# kb

id: the-transparent-society-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society-0.md
category: reference
title: The Transparent Society
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Transparent_Society
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:34:47.154338+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: the-transparent-society-20260505-0
summary:
The Transparent Society (1998) is a non-fiction book by the science-fiction author David Brin in which he forecasts social transparency and some degree of erosion of privacy, as it is overtaken by low-cost surveillance, communication and database technology, and proposes new institutions and practices that he believes would provide benefits that would more than compensate for lost privacy. The work first appeared as a magazine article by Brin in Wired in late 1996. In 2008, security expert Bruce Schneier called the transparent society concept a "myth" (a characterization Brin later rejected), claiming it ignores wide differences in the relative power of those who access information. == Synopsis == Brin argues that a core level of privacy—protecting our most intimate interactions—may be preserved, despite the rapid proliferation of cameras that become ever-smaller, cheaper and more numerous faster than Moore's law. He feels that this core privacy can be saved simply because that is what humans deeply need and want. Hence, Brin explains that "...the key question is whether citizens will be potent, sovereign and knowing enough to enforce this deeply human want." This means they must not only have rights, but also the power to use them and the ability to


id: transport-phenomena-book-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_Phenomena_(book)-0.md
category: reference
title: Transport Phenomena (book)
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_Phenomena_(book)
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:34:48.294384+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: transport-phenomena-book-20260505-0
summary:
Transport Phenomena is the first textbook about transport phenomena. It is specifically designed for chemical engineering students. The first edition was published in 1960, two years after having been preliminarily published under the title Notes on Transport Phenomena based on mimeographed notes prepared for a chemical engineering course taught at the University of Wisconsin–Madison during the academic year 1957-1958. The second edition was published in August 2001. A revised second edition was published in 2007. This text is often known simply as BSL after its authors' initials. == History == As the chemical engineering profession developed in the first half of the 20th century, the concept of "unit operations" arose as being needed in the education of undergraduate chemical engineers. The theories of mass, momentum and energy transfer were being taught at that time only to the extent necessary for a narrow range of applications. As chemical engineers began moving into a number of new areas, problem definitions and solutions required a deeper knowledge of the fundamentals of transport phenomena than those provided in the textbooks then available on unit operations. In the 1950s, R. Byron Bird, Warren E. Stewart and Edwin N. Lightfoot stepped forward to develop an undergraduate


id: the-two-cultures-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Cultures-0.md
category: reference
title: The Two Cultures
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Cultures
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:34:49.568446+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: the-two-cultures-20260505-0
summary:
"The Two Cultures" is the first part of an influential 1959 Rede Lecture by British scientist and novelist C. P. Snow. The lecture was published that same year in book form as The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. Snow's thesis was that science and the humanities, which represented "the intellectual life of the whole of western society", had become divided into "two cultures", and that the growing division between them was a major handicap in solving the world's problems. == The lecture == The talk was delivered 7 May 1959 in the Senate House, Cambridge, and subsequently published as The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. The lecture and book expanded upon an article by Snow published in the New Statesman of 6 October 1956, also titled "The Two Cultures". The book form of Snow's lecture was widely read and discussed on both sides of the Atlantic, leading him to write a 1963 follow-up, The Two Cultures: And a Second Look: An Expanded Version of the Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution. Snow's position can be summed up by an oft-repeated passage from his lecture: A good many times I have been present at gatherings of people who, by


id: the-two-cultures-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Cultures-1.md
category: reference
title: The Two Cultures
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Cultures
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:34:49.568446+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: the-two-cultures-20260505-0
summary:
== Antecedents == Contrasting scientific and humanistic knowledge is a repetition of the Methodenstreit of 1890 German universities. A quarrel in 1911 between Benedetto Croce and Giovanni Gentile on the one hand and Federigo Enriques on the other one is believed to have had enduring effects in the separation of the two cultures in Italy and to the predominance of the views of (objective) idealism over those of (logical) positivism. In the social sciences it is also commonly proposed as the quarrel of positivism versus interpretivism. == See also == Culture war The Third Culture Science wars Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, a 1998 book written by biologist Edward Osborne Wilson, as an attempt to bridge the gap between "the two cultures" Quarrel of the Ancients and the Moderns Interdisciplinarity, a movement to cross boundaries between academic disciplines, including the divide between "the two cultures" == References == == Further reading == Burguete, Maria, and Lam, Lui, eds. (2008). Science Matters: Humanities as Complex Systems. World Scientific: Singapore. ISBN 978-981-283-593-2 James, Frank A. J. L. (29 November 2016). "Introduction: Some Significances of the Two Cultures Debate" (PDF). Interdisciplinary Science Reviews. 41 (2–3): 107–117. Bibcode:2016ISRv...41..107J. doi:10.1080/03080188.2016.1223651. Sinclair, Andrew (1987). The Red


id: under-a-white-sky-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_a_White_Sky-0.md
category: reference
title: Under a White Sky
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_a_White_Sky
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:34:50.781551+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: under-a-white-sky-20260505-0
summary:
Under a White Sky: The Nature of the Future is a 2021 environmental book by Elizabeth Kolbert. The book follows many of the themes she explored in The Sixth Extinction. == Summary == Under a White Sky is focused on the various kinds of environmental crises created by the Anthropocene and different degrees of technological solutions available to humanity to address them – while also being critical of full-blown techno-solutionism. The title refers to the most extreme climate change mitigation strategy, solar geoengineering, designed to reflect sunlight from the earth. Throughout the book she explores how a technological fix for one problem can lead to further problems while also acknowledging the important role those technologies might play. == Reception == Reception of the book was generally positive. The Washington Post praised it for "expertly mix[ing] travelogue, science reporting, and explanatory journalism, all with the authority of a writer confident enough to acknowledge ambiguity." The New York Times review focused on how the book explores the ambiguities of our current environmental crisis. A NPR review described the book as "tell[ing] by showing. Without beating the reader over the head, she makes it clear how far we already are from a world


id: under-the-sea-wind-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_the_Sea_Wind-0.md
category: reference
title: Under the Sea Wind
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under_the_Sea_Wind
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:34:51.902082+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: under-the-sea-wind-20260505-0
summary:
Under the Sea Wind: A Naturalist's Picture of Ocean Life (1941) is the first book written by the American marine biologist Rachel Carson. It was published by Simon & Schuster in 1941 and received very good reviews, but sold poorly. After the great success of a sequel The Sea Around Us (Oxford, 1951), it was reissued by Oxford University Press; that edition was an alternate Book-of-the-Month Club selection and became another bestseller, and has never gone out of print. It is recognized as one of the "definitive works of American nature writing," and is in print as one of the Penguin Nature Classics. Under the sea-wind was reportedly Rachel Carson's personal favourite book, although first edition copies by Simon & Schuster remain scarce. == Background == Under the Sea Wind was based on the article Undersea by Carson, published in The Atlantic Monthly in 1937. This article began as an eleven-page introduction to a government fisheries brochure, and grew into Carson's first book. Prior to publishing Undersea, she wrote marine themed radio scripts which influenced her later work. The article elaborates on ecology and the unwavering will to survive that embodies marine organisms. After the article was published, Dutch-born children's


id: the-uninhabitable-earth-book-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Uninhabitable_Earth_(book)-0.md
category: reference
title: The Uninhabitable Earth (book)
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Uninhabitable_Earth_(book)
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:34:53.118424+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: the-uninhabitable-earth-book-20260505-0
summary:
The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming is a 2019 non-fiction book by David Wallace-Wells about the consequences of global warming. It was inspired by his New York magazine article "The Uninhabitable Earth" (2017). == Synopsis == The book fleshes out Wallace-Wells' original New York magazine piece in more detail, dovetailing into discussions surrounding various possibilities for Earth's future across a spectrum of predicted future temperature ranges. Wallace-Wells' argues that even with active intervention, the effects of climate change will have catastrophic impacts across multiple spheres: rising sea levels, extreme weather events, extinctions, disease outbreaks, fires, droughts, famines, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, floods, and increased geopolitical conflict, among other calamities. While the book is not focused on solutions, it recognizes solutions exist to prevent the worst of the damages: "a carbon tax and the political apparatus to aggressively phase out dirty energy; a new approach to agricultural practices and a shift away from beef and dairy in the global diet; and public investment in green energy and carbon capture". == Reception == The book has been both praised and criticized for its dramatic depictions of future life on Earth. As The Economist stated, "Some readers will find Mr. Wallace-Wells’s outline of possible


id: unscientific-america-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unscientific_America-0.md
category: reference
title: Unscientific America
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unscientific_America
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:34:54.289278+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: unscientific-america-20260505-0
summary:
Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future is a nonfiction book by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum. It was a New York Times best seller. In the book, the authors tackle the problem of scientific illiteracy in America. The authors criticize scientists for talking down to the misinformed and insulting the religious while calling for more friendly and magnanimous science advocates. They also blame the New Atheist movement, the creation–evolution controversy, the entertainment industry, the media, and science skeptics. == Reception == === Science press === The journal Science Communication gave the book a favourable review, noting that the arguments presented "may make the Ph.D. crowd even more cranky than usual." Indeed, the book did spark significant debate particularly on-line. Seed magazine selected Unscientific America as one to "read now" although it was subsequently more critical of certain aspects of the book. The BMJ, while supporting the authors' assessment of the problem, was critical of the proposed solution. It said that the book sometimes "reads like an overlong and somewhat condescending whine about why science and scientists are not sufficiently appreciated." The New Scientist was similarly supportive of the description of the problem while being critical of the solution


id: unstoppable-nye-book-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unstoppable_(Nye_book)-0.md
category: reference
title: Unstoppable (Nye book)
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unstoppable_(Nye_book)
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:34:55.488230+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: unstoppable-nye-book-20260505-0
summary:
Unstoppable: Harnessing Science to Change the World is a 2015 book written by Bill Nye and edited by Corey S. Powell. Published by St. Martin's Press, it is Nye's second book, after Undeniable: Evolution and the Science of Creation, also with Powell, which was also published by St. Martin's Press in 2014. The book is about how to use science to improve the environment and the challenges faced with global warming as well as raising the standard of living. == Reception == BBC science columnist Rose Eveleth wrote a joint review in The New York Times of the audiobook versions of Unstoppable and Leonard Mlodinow's 2015 book The Upright Thinkers. Eveleth found Nye's audiobook "easy to listen to", noting the familiarity of Nye's voice to those who have watched the children's television series Bill Nye the Science Guy. However, Eveleth wrote that both books "stumble" because they "recycle well-known material", describing how Nye "spends a good chunk of his book talking about the setup of his extremely energy-efficient home ... Some of these stories are relevant and interesting. Other times, they feel forced, as if both authors knew that without a personal touch, their books would read like any other


id: unweaving-the-rainbow-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unweaving_the_Rainbow-0.md
category: reference
title: Unweaving the Rainbow
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unweaving_the_Rainbow
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:34:56.704083+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: unweaving-the-rainbow-20260505-0
summary:
Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder is a 1998 book by the evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, in which the author discusses the relationship between science and the arts from the perspective of a scientist. Dawkins addresses the misperception that science and art are at odds. Driven by the responses to his books The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker wherein readers resented his naturalistic world view, seeing it as depriving life of meaning, Dawkins felt the need to explain that, as a scientist, he saw the world as full of wonders and a source of pleasure. This pleasure was not in spite of, but rather because he does not assume as cause the inexplicable actions of a deity but rather the understandable laws of nature. His starting point is John Keats's well-known, light-hearted accusation that Isaac Newton destroyed the poetry of the rainbow by 'reducing it to the prismatic colours.' See Keats's poem Lamia and Edgar Allan Poe's To Science. Dawkins's agenda is to show the reader that science does not destroy, but rather discovers poetry in the patterns of nature. == Summary == === Preface === It is of little concern whether or not science


id: unweaving-the-rainbow-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unweaving_the_Rainbow-1.md
category: reference
title: Unweaving the Rainbow
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unweaving_the_Rainbow
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:34:56.704083+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: unweaving-the-rainbow-20260505-0
summary:
=== Huge cloudy symbols of a high romance === Unlike "magisterial poetry" (where metaphors and pretty language are used to describe the familiar), "pupillary poetry" uses poetic imagery to assist a scientist's thinking about the exotic (e.g. consider "being" an electron temporarily). Although it is useful, some authors take pupillary poetry too far, and, "drunk on metaphor", they produce "bad science"; i.e. postulate faulty theories. This is powered by humanity's natural tendency to look for representations. === The selfish cooperator === Genes compete with each other, but this occurs within the context of collaboration, as is shown with examples involving mitochondria, bacteria, and termites. Two types of collaboration are co-adaptation (tailoring simultaneously the different parts of an organism, such as flower colour and flower markings), and co-evolution (two species changing together; e.g. predator and prey running speeds may increase together in a sort of arms race). === The Genetic Book of the Dead === The body of any organism provides clues about its habitat. The genes allow one to reconstruct a picture of the range of ways of life that the species has experienced; in this sense DNA would act as a palimpsestic "digital archive" if only its language of


id: unweaving-the-rainbow-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unweaving_the_Rainbow-2.md
category: reference
title: Unweaving the Rainbow
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unweaving_the_Rainbow
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:34:56.704083+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: unweaving-the-rainbow-20260505-0
summary:
Video interview with Dawkins about the book, Charlie Rose, 11 April 2000] Dawkins's Rainbow Reduces Science to Truth, Beauty—and Fantasy – reviewed by Robert N. Proctor, American Scientist. Richard Dawkins: The man who knows the meaning of life Archived 31 August 2009 at the Wayback Machine review from The Guardian. How, Why and Wow! Archived 1 January 2009 at the Wayback Machine – reviewed by Jonathan Gathorne-Hardy, The Spectator. There is Poetry in Science – reviewed by Melvyn Bragg, The Observer. Everyone a Scientist Archived 7 July 2009 at the Wayback Machine – reviewed by John Gribbin, The Literary Review. The Poetry of Science – reviewed by Sam Hurwitt, The San Francisco Examiner. The Science of Selfishness – reviewed by Andrew Brown, Salon. Nature of Science: A Wondrous and Poetic Spectrum Archived 1 January 2009 at the Wayback Machine reviewed by Charles M. Vest, Science. Frauds! Fakes! Phonies! – reviewed by Timothy Ferris, The New York Times. Unweaving the Rainbow Archived 24 June 2009 at the Wayback Machine reviewed by Paul R. Gross, The Wall Street Journal. Finding Awe, Reverence, and Wonder in Science – reviewed by Kendrick Frazier, Skeptical Inquirer. Unweaving the Rainbow – review from The Complete Review.


id: an-urchin-in-the-storm-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Urchin_in_the_Storm-0.md
category: reference
title: An Urchin in the Storm
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Urchin_in_the_Storm
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:35:01.852243+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: an-urchin-in-the-storm-20260505-0
summary:
An Urchin in the Storm is a 1987 essay collection from paleontologist and science writer Stephen Jay Gould. == Overview == All but one of the essays had originally appeared in The New York Review of Books. Grouped by theme, the sections of the book deal respectively with the irreducibility of history (and the pleasures and challenges of contingency) in its two principal domains of life and the earth, nature's complexity, the theory and consequences of biological determinism, and rationalism in explanation. The book is dedicated to Peter Medawar and Isaiah Berlin. It was reviewed in The New York Times by Michiko Kakutani, who noted that although the pieces were technically book reviews, Gould "tends to use the subject at hand as a jumping-off point for more general discussions". == References ==


id: the-varieties-of-scientific-experience-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Varieties_of_Scientific_Experience-0.md
category: reference
title: The Varieties of Scientific Experience
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Varieties_of_Scientific_Experience
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:35:03.045797+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: the-varieties-of-scientific-experience-20260505-0
summary:
The Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God is a book collecting transcribed talks on the subject of natural theology that astronomer Carl Sagan delivered in 1985 at the University of Glasgow as part of the Gifford Lectures. The book was first published posthumously in 2006, 10 years after his death. The title is a reference to The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James. The book was edited by Ann Druyan, who also provided an introduction section. The sixth chapter, "The God Hypothesis", was later reprinted in Christopher Hitchens' anthology The Portable Atheist. == References ==


id: view-from-a-height-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_from_a_Height-0.md
category: reference
title: View from a Height
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_from_a_Height
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:35:04.264618+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: view-from-a-height-20260505-0
summary:
View from a Height is a collection of seventeen scientific essays by American writer and scientist Isaac Asimov. It was the second of a series of books collecting essays from The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, written between 1959 and 1962. It was first published by Doubleday & Company in 1963. The book received a review in Science Magazine. and The American Biology Teacher. The collection includes the essay "By Jove!", the source of the Asimov misquote describing the Solar System (besides the Sun) as "Jupiter plus debris". The actual quote is "4 planets plus debris". == Contents == Part I: Biology "That's About the Size of It" (October 1961) "The Egg and Wee" (June 1962) "That's Life!" (March 1962) "Not as We Know It" (September 1961) Part II: Chemistry "The Element of Perfection" (November 1960) "The Weighting Game" (April 1962) "The Evens Have It" (August 1961) Part III: Physics "Now Hear This!" (December 1960) "The Ultimate Split of the Second" (August 1959) "Order! Order!" (February 1961) "The Modern Demonology" (January 1962) "The Height of Up" (October 1959) Part IV: Astronomy "Hot Stuff" (July 1962) "Recipe for a Planet" (July 1961) "The Trojan Hearse" (December 1961) "By Jove!" (May


id: we-want-them-infected-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Want_Them_Infected-0.md
category: reference
title: We Want Them Infected
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_Want_Them_Infected
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:35:05.473389+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: we-want-them-infected-20260505-0
summary:
We Want Them Infected: How the Failed Quest for Herd Immunity Led Doctors to Embrace the Anti-Vaccine Movement and Blinded Americans to the Threat of Covid is a 2023 book by Jonathan Howard, an American professor of neurology and psychiatry at New York University Grossman School of Medicine. The book examines the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD), an open letter advocating for herd immunity for COVID-19, which was published in October 2020 by Sunetra Gupta, Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff. The book was published by Redhawk Publications and was released on April 20, 2023. Howard has previously published several clinical textbooks in neurology and hosts the podcast "We Want Them Infected", which covers disinformation about the health field. The title of the book was taken from epidemiologist Paul Alexander who served in the Health and Human Services Department during the first Trump administration. == Synopsis == The American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) located in Great Barrington, Massachusetts gathered public health academics in October 2020 to discuss a plan for the management of the COVID 19 pandemic. The AIER is a libertarian think tank which is known for spreading misinformation concerning climate change and health. AIER advocated for allowing the 60%


id: the-welfare-trait-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Welfare_Trait-0.md
category: reference
title: The Welfare Trait
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Welfare_Trait
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:35:06.748600+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: the-welfare-trait-20260505-0
summary:
The Welfare Trait: How State Benefits Affect Personality is a 2015 book by Adam Perkins, Lecturer in the Neurobiology of Personality at King's College London. Perkins claims that individuals with aggressive, rule-breaking and anti-social tendencies are over-represented among long-term welfare recipients. He calls this an "employment–resistant personality profile" and finds that it is heritable. The book was controversial. It initially attracted little attention, with the journal Nature refusing to review it. In 2016, a talk by Perkins was cancelled for fear of disruption. Perkins later wrote "I was no-platformed by student 'radicals' for telling the truth about welfare". That year, Perkins secretly gave a presentation on the book at the London Conference on Intelligence. The Adam Smith Institute commended the book's "praiseworthy boldness". However the argument was criticised in The Guardian for cherry-picking the data, relying too heavily on mice studies, and resembling eugenics. A professor at University College London reviewed the book negatively, claiming Perkins failed to prove causal links for his assertions, and that "his proposals are more likely to harm, then help, children." A 2017 review in the British Journal of Psychiatry wrote "it is true that there is good-quality evidence for the transmission of dysfunctional personality


id: what-if-book-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_If-0.md
category: reference
title: What If? (book)
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_If?_(book)
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:35:07.917301+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: what-if-book-20260505-0
summary:
What If?: Serious Scientific Answers to Absurd Hypothetical Questions is a 2014 non-fiction book by Randall Munroe in which the author answers hypothetical science questions sent to him by readers of his webcomic, xkcd. The book contains a selection of questions and answers originally published on his blog What If?, along with several new ones. The book is divided into several dozen chapters, most of which are devoted to answering a unique question. What If? was released on September 2, 2014, and was received positively by critics. A sequel to the book, titled What If? 2, was released on September 13, 2022. In 2024, a 10th anniversary edition of the book was released. == Conception of the blog == In the introduction section of the book, Randall Munroe recounts wondering as a child whether "there were more hard things or soft things in the world", concluding that "the world contained about three billion soft things and five billion hard things". The conversation that was produced by this question impressed Munroe's mother to such a degree that she wrote it down. Though Munroe later stated that his question was rather meaningless, he used it as an example of how "thoroughly answer[ing]


id: what-if-book-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_If-1.md
category: reference
title: What If? (book)
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_If?_(book)
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:35:07.917301+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: what-if-book-20260505-0
summary:
What would happen if you tried to hit a baseball pitched at 90% the speed of light? Using mathematics and physics, Munroe concluded such a situation would result in a nuclear fusion explosion, and that ultimately, the result would be a ruling of hit by pitch. What If? approaches its subject matter with a sense of wit and sometimes makes use of approximations to answer questions that seem impossible to solve. Most questions demand assumptions and cross-disciplinary science skills to answer, resulting in "back-of-the-envelope" calculations. What If? is interspersed with "charmingly-amateur" stick figure illustrations. The book also features periodic sections titled "Weird (and Worrying) Questions from the What If? Inbox", which are short collections of questions Munroe had not answered because he did not "want to think about that". In an interview, Munroe stated that he "never got past the initial mental image" of the question "How cold would your teeth have to get in order for a cup of hot coffee to make them shatter on contact?" == Reception == The book was received positively by critics. Ethan Gilsdorf of the Boston Globe stated that "it's fun to watch as Munroe tackles each question and examines every possible complication."


id: what-if-2-book-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_If-0.md
category: reference
title: What If? 2 (book)
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_If?_2_(book)
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:35:09.144917+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: what-if-2-book-20260505-0
summary:
What If? 2: Additional Serious Scientific Answers to Absurd Hypothetical Questions is a 2022 non-fiction book by Randall Munroe. The book seeks to provide scientific answers to hypothetical questions proposed by readers of the author's webcomic, xkcd, and blog, What If? A follow-up to Munroe's 2014 title What If?, the book was released on September 13, 2022, to generally positive reviews, with Time saying, "Science isn't easy, but in Munroe's capable hands, it surely can be fun." == Background == Munroe, whose career began as a roboticist for NASA, began writing his webcomic xkcd in 2005, and following its success took up cartooning full-time soon after. With many of his drawings revolving around the topics of science and mathematics, Munroe soon began receiving questions from readers about those subject areas. As a result, he created a spinoff blog titled What If? where he compiled these questions and his subsequent responses. The blog formed the basis for his 2014 book What If?, which reached the top of The New York Times Best Seller list, and inspired the creation of a second volume, What If? 2. == Synopsis == What If? 2 continues in the same vein as its predecessor in attempting


id: what-is-your-dangerous-idea-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Your_Dangerous_Idea-0.md
category: reference
title: What Is Your Dangerous Idea?
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Your_Dangerous_Idea?
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:35:10.421389+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: what-is-your-dangerous-idea-20260505-0
summary:
What Is Your Dangerous Idea?: Today's Leading Thinkers on the Unthinkable is a book edited by John Brockman, which deals with "dangerous" ideas, or ideas that some people would react to in ways that suggest a disruption of morality and ethics. Scientists, philosophers, artists, and various other groups of people have written in to the online salon called the Edge, where thinkers in several areas post and discuss their ideas. This collection of responses forms the entirety of the book (possibly with some excluded because of the great number of posts). The basic concept behind the book is "to gather a hundred of the most brilliant minds in the world in a room, lock them in, and have them ask each other the questions they were asking themselves". == Ideas == Members of the Edge Foundation were asked this question in 2006: The history of science is replete with discoveries that were considered socially, morally, or emotionally dangerous in their time; the Copernican and Darwinian revolutions are the most obvious. What is your dangerous idea? An idea you think about (not necessarily one you originated) that is dangerous not because it is assumed to be false, but because it might


id: what-is-your-dangerous-idea-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Your_Dangerous_Idea-1.md
category: reference
title: What Is Your Dangerous Idea?
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Your_Dangerous_Idea?
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:35:10.421389+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: what-is-your-dangerous-idea-20260505-0
summary:
=== Beliefs === Several different beliefs were mentioned in the essays such as the relationship between science and religion. Sam Harris, in his essay titled "Science Must Destroy Religion," discusses different types of reason and belief as well as the conflict between science and religion. The conflict between religion and science is inherent and (very nearly) zero-sum. The success of science often comes at the expense of religious dogma; the maintenance of religious dogma always comes at the expense of science. —Sam Harris == Response == According to Jill Murphy, a reviewer of the website "The Bookbag", What is Your Dangerous Idea? provides an easy-to-understand explanation of the topics covered in this book. She expands by writing that the ideas make the reader think about them. The joy in this book is that it is easy to understand. Science duffer that I am, I had no difficulty with any of the concepts or theories. The Edge contributors really had exceeded their game. These ideas don't challenge the reader to understand them; they challenge the reader to think about them. The book has also been likened to "Shakespearean science" by one reviewer, due to the similar qualities it holds with William


id: what-we-believe-but-cannot-prove-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_We_Believe_but_Cannot_Prove-0.md
category: reference
title: What We Believe but Cannot Prove
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_We_Believe_but_Cannot_Prove
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:35:11.569011+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: what-we-believe-but-cannot-prove-20260505-0
summary:
What We Believe But Cannot Prove: Today's Leading Thinkers on Science in the Age of Certainty is a non-fiction book published by Harper Perennial and edited by literary agent John Brockman that includes an introduction by novelist Ian McEwan. The book consists of responses to a question posed by the Edge Foundation, with answers as short as one sentence and as long as a few pages. Among the 107 published contributors are scientists and philosophers such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel C. Dennett, Jared Diamond, Rebecca Goldstein, Steven Pinker, Sir Martin Rees, and Craig Venter; as well as convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Some contributions were not included in the print book, including those by Benoit Mandelbrot and computer scientist John McCarthy but are among 120 responses available online. == Overview == Each year, the Edge Foundation poses a question on its website to members of the "third culture", defined by Brockman as "those scientists and other thinkers...who, through their work and expository writing, are taking the place of the traditional intellectual in rendering visible the deeper meanings of our lives, redefining who and what we are". == Synopsis == The essays cover a broad range of topics, including evolution, the


id: wholeness-and-the-implicate-order-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wholeness_and_the_Implicate_Order-0.md
category: reference
title: Wholeness and the Implicate Order
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wholeness_and_the_Implicate_Order
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:35:12.833153+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: wholeness-and-the-implicate-order-20260505-0
summary:
Wholeness and the Implicate Order is a book by theoretical physicist David Bohm. It was originally published in 1980 by Routledge, United Kingdom. The book is considered a basic reference for Bohm's concepts of undivided wholeness and of implicate and explicate orders, as well as of Bohm's rheomode—an experimental language based on verbs. The book is cited, for example, by philosopher Steven M. Rosen in his book The Self-evolving Cosmos, by mathematician and theologian Kevin J. Sharpe in his book David Bohm's World, by theologian Joseph P. Farrell in Babylon's Banksters, and by theologian John C. Polkinghorne in his book One World. == Chapters == Fragmentation and wholeness The rheomode – an experiment with language and thought Reality and knowledge considered as process Hidden variables in the quantum theory Quantum theory as an indication of a new order in physics, Part A: The development of new orders as shown through the history of physics Quantum theory as an indication of a new order in physics, Part B: Implicate and explicate order in physical law The enfolding-unfolding universe and consciousness == References == David Bohm: Wholeness and the Implicate Order, 1980, Routledge, ISBN 0-203-99515-5 (Master e-book ISBN, reprint 2005) == See


id: why-people-believe-weird-things-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_People_Believe_Weird_Things-0.md
category: reference
title: Why People Believe Weird Things
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_People_Believe_Weird_Things
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:35:35.546371+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: why-people-believe-weird-things-20260505-0
summary:
Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time is a 1997 book by science writer Michael Shermer. The foreword was written by Stephen Jay Gould. == Summary == In the first section, Shermer discusses the ideas that he has towards racism. He also explains his conversion to Deism from New Age mysticism (to which he had converted from being a Fundamentalist Christian Baptist). In part two Shermer explains paranormal thinking and how one comes to believe in things without evidence. He uses Edgar Cayce as an example, and while he agrees with parts of Ayn Rand's Objectivism, he criticizes its moral absolutism and argues that many follow her philosophy unquestioningly, which he believes contradicts free thinking. Part three begins with Shermer describing several debates he had with Duane Gish. He lays out some creationist arguments in 25 separate claims, and attempts to debunk each one with his own evidence. He closes retelling how a constitutional ban on teaching creationism in public schools was narrowly upheld at the Supreme Court of the United States in 1987. Shermer shows that the Holocaust deniers reject proven facts for, as he states, ideological reasons. Like the creationists, he asserted,


id: wild-solutions-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Solutions-0.md
category: reference
title: Wild Solutions
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Solutions
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:35:36.710706+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: wild-solutions-20260505-0
summary:
Wild Solutions: How Biodiversity is Money in the Bank is a 2001 book by biologists Andrew Beattie and Paul R. Ehrlich. The authors explain the value of "wild solutions" to technical and medical problems that may reside in the diversity of the Earth's estimated 5 to 10 million species. Beattie and Ehrlich describe the role of natural substances in medicine, pest control, and manufacturing. The book won a National Outdoor Book Award in 2001. A second edition came out in 2004. == References ==


id: the-worlds-of-science-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Worlds_of_Science-0.md
category: reference
title: The Worlds of Science
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Worlds_of_Science
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:35:37.926866+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: the-worlds-of-science-20260505-0
summary:
The Worlds of Science is a series of science book paperbacks by various authors published by Pyramid Books in the 1960s. The series included both reprints of works originally published independently and new works written especially for the series. Prominent contributors included Isaac Asimov and L. Sprague de Camp, among others. Books in the series include: The Human Brain, by John Pfeifer Maya, by Charles Gallenkamp Nine Planets, by Alan E. Nourse Living Earth, by Peter Farb Chemistry Creates a New World, by Bernard Jaffe The Road to Man, by Herbert Wendt Giants of Science, by Philip Cane Snakes of the World, by Raymond Ditmars The ABC of Physics, by Jerome S. Meyer Computers, by Stanley L. Englebardt Man and Dolphin, by John C. Lilly Kingdom of the Octopus, by Frank W. Lane Dinosaurs, by Nicholas Hotton III The Story of Weather, by Capt. David C. Holmes, USN Fact and Fancy, by Isaac Asimov Electronics, by Stanley L. Englebardt Conquest of the Moon, by William Hines Elephant, by L. Sprague de Camp New Worlds of Oceanography, by Captain John E. Long New Frontiers in Medicine, by Stanley Englebardt The Human Machine, by Harry Moody The Borders of Mathematics, by Willy


id: building-of-the-military-geographical-institute-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_of_the_Military_Geographical_Institute-0.md
category: reference
title: Building of the Military Geographical Institute
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_of_the_Military_Geographical_Institute
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:35:39.526495+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: building-of-the-military-geographical-institute-20260505-0
summary:
The Building of the Military Geographical Institute (Polish: Gmach Wojskowego Instytutu Geograficznego) is a modernist and neoclassical building in Warsaw, Poland, at 97 Jerusalem Avenue, within the Ochota district. Opened in 1934, it served as the headquarters of the Military Geographical Institute until 1949. The building is listed on the national heritage list. == History == The building was designed by Antoni Dygat, and constructed between 1933 and 1934, as the headquarters of the Military Geographical Institute. In 2000, on its façade was installed a commemorative plaque dedicated to the officers and employees of the institute who were killed during the Second World War. In 2007, the building was entered into the national heritage list. == Architecture == The building has reinforced concrete structure, with 4 stories, and a 6-storey-tall clock tower, and bears elements of neoclassical and modern styles. It also has two inner courtyards. Its façade is lined with sandstone plates. It also features two cartouche depicting 16 coat of arms of the voivodeships of the Second Polish Republic. The originals were destroyed in the 1960s, and their replicas were installed in 2018. Its hall features a 1937 fresco by Boleslaw Cybis and Jan Zamoyski, titled Bolesław the


id: observatory-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observatory-0.md
category: reference
title: Observatory
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observatory
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:35:40.643015+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: observatory-20260505-0
summary:
An observatory is a location used for observing terrestrial, marine, or celestial events. Astronomy, climatology/meteorology, geophysics, oceanography and volcanology are examples of disciplines for which observatories have been constructed. The term observatoire has been used in French since at least 1976 to denote any institution that compiles and presents data on a particular subject (such as public health observatory) or for a particular geographic area (European Audiovisual Observatory). == Astronomical observatories == Astronomical observatories are mainly divided into four categories according to location: space-based, airborne, ground-based, and underground-based. Historically, ground-based observatories were as simple as containing a mural instrument (for measuring the angle between stars) or Stonehenge (which has some alignments on astronomical phenomena). Astronomical observatories may be private or they may be public. === Ground-based observatories === Ground-based observatories, located on the surface of Earth, are used to make observations in the radio and visible light portions of the electromagnetic spectrum. Most optical telescopes are housed within a dome or similar structure, to protect the delicate instruments from the elements. Telescope domes have a slit or other opening in the roof that can be opened during observing, and closed when the telescope is not in use. In most cases,


id: observatory-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observatory-1.md
category: reference
title: Observatory
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observatory
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:35:40.643015+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: observatory-20260505-0
summary:
825: Al-Shammisiyyah Observatory, Baghdad, Iraq 869: Mahodayapuram Observatory, Kerala, India 1259: Maragheh Observatory, Azerbaijan, Iran 1276: Gaocheng Astronomical Observatory, China 1420: Ulugh Beg Observatory, Samarqand, Uzbekistan 1442: Beijing Ancient Observatory, China 1577: Constantinople Observatory of Taqi ad-Din, Turkey 1580: Uraniborg, Denmark (present-day Sweden) 1581: Stjärneborg, Denmark (present-day Sweden) 1633: Leiden Observatory, Netherlands 1642: Panzano Observatory, Italy 1642: Round Tower, Denmark 1667: Paris Observatory, France 1675: Royal Greenwich Observatory, England 1695: Sukharev Tower, Russia 1711: Berlin Observatory, Germany 1724: Jantar Mantar, India 1753: Stockholm Observatory, Sweden 1753: Vilnius University Observatory, Lithuania 1753: Real Instituto y Observatorio de la Armada, Spain 1759: Trieste Observatory, Italy. 1757: Macfarlane Observatory, Scotland. 1759: Turin Observatory, Italy. 1764: Brera Astronomical Observatory, Italy. 1765: Mohr Observatory, Indonesia. 1771: Lviv Observatory, Ukraine. 1774: Observatory of the Vatican, Italy. 1785: Dunsink Observatory, Ireland. 1786: Madras Observatory, India. 1789: Armagh Observatory, Northern Ireland. 1790: Royal Observatory of Madrid, Spain, 1803: National Astronomical Observatory, Bogotá, Colombia. 1811: Tartu Old Observatory, Estonia 1812: Astronomical Observatory of Capodimonte, Naples, Italy 1830/1842: Depot of Charts & Instruments/US Naval Observatory, US 1830: Yale University Observatory Atheneum, US 1834: Helsinki University Observatory, Finland 1838: Hopkins Observatory, Williams College, US 1838: Loomis Observatory, Western Reserve Academy, US


id: observatory-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observatory-2.md
category: reference
title: Observatory
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observatory
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:35:40.643015+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: observatory-20260505-0
summary:
A volcano observatory is an institution that conducts the monitoring of a volcano as well as research in order to understand the potential impacts of active volcanism. Among the best known are the Hawaiian Volcano Observatory and the Vesuvius Observatory. Mobile volcano observatories exist with the USGS VDAP (Volcano Disaster Assistance Program), to be deployed on demand. Each volcano observatory has a geographic area of responsibility it is assigned to whereby the observatory is tasked with spreading activity forecasts, analyzing potential volcanic activity threats and cooperating with communities in preparation for volcanic eruption. == See also == == References == == Further reading == Aubin, David; Charlotte Bigg, and H. Otto Sibum, eds. The Heavens on Earth: Observatories and Astronomy in Nineteenth-Century Science and Culture (Duke University Press; 2010) 384 pages; Topics include astronomy as military science in Sweden, the Pulkovo Observatory in the Russia of Czar Nicholas I, and physics and the astronomical community in late 19th-century America. Brunier, Serge, et al. Great Observatories of the World (2005). Dick, Steven. Sky and Ocean Joined: The U.S. Naval Observatory 1830–2000 (2003). Gressot Julien and Jeanneret Romain, « Determining the right time, or the establishment of a culture of astronomical precision


id: roatan-institute-for-marine-sciences-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roatan_Institute_for_Marine_Sciences-0.md
category: reference
title: Roatan Institute for Marine Sciences
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roatan_Institute_for_Marine_Sciences
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:35:41.963726+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: roatan-institute-for-marine-sciences-20260505-0
summary:
Roatan Institute for Marine Sciences (RIMS) is a scientific research center located in Roatán, department of Islas de la Bahía, in the Republic of Honduras. It is part of Anthony's Key Resort, a tourist complex belonging to the Galindo family, that offers accommodations in bungalows, kayaking, spas, excursions and various interactions with captive dolphins such as swimming. It was founded in 1989 with the purpose of investigating coral reefs and aquatic life in general in the coastal zones of Honduras and the surrounding areas. The institute also has a small marine museum and the "Dolphin Discovery Camp" for the study of dolphin behavior (two when it started) and in 2017 the population of the dolphinarium was twenty-six cetaceans. Of these, seven were captured wild, one was rescued and eighteen were born there. They are spread over two coastal enclosures, one on the small island of Bailey's Key (Dolphin Encounter) and the other on the main island of Roatán (Dolphin Presentation). The institute has scientific research programs that are visited by students from colleges, universities, and high schools from abroad. Héctor and Iván are two of the dolphins, whose behavior was studied by the psychologist Dr. Stan Kuczaj. These dolphins use


id: classification-of-the-sciences-peirce-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_the_sciences_(Peirce)-0.md
category: reference
title: Classification of the sciences (Peirce)
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_the_sciences_(Peirce)
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:35:44.596418+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: classification-of-the-sciences-peirce-20260505-0
summary:
The philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914) did considerable work over a period of years on the classification of sciences (including mathematics). His classifications are of interest both as a map for navigating his philosophy and as an accomplished polymath's survey of research in his time. Peirce himself was well grounded and produced work in many research fields, including logic, mathematics, statistics, philosophy, spectroscopy, gravimetry, geodesy, chemistry, and experimental psychology. == Classifications == Philosophers have done little work on classification of the sciences and mathematics since Peirce's time. Noting Peirce's "important" contribution, Denmark's Birger Hjørland commented: "There is not today (2005), to my knowledge, any organized research program about the classification of the sciences in any discipline or in any country". As Miksa (1998) writes, the "interest for this question largely died in the beginning of the 20th century". It is not clear whether Hjørland includes the classification of mathematics in that characterization. === Taxa === In 1902 and 1903 Peirce elaborates classifications of the sciences in: "A Detailed Classification of the Sciences" in Minute Logic (Feb.–Apr. 1902), Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (CP) v. 1, paragraphs 203–283 July 1902 application to the Carnegie institution (MS L75) "An Outline Classification


id: classification-of-the-sciences-peirce-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_the_sciences_(Peirce)-1.md
category: reference
title: Classification of the sciences (Peirce)
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_the_sciences_(Peirce)
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:35:44.596418+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: classification-of-the-sciences-peirce-20260505-0
summary:
There in 1911 Peirce does not mention the 1906 division into logics of icons, indices and symbols. Critic and Methodeutic appear, as in 1902 and 1903, as the second and third main departments of logic. Analytic is now the first department and the word "Stechiology" goes unused. He includes in Analytic the consideration of issues which, back in his 1902 Carnegie Institute application, he had discussed in sections on logic with headings such as "Presuppositions of Logic" and "On the Logical Conception of Mind" that he had placed before the sections on logic's departments (stechiology, critic, and methodeutic). On the question of the relationship between Stechiology and the Analytic that seems to have replaced it, note that, in Draft D of Memoir 15 in his 1902 Carnegie Institute application, Peirce said that stechiology, also called grammatica speculativa, amounts to an Erkenntnisslehre, a theory of cognition, provided that that theory is stripped of matter irrelevant and inadmissible in philosophical logic, irrelevant matter such as all truths (for example, the association of ideas) established by psychologists, insofar as the special science of psychology depends on logic, not vice versa. In that same Carnegie Institute application as in many other places, Peirce treated


id: division-taxonomy-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_(taxonomy)-0.md
category: reference
title: Division (taxonomy)
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_(taxonomy)
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:35:45.903020+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: division-taxonomy-20260505-0
summary:
In biological taxonomy, division is a rank that is used differently in zoology and in botany. In botany and mycology, division is the traditional name for a rank now considered equivalent to phylum. The use of either term is allowed under the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. The main divisions of land plants are the Marchantiophyta (liverworts), Anthocerotophyta (hornworts), Bryophyta (mosses), Filicophyta (ferns), Sphenophyta (horsetails), Cycadophyta (cycads), Ginkgophyta (ginkgos), Pinophyta (conifers), Gnetophyta (gnetophytes), and the Magnoliophyta (Angiosperms, flowering plants). The Magnoliophyta now dominate terrestrial ecosystems, comprising 80% of vascular plant species. In zoology, the term division is applied to an optional rank subordinate to the infraclass and superordinate to the legion and cohort. A widely used classification (e.g. Carroll 1988) recognises teleost fishes as a Division Teleostei within Class Actinopterygii (the ray-finned fishes). Less commonly (as in Milner 1988), living tetrapods are ranked as Divisions Amphibia and Amniota within the clade of vertebrates with fleshy limbs (Sarcopterygii). == Proposals for standardisation == In 1978, a group of botanists including Harold Charles Bold, Arthur Cronquist and Lynn Margulis proposed replacing the term "division" with "phylum" in botanical nomenclature, arguing that maintaining different terms for the same taxonomic rank across biological kingdoms


id: dustbin-category-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dustbin_category-0.md
category: reference
title: Dustbin category
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dustbin_category
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:35:47.181127+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: dustbin-category-20260505-0
summary:
The term "dustbin category" is sometimes used to describe a category that includes people or things that might be heterogeneous, only loosely related or poorly understood. It has been used in discussion of law, linguistics, medicine, sociology and other disciplines. For example: Some patients' symptoms do not fit well with any recognised category and there is a danger these may be forced into a 'dustbin' category such as 'depression, not otherwise specified.' == See also == Wastebasket taxon == References ==


id: classification-of-electromagnetic-fields-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_electromagnetic_fields-0.md
category: reference
title: Classification of electromagnetic fields
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_electromagnetic_fields
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:35:48.342388+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: classification-of-electromagnetic-fields-20260505-0
summary:
In differential geometry and theoretical physics, the classification of electromagnetic fields is a pointwise classification of bivectors at each point of a Lorentzian manifold. It is used in the study of solutions of Maxwell's equations and has applications in Einstein's theory of relativity. == Classification theorem == The electromagnetic field at a point p (i.e. an event) of a Lorentzian spacetime is represented by a real bivector F = Fab defined over the tangent space at p. The tangent space at p is isometric as a real inner product space to E1,3. That is, it has the same notion of vector magnitude and angle as Minkowski spacetime. To simplify the notation, we will assume the spacetime is Minkowski spacetime. This tends to blur the distinction between the tangent space at p and the underlying manifold; fortunately, nothing is lost by this specialization, for reasons we discuss as the end of the article. The classification theorem for electromagnetic fields characterizes the bivector F in relation to the Lorentzian metric η = ηab by defining and examining the so-called "principal null directions". Let us explain this. The bivector Fab yields a skew-symmetric linear operator Fab = Facηcb defined by lowering one index


id: fields-of-science-and-technology-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fields_of_Science_and_Technology-0.md
category: reference
title: Fields of Science and Technology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fields_of_Science_and_Technology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:35:53.267655+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: fields-of-science-and-technology-20260505-0
summary:
Fields of Science and Technology (FOS) is a compulsory classification for statistics of branches of scholarly and technical fields, published by the OECD in 2002. It was created out of the need to interchange data of research facilities, research results etc. It was revised in 2007 under the name Revised Fields of Science and Technology. == List == Natural sciences Mathematics Computer and information sciences Physical sciences Chemical sciences Earth and related environmental sciences Biological sciences Other natural sciences Engineering and technology Civil engineering Electrical engineering, electronic engineering, information engineering Mechanical engineering Chemical engineering Materials engineering Medical engineering Environmental engineering Environmental biotechnology Industrial biotechnology Nano technology Other engineering and technologies Medical and health sciences Basic medicine Clinical medicine Health sciences Health biotechnology Other medical sciences Agricultural sciences Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries Animal and dairy science Veterinary science Agricultural biotechnology Other agricultural sciences Social science Psychology Economics and business Educational sciences Sociology Law Political science Social and economic geography Media and communications Other social sciences Humanities History and archaeology Languages and literature Philosophy, ethics and religion Arts (arts, history of arts, performing arts, music) Other humanities == See also == International Standard Classification of Education International Standard Classification of Occupations Wissenschaft


id: iec-common-data-dictionary-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEC_Common_Data_Dictionary-0.md
category: reference
title: IEC Common Data Dictionary
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEC_Common_Data_Dictionary
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:35:54.467954+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: iec-common-data-dictionary-20260505-0
summary:
IEC Common Data Dictionary (abbreviated: IEC CDD) is a metadata registry providing product classification and formalized product descriptions that can be used in the context of smart manufacturing and Industrie 4.0. == Data Model == IEC CDD is based on the data model defined in IEC 61360-2/ISO 13584–42 with an enhancement of its modelling capability adopted from IEC 62656-1. The description of the data model for dictionary developers in particular for those in electrotechnical domains is given in IEC 61360-1. Currently the scope of the registry is extended to cover all ISO and IEC domains, thus it is no longer "IEC CDD", nevertheless it is hosted by IEC-CO and is maintained by IEC SC 3D with a joint working group formed between IEC SC 3D and ISO TC 184/SC4. The data model of the CDD references ISO/IEC 11179 for the identification of the registered elements . It is used to host product classifications. - This means the IEC CDD is a database providing classifications and metadata definitions for describing products. The IEC CDD is an International Standard in the form of an online database, not in the form of (e-)paper, and is given the standard number IEC 61360-4 DB. Thus


id: nickel-strunz-classification-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel–Strunz_classification-0.md
category: reference
title: Nickel–Strunz classification
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel–Strunz_classification
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:35:55.685536+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: nickel-strunz-classification-20260505-0
summary:
Nickel–Strunz classification is a scheme for categorizing minerals based upon their chemical composition, introduced by German mineralogist Karl Hugo Strunz (24 February 1910 – 19 April 2006) in his Mineralogische Tabellen (1941). The 4th and the 5th edition were also edited by Christel Tennyson (1966). It was followed by A.S. Povarennykh with a modified classification (1966 in Russian, 1972 in English). As curator of the Mineralogical Museum of Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität (now known as the Humboldt University of Berlin), Strunz had been tasked with sorting the museum's geological collection according to crystal-chemical properties. His book Mineralogical Tables, has been through a number of modifications; the most recent edition, published in 2001, is the ninth (Mineralogical Tables by Hugo Strunz and Ernest H. Nickel (31 August 1925 – 18 July 2009)). The IMA/CNMNC supports the Nickel–Strunz database. == Nickel–Strunz code scheme == The Nickel–Strunz code scheme is NN.XY.##x, where: NN: Nickel–Strunz mineral class number X: Nickel–Strunz mineral division letter Y: Nickel–Strunz mineral family letter ##x: Nickel–Strunz mineral/group number; x an add-on letter == Nickel–Strunz mineral classes == The current scheme divides minerals into ten classes, which are further divided into divisions, families and groups according to chemical composition and crystal structure. elements sulfides


id: physh-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhySH-0.md
category: reference
title: PhySH
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhySH
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:35:56.916789+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: physh-20260505-0
summary:
PhySH, an abbreviation for Physics Subject Headings, is a classification scheme developed by the American Physical Society (APS) as a universal classification scheme covering all branches of physics including astronomy, quantum computation, and physics education. This scheme was unveiled in January 2016. It substitutes the previous Physics and Astronomy Classification Scheme (PACS) of the American Institute of Physics (AIP) and is currently the working tool for all journals of APS and all scientific Conferences and Meetings called by APS. == Brief history == PACS was created by AIP in the 1970s. AIP maintained and updated it until 2010, when AIP decided to keep PACS 2010 as its final version because of the inherent limitations to the PACS system. Under these conditions, and confronted with the necessity to operate an efficient classification system well-accommodated to fast developments in various branches of physics, APS developed its own PhySH system. The development of PhySH started in 2012, and it has been unveiled in January 2016. Being word based, i.e., operating with regular English words rather than formal PACS codes, PhySH is much more intuitive than PACS. Also, new concepts originating in the course of the development of science can be organically incorporated into


id: physics-and-astronomy-classification-scheme-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_and_Astronomy_Classification_Scheme-0.md
category: reference
title: Physics and Astronomy Classification Scheme
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_and_Astronomy_Classification_Scheme
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:35:58.111321+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: physics-and-astronomy-classification-scheme-20260505-0
summary:
The Physics and Astronomy Classification Scheme (PACS) is a scheme developed in 1970 by the American Institute of Physics (AIP) for classifying scientific literature using a hierarchical set of codes. PACS has been used by over 160 international journals, including the Physical Review series since 1975. Since 2016, American Physical Society introduced the PhySH (Physics Subject Headings) system instead of PACS. == Discontinuation == AIP has announced that PACS 2010 will be the final version, but it will continue to be available through their website. The decision was made to discontinue PACS, owing to the administrative complexity of the revision process and its future viability in light of changing technological and research trends. However, PACS is still in use by scientific journals. In association with Access Innovations, Inc., the AIP has developed a new "AIP Thesaurus", which it states will enable faster, more accurate and more efficient searches. == See also == Mathematics Subject Classification (MSC) Computing Classification System (CCS) PhySH (Physics Subject Headings) == References == == External links == "Physics and Astronomy Classification Scheme (PACS)". Physical Review Journals. 11 January 2008. https://web.archive.org/web/20070826124822/http://www.aip.org/pacs/Information on PACS https://web.archive.org/web/20171201041118/https://publishing.aip.org/publishing/pacs/pacs-2010-regular-editionPACS 2010 "PACS 2010". physics.zju.edu.cn. Archived from the original on 2019-02-02. Retrieved 2019-02-01. "PACS


id: comparison-of-butterflies-and-moths-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_butterflies_and_moths-0.md
category: reference
title: Comparison of butterflies and moths
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_butterflies_and_moths
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:35:59.785874+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: comparison-of-butterflies-and-moths-20260505-0
summary:
A common classification of the Lepidoptera involves their differentiation into butterflies and moths. Butterflies are a natural monophyletic group, historically treated as the suborder Rhopalocera, which includes Papilionoidea (true butterflies), Hesperiidae (skippers), and Hedylidae (butterfly moths). In this taxonomic scheme, moths formed the suborder Heterocera. Other taxonomic schemes have been proposed, the most common putting the butterflies into the suborder Ditrysia and then the "superfamily" Papilionoidea and ignoring a classification for moths. == Taxonomy == While the butterflies form a monophyletic group, the moths, which comprise the rest of the Lepidoptera, do not. Many attempts have been made to group the superfamilies of the Lepidoptera into natural groups, most of which fail because one of the two groups is not monophyletic: Microlepidoptera and Macrolepidoptera, Heterocera and Rhopalocera, Jugatae and Frenatae, Monotrysia and Ditrysia. Although the rules for distinguishing these groups are not absolute, one very good guiding principle is that butterflies have thin antennae and (with one exception) have small balls or clubs at the end of their antennae. Moth antennae can be quite varied in appearance, but in particular lack the club end. The divisions are named by this principle: "club-antennae" (Rhopalocera) or "varied-antennae" (Heterocera). The following families of


id: comparison-of-butterflies-and-moths-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_butterflies_and_moths-1.md
category: reference
title: Comparison of butterflies and moths
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_butterflies_and_moths
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:35:59.785874+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: comparison-of-butterflies-and-moths-20260505-0
summary:
=== Eye types === Despite appearances, butterflies and moths have different types of compound eyes. Though not universal, moths very commonly have superposition eyes, while butterflies equally commonly favour apposition eyes. This is due to the superposition eye's adaptations for low light environments suiting the nocturnal moths, and the apposition eye's superior resolution and potential for colour vision benefiting the more diurnal butterflies. There are several exceptions to this rule, such as with the diurnal Zygaenidae and Sytomidae families of moths, both of which have apposition eyes, or the Hedyloidea family of butterflies, which are nocturnal and feature superposition eyes. In most cases where one species is found to be using the opposite type of eye than expected, it is because they are active during the opposite time of day than is normal for other butterflies or moths. == Behavioural differences == === Time of activity === Most moths are nocturnal or crepuscular while most butterflies are diurnal. There are however exceptions, including the spectacular Uraniidae or sunset moths. A few species, such as the male European/North American spongy moth, fly during both day and night in search of the females, which are flightless. === Resting posture === Moths usually


id: characteristics-of-common-wasps-and-bees-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characteristics_of_common_wasps_and_bees-0.md
category: reference
title: Characteristics of common wasps and bees
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characteristics_of_common_wasps_and_bees
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:00.978181+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: characteristics-of-common-wasps-and-bees-20260505-0
summary:
While observers can easily confuse common wasps and bees at a distance or without close observation, there are many different characteristics of large bees and wasps that can be used to identify them. == Characteristics == == See also == Schmidt sting pain index == Notes == == References == == Further reading == N. R. Levick; J. O. Schmidt; J. Harrison; G. S. Smith; K. D. Winkel (2000). "Review of bee and wasp sting injuries in Australia and the U.S.A. § Bees versus wasps: Appearance, Behaviour, and Venom chemistry". In Andrew D. Austin; Mark Dowton (eds.). Hymenoptera: evolution, biodiversity and biological control. Csiro Publishing. pp. 439–440. ISBN 978-0-643-06610-6. P. Gopalakrishnakone (1990). "Differences between wasps and bees". A Colour guide to dangerous animals. NUS Press. p. 47. ISBN 978-9971-69-150-9. Philip B. Mortenson (2008). "Bee · Wasp · Hornet · Ant". How to tell a turtle from a tortoise: a close look at nature's most confusing terms. Barnes & Noble. ISBN 978-0-7607-9002-1. Kevin T. Fitzgerald; Rebecca Vera (2006). "Insects — Hymenoptera". In Michael Edward Peterson; Patricia A. Talcott (eds.). Small animal toxicology (2nd ed.). Elsevier Health Sciences. ISBN 978-0-7216-0639-2. == External links == What's Buzzin' in My Garden? Differences between wasps


id: relationship-between-chemistry-and-physics-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_chemistry_and_physics-0.md
category: reference
title: Relationship between chemistry and physics
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_chemistry_and_physics
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:02.196097+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: relationship-between-chemistry-and-physics-20260505-0
summary:
The relationship between chemistry and physics is a topic of debate in the philosophy of science. The issue is a complicated one, since both physics and chemistry are divided into multiple subfields, each with their own goals. A major theme is whether, and in what sense, chemistry can be said to "reduce" to physics. == Background == Although physics and chemistry are branches of science that both study matter, they differ in the scopes of their respective subjects. While physics focuses on phenomena such as force, motion, electromagnetism, elementary particles, and spacetime, chemistry is concerned mainly with the structure and reactions of atoms and molecules, but does not necessarily deal with non-baryonic matter. However, the two disciplines overlap in subjects concerning the behaviour of fluids, the thermodynamics of chemical reactions, the magnetic forces between atoms and molecules, and quantum chemistry. Moreover, the laws of chemistry highly depend on the laws of quantum mechanics. == Material science == In some respects the two sciences have developed independently, but less so towards the end of the twentieth century. There are many areas where there is major overlap, for instance both chemical physics and physical chemistry combine the two, while materials science is


id: comparison-of-chernobyl-and-other-radioactivity-releases-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Chernobyl_and_other_radioactivity_releases-0.md
category: reference
title: Comparison of Chernobyl and other radioactivity releases
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Chernobyl_and_other_radioactivity_releases
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:03.433289+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: comparison-of-chernobyl-and-other-radioactivity-releases-20260505-0
summary:
This article compares the radioactivity release and decay from the Chernobyl disaster with various other events which involved a release of uncontrolled radioactivity. == Chernobyl compared to background radiation == Natural sources of radiation are prevalent in the environment, and come from cosmic rays, food sources (bananas have a particularly high source due to potassium-40 but all foods contain carbon and thereby carbon-14), radon gas, granite and other dense rocks, and others. The banana equivalent dose is sometimes used in science communication to visualize different levels of ionizing radiation. The collective radiation background dose for natural sources in Europe is about 500,000 man-Sieverts per year. The total dose from Chernobyl is estimated at 80,000 man-sieverts, or roughly 1/6 as much. However, some individuals, particularly in areas adjacent to the reactor, received massively higher doses. Chernobyl's radiation was detectable across Western Europe. Average doses received ranged from 0.02 mrem (Portugal) to 38 mrem (portions of Germany). == Chernobyl compared with an atomic bomb == Far fewer people died as an immediate result of the Chernobyl event than the immediate deaths from radiation at Hiroshima. Chernobyl is eventually predicted to result in up to 4,000 total deaths from cancer, sometime in the


id: comparison-of-chernobyl-and-other-radioactivity-releases-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Chernobyl_and_other_radioactivity_releases-1.md
category: reference
title: Comparison of Chernobyl and other radioactivity releases
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Chernobyl_and_other_radioactivity_releases
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:03.433289+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: comparison-of-chernobyl-and-other-radioactivity-releases-20260505-0
summary:
106Ru 7.9 TBq 103Ru 340 GBq 95Nb 11.2 TBq 95Zr 5.1 TBq 137Cs 505 GBq (estimated from the IAEA data) 141Ce 370 GBq 144Ce 240 GBq 125Sb 100 GBq 239Pu 5.2 GBq The very short-lived isotopes such as 140Ba and 131I were absent from this mixture, and the long-lived 137Cs was at a small concentration. This is because it is not able to enter the tributyl phosphate/hydrocarbon organic phase used in the first liquid-liquid extraction cycle of the PUREX process. The second cycle is normally to clean up the uranium and plutonium product. In the PUREX process, some zirconium, technetium, and other elements are extracted by the tributyl phosphate. Due to the radiation induced degradation of tributyl phosphate, the first cycle organic phase is always contaminated with ruthenium (later extracted by dibutyl hydrogen phosphate). Because the very short-lived radioisotopes and the relatively long-lived caesium isotopes are either absent or in low concentrations, the shape of the dose rate vs. time graph is different from Chernobyl, both for short times and long times after the accident. The size of the radioactive release at Tomsk-7 was much smaller, and while it caused moderate environmental contamination, it did not cause any early deaths.


id: comparison-of-chernobyl-and-other-radioactivity-releases-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Chernobyl_and_other_radioactivity_releases-2.md
category: reference
title: Comparison of Chernobyl and other radioactivity releases
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Chernobyl_and_other_radioactivity_releases
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:03.433289+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: comparison-of-chernobyl-and-other-radioactivity-releases-20260505-0
summary:
=== Reactor accidents === In this type of accident a reactor or other critical assembly releases far more fission power than was expected, or it becomes critical at the wrong moment in time. The series of examples of such events include one in an experimental facility in Buenos Aires, Argentina, on September 23, 1983 (one death), and during the Manhattan Project several people were irradiated (two, Harry Daghlian and Louis Slotin, were irradiated fatally) during "tickling the dragon's tail" experiments. These accidents tend to lead to very high doses due to direct irradiation of the workers within the site, but due to the inverse square law the dose suffered by members of the general public tends to be very small. Also, very little environmental contamination normally occurs as a result of these accidents. For instance, at Sarov the radioactivity remained confined to within the actinide metal objects which were part of the experimental system, according to the IAEA report (2001). Even the SL-1 accident (RIA, power surge in an experimental nuclear reactor in Idaho, 1961) failed to release much radioactivity outside the building in which it occurred. == See also == Church Rock uranium mill spill Comparison of Fukushima and


id: comparison-of-the-chernobyl-and-fukushima-nuclear-accidents-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_Chernobyl_and_Fukushima_nuclear_accidents-0.md
category: reference
title: Comparison of the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_Chernobyl_and_Fukushima_nuclear_accidents
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:04.617598+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: comparison-of-the-chernobyl-and-fukushima-nuclear-accidents-20260505-0
summary:
To date, the nuclear accidents at the Chernobyl (1986) and Fukushima Daiichi (2011) nuclear power plants are the only INES level 7 nuclear accidents. == Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents == The following table compares the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents. == Radioactive contamination discharge == == See also == Comparison of Chernobyl and other radioactivity releases Deaths due to the Chernobyl disaster List of accidents at the Mayak facility == Notes == == References == == External links == How Much Fuel Is at Risk at Fukushima? Chernobyl Accident. World Nuclear Association. Archived 1 March 2013 at the Wayback Machine Fukushima Nuclear Crisis Unwrapped Archived 1 February 2016 at the Wayback Machine Fukushima Nuclear Accident. IAEA Update Log BBC News: Fukushima and Chernobyl compared


id: comparison-of-the-imperial-and-us-customary-measurement-systems-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_imperial_and_US_customary_measurement_systems-0.md
category: reference
title: Comparison of the imperial and US customary measurement systems
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_imperial_and_US_customary_measurement_systems
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:09.542342+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: comparison-of-the-imperial-and-us-customary-measurement-systems-20260505-0
summary:
Both the British imperial measurement system and United States customary systems of measurement derive from earlier English unit systems used prior to 1824 that were the result of a combination of the local Anglo-Saxon units inherited from Germanic tribes and Roman units. Having this shared heritage, the two systems are quite similar, but there are differences. The US customary system is based on English systems of the 18th century, while the imperial system was defined in 1824, almost a half-century after American independence. == Volume == Volume may be measured either in terms of units of cubic length or with specific volume units. The units of cubic length (the cubic inch, cubic foot, cubic mile, etc.) are the same in the imperial and US customary systems, but they differ in their specific units of volume (the bushel, gallon, fluid ounce, etc.). The US customary system has a set of units for fluids, it has a different measure for dry goods for the pint, quart and barrel, and a peck and bushel for dry goods only. The imperial system has only one set of measurements, defined independently of the US customary system. By the end of the 18th century, various systems


id: comparison-of-the-imperial-and-us-customary-measurement-systems-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_imperial_and_US_customary_measurement_systems-1.md
category: reference
title: Comparison of the imperial and US customary measurement systems
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_imperial_and_US_customary_measurement_systems
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:09.542342+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: comparison-of-the-imperial-and-us-customary-measurement-systems-20260505-0
summary:
== Length == The international yard is defined as exactly 0.9144 metres. This definition was approved by the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand through the international yard and pound agreement of 1959, and corresponds with the previous 1930s British and American definitions of 1 inch being 25.4 mm. In all systems, a yard is 36 inches. The US survey foot and survey mile were maintained as separate units for surveying purposes to avoid the accumulation of error that would follow replacing them with the international versions, particularly with State Plane Coordinate Systems. The choice of unit for surveying purposes is based on the unit used when the overall framework or geodetic datum for the region was established; for example, much of the former British empire still uses the Clarke foot for surveying. The US survey foot is defined so that 1 metre is exactly 39.37 inches, making the international foot of 0.3048 metres exactly two parts per million shorter. This is a difference of just over 3.2 mm, or a little more than one-eighth of an inch per mile. According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the survey foot is obsolete


id: dialogue-concerning-the-two-chief-world-systems-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems-0.md
category: reference
title: Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:10.787237+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: dialogue-concerning-the-two-chief-world-systems-20260505-0
summary:
Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo) is a 1632 book by Galileo Galilei comparing Nicolaus Copernicus's heliocentric system model with Ptolemy's geocentric model. Written in Italian, it was translated into Latin as Systema cosmicum (Cosmic System) in 1635 by Matthias Bernegger. The book was dedicated to Galileo's patron, Ferdinando II de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany, who received the first printed copy on February 22, 1632. It consists of four Socratic dialogues between the Copernican Salviati, the educated layman Sagredo and the geocentrist Simplicio. They discuss the findings of their "mutual friend the Academician" (Galileo). In the heliocentric system, the Earth and other planets orbit the Sun, while in the Ptolemaic system, everything in the Universe circles around the Earth. The Dialogue was published in Florence under a formal license from the Inquisition. In 1633, Galileo was found to be "vehemently suspect of heresy" based on the book, which was then placed on the Index of Forbidden Books, from which it was not removed until 1835 (after the theories it discussed had been permitted in print in 1822). In an action that was not announced at the time, the publication of


id: dialogue-concerning-the-two-chief-world-systems-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems-1.md
category: reference
title: Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:10.787237+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: dialogue-concerning-the-two-chief-world-systems-20260505-0
summary:
Direct physical argument for the Earth's motion, by means of an explanation of tides. As an account of the causation of tides or a proof of the Earth's motion, it is a failure. The fundamental argument is internally inconsistent and actually leads to the conclusion that tides do not exist. But, Galileo was fond of the argument and devoted the "Fourth Day" of the discussion to it. The degree of its failure is—like nearly anything having to do with Galileo—a matter of controversy. On the one hand, the whole thing has recently been described in print as "cockamamie." On the other hand, Einstein used a rather different description: It was Galileo's longing for a mechanical proof of the motion of the earth which misled him into formulating a wrong theory of the tides. The fascinating arguments in the last conversation would hardly have been accepted as proof by Galileo, had his temperament not got the better of him. [Emphasis added] === Omissions === The Dialogue does not treat the Tychonic system, which was becoming the preferred system of many astronomers at the time of publication and which was ultimately proven incorrect. The Tychonic system is a motionless Earth system but


id: dialogue-concerning-the-two-chief-world-systems-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems-2.md
category: reference
title: Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:10.787237+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: dialogue-concerning-the-two-chief-world-systems-20260505-0
summary:
=== Day one === Salviati starts with Aristotle's proof of the completeness and perfection of the world (i.e. the universe) because of its three dimensions. Simplicio points out that three was favoured by the Pythagoreans whereas Salviati cannot understand why three legs are better than two or four. He suggests that the numbers were "trifles which later spread among the vulgar" and that their definitions, such as those of straight lines and right angles, were more useful in establishing the dimensions. Simplicio's response was that Aristotle thought that in physical matters mathematical demonstration was not always needed. Salviati attacks Aristotle's definition of the heavens as incorruptible and unchanging whilst only the lunar-bound zone shows change. He points to the changes seen in the skies: the new stars of 1572 and 1604 and sunspots, seen through the new telescope. There is a discussion about Aristotle's use of a priori arguments. Salviati suggests that Aristotle uses Aristotle’s personal experience to choose an appropriate argument to prove just as others do and that Aristotle would change his mind in the present circumstances. Simplicio argues that sunspots could simply be small opaque objects passing in front of the Sun, but Salviati points out that


id: dialogue-concerning-the-two-chief-world-systems-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems-3.md
category: reference
title: Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:10.787237+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: dialogue-concerning-the-two-chief-world-systems-20260505-0
summary:
They consider three main objections to the motion of the Earth: that a falling body would be left behind by the Earth and thus fall far to the west of its point of release; that a cannonball fired to the west would similarly fly much further than one fired to the east; and that a cannonball fired vertically would also land far to the west. Salviati shows that these do not take account of the impetus of the cannon. He also points out that attempting to prove that the Earth does not move by using vertical fall commits the logical fault of paralogism (assuming what is to be proved), because if the Earth is moving then it is only in appearance that it is falling vertically; in fact it is falling at a slant, as happens with a cannonball rising through the cannon (illustrated). In rebutting a work which claims that a ball falling from the Moon would take six days to arrive, the odd-number rule is introduced: a body falling 1 unit in an interval would fall 3 units in the next interval, 5 units in the subsequent one, etc. This gives rise to the rule by which the


id: dialogue-concerning-the-two-chief-world-systems-20260505-4
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems-4.md
category: reference
title: Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:10.787237+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: dialogue-concerning-the-two-chief-world-systems-20260505-0
summary:
Copernicus has succeeded in reducing some of the uneven motions of Ptolemy who had to deal with motions that sometimes go fast, sometimes slow, and sometimes backwards, by means of vast epicycles. Mars, above the Sun's sphere, often falls far below it, then soars above it. These anomalies are cured by the annual movement of the Earth. This is explained by a diagram in which the varying motion of Jupiter is shown using the Earth's orbit. Simplicio produces another booklet in which theological arguments are mixed with astronomic, but Salviati refuses to address the issues from Scripture. So he produces the argument that the fixed stars must be at an inconceivable distance with the smallest larger than the whole orbit of the Earth. Salviati explains that this all comes from a misrepresentation of what Copernicus said, resulting in a huge over-calculation of the size of a sixth magnitude star. But many other famous astronomers over-estimated the size of stars by ignoring the brightness factor. Not even Tycho, with his accurate instruments, set himself to measure the size of any star except the Sun and Moon. But Salviati (Galileo) was able to make a reasonable estimate simply by hanging a cord


id: dialogue-concerning-the-two-chief-world-systems-20260505-5
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems-5.md
category: reference
title: Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:10.787237+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: dialogue-concerning-the-two-chief-world-systems-20260505-0
summary:
=== Day four === They are in Sagredo's house in Venice, where tides are an important issue, and Salviati wants to show the effect of the Earth's movement on the tides. He first points out the three periods of the tides: daily (diurnal), generally with intervals of 6 hours of rising and six more of falling; monthly, seemingly from the Moon, which increases or decreases these tides; and annual, leading to different sizes at the equinoxes. He considers first the daily motion. Three varieties are observed: in some places the waters rise and fall without any forward motion; in others they move towards the east and back to the west without rising or falling; in still others there is a combination of both—this happens in Venice where the waters rise on entering and fall on leaving. In the Straits of Messina there are very swift currents between Scylla and Charybdis. In the open Mediterranean the alteration of height is small but the currents are noticeable. Simplicio counters with the peripatetic explanations, which are based on the depths of the sea, and the dominion of the Moon over the water, though this does not explain the risings when the Moon is


id: hardness-comparison-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardness_comparison-0.md
category: reference
title: Hardness comparison
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardness_comparison
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:11.946761+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: hardness-comparison-20260505-0
summary:
A variety of hardness-testing methods are available, including the Vickers, Brinell, Rockwell, Meyer and Leeb tests. Although it is impossible in many cases to give an exact conversion, it is possible to give an approximate material-specific comparison table for steels. == Hardness comparison table == == References == == Further reading == ISO 18265: "Metallic materials — Conversion of hardness values" (2013) ASTM E140-12B(2019)e1: "Standard Hardness Conversion Tables for Metals Relationship Among Brinell Hardness, Vickers Hardness, Rockwell Hardness, Superficial Hardness, Knoop Hardness, Scleroscope Hardness, and Leeb Hardness" (2019) == External links == Hardness Conversion Table – Brinell, Rockwell, Vickers – Various steels . (Archived) (archived November 11, 2011) Rockwell to Brinell conversion chart (Brinell, Rockwell A, B, C) Struers hardness conversion table (Vickers, Brinell, Rockwell B, C, D)


id: integrative-and-comparative-biology-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrative_and_Comparative_Biology-0.md
category: reference
title: Integrative and Comparative Biology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrative_and_Comparative_Biology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:13.082696+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: integrative-and-comparative-biology-20260505-0
summary:
Integrative and Comparative Biology is the scientific journal for the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology (formerly the American Society of Zoologists). Prior to volume 42 (2002), the journal was known as American Zoologist ISSN 0003-1569. == See also == List of zoology journals == External links == Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology


id: life-cycle-greenhouse-gas-emissions-of-energy-sources-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources-0.md
category: reference
title: Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of energy sources
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:14.271215+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: life-cycle-greenhouse-gas-emissions-of-energy-sources-20260505-0
summary:
Greenhouse gas emissions are one of the environmental impacts of electricity generation. Measurement of life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions involves calculating the global warming potential (GWP) of energy sources through life-cycle assessment. These are usually sources of only electrical energy but sometimes sources of heat are evaluated. The findings are presented in units of global warming potential per unit of electrical energy generated by that source. The scale uses the global warming potential unit, the carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), and the unit of electrical energy, the kilowatt hour (kWh). The goal of such assessments is to cover the full life of the source, from material and fuel mining through construction to operation and waste management. In 2014, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change harmonized the carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) findings of the major electricity generating sources in use worldwide. This was done by analyzing the findings of hundreds of individual scientific papers assessing each energy source. Coal is by far the worst emitter, followed by natural gas, with solar, wind and nuclear all low-carbon. Hydropower, biomass, geothermal and ocean power may generally be low-carbon, but poor design or other factors could result in higher emissions from individual power stations. For all


id: life-cycle-greenhouse-gas-emissions-of-energy-sources-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources-1.md
category: reference
title: Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of energy sources
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:14.271215+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: life-cycle-greenhouse-gas-emissions-of-energy-sources-20260505-0
summary:
Although the life cycle assessments of each energy source should attempt to cover the full life cycle of the source from cradle-to-grave, they are generally limited to the construction and operation phase. The most rigorously studied phases are those of material and fuel mining, construction, operation, and waste management. However, missing life cycle phases exist for a number of energy sources. At times, assessments variably and sometimes inconsistently include the global warming potential that results from decommissioning the energy supplying facility, once it has reached its designed life-span. This includes the global warming potential of the process to return the power-supply site to greenfield status. For example, the process of hydroelectric dam removal is usually excluded as it is a rare practice with little practical data available. Dam removal however is becoming increasingly common as dams age. Larger dams, such as the Hoover Dam and the Three Gorges Dam, are intended to last "forever" with the aid of maintenance, a period that is not quantified. Therefore, decommissioning estimates are generally omitted for some energy sources, while other energy sources include a decommissioning phase in their assessments. Along with the other prominent values of the paper, the median value presented of


id: relationship-between-mathematics-and-physics-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_mathematics_and_physics-0.md
category: reference
title: Relationship between mathematics and physics
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_mathematics_and_physics
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:15.509993+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: relationship-between-mathematics-and-physics-20260505-0
summary:
The relationship between mathematics and physics has been a subject of study of philosophers, mathematicians and physicists since antiquity, and more recently also by historians and educators. Generally considered a relationship of great intimacy, mathematics has been described as "an essential tool for physics" and physics has been described as "a rich source of inspiration and insight in mathematics". Some of the oldest and most discussed themes are about the main differences between the two subjects, their mutual influence, the role of mathematical rigor in physics, and the problem of explaining the effectiveness of mathematics in physics. In his work Physics, one of the topics treated by Aristotle is about how the study carried out by mathematicians differs from that carried out by physicists. Considerations about mathematics being the language of nature can be found in the ideas of the Pythagoreans: the convictions that "Numbers rule the world" and "All is number", and two millennia later were also expressed by Galileo Galilei: "The book of nature is written in the language of mathematics". == Historical interplay == Before giving a mathematical proof for the formula for the volume of a sphere, Archimedes used physical reasoning to discover the solution (imagining


id: relationship-between-mathematics-and-physics-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_mathematics_and_physics-1.md
category: reference
title: Relationship between mathematics and physics
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_mathematics_and_physics
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:15.509993+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: relationship-between-mathematics-and-physics-20260505-0
summary:
Rigor is indispensable in pure mathematics. But many definitions and arguments found in the physics literature involve concepts and ideas that are not up to the standards of rigor in mathematics. For example, Freeman Dyson characterized quantum field theory as having two "faces". The outward face looked at nature and there the predictions of quantum field theory are exceptionally successful. The inward face looked at mathematical foundations and found inconsistency and mystery. The success of the physical theory comes despite its lack of rigorous mathematical backing. Some mathematicians, such as Arthur Jaffe and Frank Quinn, argue that non-rigorous mathematical work can sometimes bring benefits too. == Philosophical problems == Some of the problems considered in the philosophy of mathematics are the following: Explain the effectiveness of mathematics in the study of the physical world: "At this point an enigma presents itself which in all ages has agitated inquiring minds. How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality?" —Albert Einstein, in Geometry and Experience (1921). Clearly delineate mathematics and physics: For some results or discoveries, it is difficult to say to


id: criticism-of-science-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_science-0.md
category: reference
title: Criticism of science
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_science
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:17.168432+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: criticism-of-science-20260505-0
summary:
Criticism of science addresses problems within science in order to improve science as a whole and its role in society. Criticisms come from philosophy, from social movements like feminism, and from within science itself. The emerging field of metascience seeks to increase the quality of and efficiency of scientific research by improving the scientific process. == Philosophical critiques == Philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend advanced the idea of epistemological anarchism, which holds that there are no useful and exception-free methodological rules governing the progress of science or the growth of knowledge, and that the idea that science can or should operate according to universal and fixed rules is unrealistic, pernicious and detrimental to science itself. Feyerabend advocates a democratic society where science is treated as equal to other ideologies or social institutions such as religion, and education, or magic and mythology, and considers the dominance of science in society authoritarian and unjustified. He also contended (along with Imre Lakatos) that the demarcation problem of distinguishing science from pseudoscience on objective grounds is not possible and thus fatal to the notion of science running according to fixed, universal rules. Feyerabend also criticized science for not having evidence for its own philosophical


id: criticism-of-science-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_science-1.md
category: reference
title: Criticism of science
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_science
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:17.168432+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: criticism-of-science-20260505-0
summary:
=== Reproducibility === The social sciences, such as social psychology, have long suffered from the problem of their studies being largely not reproducible. Now, medicine has come under similar pressures. In a phenomenon known as the replication crisis, journals are less likely to publish straight replication studies so it may be difficult to disprove results. Another result of publication bias is the Proteus phenomenon: early attempts to replicate results tend to contradict them. However, there are claims that this bias may be beneficial, allowing accurate meta-analysis with fewer publications. === Cognitive biases === Critics argue that the biggest bias within science is motivated reasoning, whereby scientists are more likely to accept evidence that supports their hypothesis and more likely to scrutinize findings that do not. Scientists do not practice pure induction but instead often come into science with preconceived ideas and often will, unconsciously or consciously, interpret observations to support their own hypotheses through confirmation bias. For example, scientists may re-run trials when they do not support a hypothesis but use results from the first trial when they do support their hypothesis. It is often argued that while each individual has cognitive biases, these biases are corrected for when scientific


id: criticism-of-science-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_science-2.md
category: reference
title: Criticism of science
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_science
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:17.168432+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: criticism-of-science-20260505-0
summary:
The mass media face a number of pressures that can prevent them from accurately depicting competing scientific claims in terms of their credibility within the scientific community as a whole. Determining how much weight to give different sides in a scientific debate requires considerable expertise regarding the matter. Few journalists have real scientific knowledge, and even beat reporters who know a great deal about certain scientific issues may know little about other ones they are suddenly asked to cover. Many issues damage the relationship of science to the media and the use of science and scientific arguments by politicians. As a very broad generalisation, many politicians seek certainties and facts whilst scientists typically offer probabilities and caveats. However, politicians' ability to be heard in the mass media frequently distorts the scientific understanding by the public. Examples in Britain include the controversy over the MMR inoculation, and the 1988 forced resignation of a government minister, Edwina Currie, for revealing the high probability that battery eggs were contaminated with Salmonella. Some scientists and philosophers suggest that scientific theories are more or less shaped by the dominant political, economic, or cultural models of the time, even though the scientific community may claim to


id: academese-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academese-0.md
category: reference
title: Academese
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academese
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:19.576791+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: academese-20260505-0
summary:
Academese is the unnecessary use of jargon in academia, particularly in academic writing in social science and humanities; it is contrasted with plain language. The term is often but not always pejorative, and occasionally can be used to refer to complex but necessary terminology. Critics of academese argue that it usually creates unnecessary difficulty in communication, with the harshest critics arguing this is intentional with writers aiming to impress the readers and hide the fact that they are not saying anything of substance. == Related concepts == In the context of medical sciences, a similar term, medicalese, exists; likewise, legal science jargon is called legalese. In the context of the English language, the term Engfish has also been used ("sounds like English but stinks like a fish"). Another related and highly pejorative term is academic bullshit. == History, examples of usage and criticism == The usage of the word in English has been traced to at least 1917, and is attributed to Will Durant, who in his Philosophy and the Social Problem defined it as an opposite of "plain language". Academic writing, particularly in the fields of art and literary criticism, was the subject of criticism by George Orwell in


id: against-method-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method-0.md
category: reference
title: Against Method
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:20.726635+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: against-method-20260505-0
summary:
Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge is a 1975 book by Austrian philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend. The central thesis of the book is that science should become an anarchic enterprise. In the context of the work, the term "anarchy" refers to epistemological anarchy, which does not remain within one single prescriptive scientific method on the grounds that any such method would restrict scientific progress. The work is notable in the history and philosophy of science partially due to its detailed case study of Galileo's hypothesis that the earth rotates on its axis and has since become a staple reading in introduction to philosophy of science courses at undergraduate and graduate levels. Against Method contains many verbatim excerpts from Feyerabend's earlier papers including "Explanation, Reduction, and Empiricism", "How to be a Good Empiricist: A Plea for Tolerance in Matters Epistemological", and "Problems of Empiricism, Part I." Because of this, Feyerabend claims that "[Against Method] is not a book, it is a collage." Later editions of Against Method included passages from Science in a Free Society. == Publication, Translations, and Editions == Feyerabend began writing Against Method in 1968 and it was originally released as a long paper


id: against-method-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method-1.md
category: reference
title: Against Method
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:20.726635+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: against-method-20260505-0
summary:
=== Counterinduction === Feyerabend contends that for every methodological rule, there is a 'counter rule' – namely, a methodological rule that recommends the opposite of its counter – which also has value. As an example of this general hypothesis, Feyerabend defends 'counterinduction' as the counter rule to inductivism and "induction by falsification" as a valuable methodological rule. Counterinduction involves developing theories that are inconsistent with currently accepted empirical evidence, which is the opposite of the (then) commonly accepted rule that theories should be developed that are consistent with known facts. Feyerabend argues for counterinduction by showing that theories that conflict with known facts are useful for revealing 'natural interpretations' which must be made explicit so that they can be examined. Natural interpretations are interpretations of experience, expressed in language, that follow automatically and unconsciously from describing observations. After a theory has been accepted for a long period of time, it becomes habit to describe events or processes using certain concepts. Because, Feyerabend argues, observation underdetermines the ways we describe what we observe, theories that redescribe experience in new ways force us to make comparisons between old natural interpretations and new ones. This is the first step to evaluating the plausibility


id: against-method-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method-2.md
category: reference
title: Against Method
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:20.726635+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: against-method-20260505-0
summary:
=== Galileo case study === The primary case study in Against Method is Galileo's hypothesis that the earth rotates on its axis. According to Feyerabend's reconstruction, Galileo did not justify this hypothesis by reference to known facts, nor did he offer an unfalsified conjecture that had more empirical content than its predecessor. Rather, Galileo's hypothesis would rationally have been considered to be false by the existing evidence at the time, and it is lower in empirical content than Aristotelian theory of motion. Moreover, Galileo did not provide arguments to justify his contention but instead used propaganda. According to the existing evidence in the early 17th century, the position that the earth rotates on its axis would have rightly been regarded as false. For example, Galileo's theory of the tides suggested by the motion of the earth was inaccurate and the differences "were big enough to be known even to the most bleary-eyed sailor." In addition, the motion of the earth on its axis leads to the wrong predictions of the relative brightness of Mars and Venus when measured with the naked eye. To correct for these mistakes, Galileo introduces new evidence through his telescope. However, the telescope was not theoretically


id: against-method-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method-3.md
category: reference
title: Against Method
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:20.726635+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: against-method-20260505-0
summary:
=== Discovery/justification distinction === Herbert Feigl criticizes Feyerabend's earlier work, including the paper edition of Against Method, for conflating the distinction between the context of discovery and the context of justification. According to this distinction, formulated by Hans Reichenbach and Karl Popper, there is no logic about how scientists develop scientific theories but there should be a logic of confirming or disconfirming scientific theories. Once this distinction is accepted, then Feyerabend's claim that 'anything goes' would be a truism and would not run against logical empiricism. Feyerabend's response in Against Method is to reject the validity of the discovery/justification distinction. He argues that while the distinction can be maintained abstractly, it does not find a "point of attack" in scientific practice. This is because the two contexts are not separated in different phases of scientific research but are always comingled. Discounting evidence, for example is often necessary for scientific discovery but is rejected when seeking justification. Justifying scientific theories has implications for what research is conducted and, therefore, questions about what is justified also affects the paths open to discovery. === Criticism of Lakatos === The first edition of Against Method contains a chapter devoted to critically discussing Lakatos' methodology


id: against-method-20260505-4
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method-4.md
category: reference
title: Against Method
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:20.726635+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: against-method-20260505-0
summary:
== Aftermath == Feyerabend responded to these criticisms in several follow-up publications, many of which he collected in Science in a Free Society. He was extremely frustrated by the quality of the reviews of Against Method, leading him to accuse them of illiteracy and a lack of competence. In his autobiography, he writes that he sometimes wishes that "he had never written that fucking book." This response led to Feyerabend's gradual removal from the academic community which also corresponded to changes of research topics in his work in the 1980s. == References == == Further reading == The first, 1970 edition, is available for download in pdf form from the Minnesota Center for Philosophy of Science (part of the University of Minnesota). Follow this link path: Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science > 4. Analyses of Theories & Methods of Physics and Psychology. 1970. Editors: M. Radner and S. Winokur > Open Access > Under the "Whoops!" message click 'Download' From the resulting file '4_Theories&Methods.zip' you need the three Feyerabend sections, 4_2_1_Feyerabend.pdf, 4_2_2_Feyerabend.pdf, 4_2_3_Feyerabend.pdf and the immediate following article on A Picture Theory of Theory Meaning (sic) (4_3_Hanson.pdf) in order to get the complete set of footnotes. Discussion of


id: the-age-of-the-world-picture-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_the_World_Picture-0.md
category: reference
title: The Age of the World Picture
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_the_World_Picture
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:21.931182+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: the-age-of-the-world-picture-20260505-0
summary:
"The Age of the World Picture" or "The Age of the World View" (German: Die Zeit des Weltbildes) is a 1938 lecture by Martin Heidegger in which he addresses the metaphysical ground of modern science. It was published in the essay collection Off the Beaten Track in 1950. == English translations == The essay has been translated as "The Age of the World View" by Marjorie Grene (1951) and as "The Age of the World Picture" by William Lovitt (1977) and Julian Young (2002). == Critique == Sidonie Kellerer believes that Heidegger published the text to show his “inner resistance” after the mid-1930s against the Nazi regime and as evidence for his early refusal of National Socialism and his rejection of a modern ideology that resulted in the totalitarian system. Emphasizing the differences between the published text and the original lecture delivered in 1938, she thinks that the differences show "the artful falsifications" used by Heidegger in order to re-establish his reputation. == References == == External links == The Age of the World Picture: Hermeneutics and the Weltanschauung Theory The Age of the World-Picture is a Fine Thirty-Two (at the Time of Writing) The Age of the World Picture


id: anarcho-primitivism-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism-0.md
category: reference
title: Anarcho-primitivism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:26.676753+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: anarcho-primitivism-20260505-0
summary:
Anarcho-primitivism is an anarchist critique of civilization and a branch of green anarchism that advocates a return to non-civilized ways of life through deindustrialization, abolition of the division of labor or specialization, abandonment of large-scale organization and all technology other than prehistoric technology, and the dissolution of agriculture. Anarcho-primitivists critique the origins and alleged progress of the Industrial Revolution and industrial society. Most anarcho-primitivists advocate for a tribal-like way of life while some see an even simpler lifestyle as beneficial. According to anarcho-primitivists, the shift from hunter-gatherer to agricultural subsistence during the Neolithic Revolution gave rise to coercion, social alienation, and social stratification. Anarcho-primitivism argues that civilization is at the root of societal and environmental problems. Primitivists also consider domestication, technology and language to cause social alienation from "authentic reality". As a result, they propose the abolition of civilization and a return to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. == Roots == The roots of primitivism lay in Enlightenment philosophy and the critical theory of the Frankfurt School. The early-modern philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau blamed agriculture and cooperation for the development of social inequality and causing habitat destruction. In his Discourse on Inequality, Rousseau depicted the state of nature as a "primitivist utopia"; however,


id: antiscience-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience-0.md
category: reference
title: Antiscience
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:27.931824+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: antiscience-20260505-0
summary:
Antiscience is a set of attitudes and a form of anti-intellectualism that involves a rejection of science and the scientific method. People holding antiscientific views do not accept science as an objective method that can generate universal knowledge. Antiscience commonly manifests through rejection of scientific ideas such as climate change and evolution and the effectiveness of vaccination. It also includes pseudoscience, methods that claim to be scientific but reject the scientific method. Antiscience can lead to belief in false conspiracy theories and alternative medicine. Lack of trust in science has been linked to the promotion of political extremism, corruption and distrust in medical treatments. == History == In the early days of the Scientific Revolution, scientists such as Robert Boyle (1627–1691) found themselves in conflict with those such as Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), who were skeptical of whether science was a satisfactory way to obtain genuine knowledge about the world. Hobbes' stance is regarded by Ian Shapiro as an antiscience position: In his Six Lessons to the Professors of Mathematics,...[published in 1656, Hobbes] distinguished 'demonstrable' fields, as 'those the construction of the subject whereof is in the power of the artist himself,' from 'indemonstrable' ones 'where the causes are to seek


id: antiscience-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience-1.md
category: reference
title: Antiscience
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:27.931824+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: antiscience-20260505-0
summary:
The term "scientism", originating in science studies, was adopted and is used by sociologists and philosophers of science to describe the views, beliefs and behavior of strong supporters of applying ostensibly scientific concepts beyond its traditional disciplines. Specifically, scientism promotes science as the best or only objective means to determine normative and epistemological values. The term scientism is generally used critically, implying a cosmetic application of science in unwarranted situations considered not amenable to application of the scientific method or similar scientific standards. The word is commonly used in a pejorative sense, applying to individuals who seem to be treating science in a similar way to a religion. The term reductionism is occasionally used in a similarly pejorative way (as a more subtle attack on scientists). However, some scientists feel comfortable being labelled as reductionists, while agreeing that there might be conceptual and philosophical shortcomings of reductionism. However, non-reductionist (see Emergentism) views of science have been formulated in varied forms in several scientific fields like statistical physics, chaos theory, complexity theory, cybernetics, systems theory, systems biology, ecology, information theory, etc. Such fields tend to assume that strong interactions between units produce new phenomena in "higher" levels that cannot be accounted


id: antiscience-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience-2.md
category: reference
title: Antiscience
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:27.931824+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: antiscience-20260505-0
summary:
Historically, antiscience first arose as a reaction against scientific materialism. The 18th century Enlightenment had ushered in "the ideal of a unified system of all the sciences", but there were those fearful of this notion, who "felt that constrictions of reason and science, of a single all-embracing system... were in some way constricting, an obstacle to their vision of the world, chains on their imagination or feeling". Antiscience then is a rejection of "the scientific model [or paradigm]... with its strong implication that only that which was quantifiable, or at any rate, measurable... was real". In this sense, it comprises a "critical attack upon the total claim of the new scientific method to dominate the entire field of human knowledge". However, scientific positivism (logical positivism) does not deny the reality of non-measurable phenomena, only that those phenomena should not be adequate to scientific investigation. Moreover, positivism, as a philosophical basis for the scientific method, is not consensual or even dominant in the scientific community (see philosophy of science). Recent developments and discussions around antiscience attitudes reveal how deeply intertwined these beliefs are with social, political, and psychological factors. A study published by Ohio State News on July 11, 2022, identified


id: antiscience-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience-3.md
category: reference
title: Antiscience
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:27.931824+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: antiscience-20260505-0
summary:
=== Ecology and health sphere === Within the ecological and health spheres, Levins identifies a conflict "not between science and antiscience, but rather between different pathways for science and technology; between a commodified science-for-profit and a gentle science for humane goals; between the sciences of the smallest parts and the sciences of dynamic wholes... [he] offers proposals for a more holistic, integral approach to understanding and addressing environmental issues". These beliefs are also common within the scientific community, with for example, scientists being prominent in environmental campaigns warning of environmental dangers such as ozone depletion and the greenhouse effect. In the medical sphere, patients and practitioners may choose to reject science and adopt a pseudoscientific approach to health problems. This can be both a practical and a conceptual shift and has attracted strong criticism: "therapeutic touch, a healing technique based upon the laying-on of hands, has found wide acceptance in the nursing profession despite its lack of scientific plausibility. Its acceptance is indicative of a broad antiscientific trend in nursing". Glazer also criticises the therapists and patients, "for abandoning the biological underpinnings of nursing and for misreading philosophy in the service of an antiscientific world-view". In contrast, Brian Martin criticized


id: antiscience-20260505-4
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience-4.md
category: reference
title: Antiscience
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:27.931824+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: antiscience-20260505-0
summary:
== Bibliography == A Bullock & S Trombley [Eds.], The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought, third edition, London: Harper Collins, 1999 Burger, P and Luckman, T, "The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise" in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966 Collins, Harry and Pinch, Trevor, The Golem. What everyone should know about science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993 Gross, Paul R and Norman Levitt, Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994 Gerald Holton, Science and anti-science, Harvard University Press, 1993 ISBN 0674792998 Knorr-Cetina, Karin D, & Mulkay, Michael, Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science, Sage Publications Ltd, 1983 Knorr-Cetina, Karin D, Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge, Harvard University Press, 1999 Levins, R. "Ten propositions on science and antiscience" in Social Text, 46/47:101–111, 1996. Levins, R. "Touch Red," in Judy Kaplan an Linn Shapiro, eds., Red Diapers: Growing up in the Communist Left, U. of Illinois, 1998, pp. 257–266. Levins, R. "Dialectics and systems theory" in Science and Society 62(3):373–399, 1998. Levins, R. "The internal and external in explanatory theories", Science as Culture, 7(4):557–582, 1998. Levins, R. and Lopez C. "Toward an ecosocial


id: betrayers-of-the-truth-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betrayers_of_the_Truth-0.md
category: reference
title: Betrayers of the Truth
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betrayers_of_the_Truth
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:29.087160+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: betrayers-of-the-truth-20260505-0
summary:
Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science is a book by William Broad and Nicholas Wade, published in 1982 by Simon & Schuster in New York, and subsequently (1983) also by Century Publishing in London, and with a simplified subtitle as Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in Science by Oxford University Press in 1985. The book is a critique of some widely held beliefs about the nature of science and the scientific process. Broad and Wade argue that the conventional wisdom that science is a strictly logical process, with objectivity the essence of scientist's attitudes, errors being speedily corrected by rigorous peer scrutiny and experiment replication, is a mythical ideal. Our conclusion, in brief, is that science bears little resemblance to its conventional portrait. We believe that the logical structure discernible in scientific knowledge says nothing about the process by which the structure was built or the mentality of the builders. In the acquisition of knowledge, scientists are not guided by logic and objectivity alone, but also by such nonrational factors as rhetoric, propaganda, and personal prejudice. Scientists do not depend solely on rational thought, and have no monopoly on it. The authors


id: big-science-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_science-0.md
category: reference
title: Big science
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_science
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:30.298147+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: big-science-20260505-0
summary:
Big science is a term used by scientists and historians of science to describe a series of changes in science which occurred in industrial nations during and after World War II, as scientific progress increasingly came to rely on large-scale projects usually funded by national governments or groups of governments. Individual or small group efforts, or small science, are still relevant today as theoretical results by individual authors may have a significant impact, but very often the empirical verification requires experiments using constructions, such as the Large Hadron Collider, costing between $5 and $10 billion. == Development == While science and technology have always been important to and driven by warfare, the increase in military funding of science following the second World War was on a scale wholly unprecedented. James Conant, in a 1941 letter to Chemical Engineering News, said that World War II "is a physicist's war rather than a chemist's," a phrase that was cemented in the vernacular in post-war discussion of the role that those scientists played in the development of new weapons and tools, notably the proximity fuse, radar, and the atomic bomb. The bulk of these last two activities took place in a new form


id: big-science-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_science-1.md
category: reference
title: Big science
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_science
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:30.298147+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: big-science-20260505-0
summary:
When history looks at the 20th century, she will see science and technology as its theme; she will find in the monuments of Big Science—the huge rockets, the high-energy accelerators, the high-flux research reactors—symbols of our time just as surely as she finds in Notre Dame a symbol of the Middle Ages. ... We build our monuments in the name of scientific truth, they built theirs in the name of religious truth; we use our Big Science to add to our country's prestige, they used their churches for their cities' prestige; we build to placate what ex-President Eisenhower suggested could become a dominant scientific caste, they built to please the priests of Isis and Osiris. Weinberg's article addressed criticisms of the way in which the era of Big Science could negatively affect science — such as astronomer Fred Hoyle's contention that excessive money for science would only make science fat and lazy — and encouraged, in the end, limiting Big Science only to the national laboratory system and preventing its incursion into the university system. Since Weinberg's article there have been many historical and sociological studies on the effects of Big Science both in and out of the laboratory. Soon


id: conquest-of-abundance-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_Abundance-0.md
category: reference
title: Conquest of Abundance
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_Abundance
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:31.442333+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: conquest-of-abundance-20260505-0
summary:
Conquest of Abundance: A Tale of Abstraction versus the Richness of Being is the last book by the Austrian philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend, published posthumously by the University of Chicago Press in 1999. It is edited by Bert Terpstra and includes a foreword from Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend, Feyerabend's 4th and final wife. The book was uncompleted due to Feyerabend's death in 1994 and was written to fulfill a promise made to Borrini-Feyerabend. The unfinished manuscript was published alongside several other previously published papers that engaged with the core themes of the book. == Translations == Conquest of Abundance has been translated into four languages: Spanish translation by Radamés Molina and César Mora: La conquista de la abundancia: La abstracción frente a la riqueza del ser, Paidós: Barcelona and Buenos Aires 2001, 336 pp. Italian translation by P. Adamo: Conquista dell'abbondanza: Storie dello scontro fra astrazione e ricchezza dell'essere, Raffaello Cortina: Milan 2002, 350 pp. German translation by Volker Böhnigk and Rainer Noske: Die Vernichitung der Vielfalt: Ein Bericht, Peter Engelmann (ed.), Passagen: Vienna 2005, 344 pp. Portuguese translation by Cecília Prada and Marcelo Rouanet: A Conquista da Abundância, Unisinos: São Leopoldo 2005. == Content == Conquest of Abundance contains two


id: criticism-of-the-theory-of-relativity-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity-0.md
category: reference
title: Criticism of the theory of relativity
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:32.666932+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: criticism-of-the-theory-of-relativity-20260505-0
summary:
Criticism of the theory of relativity of Albert Einstein was mainly expressed in the early years after its publication in the early twentieth century, on scientific, pseudoscientific, philosophical, or ideological bases. Though some of these criticisms had the support of reputable scientists, Einstein's theory of relativity is now accepted by the scientific community. Reasons for criticism of the theory of relativity have included alternative theories, rejection of the abstract-mathematical method, and alleged errors of the theory. Antisemitic objections to Einstein's Jewish heritage also occasionally played a role in these objections. There are still some critics of relativity today, but their opinions are not shared by the majority in the scientific community. == Special relativity == === Relativity principle versus electromagnetic worldview === Around the end of the 19th century, the view was widespread that all forces in nature are of electromagnetic origin (the "electromagnetic worldview"), especially in the works of Joseph Larmor (1897) and Wilhelm Wien (1900). This was apparently confirmed by the experiments of Walter Kaufmann (1901–1903), who measured an increase of the mass of a body with velocity which was consistent with the hypothesis that the mass was generated by its electromagnetic field. Max Abraham (1902) subsequently sketched


id: criticism-of-the-theory-of-relativity-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity-1.md
category: reference
title: Criticism of the theory of relativity
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:32.666932+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: criticism-of-the-theory-of-relativity-20260505-0
summary:
=== Claimed experimental refutations === Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments: To conclusively decide between the theories of Abraham and Lorentz, Kaufmann repeated his experiments in 1905 with improved accuracy. However, in the meantime the theoretical situation had changed. Alfred Bucherer and Paul Langevin (1904) developed another model, in which the electron is contracted in the line of motion, and dilated in the transverse direction, so that the volume remains constant. While Kaufmann was still evaluating his experiments, Einstein published his theory of special relativity. Eventually, Kaufmann published his results in December 1905 and argued that they are in agreement with Abraham's theory and require rejection of the "basic assumption of Lorentz and Einstein" (the relativity principle). Lorentz reacted with the phrase "I am at the end of my Latin", while Einstein did not mention those experiments before 1908. Yet, others started to criticize the experiments. Max Planck (1906) alluded to inconsistencies in the theoretical interpretation of the data, and Adolf Bestelmeyer (1906) introduced new techniques, which (especially in the area of low velocities) gave different results and which cast doubts on Kaufmann's methods. Therefore, Bucherer (1908) conducted new experiments and arrived at the conclusion that they confirm the mass formula of relativity and


id: criticism-of-the-theory-of-relativity-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity-2.md
category: reference
title: Criticism of the theory of relativity
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:32.666932+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: criticism-of-the-theory-of-relativity-20260505-0
summary:
=== Acceleration in special relativity === It was also claimed that special relativity cannot handle acceleration, which would lead to contradictions in some situations. However, this assessment is not correct, since acceleration actually can be described in the framework of special relativity (see Acceleration (special relativity), Proper reference frame (flat spacetime), Hyperbolic motion, Rindler coordinates, Born coordinates). Paradoxes relying on insufficient understanding of these facts were discovered in the early years of relativity. For example, Max Born (1909) tried to combine the concept of rigid bodies with special relativity. That this model was insufficient was shown by Paul Ehrenfest (1909), who demonstrated that a rotating rigid body would, according to Born's definition, undergo a contraction of the circumference without contraction of the radius, which is impossible (Ehrenfest paradox). Max von Laue (1911) showed that rigid bodies cannot exist in special relativity, since the propagation of signals cannot exceed the speed of light, so an accelerating and rotating body will undergo deformations. Paul Langevin and von Laue showed that the twin paradox can be completely resolved by consideration of acceleration in special relativity. If two twins move away from each other, and one of them is accelerating and coming back to


id: criticism-of-the-theory-of-relativity-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity-3.md
category: reference
title: Criticism of the theory of relativity
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:32.666932+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: criticism-of-the-theory-of-relativity-20260505-0
summary:
=== Aether and absolute space === Many physicists (like Hendrik Lorentz, Oliver Lodge, Albert Abraham Michelson, Edmund Taylor Whittaker, Harry Bateman, Ebenezer Cunningham, Charles Émile Picard, Paul Painlevé) were uncomfortable with the rejection of the aether, and preferred to interpret the Lorentz transformation based on the existence of a preferred frame of reference, as in the aether-based theories of Lorentz, Larmor, and Poincaré. However, the idea of an aether hidden from any observation was not supported by the mainstream scientific community, therefore the aether theory of Lorentz and Poincaré was superseded by Einstein's special relativity which was subsequently formulated in the framework of four-dimensional spacetime by Minkowski. Others such as Herbert E. Ives argued that it might be possible to experimentally determine the motion of such an aether, but it was never found despite numerous experimental tests of Lorentz invariance (see tests of special relativity). Also attempts to introduce some sort of relativistic aether (consistent with relativity) into modern physics such as by Einstein on the basis of general relativity (1920), or by Paul Dirac in relation to quantum mechanics (1951), were not supported by the scientific community (see Luminiferous aether#End of aether?). In his Nobel lecture, George F. Smoot


id: criticism-of-the-theory-of-relativity-20260505-4
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity-4.md
category: reference
title: Criticism of the theory of relativity
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:32.666932+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: criticism-of-the-theory-of-relativity-20260505-0
summary:
=== General covariance === Einstein emphasized the importance of general covariance for the development of general relativity, and took the position that the general covariance of his 1915 theory of gravity ensured implementation of a generalized relativity principle. This view was challenged by Erich Kretschmann (1917), who argued that every theory of space and time (even including Newtonian dynamics) can be formulated in a covariant way, if additional parameters are included, and thus general covariance of a theory would in itself be insufficient to implement a generalized relativity principle. Although Einstein (1918) agreed with that argument, he also countered that Newtonian mechanics in general covariant form would be too complicated for practical uses. Although it is now understood that Einstein's response to Kretschmann was mistaken (subsequent papers showed that such a theory would still be usable), another argument can be made in favor of general covariance: it is a natural way to express the equivalence principle, i.e., the equivalence in the description of a free-falling observer and an observer at rest, and thus it is more convenient to use general covariance together with general relativity, rather than with Newtonian mechanics. Connected with this, also the question of absolute motion was


id: criticism-of-the-theory-of-relativity-20260505-5
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity-5.md
category: reference
title: Criticism of the theory of relativity
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:32.666932+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: criticism-of-the-theory-of-relativity-20260505-0
summary:
== Philosophical criticism == The consequences of relativity, such as the change of ordinary concepts of space and time, as well as the introduction of non-Euclidean geometry in general relativity, were criticized by some philosophers of different philosophical schools. Many philosophical critics had insufficient knowledge of the mathematical and formal basis of relativity, which led to the criticisms often missing the heart of the matter. For example, relativity was misinterpreted as some form of relativism. However, this is misleading as it was emphasized by Einstein or Planck. Although space and time did become relative in Einstein's theories, and inertial frames of reference are handled on equal footing, on the other hand, the theory makes natural laws invariant—examples are the constancy of the speed of light and the covariance of Maxwell's equations. Consequently, Felix Klein (1910) called it the "invariant theory of the Lorentz group" instead of relativity theory, and Einstein (who reportedly used expressions like "absolute theory") sympathized with this expression as well. Critical responses to relativity were also expressed by proponents of neo-Kantianism (Paul Natorp, Bruno Bauch etc.), and phenomenology (Oskar Becker, Moritz Geiger etc.). While some of them only rejected the philosophical consequences, others rejected also the physical


id: criticism-of-the-theory-of-relativity-20260505-6
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity-6.md
category: reference
title: Criticism of the theory of relativity
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:32.666932+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: criticism-of-the-theory-of-relativity-20260505-0
summary:
=== Academic and non-academic criticism === Some academic scientists, especially experimental physicists such as the Nobel laureates Philipp Lenard and Johannes Stark, as well as Ernst Gehrcke, Stjepan Mohorovičić, Rudolf Tomaschek and others criticized the increasing abstraction and mathematization of modern physics, especially in the form of relativity theory, and later quantum mechanics. It was seen as a tendency to abstract theory building, connected with the loss of intuitive "common sense". In fact, relativity was the first theory, in which the inadequacy of the "illustrative" classical physics was thought to have been demonstrated. Some of Einstein's critics ignored these developments and tried to revitalize older theories, such as aether drag models or emission theories (see "Alternative Theories"). However, those qualitative models were never sufficiently advanced to compete with the success of the precise experimental predictions and explanatory powers of the modern theories. Additionally, there was also a great rivalry between experimental and theoretical physicists, as regards the professorial activities and the occupation of chairs at German universities. The opinions clashed at the "Bad Nauheim debates" in 1920 between Einstein and (among others) Lenard, which attracted much public attention. In addition, there were many critics (with or without physical training) whose


id: criticism-of-the-theory-of-relativity-20260505-7
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity-7.md
category: reference
title: Criticism of the theory of relativity
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:32.666932+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: criticism-of-the-theory-of-relativity-20260505-0
summary:
While the theory of relativity was enthusiastically studied in Japan and China, it faced criticism in nations with older scientific establishments. Shortly before and during World War I, there appeared some nationalistically motivated criticisms of relativity and modern physics. For example, French theoretical physicists Pierre Duhem regarded relativity as the product of the "too formal and abstract" German spirit, which was in conflict with "common sense". In Germany the Jewish ancestry of some leading relativity proponents such as Einstein and Minkowski made them targets of racially minded critics, although many of Einstein's German critics did not show evidence of such motives. The engineer Paul Weyland, a known nationalistic agitator, arranged the first public meeting against relativity in Berlin in 1919. While Lenard and Stark were also known for their nationalistic opinions, they declined to participate in Weyland's rallies, and Weyland's campaign eventually fizzled out due to a lack of prominent speakers. Lenard and others instead responded to Einstein's challenge to his professional critics to debate his theories at the scientific conference held annually at Bad Nauheim. While Einstein's critics, assuming without any real justification that Einstein was behind the activities of the German press in promoting the triumph of relativity,


id: criticism-of-the-theory-of-relativity-20260505-8
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity-8.md
category: reference
title: Criticism of the theory of relativity
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:32.666932+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: criticism-of-the-theory-of-relativity-20260505-0
summary:
=== A Hundred Authors Against Einstein === A collection of various criticisms can be found in the book Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein (A Hundred Authors Against Einstein), published in 1931. It contains very short texts from 28 authors, and excerpts from the publications of another 19 authors. The rest consists of a list that also includes people who only for some time were opposed to relativity. The most targeted one is space-time followed by the speed of light as a constant and the relativity of simultaneity, with other concepts following. Besides philosophic objections (mostly based on Kantianism), also some alleged elementary failures of the theory were included; however, as some commented, those failures were due to the authors' misunderstanding of relativity. For example, Hans Reichenbach wrote a report in the entertainment section of a newspaper, describing the book as "a magnificent collection of naive mistakes" and as "unintended droll literature". Albert von Brunn interpreted the book as a pamphlet "of such deplorable impotence as occurring elsewhere only in politics" and "a fallback into the 16th and 17th centuries" and concluded “it can only be hoped that German science will not again be embarrassed by such sad scribblings”. Jacob Epstein quoted


id: nalin-de-silva-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nalin_de_Silva-0.md
category: reference
title: Nalin de Silva
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nalin_de_Silva
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:33.818068+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: nalin-de-silva-20260505-0
summary:
Thakurartha Devadithya Guardiyawasam Lindamulage Nalin Kumar de Silva (Sinhala: නලින් ද සිල්වා; 20 October 1944 – 1 May 2024) was a Sri Lankan philosopher, polymath and a political analyst. He was the former Sri Lankan ambassador in Myanmar. He was a professor in the department of mathematics, a member of University Grant Commission and the dean of the faculty of science at the University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka. De Silva openly stated that the so-called 'objective scientific method' was a lie. In June 2011 he stated that information regarding the presence of arsenic in water claiming that the cause of Rajarata chronic kidney disease had been given to him by the god Natha. The Sri Lanka Association for the Advancement of Science, an organisation in which De Silva claimed lifelong membership, has said that they consider it "extremely unfortunate that the Dean of a Science Faculty should make it his publicly stated aim to run down science and bring it into disrepute." However the presence of arsenic was verified in water and vegetation, and the source was found to be agrochemical fertilizers. == Early life and education == Nalin de Silva was born on 20 October 1944 in Kovilagodella, Panadura,


id: nalin-de-silva-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nalin_de_Silva-1.md
category: reference
title: Nalin de Silva
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nalin_de_Silva
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:33.818068+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: nalin-de-silva-20260505-0
summary:
The merit (pina) in this regard should go to the "samyak drshtika devivaru" who first told that Arsenic is present in Rajarata drinking water and later revealed to us that Arsenic which is not found naturally in Sri Lanka has found its way to the wells and the wewas in Rajarata through Agrochemicals. It's simply like this. We can see professors. Professors cannot see Arsenic. We cannot see gods. Gods can see Arsenic. I like this because there is certain symmetry in it... I know very well that the so-called objective scientific method is a lie. Paranagama too has stood by De Silva and defended their methods. She said that they had first been told of the arsenic by the wife of "a university lecturer who had developed her mental faculties to communicate with a higher being", but then used scientific methods to deduce it. The Sri Lanka Association for the Advancement of Science released a statement in July 2011 questioning the validity of the findings and the process and individuals involved in the study. Their statement laid the blame for the scandal firmly on Prof Nalin De Silva, and they called for other scientists and researchers in the group


id: decline-effect-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_effect-0.md
category: reference
title: Decline effect
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_effect
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:35.033819+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: decline-effect-20260505-0
summary:
The decline effect may occur when scientific claims receive decreasing support over time. The term was first described by parapsychologist Joseph Banks Rhine in the 1930s to describe the disappearance of extrasensory perception (ESP) psychic experiments conducted by Rhine over time. More generally, Cronbach, in his review article "Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology" referred to the phenomenon as "generalizations decay." The term was once again used in a 2010 article by Jonah Lehrer published in The New Yorker. == Examples == In his article, Lehrer gives several examples where the decline effect is allegedly showing. In the first example, the development of second generation anti-psychotic drugs, reveals that the first tests had demonstrated a dramatic decrease in the subjects' psychiatric symptoms. However, after repeating tests this effect declined and in the end it was not possible to document that these drugs had any better effect than the first generation anti-psychotics. A well-known example of the decline effect can be seen in early experiments conducted by Professor Jonathan Schooler examining the effects of verbalization on non-verbal cognition. In an initial series of studies Schooler found evidence that verbal rehearsal of previously seen faces or colors markedly impaired subsequent recognition.


id: decline-effect-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_effect-1.md
category: reference
title: Decline effect
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_effect
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:35.033819+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: decline-effect-20260505-0
summary:
If the true effect size is small, but the initial study has low power (i.e., small sample size), then the null hypothesis will only be rejected if the effect estimate is far from zero, as illustrated in the figure. This means that subsequent replications, with larger sample sizes, will discover effect estimates that are closer to the true effect, which is closer to zero than the initial estimate. === Publication bias === Another reason may be the publication bias: scientists and scientific journals prefer to publish positive results of experiments and tests over null results, especially with new ideas. As a result, the journals may refuse to publish papers that do not prove that the idea works. Later, when an idea is accepted, journals may refuse to publish papers that support it. === Experimenter effect === In the debate that followed the original article, Lehrer answered some of the questions by claiming that scientific observations might be shaped by one's expectations and desires, sometimes even unconsciously, thus creating a bias towards the desired outcome. This is known as the experimenter effect. For example, in parapsychology, the "experimenter effect" is used to explain how an experimenter who does not believe in


id: decline-effect-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_effect-2.md
category: reference
title: Decline effect
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_effect
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:35.033819+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: decline-effect-20260505-0
summary:
== Criticism == One concern that some have expressed is that Lehrer's article may further fuel people's skepticism about academic science. It was long believed that Lehrer's article originally hinted that academic science is not as rigid as people would like to believe. It is especially the article's ending that has upset many scientists and led to broad criticism of the article. Lehrer ends the article by saying: "Just because an idea is true doesn't mean it can be proved. And just because an idea can be proved doesn't mean it's true. When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe." This has upset scientists in the scientific community. Many have written back to Lehrer and questioned his agenda. Some have characterized Lehrer's assertion as "absurd", while others claiming that Lehrer is trying to use publication bias as an excuse for not believing in anything. As an answer to the many comments Lehrer received upon publishing the article, Lehrer published a comment on his blog, The Frontal Cortex, where he denied that he was implicitly questioning science and scientific methods in any way. In the same blog comment, Lehrer stated that he was not questioning fundamental


id: the-engine-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Engine-0.md
category: reference
title: The Engine
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Engine
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:36.317135+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: the-engine-20260505-0
summary:
The Engine is a fictional device for writing books described in the 1726 satirical novel Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift. Eric A. Weiss suggests that it is an early reference to a device resembling what is now known as artificial intelligence. The Engine is a device that generates permutations of word sets. It is found at the Academy of Projectors in Lagado on the flying island of Laputa. It is described thus by Swift: “... Every one knew how laborious the usual method is of attaining to arts and sciences; whereas, by his contrivance, the most ignorant person, at a reasonable charge, and with a little bodily labour, might write books in philosophy, poetry, politics, laws, mathematics, and theology, without the least assistance from genius or study.” He then led me to the frame, about the sides, whereof all his pupils stood in ranks. It was twenty feet square, placed in the middle of the room. The superfices was composed of several bits of wood, about the bigness of a die, but some larger than others. They were all linked together by slender wires. These bits of wood were covered, on every square, with paper pasted on them; and on


id: farewell-to-reason-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farewell_to_Reason-0.md
category: reference
title: Farewell to Reason
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farewell_to_Reason
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:37.443488+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: farewell-to-reason-20260505-0
summary:
Farewell to Reason is a 1987 book by the Austrian philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend. The book includes some reprinted essays published in other venues and was published by Verso Books, which also published Against Method and Science in a Free Society. The primary goal of the book is to trace the historical origins of "rationalism" and argue for a version of relativism and cultural diversity. == Translations == Farewell to Reason has been translated into numerous languages: Spanish translation by José R. de Rivera: Adios a la razón, Tecnos: Madrid 1984, 300 pp. French translation by Baudouin Jurdant: Adieu à la raison, Seuil: Paris 1989, 373 pp. German translation by Jürgen Blasius: Irrwege der Vernunft, Suhrkamp: Frankfurt am Main 1989, 471 pp. Reprinted 1990. Italian translation by Marcello D'Agostino: Addio alla ragione, Armando: Roma 1990, 320 pp. Japanese translation: Risei yo saraba, Hoseidaigakushuppankyoku: Tokyo 1992, 34+399 pp. Portuguese translation: Adeus à razão, UNESP: São Paulo 2010, 399 pp. The book was reprinted in 1988, 1990, 1993, 1994, 1996, and 1999. A 2nd edition was released including a new preface by Feyerabend. == Content == Farewell to Reason begins with a lengthy chapter on relativism. He distinguishes it from absolutism,


