism-20260505-0
summary:
=== Scientific issues === In a prevailing atmosphere of "[an overall] redefinition of frontiers in the legitimacy of knowledge" – and, in relation to Mesmer's claims, a redefinition "which did not necessarily match the public popularity that they attracted" (Zanetti, 2018), p. 59) – the issue of the existence (or not) of a substantial "magnetic fluid" and/or "animal magnetism" required resolution. === Medical issues === At a time when, in relation to "healers and healing", the conglomerate of "physicians, empirics, surgeons, apothecaries, folk healers, and religious personalities all vied with each other (as well as worked together) for medical legitimacy and patients" (Broomhall, 2004, p. 5), Mesmer was not only a "foreign national", but also one that had no affiliation of any kind with any known professional medical association within France (or elsewhere in Europe); and, as a consequence, his professional conduct, his medical practice, his medico-commercial enterprises, and his therapeutic endeavours were not regulated in any way. Moreover, the efficacy of Mesmer's interventions had never been objectively tested, neither the agency nor the (pre- and post-intervention) veracity of his supposed "cures" had ever been objectively verified, and, finally, in relation to the presenting conditions of those with (supposedly) 'real'


id: royal-commission-on-animal-magnetism-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-3.md
category: reference
title: Royal Commission on Animal Magnetism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:20.529918+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: royal-commission-on-animal-magnetism-20260505-0
summary:
The second of the two Royal Commissions, usually referred to as the "Society Commission", was appointed on 5 April 1784. It was composed of five eminent physicians from the Royal Society of Medicine – the physician and one of the first members of the Royal Society, Charles-Louis-François Andry (1741–1829), the physician Claude-Antoine Caille (b. 1743), the botanist Antoine Laurent de Jussieu (1748–1836), the physician, Collège de France professor, one of the original directors of the Royal Society, and committed advocate of the therapeutic applications of electricity, Pierre Jean Claude Mauduyt de La Varenne (1732–1792), and the physician and Professor of chemistry in the Collège de France, Pierre-Isaac Poissonnier (1720–1798) – and, as Pattie remarks (1994, p. 156), "the impression given by [their] report is that the commissioners were busy practitioners who wanted to devote no more time to the project than was necessary". Although the investigations of the "Society Commission" were less thorough and less detailed than those of the "Franklin Commission" they were essentially of the same nature, and it is a matter of fact that neither Commission examined Mesmer's practices – they only examined the practices of d'Eslon. == Franz Mesmer == Franz Anton Mesmer (1734–1815), born in


id: royal-commission-on-animal-magnetism-20260505-4
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-4.md
category: reference
title: Royal Commission on Animal Magnetism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:20.529918+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: royal-commission-on-animal-magnetism-20260505-0
summary:
=== A concept that must not be reified === It is clear from his Mémoire (1799) that Mesmer was very aware of the human propensity – in the normal, conventional use of language (la langue de convention) – to speak of "properties" or "qualities" (i.e., these "metaphysical abstractions", illusions de la méthaphysique), as if they were "substances": in Mesmer's words, "substantivise the properties", substantisia les propriétés (Mesmer 1799, pp. 15–17). – in other words, "reification", in the manner of Whitehead's "fallacy of misplaced concreteness". Mesmer was also well aware of the extent to which, through the "distortion" caused by these "substantive words" (mot substantif) – which inappropriately "personified" (personnifia) these metaphysical abstractions (p. 16) – one is induced to believe in the actual physical existence of the "substance" itself. Given these observations, Mesmer was most emphatic in his continuous warnings that his abstract "principles" should not be "substantivised". It is significant that Mesmer (1799) describes how, once he had formulated the abstract, overarching (metaphorical) construct/concept of "animal magnetism" as the therapeutic agent (a quarter of a century earlier) – and with his hope that this newly described "principle of action" (principe de action), when considered as an agent, "could become


id: royal-commission-on-animal-magnetism-20260505-5
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-5.md
category: reference
title: Royal Commission on Animal Magnetism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:20.529918+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: royal-commission-on-animal-magnetism-20260505-0
summary:
=== Post-Mesmer === In late 1782, and eighteen months before the Royal Commission, d'Eslon had (acrimoniously) parted ways with Mesmer; and, despite a brief reconciliation, the relationship was terminated in late 1783. On 28 December 1783, d'Eslon wrote a letter to the Journal de Paris, which not only described the difficulties he had experienced with Mesmer, but also announced that he was opening his own (entirely independent) clinic. Following his break with Mesmer, d'Eslon not only launched his own clinical operation on his break with Mesmer, d'Eslon took all of the patients he had brought to Mesmer with him – but also began teaching his own theories and practices (i.e., rather than those of Mesmer). According to d'Eslon's own account (d'Eslon, 1784b, pp. 25–26), Mesmer had taught 300 students, 160 of whom were medical men (médecins), and d'Eslon himself had taught 160 medical men (this group included 21 members of the Paris Faculty of Medicine). Given that many of those who had privately paid Mesmer for the details of "the secret" were greatly dissatisfied, and had "[justifiably] accused [Mesmer] of having enunciated a theory which was merely a collection of obscure principles" (Binet & Féré, 1888, p. 13), it seems


id: royal-commission-on-animal-magnetism-20260505-6
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-6.md
category: reference
title: Royal Commission on Animal Magnetism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:20.529918+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: royal-commission-on-animal-magnetism-20260505-0
summary:
[The baquet] is a vat about six to seven feet, more or less, in diameter by eighteen inches in height. There is a double bottom in the interior of this vat, in which fragments of broken bottles, gravel, stones, and sticks of pounded sulfur and iron filings are placed. All of this is filled with water and covered up with a floor nailed into the vat. On the surface of the lid, six inches in from the rim, one makes various holes in order to allow the passage of iron rods which are arranged so that one end penetrates the bottom of the vat and the other is directed, by means of a curve, over the pit of the stomach of the patient or other affected parts of the body. Mesmer specifically stressed the primary importance of the patients' hand-holding as a factor in the "augmentation" of the force/quality of the power of the "animal magnetism". Moreover, and significantly, Mesmer (separately) acknowledged that, if it was ever to come to pass that he had a suitable "establishment" – i.e., one with sufficient space available for all the assembled patients to hold hands – he would "abolish the use of baquets"


id: royal-commission-on-animal-magnetism-20260505-7
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-7.md
category: reference
title: Royal Commission on Animal Magnetism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:20.529918+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: royal-commission-on-animal-magnetism-20260505-0
summary:
In his response to the Reports (d'Eslon, 1784b, pp. 21–22), d'Eslon complained that the Commissioners' emphasis on "convulsions" was not justified: among those who received group treatment during the commission's investigations (i.e., involving "50 to 60 individuals"), he wrote, there were never more than six or seven who displayed "convulsions" to any degree – and, further, of the more than 500 patients he had treated over the preceding three years, only 20 of those had manifested "convulsions" (and almost all of those had been suffering from "convulsions" before presenting for any treatment from d'Eslon). He also rejected the suggestions of any connection between the "convulsions" of epilepsy and those of the "crises", citing the cases of two of his patients, who were epileptic and "frequently had seizures at home", who never had a single "attack" during their treatment at his clinic (p. 23). Joseph Michel Antoine Servan, the one time Advocate-General to the Parlement of Grenoble, who reported (at Servan, 1784, p. 3) that, in "the Provinces" – where the various social classes were not kept apart around "the baquet", as they were in Paris – that, in relation to the concerns that the Commissioners expressed in relation to the


id: royal-commission-on-animal-magnetism-20260505-8
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-8.md
category: reference
title: Royal Commission on Animal Magnetism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:20.529918+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: royal-commission-on-animal-magnetism-20260505-0
summary:
=== The substantial existence of "animal magnetism" and "magnetic fluid" were investigated === Rather than being concerned with the applications, utility, and clinical efficacy of d'Eslon's "animal magnetism", the primary concern of each Commission was the significant, crucial, and exclusive question of whether or not d'Eslon's (supposed) "animal magnetic fluid" actually existed in some substantial physical way – for the simple reason that, as the two sets of Commissioners each noted in their independent reports, "Animal magnetism may well exist without being useful but it cannot be useful if it does not exist." === Mesmer's earlier refusal to have his "magnetic" interventions scrutinized === Already, in his earlier (18 September 1780) interaction with the Paris Faculty of Medicine, Mesmer had refused to have his therapeutic interventions on a set of entirely "new" patients directly scrutinized, claiming that his already-achieved "cures" were an objective matter of record. Mesmer justified his refusal as follows: Here is what I said to M. de Lassonne; however bizarre [it may seem] at first sight it is nevertheless entirely serious and very much applicable to the question. When a thief is convicted of theft he is hanged: when a murderer is convicted of murder he is


id: royal-commission-on-animal-magnetism-20260505-9
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-9.md
category: reference
title: Royal Commission on Animal Magnetism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:20.529918+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: royal-commission-on-animal-magnetism-20260505-0
summary:
it was [their] duty ... to confine themselves to arguments purely physical, that is, to the momentaneous [sic] effects of the fluid upon the animal frame, excluding from these effects all the illusions which might mix with them, and assuring themselves that they could proceed from no other cause than the animal magnetism." === Problems with objectively determining the precise therapeutic action of any supposed "efficacious remedy" === In support of its decision, the "Franklin Commission" produced a cogent, extended argument, consistent with the medical knowledge of the day, that is equally relevant to similar investigations in the present day: The majority of diseases have their seat in the interior part of our frame. The collective experience of a great number of centuries has made us acquainted with the symptoms, which indicate and discriminate them; the same experience has taught the method in which they are to be treated. What is the object of the efforts of the physician in this method? It is not to oppose and to subdue nature, it is to assist her in her operations. Nature, says the father of the medical science [viz., Hippocrates], cures the diseased; but sometimes she encounters obstacles, which constrain her


id: royal-commission-on-animal-magnetism-20260505-10
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-10.md
category: reference
title: Royal Commission on Animal Magnetism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:20.529918+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: royal-commission-on-animal-magnetism-20260505-0
summary:
They saw in the centre of a large apartment a circular box, made of oak, and about a foot or a foot and an [sic] half deep, which is called the bucket [baquet]; the lid of this box is pierced with a number of holes, in which are inserted branches of iron, elbowed and moveable. The patients are arranged in ranks about this [baquet], and each has his branch of iron, which by means of the elbow may be applied immediately to the part affected; a cord passed round their bodies connects them one with the other: sometimes a second means of communication is introduced, by the insertion of the thumb of each patient between the forefinger and thumb of the patient next him; the thumb thus inserted is pressed by the person holding it; the impression received by the left hand of the patient, communicates through his right, and thus passes through the whole circle.A piano forté is placed in one corner of the apartment, and different airs are played with various degrees of rapidity; vocal music is sometimes added to the instrumental.The persons who superintend the process, have each of them an iron rod in his hand, from


id: royal-commission-on-animal-magnetism-20260505-11
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-11.md
category: reference
title: Royal Commission on Animal Magnetism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:20.529918+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: royal-commission-on-animal-magnetism-20260505-0
summary:
==== Immediate publication and dissemination ==== The report was immediately published by the government printer; and at least 20,000 copies were rapidly and very widely circulated throughout France and neighbouring countries. Within four months (16 December 1784), the London publishing house of Joseph Johnson was announcing the publication of a complete English version, translated by William Godwin (i.e., Godwin, 1785), and, in between February and July 1785, four different "periodical abridgements of the Franklin report, each printed multiple times in the Atlantic coast publications" were published in the United States (Ogden, 2012, p. 167); and, in 1837, Godwin's complete translation was published, in Philadelphia, as part of a collected work. ==== Touch, imagination, and imitation ==== Clearly "recogniz[ing] that publicly endorsing the curative effects of a technique that had no demonstrable basis in the science of the late 18th century could lead to a proliferation of medical quackery" (McConkey & Perry, 2002, p. 328) and, based on their own "experiments" and "observations", the Commissioners concluded that "the true causes of the effects attributed to this new agent known by the name of animal magnetism, [and] to this fluid which is said to circulate in the body and to communicate itself


id: royal-commission-on-animal-magnetism-20260505-12
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-12.md
category: reference
title: Royal Commission on Animal Magnetism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:20.529918+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: royal-commission-on-animal-magnetism-20260505-0
summary:
On 4 September 1784, Bailly presented a third, brief (15 page) courtesy report to the Royal Academy of Sciences (Bailly, 1784b) on behalf of himself, Franklin, Le Roy, de Bory, and Lavoisier (i.e., those Commissioners who were also Academy members), which provided their Academy colleagues with a brief account of the commission's proceedings, the rationale behind its investigations, and the results. Noting that all of their investigations were jointly conducted with the four members of the Paris Faculty, and that all nine shared the same "interest in [discovering] the truth", they stressed that all the findings of their combined efforts were unanimous (p. 2). ==== The importance of "the Sciences" ==== Further (p. 4), given that the understanding of the Sciences – "which [collectively] are increased by [establishing] the truth" (qui s'accroissent par les vérités) – is increased by "the suppression of error": i.e., given that "error" is always "a bad leaven that ferments and, in the long run, corrupts the mass into which it has been introduced". By contrast, however, in those cases wherein the "error" has been generated by "The Empire of Science", and has spread to "the multitude" – not only to divide and agitate minds, but


id: royal-commission-on-animal-magnetism-20260505-13
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-13.md
category: reference
title: Royal Commission on Animal Magnetism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:20.529918+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: royal-commission-on-animal-magnetism-20260505-0
summary:
Part One (pp. 2–21), discussing the theories of the practices known as "Animal Magnetism". It commences with d'Eslon's definition of "animal magnetism"; namely that it is "the action which one man exercises on another, either through immediate contact or at a certain distance by the mere pointing of a finger or any kind of conduct", and that "this action", according to d'Eslon, "is the effect of a fluid that is distributed throughout the universe" Part Two (pp. 22–37), discussing the procedures and practices of "Animal Magnetism", as well as addressing the issues of their therapeutic efficacy (or not), and those of whether (or not) the procedures/practices should be admitted to conventional medical practice ("doivent-ils être admis en Médecine!": p. 22). The conclusions drawn (pp. 37–39) were, in brief, that they had found no evidence of d'Eslon's "magnetic fluid", that there were "no grounds for any belief in animal magnetism", that "the effects attributed to it are due to known causes", including not only the influence of "contact", "imagination", and/or "imitation", but also the influence of "the environment of the treatment room with its closed windows, fetid air, dim light, and the sight of other patients [and their responses to their


id: royal-commission-on-animal-magnetism-20260505-14
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-14.md
category: reference
title: Royal Commission on Animal Magnetism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:20.529918+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: royal-commission-on-animal-magnetism-20260505-0
summary:
=== Response of the Paris Faculty of Medicine === Immediately following the release of the reports of the two Commissions, the Paris Faculty of Medicine "pressure[d] its own members to renounce animal magnetism" (Crabtree, 1993, p. 32). The Faculty identified some thirty of its docteurs-régent, including François Louis Thomas d'Onglée and Charles-Louis Varnier, who "openly favored animal magnetism or were suspected of so doing". According to the contemporary account of Thomas d'Onglée (1785, passim), the thirty "magnetic physicians" were subjected to "abuse" and were presented with a declaration, of which it was demanded that they sign. Both Thomas d'Onglée and Varnier, among others, refused to sign the declaration (and were, thereby, immediately expelled). The declaration in question read: No Doctor may declare himself a partisan of animal magnetism, through writings or through practice, under penalty of being removed from the role of docteurs-régents. === D'Eslon's response === D'Eslon immediately published an attack on the commission's reports, in which he criticized their failure to investigate the longer-term effects of his treatments, and their refusal to accept his (alleged) "cures" as proof of the existence of "animal magnetism", as well as noting that, "the commissioners' recommendation that the practice of magnetism should


id: royal-commission-on-animal-magnetism-20260505-15
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-15.md
category: reference
title: Royal Commission on Animal Magnetism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:20.529918+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: royal-commission-on-animal-magnetism-20260505-0
summary:
The "classic" structure of the investigations undertaken by the "Franklin" Commission inspired – among many others over the ensuing years – the (1799) investigations of Chester physician John Haygarth (1740–1827) into the efficacy of Perkins' "tractors". In the process of discussing the experiments he had conducted (with medical colleagues as witnesses) with (dummy) "wooden tractors" on 7 January 1799, and with Perkins' "true metallick tractors" on 8 January 1799, Haygarth emphasized his considerable debt to the (earlier) "Franklin Commission" enterprise: It need not be remarked, how completely the trial illustrates the nature of this popular illusion, which has so wonderfully prevailed, and spread so rapidly; it resembles, in a striking manner, that of Animal Magnetism, which merited the attention of Dr. Franklin, when ambassador from America, and of other philosophers at Paris. If any person would repeat these experiments, they should be performed with due solemnity. During the process, the wonderful cures which this remedy is said to have performed ought to be particularly related. Without these indispensable aids, other trials will not prove as successful as those which are above reported. The whole effect undoubtedly depends upon the impression which can be made upon the patient's Imagination. This method


id: royal-commission-on-animal-magnetism-20260505-16
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism-16.md
category: reference
title: Royal Commission on Animal Magnetism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_on_Animal_Magnetism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:45:20.529918+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: royal-commission-on-animal-magnetism-20260505-0
summary:
The noted neurologist and psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud not only studied and wrote about "hypnosis" (e.g., Freud, 1891, and 1966), but he also actively used "hypnosis" in his clinical practice for some time. However the (à la Salpêtrière) "hypnosis" that Freud employed – quite unlike the conventional "hypnotism" of James Braid (that was induced by Braid's standard "upwards and inwards squint") – relied upon an induction process that often involved rubbing the top of a patient's head. This requirement, of course, demanded that Freud sat at the end of the therapeutic couch – in order to gain easy access to his subject's head – a practice that Freud continued to follow for his entire (post-"hypnosis") professional career. Another vestige of phreno-magnetism that demanded that Freud position himself at the patient's head was Freud's application of the "head pressure" technique that he had, in person, observed Hippolyte Bernheim use, on one of his visits to Bernheim's clinic at Nancy in 1899. Freud had discontinued this "head pressure" practice by, at least, 1904 – and, possibly, by 1900. === Mistaken identification of Esdaile's Jhar-Phoonk with d’Eslon's magnetization-by-contact === Due, to a large extent, to the (mistaken) enthusiastic promotion of Esdaile's (otherwise) valuable work


