# kb

id: paul-feyerabend-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend-2.md
category: reference
title: Paul Feyerabend
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:42.054365+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: paul-feyerabend-20260505-0
summary:
After getting wounded in action, Feyerabend was hospitalized in and around Weimar where he spent more than a year recovering and where he witnessed the end of the war and Soviet occupation. The mayor of Apolda gave him a job in the education sector and he, then still on two crutches, worked in public entertainment including writing speeches, dialogues, and plays. Later, at the music academy in Weimar, he was granted a scholarship and food stamps and took lessons in Italian, harmony, singing, enunciation, and piano. He also joined the Cultural Association for the Democratic Reform of Germany, the only association he ever joined. As Feyerabend moved back to Vienna, he was permitted to pursue a PhD at the University of Vienna. He originally intended to study physics, astronomy, and mathematics (while continuing to practice singing) but decided to study history and sociology to understand his wartime experiences. He became dissatisfied, however, and soon transferred to physics and studied astronomy, especially observational astronomy and perturbation theory, as well as differential equations, nuclear physics, algebra, and tensor analysis. He took classes with Hans Thirring, Hans Leo Przibram, and Felix Ehrenhaft. He also had a small role in a film directed by


id: paul-feyerabend-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend-3.md
category: reference
title: Paul Feyerabend
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:42.054365+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: paul-feyerabend-20260505-0
summary:
Feyerabend's primary academic appointment was at the University of California at Berkeley. While he was hired there in 1958, he spent part of his first years in the United States at the University of Minnesota, working closely with Herbert Feigl and Paul Meehl after rejecting a job offer from Cornell University. In California, he met and befriended Rudolf Carnap, whom he described as a "wonderful person, gentle, understanding, not at all as dry as would appear from some (not all) of his writings", and Alfred Tarski, among others. He also married for a third time. At Berkeley, Feyerabend mostly lectured on general philosophy and philosophy of science. During the student revolution, he also lectured on revolutionaries (Lenin, Mao, Mill, and Cohn-Bendit). He often invited students and outsiders, including Lenny Bruce and Malcolm X, to guest lecture on a variety of issues including gay rights, racism, and witchcraft. He supported the students but did not support student strikes. John Searle attempted to get Feyerabend fired from his position for hosting lectures off-campus. As Feyerabend was highly marketable in academia and personally restless, he kept accepting and leaving university appointments while holding more 'stable' positions in Berkeley and London. For instance, starting


id: paul-feyerabend-20260505-4
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend-4.md
category: reference
title: Paul Feyerabend
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:42.054365+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: paul-feyerabend-20260505-0
summary:
Feyerabend had become more and more aware of the limitation of theories – no matter how well conceived – compared with the detailed, idiosyncratic issues encountered in the course of scientific practice. The "poverty of abstract philosophical reasoning" became one of the "feelings" that motivated him to pull together the collage of observations and ideas that he had conceived for the project with Imre Lakatos, whose first edition was published in 1975 as Against Method. Feyerabend added to it some outrageous passages and terms, including about an 'anarchistic theory of knowledge', for the sake of provocation and in memory of Imre. He mostly wanted to encourage attention to scientific practice and common sense rather than to the empty 'clarifications' of logicians, but his views were not appreciated by the intellectuals who were then directing traffic in the philosophical community, who tended to isolate him. Against Method also suggested that "approaches not tied to scientific institutions" may have value, and that scientists should work under the control of the larger public-- views not appreciated by all scientists either. Some gave him the dubious fame of 'worst enemy of science'. Moreover, Feyerabend was aware that "scientific jargon" – read literally, world for


id: paul-feyerabend-20260505-5
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend-5.md
category: reference
title: Paul Feyerabend
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:42.054365+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: paul-feyerabend-20260505-0
summary:
==== Kraft Circle, hidden variables, and no-go proofs ==== During Feyerabend's PhD, he retrospectively describes himself as a "raving positivist." He was the head organizer of the 'Kraft circle' which discussed many issues in the foundations of physics and on the nature of basic statements, which was the topic of his dissertation. In 1948, Feyerabend wrote a short paper in response to Schrödinger's paper "On the Peculiarity of the Scientific Worldview." Here, Feyerabend argued that Schrödinger's demand that scientific theories present are Anschaulich (i.e., intuitively visualizable) is too restrictive. Using the example of the development of Bohr's atomic theory, he claims that theories that are originally unvisualizable develop new ways of making phenomena visualizable. His unpublished paper, "Philosophers and the Physicists," argues for a naturalistic understanding of philosophy where philosophy is "petrified" without physics and physics is "liable to become dogmatic" without philosophy. Feyerabend's early career is also defined by a focus on technical issues within the philosophy of quantum mechanics. Feyerabend argues that von Neumann's 'no-go' proof only shows that the Copenhagen interpretation is consistent with the fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics but it does not logically follow from them. Therefore, causal theories of quantum mechanics (like Bohmian mechanics)


id: paul-feyerabend-20260505-6
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend-6.md
category: reference
title: Paul Feyerabend
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:42.054365+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: paul-feyerabend-20260505-0
summary:
==== Empiricism, pluralism, and incommensurability ==== Much of Feyerabend's work from the late 1950s until the late 1960s was devoted to methodological issues in science. Specifically, Feyerabend offers several criticisms of empiricism and offers his own brand of theoretical pluralism. One such criticism concerns the distinction between observational and theoretical terms. If an observational term is understood as one whose acceptance can be determined by immediate perception, then what counts as 'observational' or 'theoretical' changes throughout history as our patterns of habituation change and our ability to directly perceive entities evolve. On another definition, observation terms are those that can be known directly and with certainty whereas theoretical terms are hypothetical. Feyerabend argues that all statements are hypothetical, since the act of observation requires theories to justify its veridicality. To replace empiricism, Feyerabend advances theoretical pluralism as a methodological rule for scientific progress. On this view, proliferating new theories increases the testability of previous theories that might be well-established by observations. This is because some tests cannot be unearthed without the invention of an alternative theory. One example Feyerabend uses repeatedly is Brownian motion which was not a test of the second law of classical thermodynamics. To become a test,


id: paul-feyerabend-20260505-7
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend-7.md
category: reference
title: Paul Feyerabend
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:42.054365+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: paul-feyerabend-20260505-0
summary:
==== Departure from Popper ==== Beginning in at least the mid-to-late 1960s, Feyerabend distanced himself from Popper both professionally and intellectually. There is a great amount of controversy about the source and nature of Feyerabend's distancing from Popper. Joseph Agassi claims that it was caused by the student revolutions at Berkeley, which somehow promoted Feyerabend's move towards epistemological anarchism defended in the 1970s. Feyerabend's friend Roy Edgley claims that Feyerabend became distanced from Popper as early as the mid-1950s, when he went to Bristol and then Berkeley and was more influenced by Thomas Kuhn and the Marxism of David Bohm. Feyerabend's first paper that explicitly repudiates Popper is his two-part paper on Niels Bohr's conception of complementarity. According to Popper, Bohr and his followers accepted complementarity as a consequence of accepting positivism. Popper was the founder of the theory of falsification, which Feyerabend was very critical of. He meant that no science is perfect, and therefore cannot be proven false. Once one repudiates positivism as a philosophical doctrine, Popper claims, one undermines the principle of complementarity. Against this, Feyerabend claims that Bohr was a pluralist who attempting to pursue a realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics (the Bohr-Kramer-Slater conjecture) but abandoned


id: paul-feyerabend-20260505-8
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend-8.md
category: reference
title: Paul Feyerabend
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:42.054365+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: paul-feyerabend-20260505-0
summary:
In Feyerabend's later work, especially in Conquest of Abundance, Feyerabend articulates a metaphysical theory in which the universe around us is 'abundant' in the sense that it allows for many realities to be accepted simultaneously. According to Feyerabend, the world, or 'Being' as he calls it, is pliable enough that it can change in accordance with the ways in which we causally engage with the world. In laboratories, for example, scientists do not simply passively observe phenomena but actively intervene to create phenomena with the help of various techniques. This makes entities like 'electrons' or 'genes' real because they can be stably used in a life that one may live. Since our choices about what lives we should live depend on our ethics and our desires, what is 'real' depends on what plays a role in a life that we think is worth living. Feyerabend calls this 'Aristotle's principle' as he believes that Aristotle held the same view. Being, therefore, is pliable enough to be manipulated and transformed to make many realities that conform to different ways of living in the world. However, not all realities are possible. Being resists our attempts to live with it in certain ways and


id: paul-feyerabend-20260505-9
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend-9.md
category: reference
title: Paul Feyerabend
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:42.054365+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: paul-feyerabend-20260505-0
summary:
==== Expertise in a free society ==== Starting from the argument that a historical universal scientific method does not exist, Feyerabend argues that science does not deserve its privileged status in western society. Since scientific points of view do not arise from using a universal method which guarantees high quality conclusions, he thought that science has no intrinsic claim to intellectual authority over other intellectual traditions like religion or myths. Based on these arguments, Feyerabend defended the idea that science should be separated from the state in the same way that religion and state are separated in a modern secular society He envisioned a free society in which "all traditions have equal rights and equal access to the centres of power." For example, parents should be able to determine the ideological context of their children's education, instead of having limited options because of scientific standards. According to Feyerabend, science should also be subjected to democratic control: not only should the subjects that are investigated by scientists be determined by popular election, scientific assumptions and conclusions should also be supervised by committees of lay people. He thought that citizens should use their own principles when making decisions about these matters. He


id: paul-feyerabend-20260505-10
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend-10.md
category: reference
title: Paul Feyerabend
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:42.054365+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: paul-feyerabend-20260505-0
summary:
=== In philosophy === While the immediate academic reception of Feyerabend's most read text, Against Method, was largely negative, Feyerabend is recognized today as one of the most influential philosophers of science of the 20th Century. Feyerabend's arguments against a universal method have become largely accepted, and are often taken for granted by many philosophers of science in the 21st century. His arguments for pluralism moved the topic into the mainstream and his use of historical case studies were influential in the development of the History and Philosophy of Science (HPS) as an independent discipline. His arguments against reductionism were also influential on John Dupré, Cliff Hooker, and Alan Chalmers. He was also one of the intellectual precursors of social constructivism and science and technology studies, although he participated little in either field during his lifetime. === Outside philosophy === Feyerabend's analysis of the Galileo affair, where he claims the Church was "on the right track" for censuring Galileo on moral grounds and were empirically correct, was quoted with approval by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) in a speech in 1990. In his autobiography, Feyerabend recalls a conversation with Stephen Jay Gould, in 1991, when Gould stated that Against


id: paul-feyerabend-20260505-11
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend-11.md
category: reference
title: Paul Feyerabend
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:42.054365+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: paul-feyerabend-20260505-0
summary:
=== Individual articles === Hentschel, Klaus. 1985. "On Feyerabend's Version of 'Mach's Theory of Research and its Relation to Einstein." Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 16: 387–394. Zahar, Elie. 1982. "Feyerabend on Observation and Empirical Content." The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 33(4): 397–409. Couvalis, George. 1988. "Feyerabend and Laymon on Brownian Motion." Philosophy of Science, 415–421. Thomason, Neil. 1994. "The Power of ARCHED Hypotheses: Feyerabend's Galileo as a Closet Rationalist." The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 45(1), 255–264. Preston, John. 1995. "Frictionless Philosophy: Paul Feyerabend and Relativism." History of European Ideas, 963–968. Benvenuto, Sergio. 1995. "Paul K. Feyerabend (1924-1994) - Search for Abundance", Telos, 102: 107-114. Van Fraassen, Bas. 1997. "Sola Experientia?—Feyerabend's Refutation of Classical Empiricism." Philosophy of Science, 64(S4), S385-S395. Farrell, Robert. 2000. "Will the Popperian Feyerabend Please Step Forward: Pluralistic, Popperian Themes in the Philosophy of Paul Feyerabend." International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 14(3), 257–266. Oberheim, Eric. 2005. "On the Historical Origins of the Contemporary Notion of Incommensurability: Paul Feyerabend's Assault on Conceptual Conservativism." Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 36(2), 363–390. Brown, Matthew. 2009. "Models and Perspectives on Stage: Remarks on Giere's Scientific Perspectivism." Studies


id: flatline-b-o-b-song-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatline_(B.o.B_song)-0.md
category: reference
title: Flatline (B.o.B song)
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatline_(B.o.B_song)
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:43.220975+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: flatline-b-o-b-song-20260505-0
summary:
"Flatline" is a song by American rapper B.o.B, initially released on SoundCloud in January 2016. It is a diss track aimed at physicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson, whom he had gotten into an argument with on Twitter, over B.o.B's stated belief that the Earth is flat. The lyrics to the song refer to science as a cult. == Reception == Vulture music critic Nate Jones commented, "It's called 'Flatline,' which is both a reference to the horizon of the Earth and also a fitting description of B.o.B's career." Following criticism, B.o.B removed the song from his SoundCloud account, but it survives on YouTube and other sites where it was reposted. In April 2016, B.o.B included the song on a mixtape titled E.A.R.T.H. (Educational Avatar Reality Training Habitat), but the song lyrics had been rewritten as titled as pt. 2. In response to B.o.B's Twitter arguments with Neil deGrasse Tyson, the latter's nephew, an amateur rapper using the stage name Ellect, released a dis track of his own titled "Flat to Fact" which echoes several of his uncle's talking points and features Tyson himself providing spoken word interjections. == References ==


id: funding-bias-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_bias-0.md
category: reference
title: Funding bias
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_bias
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:44.436261+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: funding-bias-20260505-0
summary:
Funding bias, also known as sponsorship bias, funding outcome bias, funding publication bias, and funding effect, is a tendency of a scientific study to support the interests of the study's financial sponsor. This phenomenon is recognized sufficiently that researchers undertake studies to examine bias in past published studies. Funding bias has been associated, in particular, with research into chemical toxicity, tobacco, and pharmaceutical drugs. It is an instance of experimenter's bias. == Causes == === Human nature === The psychology text Influence: Science and Practice describes the act of reciprocity as a trait in which a person feels obliged to return favors. This trait is embodied in all human cultures. Human nature may influence even the most ethical researchers to be affected by their sponsors, although they may genuinely deny it. === Misconduct === Scientific malpractice involving shoddy research or data manipulation does occur in rare instances. Often, however, the quality of manufacturers' studies are at least as good as studies that were not funded by a special interest. Therefore, bias usually occurs for other reasons. === Predetermined conclusion === Research results can be selected or discarded to support a predetermined conclusion. The tobacco industry, for example, would publish their


id: bill-gaede-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gaede-0.md
category: reference
title: Bill Gaede
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gaede
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:45.577224+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: bill-gaede-20260505-0
summary:
Guillermo "Bill" Gaede (born November 19, 1952) is an Argentine engineer and programmer who is best known for Cold War industrial spying on behalf of Cuba, Iran, and China conducted while he worked at Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) and Intel Corporation (Intel). While at AMD, he provided the Cuban government with technical information from the semiconductor industry, which the Cubans passed on to the Soviet bloc, primarily to the Soviet Union and East Germany. In 1992, Gaede turned himself over to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which placed him in contact with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The FBI began working with Gaede in a counter-espionage operation intended to penetrate Cuban intelligence using his contacts on the island. During this time, Gaede obtained work at Intel Corp. in Chandler, Arizona. Intel Security discovered the nature of his activities at AMD and terminated him, but not before Gaede filmed Intel's state-of-the-art Pentium process from home. Gaede fled with this technology to South America, where he allegedly sold the information to Chinese and Iranian representatives. Upon his return to the United States, Gaede was arrested, prosecuted, and convicted. He was convicted and sentenced to 33 months in prison in June 1996,


id: bill-gaede-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gaede-1.md
category: reference
title: Bill Gaede
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gaede
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:45.577224+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: bill-gaede-20260505-0
summary:
== The Industrial Espionage Act of 1996 == During Gaede's prosecution, AMD, the FBI, the U.S. Attorney, and all affected parties complained that there were no laws to prosecute cases such as his. Shortly after Gaede's plea, the United States Congress enacted the Industrial Espionage Act of 1996, legislation that would soon be used to prosecute activities of the type Gaede was involved in. == Charges against him == National Stolen Property Act – US Code Title 18 Section 2314 Mail Fraud – US Code Title 18 Section 1341 == Accusations against José Cohen Valdés and the Cuban government == Gaede created some controversy in the Cuban exile community in July 2009 by publicly accusing Miami businessman and ex-DGI (Cuban Intelligence Directorate) Captain José (Pepe) Cohen Valdés of working under the supervision of the Cuban government while on the island. Gaede claims that the American intelligence agencies never recruited Cohen because they did not believe Cohen to be credible. Gaede further accuses Cohen of deliberately misinforming the American intelligence agencies by channeling false information through him to the CIA and of betraying both him and their comrade in arms, Rolando Sarraff Trujillo, sentenced to 25 years in prison for espionage


id: infinite-energy-magazine-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_Energy_(magazine)-0.md
category: reference
title: Infinite Energy (magazine)
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_Energy_(magazine)
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:46.734009+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: infinite-energy-magazine-20260505-0
summary:
Infinite Energy: The Magazine of New Energy Technology, more commonly referred to simply as Infinite Energy, is a bi-monthly magazine published in New Hampshire that details theories and experiments concerning alternative energy, new science and new physics. The phrase "new energy" in the subtitle is a euphemism for perpetual motion. The magazine was founded by Eugene Mallove, who was its editor-in-chief, and is owned by the non-profit New Energy Foundation. It was established in 1994 as Cold Fusion magazine and changed its name in March 1995. Topics of interest include "new hydrogen physics," also called cold fusion; vacuum energy, or zero point energy; and so-called "environmental energy" which they define as the attempt to violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, for example with a perpetual motion machine Archived March 6, 2009, at the Wayback Machine. This is done in pursuit of the founder's commitment to "unearthing new sources of energy and new paradigms in science." The magazine has also published articles and book reviews that are critical of the Big Bang theory that describes the origin of the universe. The magazine had a print run of 3,000, and is available on U.S. newsstands. The issues ranged in size from 48


id: interrogating-ethnography-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrogating_Ethnography-0.md
category: reference
title: Interrogating Ethnography
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrogating_Ethnography
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:47.904584+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: interrogating-ethnography-20260505-0
summary:
Interrogating Ethnography: Why Evidence Matters is a 2017 book by Steven Lubet of Northwestern University Law School, critiquing methods used in the discipline of ethnography. Writing in Contexts, Syid Ali of Long Island University called it "an essential critique of the most public-facing product sociology has to offer." Interrogating Ethnography, which criticizes ethnographers for the practice of changing the name of the area they study, is part of the Replication crisis. But it is largely a critique of ethnography methodology when it relies on the narratives of interviewees with no attempt to verify assertions of fact. Lubet began the project of writing this book after reading and publishing a notable critique of the use of evidence Alice Goffman's controversial 2014 book On the Run: Fugitive Life in an American City, That critique led him to read and attempt to verify "more than 50 ethnographic monographs and an equivalent number of articles. Focusing on sociologists’ studies of American cities... (and checking) facts that could be documented — or not... by consulting experts and pulling public records." According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, the book "has touched off a debate about what ethnographers might learn from legal scholars, and vice versa.


id: luddite-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite-0.md
category: reference
title: Luddite
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:49.155061+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: luddite-20260505-0
summary:
The Luddites were members of a 19th-century movement of English textile workers who opposed the use of certain types of automated machinery due to concerns relating to worker pay and output quality. They often destroyed the machines in organised raids. Members of the group referred to themselves as Luddites, self-described followers of "Ned Ludd", a legendary weaver whose name was used as a pseudonym in threatening letters to mill owners and government officials. The Luddite movement began in Nottingham, England, and spread to the North West and Yorkshire between 1811 and 1816. Mill and factory owners took to shooting protesters and eventually the movement was suppressed by legal and military force, which included execution and penal transportation of accused and convicted Luddites. Over time, the term has been used to refer to those opposed to the introduction of new technologies. == Etymology == The name Luddite ( LUD-ite) occurs in the movement's writings as early as 1811. The movement utilised the eponym of Ned Ludd, an apocryphal apprentice who allegedly smashed two stocking frames in 1779 after being criticised and instructed to change his method. The name often appears as Captain, General, or King Ludd. Different versions of the legends


id: luddite-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite-1.md
category: reference
title: Luddite
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:49.155061+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: luddite-20260505-0
summary:
The Luddite movement emerged during the harsh economic climate of the Napoleonic Wars, which saw a rise in difficult working conditions in the new textile factories paired with decreasing birth rates and a rise in education standards in England and Wales. Luddites were not opposed to the use of machines per se (many were skilled operators in the textile industry); they attacked manufacturers who were trying to circumvent standard labour practices of the time. The movement began in Arnold, Nottinghamshire, on 11 March 1811 and spread rapidly throughout England over the following two years. The British economy suffered greatly in 1810 to 1812, especially in terms of high unemployment and inflation. The causes included the high cost of the wars with Napoleon, Napoleon's Continental System of economic warfare, and escalating conflict with the United States. The crisis led to widespread protest and violence, but the middle classes and upper classes strongly supported the government, which used the army to suppress all working-class unrest, especially the Luddite movement. The Luddites met at night on the moors surrounding industrial towns to practise military-like drills and manoeuvres. Their main areas of operation began in Nottinghamshire in November 1811, followed by the West Riding


id: luddite-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite-2.md
category: reference
title: Luddite
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:49.155061+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: luddite-20260505-0
summary:
== Legacy == The Luddites (specifically the croppers, those who operated cropping machinery) are memorialised in the Yorkshire-area folk song "The Cropper Lads", which has been recorded by artists including Lou Killen and Maddy Prior. The croppers were very highly skilled and highly paid before the introduction of cropping machinery, and thus had more to lose and more reason to rebel against the factory owners' use of machinery. Another traditional song which celebrates the Luddites is the song "The Triumph of General Ludd", which was recorded by Chumbawamba for their 1988 album English Rebel Songs. == Modern usage == Nowadays, the term "Luddite" is often used to describe someone who either opposes or is resistant to the use of new technologies. In 1956, during a British Parliamentary debate, a Labour spokesman said that "organised workers were by no means wedded to a 'Luddite Philosophy'." By 2006, the term neo-Luddism had emerged to describe opposition to many forms of technology. According to a manifesto drawn up by the Second Luddite Congress (April 1996; Barnesville, Ohio), neo-Luddism is "a leaderless movement of passive resistance to consumerism and the increasingly bizarre and frightening technologies of the Computer Age". The term "Luddite fallacy" is


id: luddite-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite-3.md
category: reference
title: Luddite
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:49.155061+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: luddite-20260505-0
summary:
== Further reading == Anderson, Gary M.; Tollison, Robert D. (1986). "Luddism as cartel enforcement". Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE)/Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft. 142 (4): 727–738. JSTOR 40750927. Archer, John E. (2000). "Chapter 4: Industrial Protest". Social unrest and popular protest in England, 1780–1840. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-57656-7. Bailey, Brian J. (1998). The Luddite Rebellion. NYU Press. ISBN 0-8147-1335-1. Darvall, F. (1934). Popular Disturbances and Public Order in Regency England. Oxford University Press. Dinwiddy, John (1979). "Luddism and politics in the northern counties". Social History. 4 (1): 33–63. doi:10.1080/03071027908567438. Fox, Nicols (2003). Against the Machine: The Hidden Luddite History in Literature, Art, and Individual Lives. Island Press. ISBN 1-55963-860-5. Grint, Keith; Woolgar, Steve (1997). "The Luddites: Diablo ex Machina". The machine at work: technology, work, and organization. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-0-7456-0924-9. Haywood, Ian (2006). "Unruly People: The Spectacular Riot". Bloody Romanticism. London: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 181–222. Horn, Jeff (2015). "Machine-Breaking and the 'Threat from Below' in Great Britain and France during the Early Industrial Revolution". Crowd actions in Britain and France from the middle ages to the modern world. London: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 165–178. Linebaugh, Peter (2012). Ned Ludd & Queen Mab: machine-breaking, romanticism, and the several


id: paul-marmet-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Marmet-0.md
category: reference
title: Paul Marmet
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Marmet
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:50.469832+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: paul-marmet-20260505-0
summary:
Paul Marmet, (20 May 1932 – 20 May 2005) was a Canadian physicist, inventor, author, and professor at Laval University in Quebec City, Canada, who served as the President of the Canadian Association of Physicists. Marmet is notable for developing a novel high-resolution electron velocity selector, a scientific instrument which became widely used by scientists around the world. == Inventions == Early in his career, Marmet developed a high-resolution electron selector with his mentor Larkin Kerwin, a scientific instrument for studying ionic electronic states. Along with a mass spectrometer Marmet developed, the novel instrument had an energy resolution superior to then-available instruments and has been used widely by scientists studying electron scattering, which led to the discovery of enhanced vibrational excitation in nitrogen and of Feshbach resonances. == Research == Using the Marmet-Kerwin electron selector, Marmet and his research group discovered atomic and molecular states excited by electron impact but not by photons, such as doubly excited states that disobey spectroscopic selection rules. The group also found negative-ion resonances in which the incident electron temporarily attaches to the target atom or molecule. == Career == After receiving his physics BSc in 1956 and DSc in 1960 from Laval University and


id: brian-martin-social-scientist-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Martin_(social_scientist)-0.md
category: reference
title: Brian Martin (social scientist)
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Martin_(social_scientist)
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:51.577460+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: brian-martin-social-scientist-20260505-0
summary:
Brian Martin (born 1947) is a social scientist in the School of Humanities and Social Inquiry, Faculty of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities, at the University of Wollongong (UOW) in NSW, Australia. He was appointed a professor at the university in 2007, and in 2017 was appointed emeritus professor. His work is in the fields of peace research, scientific controversies, science and technology studies, sociology, political science, media studies, law, journalism, freedom of speech, education and corrupted institutions, as well as research on whistleblowing and dissent in the context of science. Martin was president of Whistleblowers Australia from 1996 to 1999 and remains their International Director. He has been criticized by medical professionals and public health advocates for promoting the disproven oral polio vaccine AIDS hypothesis and supporting vaccine hesitancy in the context of his work. Martin has spoken at a British Science Association Festival of Science, and testified at the Australian Federal Senate's Inquiry into Academic Freedom. The crustacean Polycheles martini was named after him. == Biography == Martin was born in the United States in 1947 and raised in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He earned a BA in physics at Rice University in Texas in 1969, and, seeking to avoid


id: brian-martin-social-scientist-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Martin_(social_scientist)-1.md
category: reference
title: Brian Martin (social scientist)
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Martin_(social_scientist)
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:51.577460+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: brian-martin-social-scientist-20260505-0
summary:
=== Vaccines === Martin has offered support for the discredited proposal that oral polio vaccine caused AIDS. The hypothesis first came to notice in Rolling Stone magazine by way of journalist Curtis and AIDS activist Elswood in 1992, and was later further promoted by the journalist/writer Hooper and Martin, with Hooper crediting Martin for giving the OPV-AIDS link hypothesis "further publicity and credibility". Martin disputes the claim that he has been a supporter of the hypothesis, instead saying that he has "never argued in favour of the OPV theory", but has instead stated "that it was and remains worthy of consideration yet in many ways has been unfairly dismissed". A 2016 article in The Australian described Martin's 2010 paper as claiming "that medical researchers had colluded to silence the theory that the AIDS virus was caused by contaminated polio vaccines in 1950s Africa." Immunologist and research scientist Greg Woods refuted Martin's posit on the Tasmanian devil facial tumour disease stating Martin's 2014 paper in The Conversation on the theory behind the cancer "misrepresents the state of the science". In 2014, Martin published a paper characterising criticism of Andrew Wakefield's discredited claims about vaccines and autism as "suppression of vaccination dissent".


id: miracles-insane-clown-posse-song-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_(Insane_Clown_Posse_song)-0.md
category: reference
title: Miracles (Insane Clown Posse song)
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_(Insane_Clown_Posse_song)
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:52.771163+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: miracles-insane-clown-posse-song-20260505-0
summary:
"Miracles" is a song written by the American hip hop duo Insane Clown Posse and record producer Mike E. Clark. It was released as a single from the duo's 2009 album Bang! Pow! Boom!. A music video was produced for the 2010 reissue of the album, dubbed the "Nuclear Edition". The song's lyrics focus on things experienced in everyday life, displaying an appreciation for them, and perceiving them as miraculous and outside of the laws of physics. The song sparked a number of Internet memes, and was parodied on Saturday Night Live and by Lonely Island in the song "Incredible Thoughts". == Music and lyrics == Inspiration for the song's lyrics came via the Internet generation and group members Violent J and Shaggy 2 Dope raising children. In response to both modern jadedness and their children experiencing wonders of the world for the first time, the group wanted to write a song about natural phenomena humans experience in life which often go unacknowledged. The closing lyrics encourage listeners to take time to look at the world and "appreciate the things that life has to offer". According to Violent J, "What's a shame is how people walk around blind to it


id: the-monsanto-years-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monsanto_Years-0.md
category: reference
title: The Monsanto Years
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monsanto_Years
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:57.558758+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: the-monsanto-years-20260505-0
summary:
The Monsanto Years is the 37th studio album by Canadian-American singer-songwriter Neil Young and the American rock group Promise of the Real, released on June 29, 2015, on Reprise Records. A concept album which criticizes the agribusiness company Monsanto, it is Young's thirty-fifth studio album and the third by Promise of the Real. The album is the first collaboration between Young and Promise of the Real. The group is fronted by Lukas Nelson and features his brother Micah, both sons of Willie Nelson. The album was produced by both Young and John Hanlon, and is accompanied by a film documenting the recording process. == Background == Young had a long-time friendship with Willie Nelson and his sons, Lukas and Micah, and jammed with Lukas' bandmates in Lukas Nelson & Promise of the Real after 2014's Farm Aid. Micah reflects on their relationship with Young: "Neil doesn't want us to hold back musically, and we all were quickly absorbed into the fold with him. We look up to him with respect, but he never treated us like we were younger, he treats us as equals. He's now our homie and he doesn’t act like he's 71." == Writing == Songs on


id: objections-to-evolution-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution-0.md
category: reference
title: Objections to evolution
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:58.826933+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: objections-to-evolution-20260505-0
summary:
Objections to evolution have been raised since evolutionary ideas came to prominence in the 19th century. When Charles Darwin published his 1859 book On the Origin of Species, his theory of evolution (the idea that species arose through descent with modification from a single common ancestor in a process driven by natural selection) initially met opposition from scientists with different theories, but eventually came to receive near-universal acceptance in the scientific community. The observation of evolutionary processes occurring (as well as the modern evolutionary synthesis explaining that evidence) has been uncontroversial among mainstream biologists since the 1940s. Since then, criticisms and denials of evolution have come from religious groups, rather than from the scientific community. Although many religious groups have found reconciliation of their beliefs with evolution, such as through theistic evolution, other religious groups continue to reject evolutionary explanations in favor of creationism, the belief that the universe and life were created by supernatural forces. The U.S.-centered creation–evolution controversy has become a focal point of perceived conflict between religion and science. Several branches of creationism, including creation science, neo-creationism, geocentric creationism and intelligent design, argue that the idea of life being directly designed by a god or intelligence is


id: objections-to-evolution-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution-1.md
category: reference
title: Objections to evolution
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:58.826933+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: objections-to-evolution-20260505-0
summary:
Evolutionary ideas came to prominence in the early 19th century with the theory (developed between 1800 and 1822) of the transmutation of species put forward by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744–1829). The scientific community initially opposed the idea of evolution, with notable criticism from Georges Cuvier (1769–1832). The idea that laws control nature and society gained vast popular audiences with George Combe's The Constitution of Man of 1828 and with the anonymous Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation of 1844. When Charles Darwin published his 1859 book On the Origin of Species, he convinced most of the scientific community that new species arise through descent through modification in a branching pattern of divergence from common ancestors, but while most scientists accepted natural selection as a valid and empirically testable hypothesis, Darwin's view of it as the primary mechanism of evolution was rejected by some. Darwin's contemporaries eventually came to accept the transmutation of species based upon fossil evidence, and the X Club (operative from 1864 to 1893) formed to defend the concept of evolution against opposition from the church and wealthy amateurs. At that time the specific evolutionary mechanism which Darwin provided – natural selection – was actively disputed by scientists


id: objections-to-evolution-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution-2.md
category: reference
title: Objections to evolution
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:58.826933+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: objections-to-evolution-20260505-0
summary:
Creationists have appealed to democratic principles of fairness, arguing that evolution is controversial and that science classrooms should therefore "Teach the Controversy". These objections to evolution culminated in the intelligent-design movement in the 1990s and early 2000s that unsuccessfully attempted to present itself as a scientific alternative to evolution.


id: objections-to-evolution-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution-3.md
category: reference
title: Objections to evolution
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:58.826933+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: objections-to-evolution-20260505-0
summary:
== Defining evolution == A major source of confusion and ambiguity in any creation–evolution debate arises from the definition of evolution itself. In the context of biology, evolution is genetic changes in populations of organisms over successive generations. The word also has a number of different meanings in different fields, from evolutionary computation to molecular evolution to sociocultural evolution to stellar and galactic evolution. Evolution in colloquial contexts can refer to any sort of "progressive" development or gradual improvement, and a process that results in greater quality or complexity. When misapplied to biological evolution this common meaning can lead to frequent misunderstandings. For example, the idea of devolution ("backwards" evolution) is a result of erroneously assuming that evolution is directional or has a specific goal in mind (cf. orthogenesis). In reality, the evolution of a biological organism has no "objective" and is only showing increasing ability of successive generations to survive and reproduce in their environment; and increased suitability is only defined in relation to this environment. Biologists do not regard any one species (such as humans) as more highly evolved or advanced than another. Certain sources have been criticized for indicating otherwise due to a tendency to evaluate nonhuman


id: objections-to-evolution-20260505-4
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution-4.md
category: reference
title: Objections to evolution
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:58.826933+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: objections-to-evolution-20260505-0
summary:
An objection is often made in the teaching of evolution that evolution is controversial or contentious. Unlike past creationist arguments which sought to abolish the teaching of evolution altogether, this argument makes the claim that evolution should be presented alongside alternative views since it is controversial, and students should be allowed to evaluate and choose between the options on their own. This objection forms the basis of the "Teach the Controversy" campaign by the Discovery Institute, a think tank based in Seattle, Washington, to promote the teaching of intelligent design in U.S. public schools. This goal followed the Institute's "wedge strategy", an attempt to gradually undermine evolution and ultimately to "reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." Several other attempts were made to insert intelligent design or creationism into the U.S. public school curriculum, including the failed Santorum Amendment in 2001. Scientists and U.S. courts have rejected this objection on the grounds that science is not based on appeals to popularity, but on evidence. The scientific consensus of biologists determines what is considered acceptable science, not popular opinion or fairness, and although evolution is controversial in


id: objections-to-evolution-20260505-5
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution-5.md
category: reference
title: Objections to evolution
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:58.826933+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: objections-to-evolution-20260505-0
summary:
Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it. Yet it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause, Epperson v. Arkansas, supra, Willoughby v. Stever, No. 15574-75 (D.D.C. May 18, 1973); aff'd. 504 F.2d 271 (D.C. Cir. 1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 924 (1975); Wright v. Houston Indep. School Dist., 366 F. Supp. 1208 (S.D. Tex 1978), aff.d. 486 F.2d 137 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied 417 U.S. 969 (1974). A related claim is that evolution is atheistic (see the Atheism section below); creationists sometimes merge the two claims and describe evolution as an "atheistic religion" (cf. humanism). This argument against evolution is also frequently generalized into a criticism of all science; it is argued that "science is an atheistic religion", on the grounds that its methodological naturalism is as unproven, and thus as "faith-based", as the supernatural and theistic beliefs of creationism. === Unfalsifiability === A statement is considered falsifiable if there is an


id: objections-to-evolution-20260505-6
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution-6.md
category: reference
title: Objections to evolution
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:58.826933+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: objections-to-evolution-20260505-0
summary:
=== Lack of observation === A common claim of creationists is that evolution has never been observed. Challenges to such objections often come down to debates over how evolution is defined (see the Defining evolution section above). Under the conventional biological definition of evolution, it is a simple matter to observe evolution occurring. Evolutionary processes, in the form of populations changing their genetic composition from generation to generation, have been observed in different scientific contexts, including the evolution of fruit flies, mice, and bacteria in the laboratory, and of tilapia in the field. Such studies on experimental evolution, particularly those using microorganisms, are now providing important insights into how evolution occurs, especially in the case of antibiotic resistance. In response to such examples, creationists say there are two major subdivisions of evolution to be considered, microevolution and macroevolution, and it is questionable if macro-evolution has been physically observed to occur. Most creationist organizations do not dispute the occurrence of short-term, relatively minor evolutionary changes, such as that observed even in dog breeding. Rather, they dispute the occurrence of major evolutionary changes over long periods of time, which by definition cannot be directly observed, only inferred from microevolutionary processes and the


id: objections-to-evolution-20260505-7
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution-7.md
category: reference
title: Objections to evolution
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:58.826933+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: objections-to-evolution-20260505-0
summary:
Critics of evolution commonly appeal to past scientific hoaxes such as the Piltdown Man forgery. It is argued that because scientists have been mistaken and deceived in the past about evidence for various aspects of evolution, the current evidence for evolution is likely to also be based on fraud and error. Much of the evidence for evolution has been accused of being fraudulent at various times, including Archaeopteryx, peppered moth melanism, and Darwin's finches; these claims have been subsequently refuted. It has also been claimed that certain former pieces of evidence for evolution which are now considered out-of-date and erroneous, such as Ernst Haeckel's 19th-century comparative drawings of embryos, used to illustrate his recapitulation theory ("ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"), were not merely errors but frauds. Molecular biologist Jonathan Wells criticizes biology textbooks by alleging that they continue to reproduce such evidence after it has been debunked. In response, the National Center for Science Education notes that none of the textbooks reviewed by Wells makes the claimed error, as Haeckel's drawings are shown in a historical context with discussion about why they are wrong, and the accurate modern drawings and photos used in the textbooks are misrepresented by Wells. === Unreliable chronology


id: objections-to-evolution-20260505-8
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution-8.md
category: reference
title: Objections to evolution
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:58.826933+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: objections-to-evolution-20260505-0
summary:
Supporters of evolution generally respond by arguing that this objection is simply an argument by lack of imagination, or argument from incredulity: a certain explanation is seen as being counterintuitive, and therefore an alternate, more intuitive explanation is appealed to instead. In actuality, evolution is not based on "chance", but on predictable chemical interactions: natural processes, rather than supernatural beings, are the "designer". Although the process involves some random elements, it is the non-random selection of survival-enhancing genes that drives the evolution of complex and ordered patterns. The fact that the results are ordered and seem "designed" is no more evidence for a supernatural intelligence than the appearance of complex non-living phenomena (e.g. snowflakes). It is also argued that there is insufficient evidence to make statements about the plausibility or implausibility of abiogenesis, that certain structures demonstrate poor design, and that the implausibility of life evolving exactly as it did is no more evidence for an intelligence than the implausibility of a deck of cards being shuffled and dealt in a certain random order. It has also been noted that arguments against some form of life arising "by chance" are really objections to nontheistic abiogenesis, not to evolution. Indeed, arguments


id: objections-to-evolution-20260505-9
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution-9.md
category: reference
title: Objections to evolution
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:58.826933+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: objections-to-evolution-20260505-0
summary:
There's got to be a series of advantages all the way in the feather. If you can't think of one, then that's your problem not natural selection's problem... It's perfectly possible feathers began as fluffy extensions of reptilian scales to act as insulators... The earliest feathers might have been a different approach to hairiness among reptiles keeping warm. Creationist arguments have been made such as "What use is half an eye?" and "What use is half a wing?". Research has confirmed that the natural evolution of the eye and other intricate organs is entirely feasible. Creationist claims have persisted that such complexity evolving without a designer is inconceivable and this objection to evolution has been refined in recent years as the more sophisticated irreducible complexity argument of the intelligent design movement, formulated by Michael Behe. Biochemist Michael Behe has argued that current evolutionary theory cannot account for certain complex structures, particularly in microbiology. On this basis, Behe argues that such structures were "purposely arranged by an intelligent agent". Irreducible complexity is the idea that certain biological systems cannot be broken down into their constituent parts and remain functional, and therefore that they could not have evolved naturally from less complex


id: objections-to-evolution-20260505-10
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution-10.md
category: reference
title: Objections to evolution
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:58.826933+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: objections-to-evolution-20260505-0
summary:
A recent objection of creationists to evolution is that evolutionary mechanisms such as mutation cannot generate new information. Creationists such as William A. Dembski, Werner Gitt, and Lee Spetner have attempted to use information theory to dispute evolution. Dembski has argued that life demonstrates specified complexity, and proposed a law of conservation of information that extremely improbable "complex specified information" could be conveyed by natural means but never originated without an intelligent agent. Gitt asserted that information is an intrinsic characteristic of life and that an analysis demonstrates the mind and will of their Creator. These claims have been widely rejected by the scientific community, which asserts that new information is regularly generated in evolution whenever a novel mutation or gene duplication arises. Dramatic examples of entirely new and unique traits arising through mutation have been observed in recent years, such as the evolution of nylon-eating bacteria which developed new enzymes to efficiently digest a material that never existed before the modern era. There is no need to account for the creation of information when an organism is considered together with the environment it evolved in. The information in the genome forms a record of how it was possible to


id: objections-to-evolution-20260505-11
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution-11.md
category: reference
title: Objections to evolution
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:58.826933+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: objections-to-evolution-20260505-0
summary:
In 1917, Vernon Kellogg published Headquarters Nights: A Record of Conversations and Experiences at the Headquarters of the German Army in France and Belgium, which asserted that German intellectuals were totally committed to might-makes-right due to "whole-hearted acceptance of the worst of Neo-Darwinism, the Allmacht of natural selection applied rigorously to human life and society and Kultur." This strongly influenced the politician William Jennings Bryan, who saw Darwinism as a moral threat to America and campaigned against evolutionary theory; his campaign culminated in the Scopes Trial, which effectively prevented teaching of evolution in most public schools until the 1960s. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, wrote August 8, 2005, in NPR's Taking Issue essay series, that "Debates over education, abortion, environmentalism, homosexuality and a host of other issues are really debates about the origin — and thus the meaning — of human life. ...evolutionary theory stands at the base of moral relativism and the rejection of traditional morality." Henry M. Morris, engineering professor and founder of the Creation Research Society and the Institute of Creation Research, claims that evolution was part of a pagan religion that emerged after the Tower of Babel,


id: objections-to-evolution-20260505-12
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution-12.md
category: reference
title: Objections to evolution
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:58.826933+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: objections-to-evolution-20260505-0
summary:
Another charge leveled at evolutionary theory by creationists is that belief in evolution is either tantamount to atheism, or conducive to atheism. It is commonly claimed that all proponents of evolutionary theory are "materialistic atheists". On the other hand, Davis A. Young argues that creation science itself is harmful to Christianity because its bad science will turn more away than it recruits. Young asks, "Can we seriously expect non-Christians to develop a respect for Christianity if we insist on teaching the brand of science that creationism brings with it?" However, evolution neither requires nor rules out the existence of a supernatural being. Philosopher Robert T. Pennock makes the comparison that evolution is no more atheistic than plumbing. H. Allen Orr, professor of biology at University of Rochester, notes that: Of the five founding fathers of twentieth-century evolutionary biology—Ronald Fisher, Sewall Wright, J. B. S. Haldane, Ernst Mayr, and Theodosius Dobzhansky—one was a devout Anglican who preached sermons and published articles in church magazines, one a practicing Unitarian, one a dabbler in Eastern mysticism, one an apparent atheist, and one a member of the Russian Orthodox Church and the author of a book on religion and science. In addition, a wide


id: objections-to-evolution-20260505-13
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution-13.md
category: reference
title: Objections to evolution
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:58.826933+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: objections-to-evolution-20260505-0
summary:
== Bibliography == Behe, Michael J. (1996). Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. New York: Free Press. ISBN 978-0-684-82754-4. LCCN 96000695. OCLC 34150540. Bowler, Peter J. (1992) [Original hardback edition published 1983]. The Eclipse of Darwinism: Anti-Darwinian Evolution Theories in the Decades Around 1900 (Johns Hopkins Paperbacks ed.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 978-0-8018-4391-4. LCCN 82021170. OCLC 611262030. Bowler, Peter J. (2003). Evolution: The History of an Idea (3rd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-23693-6. LCCN 2002007569. OCLC 49824702. Butterfield, Nicholas J. (2001). "Ecology and evolution of Cambrian plankton". In Zhuravlev, Andrey Yu.; Riding, Robert (eds.). The Ecology of the Cambrian Radiation. Critical Moments in Paleobiology and Earth History Series; Perspectives in Paleobiology and Earth History Series. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-10613-9. LCCN 00063901. OCLC 44869047. Darwin, Charles (1859). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1st ed.). London: John Murray. LCCN 06017473. OCLC 741260650. The book is available from The Complete Work of Charles Darwin Online. Retrieved 2015-03-30. Darwin, Charles (1866). On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured


id: objections-to-evolution-20260505-14
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution-14.md
category: reference
title: Objections to evolution
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:36:58.826933+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: objections-to-evolution-20260505-0
summary:
Young, David A. (1988) [Originally published 1982; Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan]. Christianity and the Age of the Earth. Thousand Oak, CA: Artisan Publishers. ISBN 978-0-934666-27-5. LCCN 81016266. OCLC 20135091. Meyer, Stephen C., and Mark Terry. "Darwin's doubt: The explosive origin of animal life and the case for intelligent design Archived 2024-06-13 at the Wayback Machine." New York (2013). == Further reading == Coleman, Simon; Carlin, Leslie, eds. (2004). The Cultures of Creationism: Anti-Evolution in English-Speaking Countries. Aldershot, Hants, England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate. ISBN 978-0-7546-0912-4. LCCN 2003045172. OCLC 51867865. Denton, Michael (1986) [Originally published in Great Britain in 1985 by Burnett Books Limited]. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1st U.S. ed.). Bethesda, MD: Adler & Adler. ISBN 978-0-917561-05-4. LCCN 85013556. OCLC 12214328. == External links == Video (10:56) − "Raising Doubts About Evolution... in Science Class" on YouTube − (NYT / Retro Report; November 2017)


id: philosophical-skepticism-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism-0.md
category: reference
title: Philosophical skepticism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:00.045187+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: philosophical-skepticism-20260505-0
summary:
Philosophical skepticism (UK spelling: scepticism; from Greek σκέψις skepsis, "inquiry") is a family of philosophical views that question the possibility of knowledge. It differs from other forms of skepticism in that it even rejects very plausible knowledge claims that belong to basic common sense. Philosophical skeptics are often classified into two general categories: Those who deny all possibility of knowledge, and those who advocate for the suspension of judgment due to the inadequacy of evidence. This distinction is modeled after the differences between the Academic skeptics and the Pyrrhonian skeptics in ancient Greek philosophy. Pyrrhonian skepticism is a practice of suspending judgment, and skepticism in this sense is understood as a way of life that helps the practitioner achieve inner peace. Some types of philosophical skepticism reject all forms of knowledge while others limit this rejection to certain fields, for example, knowledge about moral doctrines or about the external world. Some theorists criticize philosophical skepticism based on the claim that it is a self-refuting idea since its proponents seem to claim to know that there is no knowledge. Other objections focus on its implausibility and distance from regular life. == Overview == Philosophical skepticism is a doubtful attitude toward commonly


id: philosophical-skepticism-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism-1.md
category: reference
title: Philosophical skepticism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:00.045187+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: philosophical-skepticism-20260505-0
summary:
=== Skeptical scenarios === A skeptical scenario is a hypothetical situation which can be used in an argument for skepticism about a particular claim or class of claims. Usually the scenario posits the existence of a deceptive power that deceives our senses and undermines the justification of knowledge otherwise accepted as justified, and is proposed in order to call into question our ordinary claims to knowledge on the grounds that we cannot exclude the possibility of skeptical scenarios being true. Skeptical scenarios have received a great deal of attention in modern Western philosophy. The first major skeptical scenario in modern Western philosophy appears in René Descartes's Meditations on First Philosophy. At the end of the first Meditation Descartes writes: "I will suppose ... that some evil demon of the utmost power and cunning has employed all his energies to deceive me." The "evil demon problem", also known as "Descartes's evil demon", was first proposed by René Descartes. It invokes the possibility of a being who could deliberately mislead one into falsely believing everything that you take to be true. The "brain in a vat" hypothesis is cast in contemporary scientific terms. It supposes that one might be a disembodied brain


id: philosophical-skepticism-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism-2.md
category: reference
title: Philosophical skepticism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:00.045187+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: philosophical-skepticism-20260505-0
summary:
=== Criticism === Philosophical skepticism has been criticized in various ways. Some criticisms see it as a self-refuting idea while others point out that it is implausible, psychologically impossible, or a pointless intellectual game. This position is based on the idea that philosophical skepticism not only rejects the existence of knowledge but seems to make knowledge claims itself at the same time. For example, to claim that there is no knowledge seems to be itself a knowledge claim. This problem is particularly relevant for versions of philosophical skepticism that deny any form of knowledge. So the global skeptic denies that any claim is rationally justified but then goes on to provide arguments in an attempt to rationally justify their denial. Some philosophical skeptics have responded to this objection by restricting the denial of knowledge to certain fields without denying the existence of knowledge in general. Another defense consists in understanding philosophical skepticism not as a theory but as a tool or a methodology. In this case, it may be used fruitfully to reject and improve philosophical systems despite its shortcomings as a theory. Another criticism holds that philosophical skepticism is highly counterintuitive by pointing out how far removed it is


id: philosophical-skepticism-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism-3.md
category: reference
title: Philosophical skepticism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:00.045187+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: philosophical-skepticism-20260505-0
summary:
===== Sextus Empiricus ===== The works of Sextus Empiricus (c. 200 CE) are the main surviving account of ancient Pyrrhonism. Long before Sextus's time, the Academy had abandoned skepticism and had been destroyed as a formal institution. Sextus compiled and further developed the Pyrrhonists' skeptical arguments, most of which were directed against the Stoics but included arguments against all of the schools of Hellenistic philosophy, including the Academic skeptics. Sextus, as the most systematic author of the works by Hellenistic skeptics which have survived, noted that there are at least ten modes of skepticism. These modes may be broken down into three categories: one may be skeptical of the subjective perceiver, of the objective world, and the relation between perceiver and the world. His arguments are as follows. Subjectively, the powers of the senses and reasoning may vary among different people. And since knowledge is a product of one or the other, and since neither are reliable, knowledge would seem to be in trouble. For instance, a color-blind person sees the world quite differently from everyone else. Moreover, one cannot even give preference based on the power of reason, i.e., by treating the rational animal as a carrier of greater


id: philosophical-skepticism-20260505-4
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism-4.md
category: reference
title: Philosophical skepticism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:00.045187+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: philosophical-skepticism-20260505-0
summary:
Dissent – The uncertainty demonstrated by the differences of opinions among philosophers and people in general. Progress ad infinitum – All proof rests on matters themselves in need of proof, and so on to infinity, i.e, the regress argument. Relation – All things are changed as their relations become changed, or, as we look upon them from different points of view. Assumption – The truth asserted is based on an unsupported assumption. Circularity – The truth asserted involves a circularity of proofs. According to Victor Brochard "the five tropes can be regarded as the most radical and most precise formulation of philosophical skepticism that has ever been given. In a sense, they are still irresistible today." ==== Academic skepticism ==== Pyrrho's thinking subsequently influenced the Platonic Academy, arising first in the Academic skepticism of the Middle Academy under Arcesilaus (c. 315 – 241 BCE) and then the New Academy under Carneades (c. 213–129 BCE). Clitomachus, a student of Carneades, interpreted his teacher's philosophy as suggesting an account of knowledge based on truth-likeness. The Roman politician and philosopher, Cicero, was also an adherent of the skepticism of the New Academy, even though a return to a more dogmatic orientation of the


id: philosophical-skepticism-20260505-5
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism-5.md
category: reference
title: Philosophical skepticism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:00.045187+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: philosophical-skepticism-20260505-0
summary:
Humans do agree about some things, for example, an ant is smaller than an elephant There are natural laws governing our sense-perceptions, such as optics, which allow us to eliminate inaccuracies Man created tools such as rulers and scales to measure things and eliminate doubts such as bent oars, pigeons' necks, and round towers. A Pyrrhonist might refute these points by saying that senses deceive, and thus knowledge turns into infinite regress or circular logic. Thus Mersenne argues that this cannot be the case, since commonly agreed upon rules of thumb can be hypothesized and tested over time to ensure that they continue to hold. Furthermore, if everything can be doubted, the doubt can also be doubted, so on and so forth. Thus, according to Mersenne, something has to be true. Finally, Mersenne writes about all the mathematical, physical, and other scientific knowledge that is true by repeated testing, and has practical use value. Notably, Mersenne was one of the few philosophers who accepted Hobbes's radical ideology—he saw it as a new science of man. === Skepticism in the seventeenth century === ==== Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) ==== During his long stay in Paris, Thomas Hobbes was actively involved in the


id: philosophical-skepticism-20260505-6
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism-6.md
category: reference
title: Philosophical skepticism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:00.045187+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: philosophical-skepticism-20260505-0
summary:
==== David Hume (1711–1776) ==== David Hume was among the most influential proponents of philosophical skepticism during the Age of Enlightenment and one of the most notable voices of the Scottish Enlightenment and British Empiricism. He especially espoused skepticism regarding inductive reasoning, and questioned what the foundation of morality was, creating the is–ought problem. His approach to skepticism is considered even more radical than that of Descartes. Hume argued that any coherent idea must be either a mental copy of an impression (a direct sensory perception) or copies of multiple impressions innovatively combined. Since certain human activities like religion, superstition, and metaphysics are not premised on any actual sense-impressions, their claims to knowledge are logically unjustified. Furthermore, Hume even demonstrates that science is merely a psychological phenomenon based on the association of ideas: often, specifically, an assumption of cause-and-effect relationships that is itself not grounded in any sense-impressions. Thus, even scientific knowledge is logically unjustified, being not actually objective or provable but, rather, mere conjecture flimsily based on our minds perceiving regular correlations between distinct events. Hume thus falls into extreme skepticism regarding the possibility of any certain knowledge. Ultimately, he offers that, at best, a science of human nature


id: philosophical-skepticism-20260505-7
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism-7.md
category: reference
title: Philosophical skepticism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:00.045187+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: philosophical-skepticism-20260505-0
summary:
The historical Buddha asserted certain doctrines as true, such as the possibility of nirvana; however, he also upheld a form of skepticism with regards to certain questions which he left "un-expounded" (avyākata) and some he saw as "incomprehensible" (acinteyya). Because the Buddha saw these questions (which tend to be of metaphysical topics) as unhelpful on the path and merely leading to confusion and "a thicket of views", he promoted suspension of judgment towards them. This allowed him to carve out an epistemic middle way between what he saw as the extremes of claiming absolute objectivity (associated with the claims to omniscience of the Jain Mahavira) and extreme skepticism (associated with the Ajñana thinker Sanjaya Belatthiputta). Later Buddhist philosophy remained highly skeptical of Indian metaphysical arguments. The Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna in particular has been seen as the founder of the Madhyamaka school, which has been in turn compared with Greek Skepticism. Nagarjuna's statement that he has "no thesis" (pratijña) has parallels in the statements of Sextus Empiricus of having "no position". Nagarjuna famously opens his magnum opus, the Mulamadhyamakakarika, with the statement that the Buddha claimed that true happiness was found through dispelling 'vain thinking' (prapañca, also "conceptual proliferation"). According to


id: philosophical-skepticism-20260505-8
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism-8.md
category: reference
title: Philosophical skepticism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:00.045187+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: philosophical-skepticism-20260505-0
summary:
=== Medieval Islamic philosophy === The Incoherence of the Philosophers, written by the scholar Al-Ghazali (1058–1111), marks a major turn in Islamic epistemology. His encounter with skepticism led Ghazali to embrace a form of theological occasionalism, or the belief that all causal events and interactions are not the product of material conjunctions but rather the immediate and present will of God. In the autobiography Ghazali wrote towards the end of his life, The Deliverance From Error (Al-munqidh min al-ḍalāl ), Ghazali recounts how, once a crisis of epistemological skepticism was resolved by "a light which God Most High cast into my breast...the key to most knowledge", he studied and mastered the arguments of Kalam, Islamic philosophy, and Ismailism. Though appreciating what was valid in the first two of these, at least, he determined that all three approaches were inadequate and found ultimate value only in the mystical experience and spiritual insight he attained as a result of following Sufi practices. William James, in Varieties of Religious Experience, considered the autobiography an important document for "the purely literary student who would like to become acquainted with the inwardness of religions other than the Christian", comparing it to recorded personal religious confessions


id: plastic-fantastic-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_Fantastic-0.md
category: reference
title: Plastic Fantastic
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_Fantastic
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:01.187176+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: plastic-fantastic-20260505-0
summary:
Plastic Fantastic: How the Biggest Fraud in Physics Shook the Scientific World is a 2009 book by U.S.-based science reporter Eugenie Samuel Reich. == Plot == In Plastic Fantastic, Reich investigates how Jan Hendrik Schön, a young physicist working in the field of advanced microelectronics at Bell Labs, was able to repeatedly fabricate scientific results to mislead his collaborators, journal editors, and the scientific community. The book is based on interviews with 126 scientists. The book carries ISBN 978-0-230-22467-4, and was initially published by Palgrave MacMillan. == See also == List of books about the politics of science The Great Betrayal: Fraud In Science Scientific misconduct == References ==


id: radical-psychology-network-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Psychology_Network-0.md
category: reference
title: Radical Psychology Network
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Psychology_Network
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:02.330731+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: radical-psychology-network-20260505-0
summary:
The Radical Psychology Network (RadPsyNet) is an organization with the goal of encouraging reform in the field of psychology. It began in Toronto in 1993 when two dozen people attended a discussion at the American Psychological Association convention entitled "Will Psychology Pay Attention to Its Own Radical Critics?" == Overview == The aim of the group is to change the status quo of psychology. Challenging psychology's traditional focus on minor reform, members emphasise enhancing human welfare by working for fundamental social change. They claim that psychology itself has too often oppressed people rather than liberated them and they work to redress this imbalance. In keeping with this aim, RadPsyNet co-founders Dennis Fox and Isaac Prilleltensky co-edited Critical Psychology: An Introduction in 1997, and many RadPsyNet members are active in academic critical psychology as well as in opposition to psychological abuses. Today the group has more than 500 members in over three dozen countries. Members include psychologists and others, academics and practitioners, faculty and students, psychotherapists and patients. It publishes the online Radical Psychology Journal (published for ten years until its final issue in 2011) and sponsors an active email discussion list. == See also == Critical psychology Psychopolitical validity, coined


id: replication-crisis-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-0.md
category: reference
title: Replication crisis
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:03.756578+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: replication-crisis-20260505-0
summary:
The replication crisis, also known as the reproducibility or replicability crisis, refers to widespread failures to reproduce published scientific results. Because the reproducibility of empirical results is the cornerstone of the scientific method, such failures undermine the credibility of theories and challenge substantial parts of scientific knowledge. Psychology and medicine have been focal points for replication efforts, with researchers systematically reexamining classic studies to verify their reliability and, when failures emerge, to identify the underlying causes. Data strongly indicates that other natural and social sciences are also affected. The phrase "replication crisis" was coined in the early 2010s as part of a growing awareness of the problem. Considerations of causes and remedies have given rise to a new scientific discipline known as metascience, which uses methods of empirical research to examine empirical research practice. Researchers distinguish two forms of reproducibility. Reproducibility in a narrow sense refers to reexamining and validating the analysis of a set of data. The second category, replication, involves repeating an experiment or study with new, independent data to verify the original conclusions. == Background == === Replication === Replication has been called "the cornerstone of science". Environmental health scientist Stefan Schmidt began a 2009 review with


id: replication-crisis-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-1.md
category: reference
title: Replication crisis
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:03.756578+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: replication-crisis-20260505-0
summary:
A null hypothesis test is a decision procedure which takes in some data, and outputs either H 0 {\displaystyle H_{0}} or H 1 {\displaystyle H_{1}} . If it outputs H 1 {\displaystyle H_{1}} , it is usually stated as "there is a statistically significant effect" or "the null hypothesis is rejected". Often, the statistical test is a (one-sided) threshold test, which is structured as follows: Gather data D {\displaystyle D} . Compute a test statistic t [ D ] {\displaystyle t[D]} for the data. Compare the test statistic against a critical value/threshold t threshold {\displaystyle t_{\text{threshold}}} . If t [ D ] > t threshold {\displaystyle t[D]>t_{\text{threshold}}} , then output H 1 {\displaystyle H_{1}} , else, output H 0 {\displaystyle H_{0}} . A two-sided threshold test is similar, but with two thresholds, such that it outputs H 1 {\displaystyle H_{1}} if either t [ D ] < t threshold − {\displaystyle t[D]<t_{\text{threshold}}^{-}} or t [ D ] > t threshold + {\displaystyle t[D]>t_{\text{threshold}}^{+}} There are 4 possible outcomes of a null hypothesis test: false negative, true negative, false positive, true positive. A false negative means that H 0 {\displaystyle H_{0}} is true, but the test outcome is H 1 {\displaystyle


id: replication-crisis-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-2.md
category: reference
title: Replication crisis
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:03.756578+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: replication-crisis-20260505-0
summary:
Social priming failures: In the early 2010s, two direct replication attempts failed to reproduce results from social psychologist John Bargh's much-cited "elderly-walking" study (originally published in 1996). This experiment was part of a series of three studies that had been widely cited throughout the years, was regularly taught in university courses, and had inspired many conceptual replications. These replication failures triggered intense disagreement between replication researchers and the original authors. Notably, many of the conceptual replications of the original studies also failed to replicate in subsequent direct replications. Experiments on extrasensory perception: Social psychologist Daryl Bem conducted a series of experiments supposedly providing evidence for the controversial phenomenon of extrasensory perception. Bem faced substantial criticism of his study's methodology. Reanalysis of his data found no evidence for extrasensory perception. The experiment also failed to replicate in subsequent direct replications. According to Romero, what the community found particularly upsetting was that many of the flawed procedures and statistical tools used in Bem's studies were part of common research practice in psychology. Biomedical replication failures: Scientists from biotech companies Amgen and Bayer Healthcare reported alarmingly low replication rates (11–20%) of landmark findings in preclinical oncological research. P-hacking studies and questionable research practices:


id: replication-crisis-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-3.md
category: reference
title: Replication crisis
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:03.756578+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: replication-crisis-20260505-0
summary:
=== In psychology === Several factors have combined to put psychology at the center of the conversation. Some areas of psychology once considered solid, such as social priming and ego depletion, have come under increased scrutiny due to failed replications. Much of the focus has been on social psychology, although other areas of psychology such as clinical psychology, developmental psychology, and educational research have also been implicated. In August 2015, the first open empirical study of reproducibility in psychology was published, called The Reproducibility Project: Psychology. Coordinated by psychologist Brian Nosek, researchers redid 100 studies in psychological science from three high-ranking psychology journals (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, and Psychological Science). Of 97 original studies with significant effects, 36% replicated successfully (p value below 0.05), with effect sizes averaging half the original magnitude. Among non-replications, 25% directly contradicted the original while 49% were inconclusive due to underpowered designs. The same paper examined the reproducibility rates and effect sizes by journal and discipline. Study replication rates were 23% for the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48% for Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, and 38% for Psychological Science. Studies


id: replication-crisis-20260505-4
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-4.md
category: reference
title: Replication crisis
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:03.756578+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: replication-crisis-20260505-0
summary:
=== Across fields === A 2016 survey by Nature on 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility found that more than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiment results (including 87% of chemists, 77% of biologists, 69% of physicists and engineers, 67% of medical researchers, 64% of earth and environmental scientists, and 62% of all others), and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. But fewer than 20% had been contacted by another researcher unable to reproduce their work. The survey found that fewer than 31% of researchers believe that failure to reproduce results means that the original result is probably wrong, although 52% agree that a significant replication crisis exists. Most researchers said they still trust the published literature. In 2010, Fanelli (2010) found that 91.5% of psychiatry/psychology studies confirmed the effects they were looking for, and concluded that the odds of this happening (a positive result) was around five times higher than in fields such as astronomy or geosciences. Fanelli argued that this is because researchers in "softer" sciences have fewer constraints to their conscious and unconscious biases. Early analysis of result-blind peer review, which is less


id: replication-crisis-20260505-5
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-5.md
category: reference
title: Replication crisis
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:03.756578+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: replication-crisis-20260505-0
summary:
Academic "publish or perish" culture exacerbates publication bias. Intense pressure to publish in recognized journals, driven by hypercompetitive environments and bibliometric career evaluations, incentivizes researchers to prioritize publishable results over validity. According to Fanelli, this pushes scientists to employ a number of strategies aimed at making results "publishable". In the context of publication bias, this can mean adopting behaviors aimed at making results positive or statistically significant, often at the expense of their validity. According to Center for Open Science founder Brian Nosek and his colleagues, "publish or perish" culture created a situation whereby the goals and values of single scientists (e.g., publishability) are not aligned with the general goals of science (e.g., pursuing scientific truth). This is detrimental to the validity of published findings. Philosopher Brian D. Earp and psychologist Jim A. C. Everett argue that, although replication is in the best interests of academics and researchers as a group, features of academic psychological culture discourage replication by individual researchers. They argue that performing replications can be time-consuming, and take away resources from projects that reflect the researcher's original thinking. They are harder to publish, largely because they are unoriginal, and even when they can be published they are


id: replication-crisis-20260505-6
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-6.md
category: reference
title: Replication crisis
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:03.756578+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: replication-crisis-20260505-0
summary:
==== In medicine ==== Irreproducible medical studies commonly share these characteristics: investigators not being blinded to the experimental versus the control arms; failure to repeat experiments; lack of positive and negative controls; failing to report all the data; inappropriate use of statistical tests; and use of reagents that were not appropriately validated. ==== In AI research ==== In machine learning research, a range of questionable practices have emerged due to intense pressure to achieve state-of-the-art benchmark results. Common evaluation questionable practices include "benchmark overfitting" by repeatedly tuning hyperparameters on held-out test sets, selectively reporting the best of multiple random seeds or experimental runs, and "metric hacking" through unreported post hoc decisions such as choice of tokenization or evaluation scripts that inflate scores. Researchers also frequently cherry-pick tasks or datasets where their proposed model outperforms baselines, omit negative or lower-performing results, and obscure compute budgets to present energy-intensive methods as efficient. Such practices can give a misleading impression of model progress and hinder fair comparisons across methods. Moreover, many machine learning studies suffer from irreproducible research practices that impede replication and auditing. Key issues include incomplete disclosure of training details—such as dataset preprocessing, exact model hyperparameters, random seeds, and hardware configurations—and


id: replication-crisis-20260505-7
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-7.md
category: reference
title: Replication crisis
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:03.756578+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: replication-crisis-20260505-0
summary:
=== Statistical issues === ==== Low statistical power ==== Low statistical power hinders replication for three reasons: (1) low-power replications have reduced ability to detect true effects, (2) low-power original studies produce biased effect size estimates leading to undersized replications, and (3) low-power original studies yield results unlikely to reflect true effects. Mathematically, the probability of replicating a previous publication that rejected a null hypothesis H 0 {\displaystyle H_{0}} in favor of an alternative H 1 {\displaystyle H_{1}} is ( significance ) P r ( H 0 | publication ) + ( power ) P r ( H 1 | publication ) ≤ ( power ) {\displaystyle ({\text{significance}})Pr(H_{0}|{\text{publication}})+({\text{power}})Pr(H_{1}|{\text{publication}})\leq ({\text{power}})} assuming significance is less than power. Thus, low power implies low probability of replication, regardless of how the previous publication was designed, and regardless of which hypothesis is really true. Stanley and colleagues estimated the average statistical power of psychological literature by analyzing data from 200 meta-analyses. They found that on average, psychology studies have between 33.1% and 36.4% statistical power. These values are quite low compared to the 80% considered adequate statistical power for an experiment. Across the 200 meta-analyses, the median of studies with adequate statistical power was between


id: replication-crisis-20260505-8
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-8.md
category: reference
title: Replication crisis
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:03.756578+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: replication-crisis-20260505-0
summary:
Various statistical methods can be applied to make the p-value appear smaller than it really is. This need not be malicious, as moderately flexible data analysis, routine in research, can increase the false-positive rate to above 60%. For example, if one collects some data, applies several different significance tests to it, and publishes only the one that happens to have a p-value less than 0.05, then the total p-value for "at least one significance test reaches p < 0.05" can be much larger than 0.05, because even if the null hypothesis were true, the probability that one out of many significance tests is extreme is not itself extreme. Typically, a statistical study has multiple steps, with several choices at each step, such as during data collection, outlier rejection, choice of test statistic, choice of one-tailed or two-tailed test, etc. These choices in the "garden of forking paths" multiply, creating many "researcher degrees of freedom". The effect is similar to the file-drawer problem, as the paths not taken are not published. Consider a simple illustration. Suppose the null hypothesis is true, and we have 20 possible significance tests to apply to the dataset. Also suppose the outcomes to the significance tests


id: replication-crisis-20260505-9
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-9.md
category: reference
title: Replication crisis
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:03.756578+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: replication-crisis-20260505-0
summary:
==== Statistical heterogeneity ==== As also reported by Stanley and colleagues, a further reason studies might fail to replicate is high heterogeneity of the to-be-replicated effects. Heterogeneity (variance in research findings due to multiple true effect sizes rather than one) is measured by the I-squared statistic, which quantifies unexplained variation in effect sizes across studies. This variation can be due to differences in experimental methods, populations, cohorts, and statistical methods between replication studies. Heterogeneity poses a challenge to studies attempting to replicate previously found effect sizes. When heterogeneity is high, subsequent replications have a high probability of finding an effect size radically different than that of the original study. Importantly, significant levels of heterogeneity are also found in direct/exact replications of a study. Stanley and colleagues discuss this while reporting a study by quantitative behavioral scientist Richard Klein and colleagues, where the authors attempted to replicate 15 psychological effects across 36 different sites in Europe and the U.S. In the study, Klein and colleagues found significant amounts of heterogeneity in 8 out of 16 effects (I-squared = 23% to 91%). Importantly, while the replication sites intentionally differed on a variety of characteristics, such differences could account for very little heterogeneity


id: replication-crisis-20260505-10
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-10.md
category: reference
title: Replication crisis
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:03.756578+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: replication-crisis-20260505-0
summary:
and the probability of replicating the statistical study is P r ( replication | find H 1 ) = P r ( find H 1 | H 1 ) P r ( H 1 | find H 1 ) + P r ( find H 1 | H 0 ) P r ( H 0 | find H 1 ) {\displaystyle Pr({\text{replication}}|{\text{ find }}H_{1})=Pr({\text{find }}H_{1}|H_{1})Pr(H_{1}|{\text{ find }}H_{1})+Pr({\text{find }}H_{1}|H_{0})Pr(H_{0}|{\text{ find }}H_{1})} which is also different from P r ( H 1 | find H 1 ) {\displaystyle Pr(H_{1}|{\text{ find }}H_{1})} . In particular, for a fixed level of significance, the probability of replication increases with power, and prior probability for H 1 {\displaystyle H_{1}} . If the prior probability for H 1 {\displaystyle H_{1}} is small, then one would require a high power for replication. For example, if the prior probability of the null hypothesis is P r ( H 0 ) = 0.9 {\displaystyle Pr(H_{0})=0.9} , and the study found a positive result, then the posterior probability for H 1 {\displaystyle H_{1}} is P r ( H 1 | find H 1 ) = 0.50 {\displaystyle Pr(H_{1}|{\text{ find }}H_{1})=0.50} , and the replication probability is P r ( replication |


id: replication-crisis-20260505-11
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-11.md
category: reference
title: Replication crisis
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:03.756578+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: replication-crisis-20260505-0
summary:
== Consequences == When effects are wrongly stated as relevant in the literature, failure to detect this by replication will lead to the canonization of such false facts. A 2021 study found that papers in leading general interest, psychology and economics journals with findings that could not be replicated tend to be cited more over time than reproducible research papers, likely because these results are surprising or interesting. The trend is not affected by publication of failed reproductions, after which only 12% of papers that cite the original research will mention the failed replication. Further, experts are able to predict which studies will be replicable, leading the authors of the 2021 study, Marta Serra-Garcia and Uri Gneezy, to conclude that experts apply lower standards to interesting results when deciding whether to publish them. === Public awareness and perceptions === Concerns have been expressed within the scientific community that the general public may consider science less credible due to failed replications. Research supporting this concern is sparse, but a nationally representative survey in Germany showed that more than 75% of Germans have not heard of replication failures in science. The study also found that most Germans have positive perceptions of replication


id: replication-crisis-20260505-12
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-12.md
category: reference
title: Replication crisis
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:03.756578+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: replication-crisis-20260505-0
summary:
In response to concerns in psychology about publication bias and data dredging, more than 140 psychology journals have adopted result-blind peer review. In this approach, studies are accepted not on the basis of their findings and after the studies are completed, but before they are conducted and on the basis of the methodological rigor of their experimental designs, and the theoretical justifications for their statistical analysis techniques before data collection or analysis is done. Early analysis of this procedure has estimated that 61% of result-blind studies have led to null results, in contrast to an estimated 5% to 20% in earlier research. In addition, large-scale collaborations between researchers working in multiple labs in different countries that regularly make their data openly available for different researchers to assess have become much more common in psychology. ==== Pre-registration of studies ==== Scientific publishing has begun using pre-registration reports to address the replication crisis. The registered report format requires authors to submit a description of the study methods and analyses prior to data collection. Once the method and analysis plan is vetted through peer-review, publication of the findings is provisionally guaranteed, based on whether the authors follow the proposed protocol. One goal of


id: replication-crisis-20260505-13
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-13.md
category: reference
title: Replication crisis
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:03.756578+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: replication-crisis-20260505-0
summary:
==== Cross-validation ==== One common statistical problem is overfitting, that is, when researchers fit a regression model over a large number of variables but a small number of data points. For example, a typical fMRI study of emotion, personality, and social cognition has fewer than 100 subjects, but each subject has 10,000 voxels. The study would fit a sparse linear regression model that uses the voxels to predict a variable of interest, such as self-reported stress. But the study would then report on the p-value of the model on the same data it was fitted to. The standard approach in statistics, where data is split into a training and a validation set, is resisted because test subjects are expensive to acquire. One possible solution is cross-validation, which allows model validation while also allowing the whole dataset to be used for model-fitting. === Replication efforts === ==== Funding ==== In July 2016, the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research made €3 million available for replication studies. The funding is for replication based on reanalysis of existing data and replication by collecting and analysing new data. Funding is available in the areas of social sciences, health research and healthcare innovation. In 2013, the


id: replication-crisis-20260505-14
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis-14.md
category: reference
title: Replication crisis
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:03.756578+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: replication-crisis-20260505-0
summary:
The dominant scientific and statistical model of causation is the linear model. The linear model assumes that mental variables are stable properties which are independent of each other. In other words, these variables are not expected to influence each other. Instead, the model assumes that the variables will have an independent, linear effect on observable outcomes. Social scientists Sebastian Wallot and Damian Kelty-Stephen argue that the linear model is not always appropriate. An alternative is the complex system model which assumes that mental variables are interdependent. These variables are not assumed to be stable, rather they will interact and adapt to each specific context. They argue that the complex system model is often more appropriate in psychology, and that the use of the linear model when the complex system model is more appropriate will result in failed replications. ...psychology may be hoping for replications in the very measurements and under the very conditions where a growing body of psychological evidence explicitly discourages predicting replication. Failures to replicate may be plainly baked into the potentially incomplete, but broadly sweeping failure of human behavior to conform to the standard of independen[ce] ... ==== Replication should seek to revise theories ==== Replication is


id: viktor-schauberger-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Schauberger-0.md
category: reference
title: Viktor Schauberger
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Schauberger
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:04.950282+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: viktor-schauberger-20260505-0
summary:
Viktor Schauberger (Austrian German: [ˈʃaʊbɛrɡɐ]; 30 June 1885 – 25 September 1958) was an Austrian forest caretaker, naturalist, philosopher, pseudoscientist, and inventor. == Early life == Schauberger was born in Holzschlag, Upper Austria on 30 June 1885. His parents were Leopold Schauberger and Josefa, née Klimitsch. From 1891 to 1897, he attended the elementary school in Aigen, then until 1900 the state grammar school in Linz. Until 1904, he went to the forestry school in Aggsbach in the Kartause Aggsbach, where he passed the exam as a forester. From 1904 to 1906, he was a forest clerk in Groß-Schweinbarth in Lower Austria. == Technology == Nick Cook visited the PKS bio-technical institute, Pythagoras-Kepler System, in the Salzkammergut Mountains. Viktor's grandson Joerg gave Nick access to the family archives, which included Viktor's books, letters, diary, and patent applications. Besides inventing a log flume, Viktor worked on bio-technical machinery. In 1939, Viktor filed a patent with the Reich Patent Office for a "multistage centrifuge with concentrically juxtaposed pressure chambers," a means of propelling machines through air or water, water purification, or electricity generation. In 1940, Viktor contracted Kaempfer in Berlin to build the machine, then in February 1941, switched to the Kertl


id: science-in-a-free-society-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_a_Free_Society-0.md
category: reference
title: Science in a Free Society
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_a_Free_Society
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:06.201511+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: science-in-a-free-society-20260505-0
summary:
Science in a Free Society is the 2nd full length book by the Austrian philosopher of science, Paul Feyerabend. It was published in 1978 by Schocken Books and later reprinted by Verso Books. While Feyerabend never published a second edition, Verso pressed four copies in 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1987. Parts of the book were reprinted in later editions of Against Method. The book largely develops arguments from the first edition of Against Method and spells out their political implications. The book also contains a collection of previously published material in which he responds to some of his critics of Against Method. In 1979, Feyerabend also published, in German, Erkenntnis für freie Menschen (Knowledge for Free People), which contains roughly two-thirds of the material from Science in a Society while expanding on some sections and diminishing others. == Content == The book is divided into three sections: "Reason and Practice" expounds Feyerabend's theory of rationality as something embedded in, rather than separate from, traditions. "Science in a Free Society" develops Feyerabend's views about the place of science in democratic societies. "Conversations with Illiterates" provides responses to criticisms of Against Method. === Reason and Practice === The first section develops a


id: science-wars-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars-0.md
category: reference
title: Science wars
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:07.536969+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: science-wars-20260505-0
summary:
In the philosophy of science, the science wars were a series of scholarly and public discussions in the 1990s over the social place of science in making authoritative claims about the world. Encyclopedia.com, citing the Encyclopedia of Science and Religion, describes the science wars as the "complex of discussions about the way the sciences are related to or incarnated in culture, history, and practice. [...] [which] came to be called a 'war' in the mid 1990s because of a strong polarization over questions of legitimacy and authority. One side [...] is concerned with defending the authority of science as rooted in objective evidence and rational procedures. The other side argues that it is legitimate and fruitful to study the sciences as institutions and social-technical networks whose development is influenced by linguistics, economics, politics, and other factors surrounding formally rational procedures and isolated established facts." The science wars took place principally in the United States in the 1990s in the academic and mainstream press. Scientific realists (such as Norman Levitt, Paul R. Gross, Jean Bricmont and Alan Sokal) accused many writers, whom they described as 'postmodernist', of having effectively rejected scientific objectivity, the scientific method, empiricism, and scientific knowledge. Though much


id: science-wars-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars-1.md
category: reference
title: Science wars
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:07.536969+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: science-wars-20260505-0
summary:
A number of different philosophical and historical schools, often grouped together as "postmodernism", began reinterpreting scientific achievements of the past through the lens of the practitioners, often positing the influence of politics and economics in the development of scientific theories in addition to scientific observations. Rather than being presented as working entirely from positivistic observations, many scientists of the past were scrutinized for their connection to issues of gender, sexual orientation, race, and class. Some more radical philosophers, such as Paul Feyerabend, argued that scientific theories were themselves incoherent and that other forms of knowledge production (such as those used in religion) served the material and spiritual needs of their practitioners with equal validity as did scientific explanations. Imre Lakatos advanced a midway view between the "postmodernist" and "realist" camps. For Lakatos, scientific knowledge is progressive; however, it progresses not by a strict linear path where every new element builds upon and incorporates every other, but by an approach where a "core" of a "research program" is established by auxiliary theories which can themselves be falsified or replaced without compromising the core. Social conditions and attitudes affect how strongly one attempts to resist falsification for the core of a program,


id: science-wars-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars-2.md
category: reference
title: Science wars
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:07.536969+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: science-wars-20260505-0
summary:
=== Continued conflict === In the first few years after the 'Science Wars' edition of Social Text, the seriousness and volume of discussion increased significantly, much of it focused on reconciling the 'warring' camps of postmodernists and scientists. One significant event was the 'Science and Its Critics' conference in early 1997; it brought together scientists and scholars who study science and featured Alan Sokal and Steve Fuller as keynote speakers. The conference generated the final wave of substantial press coverage (in both news media and scientific journals), though by no means resolved the fundamental issues of social construction and objectivity in science. Other attempts have been made to reconcile the two camps. Mike Nauenberg, a physicist at the University of California, Santa Cruz, organized a small conference in May 1997 that was attended by scientists and sociologists of science alike, among them Alan Sokal, N. David Mermin and Harry Collins. In the same year, Collins organized the Southampton Peace Workshop, which again brought together a broad range of scientists and sociologists. The Peace Workshop gave rise to the idea of a book that intended to map out some of the arguments between the disputing parties. The One Culture?: A Conversation


id: scientism-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism-0.md
category: reference
title: Scientism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:08.742517+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: scientism-20260505-0
summary:
Scientism is the belief that science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality. While the term was defined originally to mean "methods and attitudes typical of or attributed to natural scientists", some scholars, as well as political and religious leaders, have also adopted it as a pejorative term with the meaning "an exaggerated trust in the efficacy of the methods of natural science applied to all areas of investigation (as in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities)". == Overview == Francis Bacon has been viewed by some scholars as an early proponent of scientism, but this is a modern assertion as Bacon was a devout Anglican, writing in his Essays, "a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion." With respect to the philosophy of science, the term scientism frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek, philosophers of science such as Karl Popper, and philosophers such as Mary Midgley, the later Hilary Putnam, and Tzvetan Todorov to describe (for example) the dogmatic endorsement


id: scientism-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism-1.md
category: reference
title: Scientism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:08.742517+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: scientism-20260505-0
summary:
It is used to criticize a totalizing opinion of science as if it were capable of describing all reality and knowledge, or as if it were the only true method to acquire knowledge about reality and the nature of things; It is used, often pejoratively, to denote violations by which the theories and methods of one (scientific) discipline are applied inappropriately to another (scientific or non-scientific) discipline and its domain. An example of this second usage is to term as scientism any attempt to claim science as the only or primary source of human values (a traditional domain of ethics) or as the source of meaning and purpose (a traditional domain of religion and related worldviews). The term scientism was popularized by F. A. Hayek, who defined it in 1942 as the "slavish imitation of the method and language of Science". Mathematician Alexander Grothendieck, in his 1971 essay "The New Universal Church", characterized scientism as a religion-like ideology that advocates scientific reductionism, scientific authoritarianism, political technocracy and technological salvation, while denying the epistemological validity of feelings and experiences such as love, emotion, beauty and fulfillment. He predicted that "in coming years, the chief political dividing line will fall less and


id: scientism-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism-2.md
category: reference
title: Scientism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:08.742517+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: scientism-20260505-0
summary:
== Relevance to debates about science and religion == Both religious and non-religious scholars have applied the term scientism to individuals associated with New Atheism. Theologian John Haught argued that philosopher Daniel Dennett and other New Atheists subscribe to a belief system of scientific naturalism, which includes the dogma that "only nature, including humans and our creations, is real: that God does not exist; and that science alone can give us complete and reliable knowledge of reality." Haught argued that this belief system is self-refuting since it requires its adherents to assent to beliefs that violate its own stated requirements for knowledge. Christian philosopher Peter Williams argued in 2013 that it is only by conflating science with scientism that New Atheists feel qualified to "pontificate on metaphysical issues". Daniel Dennett responded to religious criticism of his 2006 book Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon by saying that accusations of scientism "[are] an all-purpose, wild-card smear ... When someone puts forward a scientific theory that [religious critics] really don't like, they just try to discredit it as 'scientism'. But when it comes to facts, and explanations of facts, science is the only game in town". Non-religious scholars have also


id: scientism-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism-3.md
category: reference
title: Scientism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:08.742517+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: scientism-20260505-0
summary:
Thomas M. Lessl argued that religious themes persist in what he terms scientism, the public rhetoric of science. There are two methods of describing this idea of scientism: the epistemological method (the assumption that the scientific method trumps other ways of knowing) and the ontological method (that the rational mind represents the world and both operate in knowable ways). According to Lessl, the ontological method is an attempt to "resolve the conflict between rationalism and skepticism". Lessl also argued that without scientism, there would not be a scientific culture. == Rationalization and modernity == In the introduction to his collected works on the sociology of religion, Max Weber asked why "the scientific, the artistic, the political, or the economic development [elsewhere] ... did not enter upon that path of rationalization which is peculiar to the Occident?" According to the German social theorist Jürgen Habermas, "For Weber, the intrinsic (that is, not merely contingent) relationship between modernity and what he called 'Occidental rationalism' was still self-evident." Weber described a process of rationalisation, disenchantment and the "disintegration of religious world views" that resulted in modern secular societies and capitalism. "Modernization" was introduced as a technical term only in the 1950s. It is


id: the-secret-life-of-plants-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_Life_of_Plants-0.md
category: reference
title: The Secret Life of Plants
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Secret_Life_of_Plants
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:13.703730+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: the-secret-life-of-plants-20260505-0
summary:
The Secret Life of Plants (1973) is a book by Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird, which documents controversial experiments that claim to reveal unusual phenomena associated with plants, such as plant sentience and the ability of plants to communicate with other creatures, including humans. The book goes on to discuss philosophies and progressive farming methods based on these "findings". It was heavily criticized by scientists for promoting pseudoscientific claims. Later editions were published with the subtitle A Fascinating Account of the Physical, Emotional and Spiritual Relations Between Plants and Man. == Authors == Christopher Bird [de] (1928–1996) was a best-selling author who also wrote The Divining Hand: The 500-Year-Old Mystery of Dowsing. Peter Tompkins worked as a journalist, as well as a US military intelligence officer for the OSS in Italy during World War II. The original book cover design was created by underground comix illustrator Gail Burwen. == Summary == The book includes summaries of the life and work of 20th century scientists Jagadish Chandra Bose and Corentin Louis Kervran as well as 19th century scientist George Washington Carver. The book includes experiments on plant stimuli using a polygraph, a method which was pioneered by Cleve Backster. Parts of


id: criticism-of-the-space-shuttle-program-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle_program-0.md
category: reference
title: Criticism of the Space Shuttle program
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle_program
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:15.004523+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: criticism-of-the-space-shuttle-program-20260505-0
summary:
Criticism of the Space Shuttle program stemmed from claims that NASA's Space Shuttle program failed to achieve its promised cost and utility goals, as well as design, cost, management, and safety issues. Fundamentally, it failed in the goal of reducing the cost of space access. Space Shuttle incremental per-pound launch costs ultimately turned out to be considerably higher than those of expendable launchers. In 2010, the incremental cost per flight of the Space Shuttle was $409 million, or $14,186 per kilogram ($6,435 per pound) to low Earth orbit (LEO). In contrast, the comparable Proton launch vehicle cost was $141 million, or $6,721 per kilogram ($3,049 per pound) to LEO and the Soyuz 2.1 was $55 million, or $6,665 per kilogram ($3,023 per pound), despite these launch vehicles not being reusable. When all design and maintenance costs are taken into account, the final cost of the Space Shuttle program, averaged over all missions and adjusted for inflation (2008), was estimated to come out to $1.5 billion per launch, or $60,000 per kilogram ($27,000 per pound) to LEO. This should be contrasted with the originally envisioned costs of $260 per kilogram ($118 per pound) of payload in 1972 dollars (approximately $554 per


id: criticism-of-the-space-shuttle-program-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle_program-1.md
category: reference
title: Criticism of the Space Shuttle program
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle_program
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:15.004523+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: criticism-of-the-space-shuttle-program-20260505-0
summary:
NASA secured funding from the US Air Force's budget in exchange for USAF input to the design process. In order to fulfill the USAF's mission to launch payloads into polar orbit, the USAF insisted on a very large cross-range requirement. This necessitated the Shuttle's huge delta wings, which are far larger than the stub wings of the original design. Besides adding drag and weight (almost 20 percent), the excessive number of heat tiles needed to protect the delta wings added greatly to maintenance costs, besides increasing operational risks such as those that resulted in the Columbia disaster. At Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, the USAF duplicated the entire infrastructure needed to launch and service the Space Shuttle, at a cost of over 4 billion dollars. Following the Challenger explosion, the facility was dismantled without ever having launched a single Shuttle mission. Aerospace engineer Robert Zubrin describes the Shuttle as having been designed "backwards" in that the Orbiter, the harder-to-recover portion, is made recoverable, while part of the booster (the liquid fuel tank) is thrown away even though it is easier to recover since it does not fly so high or fast. Maintenance of the thermal protection tiles was a


id: criticism-of-the-space-shuttle-program-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle_program-2.md
category: reference
title: Criticism of the Space Shuttle program
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle_program
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:15.004523+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: criticism-of-the-space-shuttle-program-20260505-0
summary:
As the Soviets demonstrated, capsules and uncrewed supply rockets are sufficient to supply a space station. NASA's initial policy of using the Shuttle to launch all crewless payloads declined in practice, and eventually was discontinued. Expendable launch vehicles (ELVs) proved much cheaper and more flexible. Following the Challenger disaster, use of the Shuttle to carry the powerful liquid fueled Centaur upper stages planned for interplanetary probes was ruled out for Shuttle safety reasons. The Shuttle's history of unexpected delays also made it liable to miss narrow launch windows. Advances in technology have made probes smaller and lighter. As a result, many robotic probes and communications satellites can now use expendable launch vehicles, such as the Delta and Atlas V, which are less expensive and perceived to be more reliable than the Shuttle. Advances in technology today happen much faster than in the years the Shuttle was developed. Thus the notion that Shuttle would be useful for recovering expensive satellites for return to Earth for refurbishment and updating with new technology is obsoleted; costs have dropped and capabilities increased so much that it is much more cost-effective to abandon old satellites and simply launch new ones. == Accidents == While the


id: criticism-of-the-space-shuttle-program-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle_program-3.md
category: reference
title: Criticism of the Space Shuttle program
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle_program
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:15.004523+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: criticism-of-the-space-shuttle-program-20260505-0
summary:
John Young and Jerry L. Ross were among those astronauts who believed that the shuttle was always an experimental craft, not an operational vehicle for routine spaceflight as President Ronald Reagan declared after STS-4. Rick Hauck said in 2017 that before STS-1 he saw an analysis estimating the risk of loss of the vehicle as 1 in 280, but an internal NASA risk assessment study (conducted by the Shuttle Program Safety and Mission Assurance Office at Johnson Space Center) released in late 2010 or early 2011 concluded that the agency had seriously underestimated the level of risk involved in operating the Shuttle. The report assessed that there was a 1 in 9 chance of a catastrophic disaster during the first nine flights of the Shuttle but that safety improvements had later improved the risk ratio to 1 in 90. In 1984 Reagan signed a National Security Decision Directive stating that the shuttle would not be "fully operational" until it could fly 24 missions a year, perhaps by 1988; the shuttle never flew more often than the nine missions of 1985, and averaged about six missions a year between 1988 and 2003. Although many NASA astronauts criticized the payload specialist program,


id: criticism-of-technology-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_technology-0.md
category: reference
title: Criticism of technology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_technology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:16.291552+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: criticism-of-technology-20260505-0
summary:
Criticism of technology is an analysis of adverse impacts of industrial and digital technologies. It is argued that, in all advanced industrial societies (not necessarily only capitalist ones), technology becomes a means of domination, control, and exploitation, or more generally something which threatens the survival of humanity. Some of the technology opposed by the most radical critics may include everyday household products, such as refrigerators, computers, and medication. However, criticism of technology comes in many shades. == Overview == Some authors such as Chellis Glendinning and Kirkpatrick Sale consider themselves Neo-Luddites and hold that technological progress has had a negative impact on humanity. Their work focused on seeking meaning out of technological change, specifically wrestling with the question of "how tools and their affordances change and alter the fabric of everyday life." Ellul, for instance, maintained that when people assert that technology is an instrument of freedom or the means to achieve historical destiny or the execution of divine vocation, it results in the glorification and sanctification of Technique so that it becomes that which gives meaning and value to life rather than mere ensemble of materials. This is echoed by rhetorical critics who cite the way technological discourse damages


id: judy-wilyman-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judy_Wilyman-0.md
category: reference
title: Judy Wilyman
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judy_Wilyman
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:17.425529+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: judy-wilyman-20260505-0
summary:
Roslyn Judith "Judy" Wilyman is an Australian anti-vaccination activist who came to prominence following the controversial award of a humanities PhD titled "A critical analysis of the Australian government's rationale for its vaccination policy" by University of Wollongong. The thesis came under heavy criticism from multiple directions, including medical professionals, due to claims within the thesis, including advancing a conspiracy theory whereby the World Health Organization (WHO) and the pharmaceutical industry supposedly conspire to promote vaccinations in the absence of evidence of safety and efficacy. The awarding of the degree created questions about the standards being applied and whether or not the thesis supervisors and examiners had sufficient knowledge to oversee the research, and led to calls for the university to review the doctorate. A number of individuals and medical organisations – including academics and researchers from other parts of the University of Wollongong – spoke out against the findings of the thesis, emphasising the need for vaccinations in order to prevent serious disease; and the University of Wollongong was criticised for a perceived lack of transparency in their doctoral process and an alleged failure to uphold standards of scholarship. The thesis was conducted from within the university's School of


id: judy-wilyman-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judy_Wilyman-1.md
category: reference
title: Judy Wilyman
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judy_Wilyman
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:17.425529+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: judy-wilyman-20260505-0
summary:
== PhD award == Wilyman entered a PhD a program in 2007 in the same UOW Faculty as awarded her Masters, but with her research focus expanded to cover Australian vaccination policy more generally. In 2008, the supervision of her studies was transferred to Peter Dingle at Murdoch University, and returned to UOW in 2011 under Brian Martin. The thesis was accepted by UOW in 2016. Although details of the examiners have not been released, in May 2016 The Australian reported that one of two original examiners did not recommend that a PhD be granted. It was passed after a third academic evaluated the thesis and recommended changes. The thesis came under heavy criticism from multiple directions, including medical professionals, due to claims within the thesis, including advancing a conspiracy theory that the World Health Organization (WHO) and the pharmaceutical industry supposedly conspire to promote vaccinations in the absence of evidence of safety and efficacy. The awarding of the thesis lead to criticism and questions about the standards being applied and whether or not the thesis supervisors and examiners had sufficient knowledge to oversee the research and led to calls for the university to review the doctorate. A number of


id: judy-wilyman-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judy_Wilyman-2.md
category: reference
title: Judy Wilyman
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judy_Wilyman
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:17.425529+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: judy-wilyman-20260505-0
summary:
Wilyman's "references to support these outrageous comments are from the bottom dwelling literature that includes 50-year-old discussions along with well-established, thoroughly debunked pseudoscience. At no point does she mention any of the vast scientific literature that includes large clinical and epidemiological studies - or attempt a critique of it." "It is [a] litany of deceitful reveries. How it could possibly pass as a piece of Doctoral level work is inexplicable and it has made no contribution to knowledge. Shame on you University of Wollongong." Saxon Smith, president of the NSW branch of the AMA, characterised it as "a thesis that's talking about the science of medicine without any support of its argument from credible scientific literature", adding "the evidence is clear about the safety of vaccines." Alison Campbell, an associate dean and biological sciences lecturer at the University of Waikato, produced a blistering analysis criticising the use of out-of-date references as well as pointing out numerous scientific errors in Wilyman's master's work, including calling the unexplained exclusion of two of four types of vaccine components "an alarming omission for a paper on immunisation". The Medical Journal of Australia criticised the university in awarding a PhD to a student "demonstrating a


id: judy-wilyman-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judy_Wilyman-3.md
category: reference
title: Judy Wilyman
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judy_Wilyman
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:17.425529+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: judy-wilyman-20260505-0
summary:
=== Remonstrations === In response to UOW and Wilyman's thesis an online petition called Stop the University of Wollongong's Spread of Disease and Death Via Anti-Vaccination PhD was established in January 2016 and attracted over 2,100 signatures within the first few weeks. The petition reportedly states that UOW's acceptance of the thesis "demonstrates an anti-scientific culture at the University of Wollongong that is inimical to scholarship". At the same time over sixty of the university's health and medical academics and researchers jointly signed a statement that "the evidence is clear" in support of vaccination urging all parents to ensure their children are fully immunised, Public Health Association of Australia president Heather Yeatman said the 65 academics wanted to clarify the scientific position and point out they are firmly behind vaccination and that "Universities need to publish papers based on sound evidence and the balance of evidence in relation to any matter". A week later, representatives from 12 medical research and clinical societies also signed a supporting statement on behalf of 5,000 scientists and clinicians in the fields of microbiology, virology, immunology and infectious diseases concerned about vaccine-preventable diseases in the community. Eminent research biologist Sir Gustav Nossal was one of


id: judy-wilyman-20260505-4
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judy_Wilyman-4.md
category: reference
title: Judy Wilyman
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judy_Wilyman
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:17.425529+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: judy-wilyman-20260505-0
summary:
== Masters thesis investigation == Wilyman was previously investigated and cleared by the university after allegations relating to her 2007 Masters thesis. After investigating the allegations and clearing Wilyman in 2015, the university declined to publicly release details, but under a Freedom of Information request a small number of documents were released after the Information & Privacy Commission of NSW intervened. In March 2016 there was a further release of hundreds of heavily redacted pages relating to the investigation, after the initial response was appealed. In what text was left unredacted, it showed that the complaint was referred to a high-level conduct committee, which dismissed the complaint after a two-month investigation and took no further action. The documents revealed that Judy Raper, the university's Deputy Vice Chancellor of Research, wrote to Wilyman after the investigation saying that it should not have occurred, that she was "sincerely sorry for this to have happened", and that "academic misconduct processes are not a forum for academic debate". == Political career == Wilyman ran in the 2019 Australian federal election as a candidate for the Western Australia senate as a member of the anti-vaccination/anti-fluoridation, Involuntary Medication Objectors (Vaccination/Fluoride) Party. She was not successful, receiving


id: fringe-science-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_science-0.md
category: reference
title: Fringe science
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_science
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:19.241482+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: fringe-science-20260505-0
summary:
Fringe science refers to ideas whose attributes include being highly speculative or relying on premises already refuted. The chance of ideas rejected by editors and published outside the mainstream being correct is remote. When the general public does not distinguish between science and imitators, it risks exploitation, and in some cases, a "yearning to believe or a generalized suspicion of experts is a very potent incentive to accepting some pseudoscientific claims". The term "fringe science" covers everything from novel hypotheses, which can be tested utilizing the scientific method, to wild ad hoc hypotheses and mumbo jumbo. This has resulted in a tendency to dismiss all fringe science as the domain of pseudoscientists, hobbyists, and quacks. A concept that was once accepted by the mainstream scientific community may become fringe science because of a later evaluation of previous research. For example, focal infection theory, which held that focal infections of the tonsils or teeth are a primary cause of systemic disease, was once considered to be medical fact. It has since been dismissed because of a lack of evidence. == Description == The boundary between fringe science and pseudoscience is disputed. Friedlander writes that there is no widespread understanding of what


id: fringe-science-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_science-1.md
category: reference
title: Fringe science
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fringe_science
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:19.241482+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: fringe-science-20260505-0
summary:
== Responding to fringe science == Michael W. Friedlander has suggested some guidelines for responding to fringe science, which, he argues, is a more difficult problem than scientific misconduct. His suggested methods include impeccable accuracy, checking cited sources, not overstating orthodox science, thorough understanding of the Wegener continental drift example, examples of orthodox science investigating radical proposals, and prepared examples of errors from fringe scientists. Friedlander suggests that fringe science is necessary so mainstream science will not atrophy. Scientists must evaluate the plausibility of each new fringe claim, and certain fringe discoveries "will later graduate into the ranks of accepted" — while others "will never receive confirmation". Margaret Wertheim profiled many "outsider scientists" in her book Physics on the Fringe, who receive little or no attention from professional scientists. She describes all of them as trying to make sense of the world using the scientific method but in the face of being unable to understand modern science's complex theories. She also finds it fair that credentialed scientists do not bother spending a lot of time learning about and explaining problems with the fringe theories of uncredentialed scientists since the authors of those theories have not taken the time to understand


id: 21-grams-experiment-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_grams_experiment-0.md
category: reference
title: 21 grams experiment
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_grams_experiment
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:20.468073+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: 21-grams-experiment-20260505-0
summary:
The 21 grams experiment refers to a study published in 1907 by Duncan MacDougall, a physician from Haverhill, Massachusetts. MacDougall hypothesized that souls have physical weight, and attempted to measure the mass lost by a human when the soul departed the body. MacDougall attempted to measure the mass change of six patients at the moment of death. One of the six subjects lost three-quarters of an ounce (21.3 grams). MacDougall stated his experiment would have to be repeated many times before any conclusion could be obtained. The experiment is widely regarded as flawed and unscientific due to the small sample size, the methods used, as well as the fact only one of the six subjects met the hypothesis. The case has been cited as an example of selective reporting. Despite its rejection within the scientific community, MacDougall's experiment popularized the concept that the soul has weight, and specifically that it weighs 21 grams. == Experiment == In 1901, Duncan MacDougall, a physician from Haverhill, Massachusetts, who wished to scientifically determine if a soul had weight, identified six patients in nursing homes whose deaths were imminent. Four were suffering from tuberculosis, one from diabetes, and one from unspecified causes. MacDougall specifically


id: 21-grams-experiment-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_grams_experiment-1.md
category: reference
title: 21 grams experiment
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_grams_experiment
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:20.468073+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: 21-grams-experiment-20260505-0
summary:
== Similar experiments == In December 2001, physicist Lewis E. Hollander Jr. published an article in Journal of Scientific Exploration where he exhibited the results of a similar experiment. He tested the weight of one ram, seven ewes, three lambs and one goat at the moment of death, seeking to explore upon MacDougall's purported findings. His experiment showed that seven of the adult sheep varied their weight upon dying, though not losing it, but rather gaining an amount of 18 to 780 grams, which was lost again over time until returning to their initial weight. In 2009, Hollander Jr.'s experiment was subjected to critical review by Masayoshi Ishida in the same journal. Ishida found Hollander's statement of a transient gain of weight was "not an appropriate expression of the experimental result", though he admitted "the cause of the force event remains to be explained." He also warned about possible malfunctions of the weighing platform in two of the cases. Similarly inspired by MacDougall's research, physician Gerard Nahum proposed in 2005 a follow-up experiment, based on utilizing an array of electromagnetic detectors to try to pick up any type of escaping energy at the moment of death. He offered to sell


id: activated-charcoal-cleanse-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activated_charcoal_cleanse-0.md
category: reference
title: Activated charcoal cleanse
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activated_charcoal_cleanse
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:21.578149+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: activated-charcoal-cleanse-20260505-0
summary:
Activated charcoal cleanses, also known as charcoal detoxes, are a pseudoscientific use of a proven medical intervention for poisoning, activated charcoal. Activated charcoal is available in powder, tablet, and liquid form. Its proponents claim the use of activated charcoal regularly will detoxify and cleanse the body as well as boost one's energy and brighten the skin. Such claims violate basic principles of chemistry and physiology. There is no medical evidence for any health benefits of cleanses or detoxes via activated charcoal or any other method. Charcoal, when ingested, will absorb vitamins and nutrients as well as prescription medications present in the gastrointestinal tract which can make it dangerous to use unless directed by a medical doctor. == Background == === Production and industrial applications === Activated charcoal, also known as activated carbon, is commonly produced from high-carbon source materials such as wood or coconut husk. It is made by treating the source material with either a combination of heat and pressure, or with a strong acid or base followed by carbonization to make it highly porous. This gives it a very large surface area for its volume, up to 3000 square metres per gram. It has a large number of


id: american-academy-of-anti-aging-medicine-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Academy_of_Anti-Aging_Medicine-0.md
category: reference
title: American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Academy_of_Anti-Aging_Medicine
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:22.791474+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: american-academy-of-anti-aging-medicine-20260505-0
summary:
The American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine (A4M) is a United States 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, that promotes the field of anti-aging medicine, and the organization trains and certifies physicians in this specialty. As of 2011, approximately 26,000 practitioners had been given A4M certificates. The field of anti-aging medicine is not recognized by established medical organizations, such as the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) and the American Medical Association (AMA). The academy's activities include lobbying and public relations. The A4M was founded in 1993 by osteopathic physicians Robert M. Goldman and Ronald Klatz, and as of 2013 claimed 26,000 members from 120 countries. Several of the anti-aging methods recommended by the academy have wide support among experts in the field, such as exercise and a healthy diet, but others, such as hormone treatments, do not have support from a consensus of the wider medical community. Many scientists studying aging, dissociate themselves from the claims of A4M, and critics have accused the group of using misleading marketing to sell expensive and ineffective products. The A4M's founders and merchants who promote products through the organization have been involved in legal and professional disputes. The activities of the A4M are controversial: in 2003 a


id: american-academy-of-anti-aging-medicine-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Academy_of_Anti-Aging_Medicine-1.md
category: reference
title: American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Academy_of_Anti-Aging_Medicine
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:22.791474+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: american-academy-of-anti-aging-medicine-20260505-0
summary:
== Publications == The A4M publishes Anti Aging Medical News, a trade periodical which is their official magazine, as well as proceedings of its anti-aging conferences in a periodical called Anti-Aging Therapeutics, this is edited by Klatz and Goldman. The International Journal of Anti-Aging Medicine (IJAAM) was another periodical published by the A4M. According to Ulrich's Periodicals Directory, IJAAM was published by Total Health Holdings, LLC from 1998 to 2001, on behalf of the A4M. The contents of the International Journal of Anti-Aging Medicine have been strongly criticised. In a 2002 letter published in Science, Aubrey de Grey described them as consisting of a set of advertisements for a "pseudoscientific anti-aging industry". According to Bruce Carnes of the University of Oklahoma: This alleged "journal" is particularly misleading because it gives the false impression that it is a genuine scientific journal and that what is published in it is peer-reviewed. It is little more than an advertising vehicle for every conceivable anti-aging product. Leonard Hayflick of the University of California, San Francisco, a former editor of Experimental Gerontology, writes: The International Journal of Anti-Aging Medicine is not a recognized scientific journal. What I find reprehensible about this 'journal' is that advertisers


id: american-academy-of-anti-aging-medicine-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Academy_of_Anti-Aging_Medicine-2.md
category: reference
title: American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Academy_of_Anti-Aging_Medicine
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:22.791474+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: american-academy-of-anti-aging-medicine-20260505-0
summary:
The American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine was formed following a 1990 study on human growth hormone (hGH) that was published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The study was performed by Daniel Rudman and colleagues at the Medical College of Wisconsin. Rudman had treated twelve men over 60 years of age with human growth hormone; after six months, these men had an increase in lean body mass and a decrease in adipose tissue mass when compared with a group of nine men who did not receive hormone. Members of the anti-aging movement have interpreted these results to support a role for growth hormone in slowing or reversing aging. A review in The Journal of Urology noted that this promotion of growth hormone as an anti-aging remedy is "arguably similar" to ideas that date back to the late 19th century, when the physiologist Charles-Édouard Brown-Séquard advocated rejuvenating hormone products prepared from animal testicles and stated that "the injections have taken 30 years off my life". The New York Times reports that the idea that growth hormone can improve "health, energy level and sense of well-being." is a core belief of the A4M, with Klatz writing a book in 1998 entitled


id: american-academy-of-anti-aging-medicine-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Academy_of_Anti-Aging_Medicine-3.md
category: reference
title: American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Academy_of_Anti-Aging_Medicine
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:22.791474+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: american-academy-of-anti-aging-medicine-20260505-0
summary:
As with other hormones, hGH levels often decline with age, but this decrease is not necessarily bad. At least one epidemiological study suggests that people who have high levels of hGH are more apt to die at younger ages than those with lower levels of the hormone. Researchers have also studied animals with genetic disorders that suppress growth hormone production and secretion and found reduced growth hormone secretion may actually promote longevity in those species that have been tested. The Clinical Interventions in Aging review also stated that although the decreasing levels of the hormone seen in the elderly might reduce quality of life, this change could protect from age-related diseases and cited evidence linking GH to cancer. This concern was mirrored in a 2008 review published in Clinical Endocrinology, which stated that the risk of increasing the incidence of cancer was a strong argument against the use of this hormone as an "elixir of youth" in healthy adults. == Legal disputes == === Credential dispute === The academy's co-founders include Klatz and Goldman, who are licensed osteopathic physicians and have Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine degrees (D.O.). However, according to The New York Times, they also received M.D. degrees as


id: american-academy-of-anti-aging-medicine-20260505-4
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Academy_of_Anti-Aging_Medicine-4.md
category: reference
title: American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Academy_of_Anti-Aging_Medicine
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:22.791474+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: american-academy-of-anti-aging-medicine-20260505-0
summary:
=== Dispute with Olshansky and Perls === In 2002, A4M was a co-recipient of the first "Silver Fleece Award", created to publicize "the most ridiculous claims about antiaging medicine" according to the award's inventor, S. Jay Olshansky. Heated legal and academic controversies ensued. Olshansky, a biodemographer at the University of Illinois at Chicago, described it as "a lighthearted attempt to make the public aware of ... anti-aging quackery". This "award" was presented by Olshansky, who stated that in his opinion, a "suite of anti-aging substances created by Ronald Klatz and Robert Goldman ... and sold on the Internet by Market America, Inc." had made "outrageous or exaggerated claims about slowing or reversing human aging". Writing in Biogerontology, anthropologist Courtney Mykytyn of the University of Southern California states that this award appears to have been an attempt by Olshansky to protect what he saw as "'real' science from the taint of swindle." Mykytyn states that this involved Olshansky "tagging the A4M as fraudulent and its principals as profiteers". In response, the academy filed defamation lawsuits, demanding $150 million in damages, with Klatz stating "We take great exception to Mr Olshansky and his tactics which have finally compelled us to file suit


id: anomalistics-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomalistics-0.md
category: reference
title: Anomalistics
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomalistics
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:24.032920+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: anomalistics-20260505-0
summary:
Anomalistics is the use of scientific methods to evaluate anomalies (phenomena that fall outside current understanding), with the aim of finding a rational explanation. The term itself was coined in 1973 by Drew University anthropologist Roger W. Wescott, who defined it as being the "serious and systematic study of all phenomena that fail to fit the picture of reality provided for us by common sense or by the established sciences." Wescott credited journalist and researcher Charles Fort as being the creator of anomalistics as a field of research, and he named biologist Ivan T. Sanderson and Sourcebook Project compiler William R. Corliss as being instrumental in expanding anomalistics to introduce a more conventional perspective into the field. Henry Bauer, emeritus professor of science studies at Virginia Tech, writes that anomalistics is "a politically correct term for the study of bizarre claims", while David J. Hess of the Department of Science and Technology Studies at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute describes it as being "the scientific study of anomalies defined as claims of phenomena not generally accepted by the bulk of the scientific community." Anomalistics covers several sub-disciplines, including ufology, cryptozoology, and parapsychology. Researchers involved in the field have included ufologist J.


id: aquatic-ape-hypothesis-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis-0.md
category: reference
title: Aquatic ape hypothesis
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:25.340882+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: aquatic-ape-hypothesis-20260505-0
summary:
The aquatic ape hypothesis (AAH), also referred to as aquatic ape theory (AAT) or the waterside hypothesis of human evolution, postulates that the ancestors of modern humans took a divergent evolutionary pathway from the other great apes by becoming adapted to a more aquatic habitat. While the hypothesis has some popularity with the lay public, it is generally ignored or classified as pseudoscience by anthropologists. The theory developed before major discoveries of ancient hominin fossils in East Africa. The hypothesis was initially proposed by the English marine biologist Alister Hardy in 1960, who argued that a branch of apes was forced by competition over terrestrial habitats to hunt for food such as shellfish on the coast and seabed, leading to adaptations that explained distinctive characteristics of modern humans such as functional hairlessness and bipedalism. The popular science writer Elaine Morgan supported this hypothesis in her 1972 book The Descent of Woman. In it, she contrasted the theory with zoologist and ethologist Desmond Morris's theories of sexuality, which she believed to be rooted in sexism. Anthropologists do not take the hypothesis seriously: John Langdon characterized it as an "umbrella hypothesis" (a hypothesis that tries to explain many separate traits of humans


id: aquatic-ape-hypothesis-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis-1.md
category: reference
title: Aquatic ape hypothesis
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:25.340882+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: aquatic-ape-hypothesis-20260505-0
summary:
My thesis is that a branch of this primitive ape-stock was forced by competition from life in the trees to feed on the sea-shores and to hunt for food, shell fish, sea-urchins etc., in the shallow waters off the coast. I suppose that they were forced into the water just as we have seen happen in so many other groups of terrestrial animals. I am imagining this happening in the warmer parts of the world, in the tropical seas where Man could stand being in the water for relatively long periods, that is, several hours at a stretch. Hardy argued a number of features of modern humans are characteristic of aquatic adaptations. He pointed to humans' lack of body hair as being analogous to the same lack seen in whales and hippopotamuses, and noted the layer of subcutaneous fat humans have that Hardy believed other apes lacked, although it has been shown that captive apes with ample access to food have levels of subcutaneous fat similar to humans. Additional features cited by Hardy include the location of the trachea in the throat rather than the nasal cavity, the human propensity for front-facing copulation, tears and eccrine sweating, though these claimed


id: aquatic-ape-hypothesis-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis-2.md
category: reference
title: Aquatic ape hypothesis
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:25.340882+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: aquatic-ape-hypothesis-20260505-0
summary:
=== Critiques === The AAH is considered to be a classic example of pseudoscience among the scholarly community, and has been met with significant skepticism. The Nature editor and paleontologist Henry Gee has argued that the hypothesis has equivalent merit to creationism, and should be similarly dismissed. In a 1997 critique, anthropologist John Langdon considered the AAH under the heading of an "umbrella hypothesis" and argued that the difficulty of ever disproving such a thing meant that although the idea has the appearance of being a parsimonious explanation, it actually was no more powerful an explanation than the null hypothesis that human evolution is not particularly guided by interaction with bodies of water. Langdon argued that however popular the idea was with the public, the "umbrella" nature of the idea means that it cannot serve as a proper scientific hypothesis. Langdon also objected to Morgan's blanket opposition to the "savannah hypothesis" which he took to be the "collective discipline of paleoanthropology". He observed that some anthropologists had regarded the idea as not worth the trouble of a rebuttal. In addition, the evidence cited by AAH proponents mostly concerned developments in soft tissue anatomy and physiology, whilst paleoanthropologists rarely speculated on


id: aquatic-ape-hypothesis-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis-3.md
category: reference
title: Aquatic ape hypothesis
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:37:25.340882+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: aquatic-ape-hypothesis-20260505-0
summary:
=== Reactions of Hardy and Morgan === Alister Hardy was astonished and mortified in 1960 when the national Sunday papers carried banner headlines "Oxford professor says man a sea ape", causing problems with his Oxford colleagues. As he later said to his ex-pupil Desmond Morris, "Of course I then had to write an article to refute this saying no this is just a guess, a rough hypothesis, this isn't a proven fact. And of course we're not related to dolphins." Elaine Morgan's 1972 book Descent of Woman became an international best-seller, a Book of the Month selection in the United States and was translated into ten languages. The book was praised for its feminism but paleoanthropologists were disappointed with its promotions of the AAH. Morgan removed the feminist critique and left her AAH ideas intact, publishing the book as The Aquatic Ape 10 years later, but it did not garner any more positive reaction from scientists. == Related academic and independent research == === Wading and bipedalism === AAH proponent Algis Kuliukas, performed experiments to measure the comparative energy used when lacking orthograde posture with using fully upright posture. Although it is harder to walk upright with bent knees on


