# kb

id: no-innovation-without-representation-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_innovation_without_representation-0.md
category: reference
title: No innovation without representation
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_innovation_without_representation
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:35:40.844025+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: no-innovation-without-representation-20260505-0
summary:
No innovation without representation is a democratic ideal of ensuring that everyone involved gets a chance to be represented fairly in technological developments. Political philosopher of technology Langdon Winner states that groups and social interests likely to be affected by a particular kind of technological change ought to be represented at an early stage in defining exactly what that technology will be. It is the idea that relevant parties have a say in technological developments and are not left in the dark. It has been spoken about by political scientist Massimiano Bucchi. This ideal does not require the public to become experts on the topics of science and engineering, it only asks that the opinions and ideas be heard before making drastic decisions, as talked about by Steven L. Goldman. == Arguments for no innovation without representation == Arguments for no innovation without representation stated by Carl Mitcham: Experts cannot escape public influence. There will always be influence from corporations or outside sources. "Technoscientific decision making is never neutral or objective." Public participation will have a more beneficial long-term effect than no participation. "Without public participation nothing will get done" Experts promote their own self-interest at the expense of the


id: helga-nowotny-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helga_Nowotny-0.md
category: reference
title: Helga Nowotny
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helga_Nowotny
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:35:46.378111+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: helga-nowotny-20260505-0
summary:
Helga Nowotny (born 9 August 1937) is professor emeritus of Social Studies of Science, ETH Zurich. She has held numerous leadership roles on Academic boards and public policy councils, and she has authored many publications in the social studies of science and technology. == Early life == Nowotny grew up in Vienna, Austria during World War II. In interviews, she has recalled first wanting to become a scientist at the age of 8, when she was sent to Vorarlberg, the westernmost province of Austria, and quickly learned the local dialect. Nowotny received her doctorate of jurisprudence at the University of Vienna in 1959. After completing her degree, she faced opposition to her application for an assistant professorship in the Department of Criminology there on the basis of her being a woman. She agreed with the hiring professor that if a more capable man applied for the position, he could have the job. In the end, she was hired to the position. It was there that she became interested in the sociology of science. In 1965, she moved to New York City with her husband, where she enrolled in a sociology doctoral program. There, she met Paul Lazarsfeld and Robert K.


id: helga-nowotny-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helga_Nowotny-1.md
category: reference
title: Helga Nowotny
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helga_Nowotny
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:35:46.378111+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: helga-nowotny-20260505-0
summary:
== Awards and prizes == Nowotny is a Member of Academia Europaea and Foreign Member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences since 2006. Among other honours she has been awarded the J.D. Bernal Prize for her lifelong achievements in social studies of science. In October 2015, she received an honorary doctorate at the University of Bergen. She has also received an honorary doctorate from the Weizmann Institute of Science and the University of Twente. In July 2013, Nowotny was awarded an Honorary Doctorate by Lancaster University, UK. In September 2017, she was awarded the President's Medal of the British Academy "for her contribution to the founding and shaping of the European Research Council, and positively influencing the shape of research funding and research policy in the UK and Europe". == Selected bibliography == === Books === Nowotny, Helga; Mendelsohn, Everett (1984). Nineteen eighty-four: science between utopia and dystopia. Dordrecht Boston Hingham, Massachusetts: D. Reidel Publishg Co. ISBN 9789027717214. Nowotny, Helga; et al. (1994). The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications. ISBN 9780803977945. Nowotny, Helga; Taschwer, Klaus (1996). The sociology of the sciences. Cheltenham, UK Brookfield, Vermont,


id: obliteration-by-incorporation-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obliteration_by_incorporation-0.md
category: reference
title: Obliteration by incorporation
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obliteration_by_incorporation
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:35:47.617618+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: obliteration-by-incorporation-20260505-0
summary:
In sociology of science, obliteration by incorporation (OBI) occurs when at some stage in the development of a science, certain ideas become so universally accepted and commonly used that their contributors are no longer cited. Eventually, its source and creator are forgotten ("obliterated") as the concept enters common knowledge (is "incorporated"). Obliteration occurs when "the sources of an idea, finding or concept, become obliterated by incorporation in canonical knowledge, so that only a few are still aware of their parentage". == Concept == The concept was introduced by Robert K. Merton in 1949, although some incorrectly attribute it to Eugene Garfield, whose work contributed to the popularization of Merton's theory. Merton introduced the concept of "obliteration by incorporation" in the 1968 enlarged edition of his landmark work Social Theory and Social Structure (pp. 28, 35). Merton also introduced the less known counterpart to this concept, adumbrationism, meaning the attribution of insights, ideas or analogies absent from original works. In the process of "obliteration by incorporation", both the original idea and the literal formulations of it are forgotten due to prolonged and widespread use, and enter into everyday language (or at least the everyday language of a given academic discipline), no


id: public-opinion-on-extraterrestrial-life-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_extraterrestrial_life-0.md
category: reference
title: Public opinion on extraterrestrial life
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_extraterrestrial_life
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:35:48.897019+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: public-opinion-on-extraterrestrial-life-20260505-0
summary:
Public opinion on extraterrestrial life refers to the collective beliefs, attitudes, and statistical data regarding the existence of extraterrestrial life and extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI). While scientific consensus has historically been cautious, public opinion surveys from the late 20th and early 21st centuries indicate a widespread belief in the existence of intelligent alien civilizations, often exceeding the confidence levels expressed by the scientific community. == Global surveys == Research conducted on an international scale has revealed significant belief in extraterrestrial civilizations across diverse cultures. Glocalities Study (2017): A survey of 26,492 respondents across 24 countries found that 47% of participants believed in "the existence of intelligent alien civilizations in the universe." The study noted substantial cross-national variation, with belief rates ranging from 45% in the United States to 68% in Russia. The researchers categorized a segment of high-engagement believers as "Homo Universalis," a group characterized by unconventional thinking and high interest in science and politics. Western Nations Comparison (2015): A YouGov survey comparing attitudes in the United Kingdom, Germany, and the United States found that more than one in two people in all three nations believed living creatures with communication abilities exist outside Earth. Specifically, 56% of Germans, 54% of Americans,


id: science-and-technology-studies-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_studies-0.md
category: reference
title: Science and technology studies
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_studies
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:35:50.105188+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: science-and-technology-studies-20260505-0
summary:
Science and technology studies (STS) or science, technology, and society is an interdisciplinary field that examines the creation, development, and consequences of science and technology in their historical, cultural, and social contexts. == History == Like most interdisciplinary fields of study, STS emerged from the confluence of disciplines and disciplinary subfields, all of which had developed an interest—typically, during the 1960s or 1970s—in viewing science and technology as socially embedded enterprises. The key disciplinary components of STS took shape independently, beginning in the 1960s, and developed in isolation from each other well into the 1980s, although Ludwik Fleck's (1935) monograph Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact anticipated many of STS's key themes. In the 1970s Elting E. Morison founded the STS program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), which served as a model. By 2011, 111 STS research centers and academic programs were counted worldwide. === Important key points === History of technology, that examines technology in its social and historical context. Starting in the 1960s, some historians questioned technological determinism, a doctrine that can induce public passivity to technologic and scientific "natural" development. At the same time, some historians began to develop similarly contextual approaches to the


id: science-and-technology-studies-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_studies-1.md
category: reference
title: Science and technology studies
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_studies
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:35:50.105188+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: science-and-technology-studies-20260505-0
summary:
Social constructions are human-created ideas, objects, or events created by a series of choices and interactions. These interactions have consequences that change the perception that different groups of people have on these constructs. Some examples of social construction include class, race, money, and citizenship. The following also alludes to the notion that not everything is set, a circumstance or result could potentially be one way or the other. According to the article "What is Social Construction?" by Ian Hacking, "Social construction work is critical of the status quo. Social constructionists about X tend to hold that: X need not have existed, or need not be at all as it is. X, or X as it is at present, is not determined by the nature of things; it is not inevitable Very often they go further, and urge that: X is quite as bad as it is. We would be much better off if X were done away with, or at least radically transformed." In the past, there have been viewpoints that were widely regarded as fact until being called to question due to the introduction of new knowledge. Such viewpoints include the past concept of a correlation between intelligence and


id: science-and-technology-studies-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_studies-2.md
category: reference
title: Science and technology studies
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_studies
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:35:50.105188+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: science-and-technology-studies-20260505-0
summary:
Social technical systems are an interplay between technologies and humans, this is clearly expressed in the sociotechnical systems theory. To expound on this interplay, humans fulfill and define tasks, then humans in companies use IT and IT supports people, and finally, IT processes tasks and new IT generates new tasks. This IT redefines work practices. This is what we call the sociotechnical systems. In socio-technical systems, there are two principles to internalize, that is joint optimization and complementarity. Joint optimization puts an emphasis on developing both systems in parallel and it is only in the interaction of both systems that the success of an organization arises. The principle of complementarity means that both systems have to be optimized. If you focus on one system and have bias over the other it will likely lead to the failure of the organization or jeopardize the success of a system. Although the above socio-technical system theory is focused on an organization, it is undoubtedly imperative to correlate this theory and its principles to society today and in science and technology studies. Understanding technology in the context of national development: critical reflections discusses how governance frameworks, digital infrastructure, and institutional capacity influence the societal


id: science-and-technology-studies-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_studies-3.md
category: reference
title: Science and technology studies
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_studies
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:35:50.105188+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: science-and-technology-studies-20260505-0
summary:
==== Examples ==== Ford Pinto – Ford Motor Company sold and produced the Pinto during the 1970s. A flaw in the automobile design of the rear gas tank caused a fiery explosion upon impact. The exploding fuel tank killed and injured hundreds of people. Internal documents of test results proved Ford CEO Lee Iacocca and engineers were aware of the flaw. The company decided to ignore improving its technology because of profit-driven motives, strict internal control, and competition from foreign competitors such as Volkswagen. Ford Motor Company conducted a cost-benefit analysis to determine if altering the Ford Pinto model was feasible. An analysis conducted by Ford employees argued against a new design because of increased cost. Employees were also under tight control by the CEO who rushed the Pinto through production lines to increase profits. Ford finally changed after public scrutiny. Safety organizations later influenced this technology by requiring stricter safety standards for motor vehicles. DDT/toxins – DDT was a common and highly effective insecticide used during the 1940s until its ban in the early 1970s. It was utilized during World War 2 to combat insect-borne human diseases that plagued military members and civilian populations. People and companies soon realized


id: science-and-technology-studies-20260505-4
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_studies-4.md
category: reference
title: Science and technology studies
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_studies
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:35:50.105188+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: science-and-technology-studies-20260505-0
summary:
==== Importance ==== Recently, there has been a movement towards greater transparency in the fields of policy and technology. Jasanoff comes to the conclusion that there is no longer a question of if there needs to be increased public participation in making decisions about science and technology, but now there need to be ways to make a more meaningful conversation between the public and those developing the technology. ==== In practice ==== Bruce Ackerman and James S. Fishkin offered an example of a reform in their paper "Deliberation Day." The deliberation is to enhance public understanding of popular, complex and controversial issues through devices such as Fishkin's deliberative polling, though implementation of these reforms is unlikely in a large government such as that of the United States. However, things similar to this have been implemented in small, local governments like New England towns and villages. New England town hall meetings are a good example of deliberative democracy in a realistic setting. An ideal deliberative democracy balances the voice and influence of all participants. While the main aim is to reach consensus, deliberative democracy should encourage the voices of those with opposing viewpoints, concerns due to uncertainties, and questions about assumptions


id: science-and-technology-studies-20260505-5
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_studies-5.md
category: reference
title: Science and technology studies
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_studies
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:35:50.105188+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: science-and-technology-studies-20260505-0
summary:
Langdon Winner states that groups and social interests likely to be affected by a particular kind of technological change ought to be represented at an early stage in defining exactly what that technology will be. It is the idea that relevant parties have a say in technological developments and are not left in the dark. Spoken about by Massimiano Bucchi This ideal does not require the public to become experts on the topics of science and engineering, it only asks that the opinions and ideas be heard before making drastic decisions, as talked about by Steven L. Goldman. === Legacy thinking === Legacy thinking is defined as an inherited method of thinking imposed from an external source without objection by the individual because it is already widely accepted by society. Legacy thinking can impair the ability to drive technology for the betterment of society by blinding people to innovations that do not fit into their accepted model of how society works. By accepting ideas without questioning them, people often see all solutions that contradict these accepted ideas as impossible or impractical. Legacy thinking tends to advantage the wealthy, who have the means to project their ideas on the public. It


id: science-and-technology-studies-20260505-6
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_studies-6.md
category: reference
title: Science and technology studies
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_studies
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:35:50.105188+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: science-and-technology-studies-20260505-0
summary:
== Academic programs == STS is taught in several countries. According to the STS wiki, STS programs can be found in twenty countries, including 45 programs in the United States, three programs in India, and eleven programs in the UK. STS programs can be found in Canada, Germany, Israel, Malaysia, and Taiwan. Some examples of institutions offering STS programs are Stanford University, University College London, Harvard University, the University of Oxford, Mines ParisTech, Bar-Ilan University, and York University. In Europe the European Inter-University Association on Society, Science and Technology (ESST) offers an MA degree in STS through study programs and student exchanges with over a dozen specializations. == Professional associations == The field has professional associations in regions and countries around the world. === In Europe === In Europe, the European Association for the Study of Science and Technology (EASST) was founded in 1981 to "improve scholarly communication and exchange in the field", "increase the visibility of the subject to policy-makers and to the general public", and "stimulate and support teaching on the subject at all levels". Similarly, the European Inter-University Association on Society, Science and Technology (ESST) researches and studies science and technology in society, in both historical and


id: science-and-technology-studies-20260505-7
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_studies-7.md
category: reference
title: Science and technology studies
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_technology_studies
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:35:50.105188+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: science-and-technology-studies-20260505-0
summary:
== Further reading == Bauchspies, Wenda; Croissant, Jennifer; Restivo, Sal (2005). Science, Technology, and Society: A Sociological Approach. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-0-631-23210-0. Bijker, Wiebe; Hughes, Thomas; Pinch, Trevor, eds. (1987). The Social Construction of Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-02262-0. Felt, Ulrike; Fouché, Rayvon; Miller, Clark A.; Smith-Doerr, Laruel, eds. (2017). The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (4th ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-03568-2. Fuller, Steve (1993). Philosophy, Rhetoric, and the End of Knowledge: The Coming of Science and Technology Studies. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. (2nd edition, with James H. Collier, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004) Hess, David J. (1997). Science Studies: An Advanced Introduction. New York: NYU Press. ISBN 978-0-8147-3564-0. Jasanoff, Sheila; Markle, Gerald; Petersen, James; Pinch, Trevor, eds. (1994). Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. ISBN 978-0-8039-4021-5. Kuhn, Thomas (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Latour, Bruno (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Restivo, Sal, ed. (2005). Science, Technology, and Society: An Encyclopedia. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-514193-1. Guglielmo Rinzivillo (2020), Raccontare la


id: science-in-society-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_In_Society-0.md
category: reference
title: Science In Society
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_In_Society
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:35:51.368794+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: science-in-society-20260505-0
summary:
Science In Society: An Introduction to Social Studies of Science (ISBN 0415321999) is a 2004 book by Massimiano Bucchi. The book explains how science works, what sociologists find to be of interest, and how scientific knowledge is produced. There are chapters on the relevance of science to contemporary life, Kuhn's work and its modern relevance, as well as the role of scientific communication. == See also == List of books about the politics of science == References ==


id: scientific-community-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_community-0.md
category: reference
title: Scientific community
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_community
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:35:52.684091+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: scientific-community-20260505-0
summary:
The scientific community is a diverse network of interacting scientists. It includes many "sub-communities" working on particular scientific fields, and within particular institutions; interdisciplinary and cross-institutional activities are also significant. Objectivity is expected to be achieved by the scientific method. Peer review, through discussion and debate within journals and conferences, assists in this objectivity by maintaining the quality of research methodology and interpretation of results. == History of scientific communities == The eighteenth century had some societies made up of men who studied nature, also known as natural philosophers and natural historians, which included even amateurs. As such these societies were more like local clubs and groups with diverse interests than actual scientific communities, which usually had interests on specialized disciplines. Though there were a few older societies of men who studied nature such as the Royal Society of London, the concept of scientific communities emerged in the second half of the 19th century, not before, because it was in this century that the language of modern science emerged, the professionalization of science occurred, specialized institutions were created, and the specialization of scientific disciplines and fields occurred. For instance, the term scientist was first coined by the naturalist-theologian William Whewell


id: scientific-community-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_community-1.md
category: reference
title: Scientific community
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_community
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:35:52.684091+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: scientific-community-20260505-0
summary:
Unlike in previous centuries when the community of scholars were all members of few learned societies and similar institutions, there are no singular bodies or individuals which can be said today to speak for all science or all scientists. This is partly due to the specialized training most scientists receive in very few fields. As a result, many would lack expertise in all the other fields of the sciences. For instance, due to the increasing complexity of information and specialization of scientists, most of the cutting-edge research today is done by well funded groups of scientists, rather than individuals. However, there are still multiple societies and academies in many countries which help consolidate some opinions and research to help guide public discussions on matters of policy and government-funded research. For example, the United States' National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and United Kingdom's Royal Society sometimes act as surrogates when the opinions of the scientific community need to be ascertained by policy makers or the national government, but the statements of the National Academy of Science or the Royal Society are not binding on scientists nor do they necessarily reflect the opinions of every scientist in a given community since membership


id: scientific-imperialism-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_imperialism-0.md
category: reference
title: Scientific imperialism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_imperialism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:35:53.887234+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: scientific-imperialism-20260505-0
summary:
Scientific imperialism is a term that appears to have been coined by Ellis T. Powell when addressing the Commonwealth Club of Canada on 8 September 1920. He defined imperialism as "the sense of arbitrary and capricious domination over the bodies and souls of men," he used the term "scientific imperialism" to mean "the subjection of all the developed and undeveloped powers of the earth to the mind of man." In modern usage, however, scientific imperialism refers to situations in which critics perceive science to act imperiously. Philosopher of science John Dupré described it (in his 2001 book Human Nature and the Limits of Science, p. 74) as "the tendency to push a good scientific idea far beyond the domain in which it was originally introduced, and often far beyond the domain in which it can provide much illumination." He wrote that "devotees of these approaches are inclined to claim that they are in possession not just of one useful perspective on human behavior, but of the key that will open doors to the understanding of ever wider areas of human behavior." Scientific imperialism has also been charged against "those who believe that the study of politics can and should be


id: scientific-wager-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_wager-0.md
category: reference
title: Scientific wager
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_wager
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:35:55.117975+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: scientific-wager-20260505-0
summary:
A scientific wager is a wager whose outcome is settled by experiment or observation, following the scientific method. It typically comprises a commitment to pay out when a currently-unknown or uncertain statement is resolved, and either proven or disproved. Some wagers have specific date restrictions for collection, but many are open. Wagers occasionally exert a powerful galvanizing effect on society and the scientific community. Notable scientists who have made scientific wagers include Stephen Hawking and Richard Feynman. The Stanford Linear Accelerator has an open book containing about 35 wagers in particle physics dating back to 1980; many are still unresolved. == Notable scientific wagers == There are many examples of scientific wagers from the past two centuries, many related to large-scale questions in science at the time. In 1870, Alfred Russel Wallace bet a flat-Earth theorist named John Hampden that he could prove the flat Earth hypothesis incorrect. The sum staked was £500 (equivalent to £62,000 in 2024). A test involving a stretch of the Old Bedford River, in Norfolk, was agreed on: Wallace measured the curvature of the canal's surface using two markers separated by about 5 km (3 mi) and suspended at equal heights above the water's surface.


id: scientific-wager-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_wager-1.md
category: reference
title: Scientific wager
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_wager
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:35:55.117975+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: scientific-wager-20260505-0
summary:
== See also == Long Now Foundation § Long Bet Project The efforts of photographer Eadweard Muybridge to capture the motion of a galloping horse were not part of a wager, contrary to popular opinion. Pascal's wager is not a wager in the sense used in this article. == References ==


id: sociology-of-scientific-ignorance-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology_of_scientific_ignorance-0.md
category: reference
title: Sociology of scientific ignorance
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology_of_scientific_ignorance
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:35:56.569358+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: sociology-of-scientific-ignorance-20260505-0
summary:
The sociology of scientific ignorance (SSI) is the study of ignorance in and of science. The most common way is to see ignorance as something relevant, rather than simply lack of knowledge. There are two distinct areas in which SSI is being studied: some focus on ignorance in scientific research, whereas others focus on public ignorance of science. Sociology of scientific ignorance is a complementary field to the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK). When studying ignorance in scientific research, the common standpoint is that ignorance can be used as a tool in science. An example of this is blackboxing, which is the notion that it can be beneficial to hide the internal parts of a system, and only make the input and output visible to the user. Studies of public ignorance of science focuses on how scientific ignorance can affect society, the public view of science, and what can give rise to public ignorance of science. This area is related to public understanding of science. == Ignorance in scientific research == Generally, the word ignorance has a negative tone to it, and for a long time scientific ignorance was viewed as a purely negative thing. Recently, however, people have started


id: sociology-of-scientific-knowledge-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology_of_scientific_knowledge-0.md
category: reference
title: Sociology of scientific knowledge
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology_of_scientific_knowledge
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:35:57.954867+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: sociology-of-scientific-knowledge-20260505-0
summary:
The sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK) is the study of science as a social activity, especially dealing with "the social conditions and effects of science, and with the social structures and processes of scientific activity." The sociology of scientific ignorance (SSI) is complementary to the sociology of scientific knowledge. For comparison, the sociology of knowledge studies the impact of human knowledge and the prevailing ideas on societies and relations between knowledge and the social context within which it arises. Sociologists of scientific knowledge study the development of a scientific field and attempt to identify points of contingency or interpretative flexibility where ambiguities are present. Such variations may be linked to a variety of political, historical, cultural or economic factors. Crucially, the field does not set out to promote relativism or to attack the scientific project; the objective of the researcher is to explain why one interpretation rather than another succeeds due to external social and historical circumstances. The field emerged in the late 1960s and early 1970s and at first was an almost exclusively British practice. Other early centers for the development of the field were in France, Germany, and the United States (notably at Cornell University). Major theorists include


id: sociology-of-scientific-knowledge-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology_of_scientific_knowledge-1.md
category: reference
title: Sociology of scientific knowledge
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology_of_scientific_knowledge
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:35:57.954867+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: sociology-of-scientific-knowledge-20260505-0
summary:
== Further reading == Baez, John (2010). "The Bogdanoff Affair". Bloor, David (1976) Knowledge and social imagery. London: Routledge. Bloor, David (1999) "Anti-Latour". Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A Volume 30, Issue 1, March 1999, Pages 81–112. Chu, Dominique (2013), The Science Myth---God, society, the self and what we will never know, ISBN 1782790470 Collins, H.M. (1975) The seven sexes: A study in the sociology of a phenomenon, or the replication of experiments in physics, Sociology, 9, 205-24. Collins, H.M. (1985). Changing order: Replication and induction in scientific practice. London: Sage. Collins, Harry and Steven Yearley. (1992). "Epistemological Chicken" in Science as Practice and Culture, A. Pickering (ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 301-326. Edwards, D., Ashmore, M. & Potter, J. (1995). Death and furniture: The rhetoric, politics, and theology of bottom line arguments against relativism. History of the Human Sciences, 8, 25-49. Fleck, Ludwik (1935). Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache. Einführung in die Lehre vom Denkstil und Denkkollektiv [Emergence and development of a scientific fact: Introduction to the study of thinking style and thinking collectives] (in German). Verlagsbuchhandlung, Basel: Schwabe. Fleck, Ludwik (1979). Genesis and development of a scientific fact. Chicago, Illinois: University of


id: spanish-language-in-science-and-technology-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_language_in_science_and_technology-0.md
category: reference
title: Spanish language in science and technology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_language_in_science_and_technology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:36:03.760679+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: spanish-language-in-science-and-technology-20260505-0
summary:
The Spanish language is used in diverse areas of science and technology. Despite its large number of speakers, the Spanish language does not feature prominently in scientific writing, with the exception of the humanities. One estimate puts the percentage of Spanish language publications in natural sciences and technology as 0.5% of the world total, a low number since Spanish is often considered to rank second or third among languages in various other metrics and estimates. In the humanities, a similar estimate yields 2.81%. Summarizing the status of the Spanish language in the sciences, researcher Álvaro Cabezas writes: "No serious scientist publishes his best works in a language other than English". The creation of new Spanish terminology is more a result of translating concepts from other languages than of crafting original ideas. == Bibliometric studies == Among Spanish-language articles indexed in Scopus from 1996 to 2011, 10.8% qualify as "Life Sciences", 13.2% as "Physical Sciences", 44.4% as "Health Sciences", 29.6% as "Social Sciences, Arts & Humanities", and 2.0% as "Multi-disciplinary & Undefined". Thus, a higher percentage of Spanish language content is published in "Health Sciences" and "Social Sciences, Arts & Humanities" than in English, Chinese, or Russian. Spanish shares this trait


id: theories-of-technology-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_technology-0.md
category: reference
title: Theories of technology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_technology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:36:05.014178+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: theories-of-technology-20260505-0
summary:
Theories of technological change and innovation attempt to explain the factors that shape technological innovation as well as the impact of technology on society and culture. Some of the most contemporary theories of technological change reject two of the previous views: the linear model of technological innovation and other, the technological determinism. To challenge the linear model, some of today's theories of technological change and innovation point to the history of technology, where they find evidence that technological innovation often gives rise to new scientific fields, and emphasizes the important role that social networks and cultural values play in creating and shaping technological artifacts. To challenge the so-called "technological determinism", today's theories of technological change emphasize the scope of the need of technical choice, which they find to be greater than most laypeople can realize; as scientists in philosophy of science, and further science and technology often like to say about this "It could have been different." For this reason, theorists who take these positions often argue that a greater public involvement in technological decision-making is desired. == Sociological theories == Sociological theories and researches of the Society and the Social focus on how human and technology actually interact and


id: theories-of-technology-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_technology-1.md
category: reference
title: Theories of technology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_technology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:36:05.014178+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: theories-of-technology-20260505-0
summary:
=== Approaches of the critical theory === Critical theory attempts, according to some, to go beyond the descriptiveness of one account that may show of how things are, the exam and question of why they have come to be that way and how they might otherwise be. Critical theory asks whose interests are being served by the questioned status quo and assesses the potentials of a future, that alternates and propose "to better" both the technological service, and even social justice. Here Geuss's definition is given, where "a critical theory, then, is a reflective theory which gives agents a kind of knowledge inherently productive of enlightenment and emancipation" (1964). Thus Marcuse argued that while technology matters and design are often presented as neutral technical choices, in fact, they manifest political or moral values. Critical theory is seen as a "form of archaeology" that attempt to get beneath common-sense understandings in order to reveal the power relationships and interests determining particular technological configuration and use. Perhaps the most developed contemporary critical theory of technology is contained in the works of Andrew Feenberg included in his book 'Transforming Technology' (2002). Values in Design asks how do we ensure a place for values


id: theories-of-technology-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_technology-2.md
category: reference
title: Theories of technology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theories_of_technology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:36:05.014178+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: theories-of-technology-20260505-0
summary:
=== Other Stances === Additionally, many authors have posed technology so as to critique and or emphasize aspects of technology as addressed by the mainline theories. For example, Steve Woolgar (1991) considers technology as text in order to critique the sociology of scientific knowledge as applied to technology and to distinguish between three responses to that notion: the instrumental response (interpretive flexibility), the interpretivist response (environmental/organizational influences), the reflexive response (a double hermeneutic). Pfaffenberger (1992) treats technology as drama to argue that a recursive structuring of technological artifacts and their social structure discursively regulate the technological construction of political power. A technological drama is a discourse of technological "statements" and "counterstatements" within the processes of technological regularization, adjustment, and reconstitution. An important philosophical approach to technology has been taken by Bernard Stiegler, whose work has been influenced by other philosophers and historians of technology including Gilbert Simondon and André Leroi-Gourhan. In the Schumpeterian and Neo-Schumpeterian theories technologies are critical factors of economic growth (Carlota Perez). == Analytical theories == There are theories of technological change and innovation which are not defined or claimed by a proponent, but are used by authors in describing existing literature, in contrast to their own


id: western-esotericism-and-science-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_esotericism_and_science-0.md
category: reference
title: Western esotericism and science
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_esotericism_and_science
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:36:06.310269+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: western-esotericism-and-science-20260505-0
summary:
The relationship between Western esotericism and science (and particularly the origins of experimental science) is a historiographical overview intersecting academic study of Western esotericism and history of science about how learned esoteric currents (e.g., natural magic, alchemy, hermeticism) interacted with natural philosophy, artisanal knowledge, and later scientific institutions from Antiquity to the twentieth century. It summarizes major debates (e.g., the “Yates thesis”), the role of printing and learned/artisanal networks, and the transformations that led from alchemy and chymistry to early modern chemistry, it also traces nineteenth–twentieth-century continuities in mesmerism, spiritualism, and psychical research. == Scope and definitions == The scope covers learned currents conventionally grouped under Western esotericism and their interactions with natural-philosophical, artisanal, and later scientific practices. In current scholarship, “Western esotericism” functions as an analytic label devised by historians of ideas rather than a stable emic category across periods. Within this remit fall astrology (including astral/astrological magic), alchemy/chymistry, hermetic and theurgic philosophies, “natural magic”, Christian Kabbalah and related Christianized appropriations, and selected nineteenth–twentieth-century continuities (e.g., mesmerism, spiritualisms, psychical research) insofar as they engaged scientific methods, publics, or institutions. Following standard usage, esotericism is treated as a family-resemblance category centered on literate, textually mediated, often elite discourses and practices,


id: western-esotericism-and-science-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_esotericism_and_science-1.md
category: reference
title: Western esotericism and science
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_esotericism_and_science
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:36:06.310269+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: western-esotericism-and-science-20260505-0
summary:
=== From natural magic to infrastructures of credibility === Historians of ideas have charted the forms and fortunes of natural magic and learned magic from the Middle Ages through the seventeenth century, emphasizing ontologies of hidden properties, sympathies, and imaginal techniques, and their philosophical justifications and critics. Parallel research in the social history of science highlights infrastructures that filtered claims: manuscript and print circuits (including books of secrets), the Republic of Letters, early academies and learned societies, and the emergence of publication regimes such as the Philosophical Transactions. === Boundary-work and demarcation === Sociological approaches analyze how scientific communities drew boundaries against “occult” topics through norms of civility, replicable evidence, and credit allocation. Such “boundary-work” helps to explain why some esoteric claims were domesticated (e.g., elements of chemical practice) while others were marginalized, rebranded, or expelled. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, studies of animal magnetism, spiritualism, and psychical research show continued negotiations at the edges of emerging disciplines, from clinics and laboratories to voluntary associations. === Long nineteenth century: disenchantment and “scientification” === Recent work situates esotericism within broader narratives of secularization and the reconfiguration of “religion” and “science.” One line of analysis tracks how scientific naturalism rearticulated


id: western-esotericism-and-science-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_esotericism_and_science-2.md
category: reference
title: Western esotericism and science
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_esotericism_and_science
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:36:06.310269+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: western-esotericism-and-science-20260505-0
summary:
=== Recipe literature and channels of diffusion === Technical books and compilations of “books of secrets” connected artisanal practice with learned theorizing, creating conduits that printers would later expand in the Renaissance. These manuals aggregated procedures for dyes, metallurgy, pharmacology, and image-making and helped form publics attuned to experiment, collection, and disclosure. === Scholastic uptake and debate === The influx of Arabic–Latin materials reshaped natural-philosophical vocabularies and controversies. Astronomical and medical applications of astrology, debates over hidden properties, and programmatic alchemical claims were selectively integrated into university teaching and commentary while also provoking clerical scrutiny—setting the stage for later medieval distinctions between licit “natural” explanations and illicit invocations. == Medieval Latin world (11th–15th centuries) == Between the eleventh and fifteenth centuries, the Latin West integrated translated corpora on astrology, alchemy, and learned magic into monastic, scholastic, and urban settings, while developing classifications later grouped under the “occult sciences.” Texts such as the Latin Picatrix, the Pseudo-Geber alchemical corpus, lapidaries, and image-magic handbooks circulated alongside natural-philosophical commentaries, medical compendia, and technical recipes. === Monastic collections and clerical readership === Monastic libraries and clerical readers preserved and annotated works on natural and ritual magic even as ecclesiastical norms constrained their use. Collections


id: western-esotericism-and-science-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_esotericism_and_science-3.md
category: reference
title: Western esotericism and science
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_esotericism_and_science
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:36:06.310269+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: western-esotericism-and-science-20260505-0
summary:
Seventeenth-century practitioners reorganized late medieval and Renaissance repertoires into a mixed enterprise of alchemy and chemistry often labeled chymistry. Workshops and purpose-built laboratories standardized instruments (furnaces, crucibles, retorts, alembics) and procedures (calcination, distillation, sublimation, solution, precipitation), linking material operations to questions about analysis, composition, and medical utility. Programmatic attacks on Galenic medicine and defenses of chemical remedies by Paracelsian physicians fed a therapeutic and analytical turn that coexisted with transmutational ambitions. === Case-studies and overlapping repertoires === Studies of individual practitioners complicate linear stories of “disenchantment.” George Starkey (Eirenaeus Philalethes) developed furnace designs, protocols, and reagents that circulated widely; his collaboration and exchanges with Robert Boyle show how alchemical goals and experimental norms interpenetrated. Boyle’s experimental program drew on chymical skill and recipes while articulating new rhetorical and methodological expectations for public witnessing and replication, often highlighted in accounts of early modern experimental culture. At the mathematical end of natural philosophy, Isaac Newton pursued extensive alchemical reading and laboratory work—on metallic generation, “vegetation,” and the ignis secretus—integrating them with his broader investigations of nature. Rather than a clean break, scholarship depicts a spectrum of overlap in ends (medicine, analysis, perfection), media (glassware, heat management), and genres (notebooks, “secrets,” experimental reports)


id: western-esotericism-and-science-20260505-4
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_esotericism_and_science-4.md
category: reference
title: Western esotericism and science
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_esotericism_and_science
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:36:06.310269+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: western-esotericism-and-science-20260505-0
summary:
=== Egyptosophy and Egyptology === Scholars use the term Egyptosophy (Ägyptosophie) to denote the early-modern and modern Western construction of “ancient Egypt” as a reservoir of esoteric wisdom, a lineage that runs from late antique Hermeticism through Renaissance and Baroque syntheses and into nineteenth- and twentieth-century occult revivals. Within the historiography of science, this Egyptosophic imaginary is treated as a cultural precursor rather than a scientific ancestor: it sustained attention, collecting practices, and interpretive expectations (for example, Athanasius Kircher’s ambitious but largely erroneous readings), and it fed the broader current often labeled egyptomania. By contrast, Egyptology emerged in the 1820s as a distinct scholarly field grounded in philology and archaeology, following Jean-François Champollion’s phonetic decipherment of hieroglyphs (1822). In this sense, the relationship between Egyptosophy and Egyptology can be described—analogously to Astrology and Astronomy, or Alchemy and Chemistry—as a historical bifurcation: they share an object (ancient Egypt) and some early impulses, but diverge in method, evidentiary standards, and aims (soteriological and allegorical readings versus critical historicization and language-based analysis). Historians of science also interpret this shift as an instance of disciplinary boundary-making within the broader demarcation of science from non-science. == Nineteenth century: animal magnetism, spiritualisms, psychologies == Across the


id: western-esotericism-and-science-20260505-5
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_esotericism_and_science-5.md
category: reference
title: Western esotericism and science
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_esotericism_and_science
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:36:06.310269+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: western-esotericism-and-science-20260505-0
summary:
== Works cited == Asprem, Egil (2014). The Problem of Disenchantment: Scientific Naturalism and Esoteric Discourse, 1900–1939. Leiden: Brill. Copenhaver, Brian P. (1992). Hermetica: The Greek Corpus Hermeticum and the Latin Asclepius. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Copenhaver, Brian P. (2015). Magic in Western Culture: From Antiquity to the Enlightenment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Daston, Lorraine; Park, Katharine (1998). Wonders and the Order of Nature, 1150–1750. New York: Zone Books. Dear, Peter (2001). Revolutionizing the Sciences: European Knowledge and Its Ambitions, 1500–1700. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Debus, Allen G. (1977). The Chemical Philosophy: Paracelsian Science and Medicine in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. New York: Science History Publications. Eamon, William (1994). Science and the Secrets of Nature: Books of Secrets in Medieval and Early Modern Culture. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Faivre, Antoine (1994). Access to Western Esotericism. Albany: SUNY Press. Findlen, Paula (1994). Possessing Nature: Museums, Collecting, and Scientific Culture in Early Modern Italy. Berkeley: University of California Press. Fowden, Garth (1986). The Egyptian Hermes: A Historical Approach to the Late Pagan Mind. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Gieryn, Thomas F. (1999). Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gieryn, Thomas F. (1983). "Boundary-Work and the


id: yuasa-phenomenon-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuasa_Phenomenon-0.md
category: reference
title: Yuasa Phenomenon
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuasa_Phenomenon
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:36:07.606078+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: yuasa-phenomenon-20260505-0
summary:
The Yuasa Phenomenon, named after Japanese physicist and science historian Mitsutomo Yuasa (sometimes referred to as Mintomo Yuasa), suggests that, in the modern era, the world center of scientific activity (defined as producing more than 25% of the world's scientific achievements) moves from one country to another about every 80–100 years. == Analysis == Analyzed data indicate that the "modern world science centre has shifted from Italy (1504–1610) to the United Kingdom (1660–1750), to France (1760– 1840), to Germany (1875–1920), and to the United States (1920 to the present)." This phenomenon and its study methodology are an emerging scientometrics study area. Indicators point to China's rise as a world center of scientific activity. This phenomenon is also described by other names, including "the Bernal—Yuasa phenomenon". Shigeo Minowa links Yuasa's finding to Joseph Ben-David's movements of Centers of Learning. Ben-David's Centers of Learning migration observations are discussed in various works. == See also == Historic recurrence History of science == References ==


id: science-studies-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_studies-0.md
category: reference
title: Science studies
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_studies
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:36:09.263367+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: science-studies-20260505-0
summary:
Science studies is an interdisciplinary research area that seeks to situate scientific expertise in broad social, historical, and philosophical contexts. It uses various methods to analyze the production, representation and reception of scientific knowledge and its epistemic and semiotic role. Similarly to cultural studies, science studies are defined by the subject of their research and encompass a large range of different theoretical and methodological perspectives and practices. The interdisciplinary approach may include and borrow methods from the humanities, natural and formal sciences, from scientometrics to ethnomethodology or cognitive science. Science studies have a certain importance for evaluation and science policy. Overlapping with the field of science, technology and society, practitioners study the relationship between science and technology, and the interaction of expert and lay knowledge in the public realm. == Scope == The field started with a tendency toward navel-gazing: it was extremely self-conscious in its genesis and applications. From early concerns with scientific discourse, practitioners soon started to deal with the relation of scientific expertise to politics and lay people. Practical examples include bioethics, bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), pollution, global warming, biomedical sciences, physical sciences, natural hazard predictions, the (alleged) impact of the Chernobyl disaster in the UK, generation


id: science-studies-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_studies-1.md
category: reference
title: Science studies
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_studies
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:36:09.263367+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: science-studies-20260505-0
summary:
Until now there has been no science that describes the means for making discoveries and inventions, and the generality of people, as well as many people of learning, believe that there never will be. This is an error. Someday a science of making discoveries and inventions will exist and will render services. It will arise not all at once; first only its general outline will appear, which subsequent researchers will correct and elaborate, and which still later researchers will apply to individual branches of knowledge. It is striking that, while early 20th-century sociologist proponents of a discipline to study science and its practitioners wrote in general theoretical terms, Prus had already half a century earlier described, with many specific examples, the scope and methods of such a discipline. Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) increased interest both in the history of science and in science's philosophical underpinnings. Kuhn posited that the history of science was less a linear succession of discoveries than a succession of paradigms within the philosophy of science. Paradigms are broader, socio-intellectual constructs that determine which types of truth claims are permissible. Science studies seeks to identify key dichotomies – such as those between science and


id: science-studies-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_studies-2.md
category: reference
title: Science studies
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_studies
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:36:09.263367+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: science-studies-20260505-0
summary:
Donovan et al. (2012) used social studies of volcanology to investigate the generation of knowledge and expert advice on various active volcanoes. It contains a survey of volcanologists carried out during 2008 and 2009 and interviews with scientists in the UK, Montserrat, Italy and Iceland during fieldwork seasons. Donovan et al. (2012) asked the experts about the felt purpose of volcanology and what they considered the most important eruptions in historical time. The survey tries to identify eruptions that had an influence on volcanology as a science and to assess the role of scientists in policymaking. A main focus was on the impact of the Montserrat eruption 1997. The eruption, a classical example of the black swan theory directly killed (only) 19 persons. However the outbreak had major impacts on the local society and destroyed important infrastructure, as the island's airport. About 7,000 people, or two-thirds of the population, left Montserrat; 4,000 to the United Kingdom. The Montserrat case put immense pressure on volcanologists, as their expertise suddenly became the primary driver of various public policy approaches. The science studies approach provided valuable insights in that situation. There were various miscommunications among scientists. Matching scientific uncertainty (typical of volcanic unrest)


id: actor-network-theory-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor–network_theory-0.md
category: reference
title: Actor–network theory
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor–network_theory
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:36:10.578747+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: actor-network-theory-20260505-0
summary:
Actor–network theory (ANT) is a theoretical and methodological approach to social theory where everything in the social and natural worlds exists in constantly shifting networks of relationships. It posits that nothing exists outside those relationships. All the factors involved in a social situation are on the same level, and thus there are no external social forces beyond what and how the network participants interact at present. Thus, objects, ideas, processes, and any other relevant factors are seen as just as important in creating social situations as humans. ANT holds that social forces do not exist in themselves, and therefore cannot be used to explain social phenomena. Instead, strictly empirical analysis should be undertaken to "describe" rather than "explain" social activity. Only after this can one introduce the concept of social forces, and only as an abstract theoretical concept, not something which genuinely exists in the world. Although it is best known for its controversial insistence on the capacity of nonhumans to act or participate in systems or networks or both, ANT is also associated with forceful critiques of conventional and critical sociology. Developed by science and technology studies (STS) scholars Michel Callon, Madeleine Akrich and Bruno Latour, the sociologist John


id: actor-network-theory-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor–network_theory-1.md
category: reference
title: Actor–network theory
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor–network_theory
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:36:10.578747+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: actor-network-theory-20260505-0
summary:
==== Human actors ==== Human normally refers to human beings and their human behaviors. ==== Nonhuman actors ==== Traditionally, nonhuman entities are creatures including plants, animals, geology, and natural forces, as well as a collective human making of arts, languages. In ANT, nonhuman covers multiple entities including things, objects, animals, natural phenomena, material structures, transportation devices, texts, and economic goods. But nonhuman actors do not cover entities such as humans, supernatural beings, and other symbolic objects in nature. === Actor-Network === As the term implies, the actor-network is the central concept in ANT. The term "network" is somewhat problematic in that it, as Latour notes, has a number of unwanted connotations. Firstly, it implies that what is described takes the shape of a network, which is not necessarily the case. Secondly, it implies "transportation without deformation," which, in ANT, is not possible since any actor-network involves a vast number of translations. Latour, however, still contends that network is a fitting term to use, because "it has no a priori order relation; it is not tied to the axiological myth of a top and of a bottom of society; it makes absolutely no assumption whether a specific locus is macro- or


id: actor-network-theory-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor–network_theory-2.md
category: reference
title: Actor–network theory
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor–network_theory
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:36:10.578747+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: actor-network-theory-20260505-0
summary:
=== Quasi-object === For the rethinking of social relations as networks, Latour mobilizes a concept from Michel Serres and expands on it in order “to locate the position of these strange new hybrids”. Quasi-objects are simultaneously quasi-subjects – the prefix quasi denotes that neither ontological status as subject or object is pure or permanent, but that these are dynamic entities whose status shifts, depending on their respective momentous activity and their according position in a collective or network. What is decisive is circulation and participation, from which networks emerge, examples for quasi-objects are language, money, bread, love, or the ball in a soccer game: all of these human or non-human, material or immaterial actants have no agency (and thus, subject-status) in themselves, however, they can be seen as the connective tissue underlying – or even activating – the interactions in which they are enmeshed. In Reassembling the Social, Latour refers to these in-between actants as “the mediators whose proliferation generates, among many other entities, what could be called quasi-objects and quasi-subjects.” Actor–network theory refers to these creations as tokens or quasi-objects which are passed between actors within the network. As the token is increasingly transmitted or passed through the network,


id: actor-network-theory-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor–network_theory-3.md
category: reference
title: Actor–network theory
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor–network_theory
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:36:10.578747+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: actor-network-theory-20260505-0
summary:
=== International relations === Actor–network theory has become increasingly prominent within the discipline of international relations and political science. Theoretically, scholars within IR have employed ANT in order to disrupt traditional world political binaries (civilised/barbarian, democratic/autocratic, etc.), consider the implications of a posthuman understanding of IR, explore the infrastructures of world politics, and consider the effects of technological agency. Empirically, IR scholars have drawn on insights from ANT in order to study phenomena including political violences like the use of torture and drones, piracy and maritime governance, and garbage. === Design === The actor–network theory can also be applied to design, using a perspective that is not simply limited to an analysis of an object's structure. From the ANT viewpoint, design is seen as a series of features that account for a social, psychological, and economical world. ANT argues that objects are designed to shape human action and mold or influence decisions. In this way, the objects' design serves to mediate human relationships and can even impact our morality, ethics, and politics. === Literary criticism === The literary critic Rita Felski has argued that ANT offers the fields of literary criticism and cultural studies vital new modes of interpreting and


id: actor-network-theory-20260505-4
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor–network_theory-4.md
category: reference
title: Actor–network theory
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor–network_theory
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:36:10.578747+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: actor-network-theory-20260505-0
summary:
Nonhuman actors can be considered as a condition in human social activities. Through the human's formation of nonhuman actors such as durable materials, they provide a stable foundation for interactions in society. Reciprocally, nonhumans' actions and capacities serve as a condition for the possibility of the formation of society. In Latour's We Have Never Been Modern, his conceptual "parliament of things" consists of social, natural, and discourse together as hybrids. Although the interlocks between human actors and nonhumans effects the modernized society, this parliamentary setting based on nonhuman actors would eliminate such fake modernization, and changes the dichotomy between modern society and premodern society. Nonhuman actors can be considered as mediators. On the one hand, nonhumans could constantly modify relations between actors. On the other hand, nonhumans share the same features with other actors not solely as means for human actors. In this circumstance, nonhuman actors impact human interactions. It either creates an atmosphere for humans to agree with each other, or lead to conflict as the mediators. It is noticeable that the status of mediation is more affiliated with intermediaries or means as a stable presence in the corpus of ANT, while mediators function more powers to influence actors


id: actor-network-theory-20260505-5
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor–network_theory-5.md
category: reference
title: Actor–network theory
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actor–network_theory
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:36:10.578747+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: actor-network-theory-20260505-0
summary:
== See also == Annemarie Mol Helen Verran Mapping controversies Science and technology studies (STS) Obligatory passage point (OPP) Social construction of technology (SCOT) Technology dynamics Theory of structuration (according to which neither agents nor social structure have primacy) Thing theory Outline of organizational theory == References == == Further reading == Carroll, N., Whelan, E., and Richardson, I. (2012). Service Science – an Actor Network Theory Approach. International Journal of Actor-Network Theory and Technological Innovation (IJANTTI), Volume 4, Number 3, pp. 52–70. Carroll, N. (2014). Actor-Network Theory: A Bureaucratic View of Public Service Innovation. Chapter 7, p. 115-144. In Ed Tatnall (ed). Technological Advancements and the Impact of Actor-Network Theory, IGI Global. Online version of the article "On Actor Network Theory: A Few Clarifications", in which Latour responds to criticisms. Archived 2021-04-26 at the Wayback Machine Introductory article "Dolwick, JS. 2009. The 'Social' and Beyond: Introducing Actor–Network Theory", which includes an analysis of other social theories ANThology. Ein einführendes Handbuch zur Akteur–Netzwerk-Theorie, von Andréa Belliger und David Krieger, transcript Verlag (German) Transhumanism as Actor-Network Theory "N00bz & the Actor-Network: Transhumanist Traductions" Archived 2010-10-08 at the Wayback Machine (Humanity+ Magazine) by Woody Evans. John Law (1992). "Notes on the Theory


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: 2026-05-05T04:36:11.863288+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: 2026-05-05T04:36:11.863288+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: 2026-05-05T04:36:11.863288+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: 2026-05-05T04:36:11.863288+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: 2026-05-05T04:36:11.863288+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: applied-epistemology-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_epistemology-0.md
category: reference
title: Applied epistemology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_epistemology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:36:13.103463+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: applied-epistemology-20260505-0
summary:
Applied epistemology refers to the study that determines whether the systems of investigation that seek the truth lead to true beliefs about the world. A specific conceptualization cites that it attempts to reveal whether these systems contribute to epistemic aims. It is applied in practices outside of philosophy like science and mathematics. Once applied epistemology is described as a method in an epistemological search, it implies that the methodology is supported by an epistemological foundation. == Background == Applied epistemology forms part of the concept of "applied philosophy" as theorists begin to distinguish it from "applied ethics". It is argued that "applied philosophy" is a broader field, and that it has parts that are not subdisciplines of applied ethics. The emergence of "applied philosophy" gained traction after it was proposed that philosophy can be applied to contemporary issues. Applied epistemology emerged from epistemologists routine examinations that determine whether truth-seeking practices like science and mathematics are capable of delivering truths. It draws from epistemological theorizing to address pressing epistemic matters of practical value. An epistemological question assumes a philosophical form once it deals with the type of knowledge or justification that is presupposed in most ordinary contexts. In its infancy, applied


id: applied-epistemology-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_epistemology-1.md
category: reference
title: Applied epistemology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_epistemology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:36:13.103463+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: applied-epistemology-20260505-0
summary:
=== Informal logic === According to Mark Battersby, the method of critical thinking or informal logic can be considered a form of applied epistemology. This method involves the assessment of the strength of evidences that afford conclusions can only be made if the domain within which the argument is presented is taken into account. For Battersby, this constitutes applied epistemology, since it is about grounding assessments of arguments as they occur within them. Mark Weinstein maintained that a focus on the account of how acceptability is transmitted from premises to conclusion show close theoretical parallel between informal logic and applied epistemology. It is argued that rather than rules of logic, epistemological norms constitute the philosophical core of informal logic and that there is a close parallel between informal logic and applied ethics. Based on these factors, scholars such as Battersby and Weinstein maintain that informal logic should be classified as applied epistemology instead of logic. === Social issues === It has been suggested by scholars such as Jennifer Lackey that applied epistemology provides the tools in contemporary epistemology's evaluation of the issues of social concern. It is relevant to issues affecting social groups since it helps in answering the recurring


id: biology-and-political-science-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_political_science-0.md
category: reference
title: Biology and political science
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_political_science
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:36:14.832004+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: biology-and-political-science-20260505-0
summary:
The interdisciplinary study of biology and political science is the application of theories and methods from the field of biology toward the scientific understanding of political behavior. The field is sometimes called biopolitics, a term that will be used in this article as a synonym although it has other, less related meanings. More generally, the field has also been called "politics and the life sciences". == History == During the 19th century, some scholars and philosophers made attempts to apply concepts derived from the natural sciences in the understanding of society and politics. This was greatly influenced by positivism and Darwinism. In The Social Organism (1860), Herbert Spencer compares society fo a living organism, he states that just like biological species evolve through natural selection, societies evolve through analogous processes. Another proponent of Social Darwinism, was Francis Galton, Darwin's nephew, whose ideas were the basis of behaviourial genetics and eugenics. He claimed that mental qualities (genius and talent), just like physical traits, where inherited among generations of people. He claimed that society should change so that heredity was a conscious decision, to avoid both over-breeding by less fit members of society and the under-breeding of the more fit ones. In


id: bold-hypothesis-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bold_hypothesis-0.md
category: reference
title: Bold hypothesis
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bold_hypothesis
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:36:16.007133+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: bold-hypothesis-20260505-0
summary:
Bold hypothesis (or bold conjecture, the terms are used interchangeably) is a concept originally created by the liberal philosopher Karl Popper when he tried to define the meaning of scientific thinking and scientific progress. It was first explained in his debut The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1935) and subsequently elaborated in writings such as Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (1963), Objective knowledge: an evolutionary approach (1972), and Replies to my critics (1974). In successive texts written in the course of four decades, Popper added some nuances to the definition of the concept. Broadly speaking, the idea of a bold hypothesis refers to a new, testable theoretical proposition (or theoretical claim) made within a subject area which, if it is true, would be able to explain and predict much more about the subject than was previously possible. It would significantly alter existing scientific understandings about the subject, in a positive way. The new idea would be very useful for scientific research about the subject. This contrasts with other types of scientific claims which, if they turn out to be true, make little difference to what scientists already know about the subject. The contrary of a bold hypothesis is


id: bold-hypothesis-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bold_hypothesis-1.md
category: reference
title: Bold hypothesis
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bold_hypothesis
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:36:16.007133+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: bold-hypothesis-20260505-0
summary:
”There is a reality behind the world as it appears to us, possibly a many-layered reality, of which the appearances are the outermost layers. What the great scientist does is boldly to guess, daringly to conjecture, what these inner realities are like. (…) The boldness can be gauged by the distance between the world of appearance and the conjectured reality, the explanatory hypotheses. But there is another, a special kind of boldness – the boldness of predicting aspects of the world of appearance which so far have been overlooked but which it must possess if the conjectured reality is (more or less) right, if the explanatory hypotheses are (approximately) true. It is this more special kind of boldness which I have usually in mind when I speak of bold scientific conjectures. It is the boldness of a conjecture which takes a real risk – the risk of being tested and refuted; the risk of clashing with reality. Thus my proposal was, and is, that it is this second boldness, together with the readiness to look out for tests and refutations, which distinguishes “empirical” science from nonscience, and especially from prescientific myths and metaphysics.” This passage makes it very clear, that


id: bold-hypothesis-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bold_hypothesis-2.md
category: reference
title: Bold hypothesis
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bold_hypothesis
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:36:16.007133+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: bold-hypothesis-20260505-0
summary:
Is boldness always a good thing in scientific hypothesizing? How we assess the degree of boldness may just be a subjective matter (it may depends on how you care to look at it). Some new ideas, although they are rather modest in themselves, can make a very large difference to the advancement of scientific research. At a more concrete level, the degree of "boldness" could refer (i) to the content of the hypothesis (considered relative to other possible hypotheses), or (ii) to the manner or context in which the hypothesis is presented, (iii) to its expected importance for research, or (iv) to the attitude involved. The degree of boldness could be downplayed for the sake of credibility or compatibility with established ideas, or it could be exaggerated to create the image of a "big scientific breakthrough" (to obtain research funding). The timing of the evaluation of a hypothesis is also important: a hypothesis which does not seem "bold" right now, could be judged "very bold" later, when historians know much more about the full impact it turned out to have (and vice versa). Alan F. Chalmers comments that “What rates as a bold conjecture at one stage in the history


id: bold-hypothesis-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bold_hypothesis-3.md
category: reference
title: Bold hypothesis
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bold_hypothesis
date_saved: 2026-05-05T04:36:16.007133+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: bold-hypothesis-20260505-0
summary:
A falsified conjecture shows the scientist only "what he does not know" or what cannot be the case. However, in reality scientists are more interested in knowing what is the case, and what they can know. That is, scientists are interested mainly in gaining positive new knowledge, which can be used for practical purposes. Scientists are not primarily interested in “knowing that they don't know things”, or in "knowing what is not the case" (other than to rule out possibilities). Scientists want to know what really is the case. Scientific statements according to this Lakatosian perspective are not falsifiable statements, as Karl Popper claimed, but fallible statements. There is an important difference. Falsifiable ideas are testable ideas which can be definitely proved to be false. Fallible statements are testable statements that could be wrong. Fallible statements include both testable propositions and statements of which it is known that they could be wrong, although currently we do not know how to test them yet for their truth or falsity (or, the possible tests are technically not yet feasible). According to Lakatos, all scientific statements are in reality fallible hypotheses, which scientists at the very least intend or aim to test for


