# 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


