# kb

id: dialogue-concerning-the-two-chief-world-systems-20260505-4
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems-4.md
category: reference
title: Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:07:51.634483+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: dialogue-concerning-the-two-chief-world-systems-20260505-0
summary:
Copernicus has succeeded in reducing some of the uneven motions of Ptolemy who had to deal with motions that sometimes go fast, sometimes slow, and sometimes backwards, by means of vast epicycles. Mars, above the Sun's sphere, often falls far below it, then soars above it. These anomalies are cured by the annual movement of the Earth. This is explained by a diagram in which the varying motion of Jupiter is shown using the Earth's orbit. Simplicio produces another booklet in which theological arguments are mixed with astronomic, but Salviati refuses to address the issues from Scripture. So he produces the argument that the fixed stars must be at an inconceivable distance with the smallest larger than the whole orbit of the Earth. Salviati explains that this all comes from a misrepresentation of what Copernicus said, resulting in a huge over-calculation of the size of a sixth magnitude star. But many other famous astronomers over-estimated the size of stars by ignoring the brightness factor. Not even Tycho, with his accurate instruments, set himself to measure the size of any star except the Sun and Moon. But Salviati (Galileo) was able to make a reasonable estimate simply by hanging a cord


id: dialogue-concerning-the-two-chief-world-systems-20260505-5
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems-5.md
category: reference
title: Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:07:51.634483+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: dialogue-concerning-the-two-chief-world-systems-20260505-0
summary:
=== Day four === They are in Sagredo's house in Venice, where tides are an important issue, and Salviati wants to show the effect of the Earth's movement on the tides. He first points out the three periods of the tides: daily (diurnal), generally with intervals of 6 hours of rising and six more of falling; monthly, seemingly from the Moon, which increases or decreases these tides; and annual, leading to different sizes at the equinoxes. He considers first the daily motion. Three varieties are observed: in some places the waters rise and fall without any forward motion; in others they move towards the east and back to the west without rising or falling; in still others there is a combination of both—this happens in Venice where the waters rise on entering and fall on leaving. In the Straits of Messina there are very swift currents between Scylla and Charybdis. In the open Mediterranean the alteration of height is small but the currents are noticeable. Simplicio counters with the peripatetic explanations, which are based on the depths of the sea, and the dominion of the Moon over the water, though this does not explain the risings when the Moon is


id: hardness-comparison-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardness_comparison-0.md
category: reference
title: Hardness comparison
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardness_comparison
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:07:52.811579+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: hardness-comparison-20260505-0
summary:
A variety of hardness-testing methods are available, including the Vickers, Brinell, Rockwell, Meyer and Leeb tests. Although it is impossible in many cases to give an exact conversion, it is possible to give an approximate material-specific comparison table for steels. == Hardness comparison table == == References == == Further reading == ISO 18265: "Metallic materials — Conversion of hardness values" (2013) ASTM E140-12B(2019)e1: "Standard Hardness Conversion Tables for Metals Relationship Among Brinell Hardness, Vickers Hardness, Rockwell Hardness, Superficial Hardness, Knoop Hardness, Scleroscope Hardness, and Leeb Hardness" (2019) == External links == Hardness Conversion Table – Brinell, Rockwell, Vickers – Various steels . (Archived) (archived November 11, 2011) Rockwell to Brinell conversion chart (Brinell, Rockwell A, B, C) Struers hardness conversion table (Vickers, Brinell, Rockwell B, C, D)


id: integrative-and-comparative-biology-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrative_and_Comparative_Biology-0.md
category: reference
title: Integrative and Comparative Biology
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrative_and_Comparative_Biology
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:07:53.887193+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: integrative-and-comparative-biology-20260505-0
summary:
Integrative and Comparative Biology is the scientific journal for the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology (formerly the American Society of Zoologists). Prior to volume 42 (2002), the journal was known as American Zoologist ISSN 0003-1569. == See also == List of zoology journals == External links == Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology


id: life-cycle-greenhouse-gas-emissions-of-energy-sources-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources-0.md
category: reference
title: Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of energy sources
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:07:55.007247+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: life-cycle-greenhouse-gas-emissions-of-energy-sources-20260505-0
summary:
Greenhouse gas emissions are one of the environmental impacts of electricity generation. Measurement of life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions involves calculating the global warming potential (GWP) of energy sources through life-cycle assessment. These are usually sources of only electrical energy but sometimes sources of heat are evaluated. The findings are presented in units of global warming potential per unit of electrical energy generated by that source. The scale uses the global warming potential unit, the carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), and the unit of electrical energy, the kilowatt hour (kWh). The goal of such assessments is to cover the full life of the source, from material and fuel mining through construction to operation and waste management. In 2014, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change harmonized the carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) findings of the major electricity generating sources in use worldwide. This was done by analyzing the findings of hundreds of individual scientific papers assessing each energy source. Coal is by far the worst emitter, followed by natural gas, with solar, wind and nuclear all low-carbon. Hydropower, biomass, geothermal and ocean power may generally be low-carbon, but poor design or other factors could result in higher emissions from individual power stations. For all


id: life-cycle-greenhouse-gas-emissions-of-energy-sources-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources-1.md
category: reference
title: Life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions of energy sources
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:07:55.007247+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: life-cycle-greenhouse-gas-emissions-of-energy-sources-20260505-0
summary:
Although the life cycle assessments of each energy source should attempt to cover the full life cycle of the source from cradle-to-grave, they are generally limited to the construction and operation phase. The most rigorously studied phases are those of material and fuel mining, construction, operation, and waste management. However, missing life cycle phases exist for a number of energy sources. At times, assessments variably and sometimes inconsistently include the global warming potential that results from decommissioning the energy supplying facility, once it has reached its designed life-span. This includes the global warming potential of the process to return the power-supply site to greenfield status. For example, the process of hydroelectric dam removal is usually excluded as it is a rare practice with little practical data available. Dam removal however is becoming increasingly common as dams age. Larger dams, such as the Hoover Dam and the Three Gorges Dam, are intended to last "forever" with the aid of maintenance, a period that is not quantified. Therefore, decommissioning estimates are generally omitted for some energy sources, while other energy sources include a decommissioning phase in their assessments. Along with the other prominent values of the paper, the median value presented of


id: relationship-between-mathematics-and-physics-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_mathematics_and_physics-0.md
category: reference
title: Relationship between mathematics and physics
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_mathematics_and_physics
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:07:56.241240+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: relationship-between-mathematics-and-physics-20260505-0
summary:
The relationship between mathematics and physics has been a subject of study of philosophers, mathematicians and physicists since antiquity, and more recently also by historians and educators. Generally considered a relationship of great intimacy, mathematics has been described as "an essential tool for physics" and physics has been described as "a rich source of inspiration and insight in mathematics". Some of the oldest and most discussed themes are about the main differences between the two subjects, their mutual influence, the role of mathematical rigor in physics, and the problem of explaining the effectiveness of mathematics in physics. In his work Physics, one of the topics treated by Aristotle is about how the study carried out by mathematicians differs from that carried out by physicists. Considerations about mathematics being the language of nature can be found in the ideas of the Pythagoreans: the convictions that "Numbers rule the world" and "All is number", and two millennia later were also expressed by Galileo Galilei: "The book of nature is written in the language of mathematics". == Historical interplay == Before giving a mathematical proof for the formula for the volume of a sphere, Archimedes used physical reasoning to discover the solution (imagining


id: relationship-between-mathematics-and-physics-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_mathematics_and_physics-1.md
category: reference
title: Relationship between mathematics and physics
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_mathematics_and_physics
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:07:56.241240+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: relationship-between-mathematics-and-physics-20260505-0
summary:
Rigor is indispensable in pure mathematics. But many definitions and arguments found in the physics literature involve concepts and ideas that are not up to the standards of rigor in mathematics. For example, Freeman Dyson characterized quantum field theory as having two "faces". The outward face looked at nature and there the predictions of quantum field theory are exceptionally successful. The inward face looked at mathematical foundations and found inconsistency and mystery. The success of the physical theory comes despite its lack of rigorous mathematical backing. Some mathematicians, such as Arthur Jaffe and Frank Quinn, argue that non-rigorous mathematical work can sometimes bring benefits too. == Philosophical problems == Some of the problems considered in the philosophy of mathematics are the following: Explain the effectiveness of mathematics in the study of the physical world: "At this point an enigma presents itself which in all ages has agitated inquiring minds. How can it be that mathematics, being after all a product of human thought which is independent of experience, is so admirably appropriate to the objects of reality?" —Albert Einstein, in Geometry and Experience (1921). Clearly delineate mathematics and physics: For some results or discoveries, it is difficult to say to


id: criticism-of-science-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_science-0.md
category: reference
title: Criticism of science
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_science
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:07:57.789406+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: criticism-of-science-20260505-0
summary:
Criticism of science addresses problems within science in order to improve science as a whole and its role in society. Criticisms come from philosophy, from social movements like feminism, and from within science itself. The emerging field of metascience seeks to increase the quality of and efficiency of scientific research by improving the scientific process. == Philosophical critiques == Philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend advanced the idea of epistemological anarchism, which holds that there are no useful and exception-free methodological rules governing the progress of science or the growth of knowledge, and that the idea that science can or should operate according to universal and fixed rules is unrealistic, pernicious and detrimental to science itself. Feyerabend advocates a democratic society where science is treated as equal to other ideologies or social institutions such as religion, and education, or magic and mythology, and considers the dominance of science in society authoritarian and unjustified. He also contended (along with Imre Lakatos) that the demarcation problem of distinguishing science from pseudoscience on objective grounds is not possible and thus fatal to the notion of science running according to fixed, universal rules. Feyerabend also criticized science for not having evidence for its own philosophical


id: criticism-of-science-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_science-1.md
category: reference
title: Criticism of science
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_science
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:07:57.789406+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: criticism-of-science-20260505-0
summary:
=== Reproducibility === The social sciences, such as social psychology, have long suffered from the problem of their studies being largely not reproducible. Now, medicine has come under similar pressures. In a phenomenon known as the replication crisis, journals are less likely to publish straight replication studies so it may be difficult to disprove results. Another result of publication bias is the Proteus phenomenon: early attempts to replicate results tend to contradict them. However, there are claims that this bias may be beneficial, allowing accurate meta-analysis with fewer publications. === Cognitive biases === Critics argue that the biggest bias within science is motivated reasoning, whereby scientists are more likely to accept evidence that supports their hypothesis and more likely to scrutinize findings that do not. Scientists do not practice pure induction but instead often come into science with preconceived ideas and often will, unconsciously or consciously, interpret observations to support their own hypotheses through confirmation bias. For example, scientists may re-run trials when they do not support a hypothesis but use results from the first trial when they do support their hypothesis. It is often argued that while each individual has cognitive biases, these biases are corrected for when scientific


id: criticism-of-science-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_science-2.md
category: reference
title: Criticism of science
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_science
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:07:57.789406+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: criticism-of-science-20260505-0
summary:
The mass media face a number of pressures that can prevent them from accurately depicting competing scientific claims in terms of their credibility within the scientific community as a whole. Determining how much weight to give different sides in a scientific debate requires considerable expertise regarding the matter. Few journalists have real scientific knowledge, and even beat reporters who know a great deal about certain scientific issues may know little about other ones they are suddenly asked to cover. Many issues damage the relationship of science to the media and the use of science and scientific arguments by politicians. As a very broad generalisation, many politicians seek certainties and facts whilst scientists typically offer probabilities and caveats. However, politicians' ability to be heard in the mass media frequently distorts the scientific understanding by the public. Examples in Britain include the controversy over the MMR inoculation, and the 1988 forced resignation of a government minister, Edwina Currie, for revealing the high probability that battery eggs were contaminated with Salmonella. Some scientists and philosophers suggest that scientific theories are more or less shaped by the dominant political, economic, or cultural models of the time, even though the scientific community may claim to


id: academese-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academese-0.md
category: reference
title: Academese
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academese
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:08:00.060379+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: academese-20260505-0
summary:
Academese is the unnecessary use of jargon in academia, particularly in academic writing in social science and humanities; it is contrasted with plain language. The term is often but not always pejorative, and occasionally can be used to refer to complex but necessary terminology. Critics of academese argue that it usually creates unnecessary difficulty in communication, with the harshest critics arguing this is intentional with writers aiming to impress the readers and hide the fact that they are not saying anything of substance. == Related concepts == In the context of medical sciences, a similar term, medicalese, exists; likewise, legal science jargon is called legalese. In the context of the English language, the term Engfish has also been used ("sounds like English but stinks like a fish"). Another related and highly pejorative term is academic bullshit. == History, examples of usage and criticism == The usage of the word in English has been traced to at least 1917, and is attributed to Will Durant, who in his Philosophy and the Social Problem defined it as an opposite of "plain language". Academic writing, particularly in the fields of art and literary criticism, was the subject of criticism by George Orwell in


id: against-method-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method-0.md
category: reference
title: Against Method
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:08:01.290497+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: against-method-20260505-0
summary:
Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge is a 1975 book by Austrian philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend. The central thesis of the book is that science should become an anarchic enterprise. In the context of the work, the term "anarchy" refers to epistemological anarchy, which does not remain within one single prescriptive scientific method on the grounds that any such method would restrict scientific progress. The work is notable in the history and philosophy of science partially due to its detailed case study of Galileo's hypothesis that the earth rotates on its axis and has since become a staple reading in introduction to philosophy of science courses at undergraduate and graduate levels. Against Method contains many verbatim excerpts from Feyerabend's earlier papers including "Explanation, Reduction, and Empiricism", "How to be a Good Empiricist: A Plea for Tolerance in Matters Epistemological", and "Problems of Empiricism, Part I." Because of this, Feyerabend claims that "[Against Method] is not a book, it is a collage." Later editions of Against Method included passages from Science in a Free Society. == Publication, Translations, and Editions == Feyerabend began writing Against Method in 1968 and it was originally released as a long paper


id: against-method-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method-1.md
category: reference
title: Against Method
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:08:01.290497+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: against-method-20260505-0
summary:
=== Counterinduction === Feyerabend contends that for every methodological rule, there is a 'counter rule' – namely, a methodological rule that recommends the opposite of its counter – which also has value. As an example of this general hypothesis, Feyerabend defends 'counterinduction' as the counter rule to inductivism and "induction by falsification" as a valuable methodological rule. Counterinduction involves developing theories that are inconsistent with currently accepted empirical evidence, which is the opposite of the (then) commonly accepted rule that theories should be developed that are consistent with known facts. Feyerabend argues for counterinduction by showing that theories that conflict with known facts are useful for revealing 'natural interpretations' which must be made explicit so that they can be examined. Natural interpretations are interpretations of experience, expressed in language, that follow automatically and unconsciously from describing observations. After a theory has been accepted for a long period of time, it becomes habit to describe events or processes using certain concepts. Because, Feyerabend argues, observation underdetermines the ways we describe what we observe, theories that redescribe experience in new ways force us to make comparisons between old natural interpretations and new ones. This is the first step to evaluating the plausibility


id: against-method-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method-2.md
category: reference
title: Against Method
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:08:01.290497+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: against-method-20260505-0
summary:
=== Galileo case study === The primary case study in Against Method is Galileo's hypothesis that the earth rotates on its axis. According to Feyerabend's reconstruction, Galileo did not justify this hypothesis by reference to known facts, nor did he offer an unfalsified conjecture that had more empirical content than its predecessor. Rather, Galileo's hypothesis would rationally have been considered to be false by the existing evidence at the time, and it is lower in empirical content than Aristotelian theory of motion. Moreover, Galileo did not provide arguments to justify his contention but instead used propaganda. According to the existing evidence in the early 17th century, the position that the earth rotates on its axis would have rightly been regarded as false. For example, Galileo's theory of the tides suggested by the motion of the earth was inaccurate and the differences "were big enough to be known even to the most bleary-eyed sailor." In addition, the motion of the earth on its axis leads to the wrong predictions of the relative brightness of Mars and Venus when measured with the naked eye. To correct for these mistakes, Galileo introduces new evidence through his telescope. However, the telescope was not theoretically


id: against-method-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method-3.md
category: reference
title: Against Method
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:08:01.290497+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: against-method-20260505-0
summary:
=== Discovery/justification distinction === Herbert Feigl criticizes Feyerabend's earlier work, including the paper edition of Against Method, for conflating the distinction between the context of discovery and the context of justification. According to this distinction, formulated by Hans Reichenbach and Karl Popper, there is no logic about how scientists develop scientific theories but there should be a logic of confirming or disconfirming scientific theories. Once this distinction is accepted, then Feyerabend's claim that 'anything goes' would be a truism and would not run against logical empiricism. Feyerabend's response in Against Method is to reject the validity of the discovery/justification distinction. He argues that while the distinction can be maintained abstractly, it does not find a "point of attack" in scientific practice. This is because the two contexts are not separated in different phases of scientific research but are always comingled. Discounting evidence, for example is often necessary for scientific discovery but is rejected when seeking justification. Justifying scientific theories has implications for what research is conducted and, therefore, questions about what is justified also affects the paths open to discovery. === Criticism of Lakatos === The first edition of Against Method contains a chapter devoted to critically discussing Lakatos' methodology


id: against-method-20260505-4
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method-4.md
category: reference
title: Against Method
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:08:01.290497+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: against-method-20260505-0
summary:
== Aftermath == Feyerabend responded to these criticisms in several follow-up publications, many of which he collected in Science in a Free Society. He was extremely frustrated by the quality of the reviews of Against Method, leading him to accuse them of illiteracy and a lack of competence. In his autobiography, he writes that he sometimes wishes that "he had never written that fucking book." This response led to Feyerabend's gradual removal from the academic community which also corresponded to changes of research topics in his work in the 1980s. == References == == Further reading == The first, 1970 edition, is available for download in pdf form from the Minnesota Center for Philosophy of Science (part of the University of Minnesota). Follow this link path: Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science > 4. Analyses of Theories & Methods of Physics and Psychology. 1970. Editors: M. Radner and S. Winokur > Open Access > Under the "Whoops!" message click 'Download' From the resulting file '4_Theories&Methods.zip' you need the three Feyerabend sections, 4_2_1_Feyerabend.pdf, 4_2_2_Feyerabend.pdf, 4_2_3_Feyerabend.pdf and the immediate following article on A Picture Theory of Theory Meaning (sic) (4_3_Hanson.pdf) in order to get the complete set of footnotes. Discussion of


id: the-age-of-the-world-picture-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_the_World_Picture-0.md
category: reference
title: The Age of the World Picture
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_the_World_Picture
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:08:02.490744+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: the-age-of-the-world-picture-20260505-0
summary:
"The Age of the World Picture" or "The Age of the World View" (German: Die Zeit des Weltbildes) is a 1938 lecture by Martin Heidegger in which he addresses the metaphysical ground of modern science. It was published in the essay collection Off the Beaten Track in 1950. == English translations == The essay has been translated as "The Age of the World View" by Marjorie Grene (1951) and as "The Age of the World Picture" by William Lovitt (1977) and Julian Young (2002). == Critique == Sidonie Kellerer believes that Heidegger published the text to show his “inner resistance” after the mid-1930s against the Nazi regime and as evidence for his early refusal of National Socialism and his rejection of a modern ideology that resulted in the totalitarian system. Emphasizing the differences between the published text and the original lecture delivered in 1938, she thinks that the differences show "the artful falsifications" used by Heidegger in order to re-establish his reputation. == References == == External links == The Age of the World Picture: Hermeneutics and the Weltanschauung Theory The Age of the World-Picture is a Fine Thirty-Two (at the Time of Writing) The Age of the World Picture


id: anarcho-primitivism-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism-0.md
category: reference
title: Anarcho-primitivism
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:08:06.474180+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: anarcho-primitivism-20260505-0
summary:
Anarcho-primitivism is an anarchist critique of civilization and a branch of green anarchism that advocates a return to non-civilized ways of life through deindustrialization, abolition of the division of labor or specialization, abandonment of large-scale organization and all technology other than prehistoric technology, and the dissolution of agriculture. Anarcho-primitivists critique the origins and alleged progress of the Industrial Revolution and industrial society. Most anarcho-primitivists advocate for a tribal-like way of life while some see an even simpler lifestyle as beneficial. According to anarcho-primitivists, the shift from hunter-gatherer to agricultural subsistence during the Neolithic Revolution gave rise to coercion, social alienation, and social stratification. Anarcho-primitivism argues that civilization is at the root of societal and environmental problems. Primitivists also consider domestication, technology and language to cause social alienation from "authentic reality". As a result, they propose the abolition of civilization and a return to a hunter-gatherer lifestyle. == Roots == The roots of primitivism lay in Enlightenment philosophy and the critical theory of the Frankfurt School. The early-modern philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau blamed agriculture and cooperation for the development of social inequality and causing habitat destruction. In his Discourse on Inequality, Rousseau depicted the state of nature as a "primitivist utopia"; however,


id: antiscience-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience-0.md
category: reference
title: Antiscience
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:08:07.722110+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: antiscience-20260505-0
summary:
Antiscience is a set of attitudes and a form of anti-intellectualism that involves a rejection of science and the scientific method. People holding antiscientific views do not accept science as an objective method that can generate universal knowledge. Antiscience commonly manifests through rejection of scientific ideas such as climate change and evolution and the effectiveness of vaccination. It also includes pseudoscience, methods that claim to be scientific but reject the scientific method. Antiscience can lead to belief in false conspiracy theories and alternative medicine. Lack of trust in science has been linked to the promotion of political extremism, corruption and distrust in medical treatments. == History == In the early days of the Scientific Revolution, scientists such as Robert Boyle (1627–1691) found themselves in conflict with those such as Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), who were skeptical of whether science was a satisfactory way to obtain genuine knowledge about the world. Hobbes' stance is regarded by Ian Shapiro as an antiscience position: In his Six Lessons to the Professors of Mathematics,...[published in 1656, Hobbes] distinguished 'demonstrable' fields, as 'those the construction of the subject whereof is in the power of the artist himself,' from 'indemonstrable' ones 'where the causes are to seek


id: antiscience-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience-1.md
category: reference
title: Antiscience
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:08:07.722110+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: antiscience-20260505-0
summary:
The term "scientism", originating in science studies, was adopted and is used by sociologists and philosophers of science to describe the views, beliefs and behavior of strong supporters of applying ostensibly scientific concepts beyond its traditional disciplines. Specifically, scientism promotes science as the best or only objective means to determine normative and epistemological values. The term scientism is generally used critically, implying a cosmetic application of science in unwarranted situations considered not amenable to application of the scientific method or similar scientific standards. The word is commonly used in a pejorative sense, applying to individuals who seem to be treating science in a similar way to a religion. The term reductionism is occasionally used in a similarly pejorative way (as a more subtle attack on scientists). However, some scientists feel comfortable being labelled as reductionists, while agreeing that there might be conceptual and philosophical shortcomings of reductionism. However, non-reductionist (see Emergentism) views of science have been formulated in varied forms in several scientific fields like statistical physics, chaos theory, complexity theory, cybernetics, systems theory, systems biology, ecology, information theory, etc. Such fields tend to assume that strong interactions between units produce new phenomena in "higher" levels that cannot be accounted


id: antiscience-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience-2.md
category: reference
title: Antiscience
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:08:07.722110+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: antiscience-20260505-0
summary:
Historically, antiscience first arose as a reaction against scientific materialism. The 18th century Enlightenment had ushered in "the ideal of a unified system of all the sciences", but there were those fearful of this notion, who "felt that constrictions of reason and science, of a single all-embracing system... were in some way constricting, an obstacle to their vision of the world, chains on their imagination or feeling". Antiscience then is a rejection of "the scientific model [or paradigm]... with its strong implication that only that which was quantifiable, or at any rate, measurable... was real". In this sense, it comprises a "critical attack upon the total claim of the new scientific method to dominate the entire field of human knowledge". However, scientific positivism (logical positivism) does not deny the reality of non-measurable phenomena, only that those phenomena should not be adequate to scientific investigation. Moreover, positivism, as a philosophical basis for the scientific method, is not consensual or even dominant in the scientific community (see philosophy of science). Recent developments and discussions around antiscience attitudes reveal how deeply intertwined these beliefs are with social, political, and psychological factors. A study published by Ohio State News on July 11, 2022, identified


id: antiscience-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience-3.md
category: reference
title: Antiscience
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:08:07.722110+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: antiscience-20260505-0
summary:
=== Ecology and health sphere === Within the ecological and health spheres, Levins identifies a conflict "not between science and antiscience, but rather between different pathways for science and technology; between a commodified science-for-profit and a gentle science for humane goals; between the sciences of the smallest parts and the sciences of dynamic wholes... [he] offers proposals for a more holistic, integral approach to understanding and addressing environmental issues". These beliefs are also common within the scientific community, with for example, scientists being prominent in environmental campaigns warning of environmental dangers such as ozone depletion and the greenhouse effect. In the medical sphere, patients and practitioners may choose to reject science and adopt a pseudoscientific approach to health problems. This can be both a practical and a conceptual shift and has attracted strong criticism: "therapeutic touch, a healing technique based upon the laying-on of hands, has found wide acceptance in the nursing profession despite its lack of scientific plausibility. Its acceptance is indicative of a broad antiscientific trend in nursing". Glazer also criticises the therapists and patients, "for abandoning the biological underpinnings of nursing and for misreading philosophy in the service of an antiscientific world-view". In contrast, Brian Martin criticized


id: antiscience-20260505-4
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience-4.md
category: reference
title: Antiscience
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiscience
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:08:07.722110+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: antiscience-20260505-0
summary:
== Bibliography == A Bullock & S Trombley [Eds.], The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought, third edition, London: Harper Collins, 1999 Burger, P and Luckman, T, "The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise" in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966 Collins, Harry and Pinch, Trevor, The Golem. What everyone should know about science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993 Gross, Paul R and Norman Levitt, Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994 Gerald Holton, Science and anti-science, Harvard University Press, 1993 ISBN 0674792998 Knorr-Cetina, Karin D, & Mulkay, Michael, Science Observed: Perspectives on the Social Study of Science, Sage Publications Ltd, 1983 Knorr-Cetina, Karin D, Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge, Harvard University Press, 1999 Levins, R. "Ten propositions on science and antiscience" in Social Text, 46/47:101–111, 1996. Levins, R. "Touch Red," in Judy Kaplan an Linn Shapiro, eds., Red Diapers: Growing up in the Communist Left, U. of Illinois, 1998, pp. 257–266. Levins, R. "Dialectics and systems theory" in Science and Society 62(3):373–399, 1998. Levins, R. "The internal and external in explanatory theories", Science as Culture, 7(4):557–582, 1998. Levins, R. and Lopez C. "Toward an ecosocial


id: betrayers-of-the-truth-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betrayers_of_the_Truth-0.md
category: reference
title: Betrayers of the Truth
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betrayers_of_the_Truth
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:08:08.823295+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: betrayers-of-the-truth-20260505-0
summary:
Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science is a book by William Broad and Nicholas Wade, published in 1982 by Simon & Schuster in New York, and subsequently (1983) also by Century Publishing in London, and with a simplified subtitle as Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in Science by Oxford University Press in 1985. The book is a critique of some widely held beliefs about the nature of science and the scientific process. Broad and Wade argue that the conventional wisdom that science is a strictly logical process, with objectivity the essence of scientist's attitudes, errors being speedily corrected by rigorous peer scrutiny and experiment replication, is a mythical ideal. Our conclusion, in brief, is that science bears little resemblance to its conventional portrait. We believe that the logical structure discernible in scientific knowledge says nothing about the process by which the structure was built or the mentality of the builders. In the acquisition of knowledge, scientists are not guided by logic and objectivity alone, but also by such nonrational factors as rhetoric, propaganda, and personal prejudice. Scientists do not depend solely on rational thought, and have no monopoly on it. The authors


id: big-science-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_science-0.md
category: reference
title: Big science
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_science
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:08:09.997499+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: big-science-20260505-0
summary:
Big science is a term used by scientists and historians of science to describe a series of changes in science which occurred in industrial nations during and after World War II, as scientific progress increasingly came to rely on large-scale projects usually funded by national governments or groups of governments. Individual or small group efforts, or small science, are still relevant today as theoretical results by individual authors may have a significant impact, but very often the empirical verification requires experiments using constructions, such as the Large Hadron Collider, costing between $5 and $10 billion. == Development == While science and technology have always been important to and driven by warfare, the increase in military funding of science following the second World War was on a scale wholly unprecedented. James Conant, in a 1941 letter to Chemical Engineering News, said that World War II "is a physicist's war rather than a chemist's," a phrase that was cemented in the vernacular in post-war discussion of the role that those scientists played in the development of new weapons and tools, notably the proximity fuse, radar, and the atomic bomb. The bulk of these last two activities took place in a new form


id: big-science-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_science-1.md
category: reference
title: Big science
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_science
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:08:09.997499+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: big-science-20260505-0
summary:
When history looks at the 20th century, she will see science and technology as its theme; she will find in the monuments of Big Science—the huge rockets, the high-energy accelerators, the high-flux research reactors—symbols of our time just as surely as she finds in Notre Dame a symbol of the Middle Ages. ... We build our monuments in the name of scientific truth, they built theirs in the name of religious truth; we use our Big Science to add to our country's prestige, they used their churches for their cities' prestige; we build to placate what ex-President Eisenhower suggested could become a dominant scientific caste, they built to please the priests of Isis and Osiris. Weinberg's article addressed criticisms of the way in which the era of Big Science could negatively affect science — such as astronomer Fred Hoyle's contention that excessive money for science would only make science fat and lazy — and encouraged, in the end, limiting Big Science only to the national laboratory system and preventing its incursion into the university system. Since Weinberg's article there have been many historical and sociological studies on the effects of Big Science both in and out of the laboratory. Soon


id: conquest-of-abundance-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_Abundance-0.md
category: reference
title: Conquest of Abundance
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conquest_of_Abundance
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:08:11.113483+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: conquest-of-abundance-20260505-0
summary:
Conquest of Abundance: A Tale of Abstraction versus the Richness of Being is the last book by the Austrian philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend, published posthumously by the University of Chicago Press in 1999. It is edited by Bert Terpstra and includes a foreword from Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend, Feyerabend's 4th and final wife. The book was uncompleted due to Feyerabend's death in 1994 and was written to fulfill a promise made to Borrini-Feyerabend. The unfinished manuscript was published alongside several other previously published papers that engaged with the core themes of the book. == Translations == Conquest of Abundance has been translated into four languages: Spanish translation by Radamés Molina and César Mora: La conquista de la abundancia: La abstracción frente a la riqueza del ser, Paidós: Barcelona and Buenos Aires 2001, 336 pp. Italian translation by P. Adamo: Conquista dell'abbondanza: Storie dello scontro fra astrazione e ricchezza dell'essere, Raffaello Cortina: Milan 2002, 350 pp. German translation by Volker Böhnigk and Rainer Noske: Die Vernichitung der Vielfalt: Ein Bericht, Peter Engelmann (ed.), Passagen: Vienna 2005, 344 pp. Portuguese translation by Cecília Prada and Marcelo Rouanet: A Conquista da Abundância, Unisinos: São Leopoldo 2005. == Content == Conquest of Abundance contains two


id: criticism-of-the-theory-of-relativity-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity-0.md
category: reference
title: Criticism of the theory of relativity
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:08:12.267518+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: criticism-of-the-theory-of-relativity-20260505-0
summary:
Criticism of the theory of relativity of Albert Einstein was mainly expressed in the early years after its publication in the early twentieth century, on scientific, pseudoscientific, philosophical, or ideological bases. Though some of these criticisms had the support of reputable scientists, Einstein's theory of relativity is now accepted by the scientific community. Reasons for criticism of the theory of relativity have included alternative theories, rejection of the abstract-mathematical method, and alleged errors of the theory. Antisemitic objections to Einstein's Jewish heritage also occasionally played a role in these objections. There are still some critics of relativity today, but their opinions are not shared by the majority in the scientific community. == Special relativity == === Relativity principle versus electromagnetic worldview === Around the end of the 19th century, the view was widespread that all forces in nature are of electromagnetic origin (the "electromagnetic worldview"), especially in the works of Joseph Larmor (1897) and Wilhelm Wien (1900). This was apparently confirmed by the experiments of Walter Kaufmann (1901–1903), who measured an increase of the mass of a body with velocity which was consistent with the hypothesis that the mass was generated by its electromagnetic field. Max Abraham (1902) subsequently sketched


id: criticism-of-the-theory-of-relativity-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity-1.md
category: reference
title: Criticism of the theory of relativity
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:08:12.267518+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: criticism-of-the-theory-of-relativity-20260505-0
summary:
=== Claimed experimental refutations === Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments: To conclusively decide between the theories of Abraham and Lorentz, Kaufmann repeated his experiments in 1905 with improved accuracy. However, in the meantime the theoretical situation had changed. Alfred Bucherer and Paul Langevin (1904) developed another model, in which the electron is contracted in the line of motion, and dilated in the transverse direction, so that the volume remains constant. While Kaufmann was still evaluating his experiments, Einstein published his theory of special relativity. Eventually, Kaufmann published his results in December 1905 and argued that they are in agreement with Abraham's theory and require rejection of the "basic assumption of Lorentz and Einstein" (the relativity principle). Lorentz reacted with the phrase "I am at the end of my Latin", while Einstein did not mention those experiments before 1908. Yet, others started to criticize the experiments. Max Planck (1906) alluded to inconsistencies in the theoretical interpretation of the data, and Adolf Bestelmeyer (1906) introduced new techniques, which (especially in the area of low velocities) gave different results and which cast doubts on Kaufmann's methods. Therefore, Bucherer (1908) conducted new experiments and arrived at the conclusion that they confirm the mass formula of relativity and


id: criticism-of-the-theory-of-relativity-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity-2.md
category: reference
title: Criticism of the theory of relativity
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:08:12.267518+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: criticism-of-the-theory-of-relativity-20260505-0
summary:
=== Acceleration in special relativity === It was also claimed that special relativity cannot handle acceleration, which would lead to contradictions in some situations. However, this assessment is not correct, since acceleration actually can be described in the framework of special relativity (see Acceleration (special relativity), Proper reference frame (flat spacetime), Hyperbolic motion, Rindler coordinates, Born coordinates). Paradoxes relying on insufficient understanding of these facts were discovered in the early years of relativity. For example, Max Born (1909) tried to combine the concept of rigid bodies with special relativity. That this model was insufficient was shown by Paul Ehrenfest (1909), who demonstrated that a rotating rigid body would, according to Born's definition, undergo a contraction of the circumference without contraction of the radius, which is impossible (Ehrenfest paradox). Max von Laue (1911) showed that rigid bodies cannot exist in special relativity, since the propagation of signals cannot exceed the speed of light, so an accelerating and rotating body will undergo deformations. Paul Langevin and von Laue showed that the twin paradox can be completely resolved by consideration of acceleration in special relativity. If two twins move away from each other, and one of them is accelerating and coming back to


id: criticism-of-the-theory-of-relativity-20260505-3
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity-3.md
category: reference
title: Criticism of the theory of relativity
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:08:12.267518+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: criticism-of-the-theory-of-relativity-20260505-0
summary:
=== Aether and absolute space === Many physicists (like Hendrik Lorentz, Oliver Lodge, Albert Abraham Michelson, Edmund Taylor Whittaker, Harry Bateman, Ebenezer Cunningham, Charles Émile Picard, Paul Painlevé) were uncomfortable with the rejection of the aether, and preferred to interpret the Lorentz transformation based on the existence of a preferred frame of reference, as in the aether-based theories of Lorentz, Larmor, and Poincaré. However, the idea of an aether hidden from any observation was not supported by the mainstream scientific community, therefore the aether theory of Lorentz and Poincaré was superseded by Einstein's special relativity which was subsequently formulated in the framework of four-dimensional spacetime by Minkowski. Others such as Herbert E. Ives argued that it might be possible to experimentally determine the motion of such an aether, but it was never found despite numerous experimental tests of Lorentz invariance (see tests of special relativity). Also attempts to introduce some sort of relativistic aether (consistent with relativity) into modern physics such as by Einstein on the basis of general relativity (1920), or by Paul Dirac in relation to quantum mechanics (1951), were not supported by the scientific community (see Luminiferous aether#End of aether?). In his Nobel lecture, George F. Smoot


id: criticism-of-the-theory-of-relativity-20260505-4
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity-4.md
category: reference
title: Criticism of the theory of relativity
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:08:12.267518+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: criticism-of-the-theory-of-relativity-20260505-0
summary:
=== General covariance === Einstein emphasized the importance of general covariance for the development of general relativity, and took the position that the general covariance of his 1915 theory of gravity ensured implementation of a generalized relativity principle. This view was challenged by Erich Kretschmann (1917), who argued that every theory of space and time (even including Newtonian dynamics) can be formulated in a covariant way, if additional parameters are included, and thus general covariance of a theory would in itself be insufficient to implement a generalized relativity principle. Although Einstein (1918) agreed with that argument, he also countered that Newtonian mechanics in general covariant form would be too complicated for practical uses. Although it is now understood that Einstein's response to Kretschmann was mistaken (subsequent papers showed that such a theory would still be usable), another argument can be made in favor of general covariance: it is a natural way to express the equivalence principle, i.e., the equivalence in the description of a free-falling observer and an observer at rest, and thus it is more convenient to use general covariance together with general relativity, rather than with Newtonian mechanics. Connected with this, also the question of absolute motion was


id: criticism-of-the-theory-of-relativity-20260505-5
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity-5.md
category: reference
title: Criticism of the theory of relativity
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:08:12.267518+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: criticism-of-the-theory-of-relativity-20260505-0
summary:
== Philosophical criticism == The consequences of relativity, such as the change of ordinary concepts of space and time, as well as the introduction of non-Euclidean geometry in general relativity, were criticized by some philosophers of different philosophical schools. Many philosophical critics had insufficient knowledge of the mathematical and formal basis of relativity, which led to the criticisms often missing the heart of the matter. For example, relativity was misinterpreted as some form of relativism. However, this is misleading as it was emphasized by Einstein or Planck. Although space and time did become relative in Einstein's theories, and inertial frames of reference are handled on equal footing, on the other hand, the theory makes natural laws invariant—examples are the constancy of the speed of light and the covariance of Maxwell's equations. Consequently, Felix Klein (1910) called it the "invariant theory of the Lorentz group" instead of relativity theory, and Einstein (who reportedly used expressions like "absolute theory") sympathized with this expression as well. Critical responses to relativity were also expressed by proponents of neo-Kantianism (Paul Natorp, Bruno Bauch etc.), and phenomenology (Oskar Becker, Moritz Geiger etc.). While some of them only rejected the philosophical consequences, others rejected also the physical


id: criticism-of-the-theory-of-relativity-20260505-6
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity-6.md
category: reference
title: Criticism of the theory of relativity
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:08:12.267518+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: criticism-of-the-theory-of-relativity-20260505-0
summary:
=== Academic and non-academic criticism === Some academic scientists, especially experimental physicists such as the Nobel laureates Philipp Lenard and Johannes Stark, as well as Ernst Gehrcke, Stjepan Mohorovičić, Rudolf Tomaschek and others criticized the increasing abstraction and mathematization of modern physics, especially in the form of relativity theory, and later quantum mechanics. It was seen as a tendency to abstract theory building, connected with the loss of intuitive "common sense". In fact, relativity was the first theory, in which the inadequacy of the "illustrative" classical physics was thought to have been demonstrated. Some of Einstein's critics ignored these developments and tried to revitalize older theories, such as aether drag models or emission theories (see "Alternative Theories"). However, those qualitative models were never sufficiently advanced to compete with the success of the precise experimental predictions and explanatory powers of the modern theories. Additionally, there was also a great rivalry between experimental and theoretical physicists, as regards the professorial activities and the occupation of chairs at German universities. The opinions clashed at the "Bad Nauheim debates" in 1920 between Einstein and (among others) Lenard, which attracted much public attention. In addition, there were many critics (with or without physical training) whose


id: criticism-of-the-theory-of-relativity-20260505-7
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity-7.md
category: reference
title: Criticism of the theory of relativity
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:08:12.267518+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: criticism-of-the-theory-of-relativity-20260505-0
summary:
While the theory of relativity was enthusiastically studied in Japan and China, it faced criticism in nations with older scientific establishments. Shortly before and during World War I, there appeared some nationalistically motivated criticisms of relativity and modern physics. For example, French theoretical physicists Pierre Duhem regarded relativity as the product of the "too formal and abstract" German spirit, which was in conflict with "common sense". In Germany the Jewish ancestry of some leading relativity proponents such as Einstein and Minkowski made them targets of racially minded critics, although many of Einstein's German critics did not show evidence of such motives. The engineer Paul Weyland, a known nationalistic agitator, arranged the first public meeting against relativity in Berlin in 1919. While Lenard and Stark were also known for their nationalistic opinions, they declined to participate in Weyland's rallies, and Weyland's campaign eventually fizzled out due to a lack of prominent speakers. Lenard and others instead responded to Einstein's challenge to his professional critics to debate his theories at the scientific conference held annually at Bad Nauheim. While Einstein's critics, assuming without any real justification that Einstein was behind the activities of the German press in promoting the triumph of relativity,


id: criticism-of-the-theory-of-relativity-20260505-8
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity-8.md
category: reference
title: Criticism of the theory of relativity
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:08:12.267518+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: criticism-of-the-theory-of-relativity-20260505-0
summary:
=== A Hundred Authors Against Einstein === A collection of various criticisms can be found in the book Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein (A Hundred Authors Against Einstein), published in 1931. It contains very short texts from 28 authors, and excerpts from the publications of another 19 authors. The rest consists of a list that also includes people who only for some time were opposed to relativity. The most targeted one is space-time followed by the speed of light as a constant and the relativity of simultaneity, with other concepts following. Besides philosophic objections (mostly based on Kantianism), also some alleged elementary failures of the theory were included; however, as some commented, those failures were due to the authors' misunderstanding of relativity. For example, Hans Reichenbach wrote a report in the entertainment section of a newspaper, describing the book as "a magnificent collection of naive mistakes" and as "unintended droll literature". Albert von Brunn interpreted the book as a pamphlet "of such deplorable impotence as occurring elsewhere only in politics" and "a fallback into the 16th and 17th centuries" and concluded “it can only be hoped that German science will not again be embarrassed by such sad scribblings”. Jacob Epstein quoted


id: nalin-de-silva-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nalin_de_Silva-0.md
category: reference
title: Nalin de Silva
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nalin_de_Silva
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:08:13.355471+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: nalin-de-silva-20260505-0
summary:
Thakurartha Devadithya Guardiyawasam Lindamulage Nalin Kumar de Silva (Sinhala: නලින් ද සිල්වා; 20 October 1944 – 1 May 2024) was a Sri Lankan philosopher, polymath and a political analyst. He was the former Sri Lankan ambassador in Myanmar. He was a professor in the department of mathematics, a member of University Grant Commission and the dean of the faculty of science at the University of Kelaniya, Sri Lanka. De Silva openly stated that the so-called 'objective scientific method' was a lie. In June 2011 he stated that information regarding the presence of arsenic in water claiming that the cause of Rajarata chronic kidney disease had been given to him by the god Natha. The Sri Lanka Association for the Advancement of Science, an organisation in which De Silva claimed lifelong membership, has said that they consider it "extremely unfortunate that the Dean of a Science Faculty should make it his publicly stated aim to run down science and bring it into disrepute." However the presence of arsenic was verified in water and vegetation, and the source was found to be agrochemical fertilizers. == Early life and education == Nalin de Silva was born on 20 October 1944 in Kovilagodella, Panadura,


id: nalin-de-silva-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nalin_de_Silva-1.md
category: reference
title: Nalin de Silva
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nalin_de_Silva
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:08:13.355471+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: nalin-de-silva-20260505-0
summary:
The merit (pina) in this regard should go to the "samyak drshtika devivaru" who first told that Arsenic is present in Rajarata drinking water and later revealed to us that Arsenic which is not found naturally in Sri Lanka has found its way to the wells and the wewas in Rajarata through Agrochemicals. It's simply like this. We can see professors. Professors cannot see Arsenic. We cannot see gods. Gods can see Arsenic. I like this because there is certain symmetry in it... I know very well that the so-called objective scientific method is a lie. Paranagama too has stood by De Silva and defended their methods. She said that they had first been told of the arsenic by the wife of "a university lecturer who had developed her mental faculties to communicate with a higher being", but then used scientific methods to deduce it. The Sri Lanka Association for the Advancement of Science released a statement in July 2011 questioning the validity of the findings and the process and individuals involved in the study. Their statement laid the blame for the scandal firmly on Prof Nalin De Silva, and they called for other scientists and researchers in the group


id: decline-effect-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_effect-0.md
category: reference
title: Decline effect
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_effect
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:08:14.435769+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: decline-effect-20260505-0
summary:
The decline effect may occur when scientific claims receive decreasing support over time. The term was first described by parapsychologist Joseph Banks Rhine in the 1930s to describe the disappearance of extrasensory perception (ESP) psychic experiments conducted by Rhine over time. More generally, Cronbach, in his review article "Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology" referred to the phenomenon as "generalizations decay." The term was once again used in a 2010 article by Jonah Lehrer published in The New Yorker. == Examples == In his article, Lehrer gives several examples where the decline effect is allegedly showing. In the first example, the development of second generation anti-psychotic drugs, reveals that the first tests had demonstrated a dramatic decrease in the subjects' psychiatric symptoms. However, after repeating tests this effect declined and in the end it was not possible to document that these drugs had any better effect than the first generation anti-psychotics. A well-known example of the decline effect can be seen in early experiments conducted by Professor Jonathan Schooler examining the effects of verbalization on non-verbal cognition. In an initial series of studies Schooler found evidence that verbal rehearsal of previously seen faces or colors markedly impaired subsequent recognition.


id: decline-effect-20260505-1
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_effect-1.md
category: reference
title: Decline effect
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_effect
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:08:14.435769+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: decline-effect-20260505-0
summary:
If the true effect size is small, but the initial study has low power (i.e., small sample size), then the null hypothesis will only be rejected if the effect estimate is far from zero, as illustrated in the figure. This means that subsequent replications, with larger sample sizes, will discover effect estimates that are closer to the true effect, which is closer to zero than the initial estimate. === Publication bias === Another reason may be the publication bias: scientists and scientific journals prefer to publish positive results of experiments and tests over null results, especially with new ideas. As a result, the journals may refuse to publish papers that do not prove that the idea works. Later, when an idea is accepted, journals may refuse to publish papers that support it. === Experimenter effect === In the debate that followed the original article, Lehrer answered some of the questions by claiming that scientific observations might be shaped by one's expectations and desires, sometimes even unconsciously, thus creating a bias towards the desired outcome. This is known as the experimenter effect. For example, in parapsychology, the "experimenter effect" is used to explain how an experimenter who does not believe in


id: decline-effect-20260505-2
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_effect-2.md
category: reference
title: Decline effect
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_effect
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:08:14.435769+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: decline-effect-20260505-0
summary:
== Criticism == One concern that some have expressed is that Lehrer's article may further fuel people's skepticism about academic science. It was long believed that Lehrer's article originally hinted that academic science is not as rigid as people would like to believe. It is especially the article's ending that has upset many scientists and led to broad criticism of the article. Lehrer ends the article by saying: "Just because an idea is true doesn't mean it can be proved. And just because an idea can be proved doesn't mean it's true. When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe." This has upset scientists in the scientific community. Many have written back to Lehrer and questioned his agenda. Some have characterized Lehrer's assertion as "absurd", while others claiming that Lehrer is trying to use publication bias as an excuse for not believing in anything. As an answer to the many comments Lehrer received upon publishing the article, Lehrer published a comment on his blog, The Frontal Cortex, where he denied that he was implicitly questioning science and scientific methods in any way. In the same blog comment, Lehrer stated that he was not questioning fundamental


id: the-engine-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Engine-0.md
category: reference
title: The Engine
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Engine
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:08:15.613141+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: the-engine-20260505-0
summary:
The Engine is a fictional device for writing books described in the 1726 satirical novel Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift. Eric A. Weiss suggests that it is an early reference to a device resembling what is now known as artificial intelligence. The Engine is a device that generates permutations of word sets. It is found at the Academy of Projectors in Lagado on the flying island of Laputa. It is described thus by Swift: “... Every one knew how laborious the usual method is of attaining to arts and sciences; whereas, by his contrivance, the most ignorant person, at a reasonable charge, and with a little bodily labour, might write books in philosophy, poetry, politics, laws, mathematics, and theology, without the least assistance from genius or study.” He then led me to the frame, about the sides, whereof all his pupils stood in ranks. It was twenty feet square, placed in the middle of the room. The superfices was composed of several bits of wood, about the bigness of a die, but some larger than others. They were all linked together by slender wires. These bits of wood were covered, on every square, with paper pasted on them; and on


id: farewell-to-reason-20260505-0
file: data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farewell_to_Reason-0.md
category: reference
title: Farewell to Reason
tags: science, encyclopedia
source_url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farewell_to_Reason
date_saved: 2026-05-05T03:08:16.753445+00:00
instance: kb-cron
parent: farewell-to-reason-20260505-0
summary:
Farewell to Reason is a 1987 book by the Austrian philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend. The book includes some reprinted essays published in other venues and was published by Verso Books, which also published Against Method and Science in a Free Society. The primary goal of the book is to trace the historical origins of "rationalism" and argue for a version of relativism and cultural diversity. == Translations == Farewell to Reason has been translated into numerous languages: Spanish translation by José R. de Rivera: Adios a la razón, Tecnos: Madrid 1984, 300 pp. French translation by Baudouin Jurdant: Adieu à la raison, Seuil: Paris 1989, 373 pp. German translation by Jürgen Blasius: Irrwege der Vernunft, Suhrkamp: Frankfurt am Main 1989, 471 pp. Reprinted 1990. Italian translation by Marcello D'Agostino: Addio alla ragione, Armando: Roma 1990, 320 pp. Japanese translation: Risei yo saraba, Hoseidaigakushuppankyoku: Tokyo 1992, 34+399 pp. Portuguese translation: Adeus à razão, UNESP: São Paulo 2010, 399 pp. The book was reprinted in 1988, 1990, 1993, 1994, 1996, and 1999. A 2nd edition was released including a new preface by Feyerabend. == Content == Farewell to Reason begins with a lengthy chapter on relativism. He distinguishes it from absolutism,


