Menu Close

References : Science Article

Notes

  1.  Ibn al-Haytham’s Book of Optics disputed Claudius Ptolemy’s extramission theory of vision: “Hence, the extramission of [visual] rays is superfluous and useless”. See A. Mark Smith’s translation from the Latin,[80] Book I, [6.54], pp. 372, 408.
  2.  Whether the universe is closed or open, or the shape of the universe, is an open question. The 2nd law of thermodynamics,[120]: 9 [121] and the 3rd law of thermodynamics[122] imply the heat death of the universe if the universe is a closed system, but not necessarily for an expanding universe.

References

  1.  Wilson, E. O. (1999). “The natural sciences”. Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge (Reprint ed.). New York: Vintage. pp. 49–71. ISBN 978-0-679-76867-8.
  2.  Heilbron, J. L.; et al. (2003). “Preface”. The Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. vii–x. ISBN 978-0-19-511229-0. …modern science is a discovery as well as an invention. It was a discovery that nature generally acts regularly enough to be described by laws and even by mathematics; and required invention to devise the techniques, abstractions, apparatus, and organization for exhibiting the regularities and securing their law-like descriptions.
  3.  Cohen, Eliel (2021). “The boundary lens: theorising academic activity”. The University and its Boundaries: Thriving or Surviving in the 21st Century. New York: Routledge. pp. 14–41. ISBN 978-0-367-56298-4. Archived from the original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 4 May 2021.
  4.  Colander, David C.; Hunt, Elgin F. (2019). “Social science and its methods”. Social Science: An Introduction to the Study of Society (17th ed.). New York: Routledge. pp. 1–22.
  5.  Nisbet, Robert A.; Greenfeld, Liah (16 October 2020). “Social Science”. Encyclopædia Britannica. Archived from the original on 2 February 2022. Retrieved 9 May 2021.
  6.  Bishop, Alan (1991). “Environmental activities and mathematical culture”. Mathematical Enculturation: A Cultural Perspective on Mathematics Education. Norwell, MA: Kluwer. pp. 20–59. ISBN 978-0-7923-1270-3. Retrieved 24 March 2018.
  7.  Bunge, Mario (1998). “The Scientific Approach”. Philosophy of Science: Volume 1, From Problem to Theory. Vol. 1 (revised ed.). New York: Routledge. pp. 3–50. ISBN 978-0-7658-0413-6.
  8.  Fetzer, James H. (2013). “Computer reliability and public policy: Limits of knowledge of computer-based systems”. Computers and Cognition: Why Minds are not Machines. Newcastle, United Kingdom: Kluwer. pp. 271–308. ISBN 978-1-4438-1946-6.
  9.  Nickles, Thomas (2013). “The Problem of Demarcation”. Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. The University of Chicago Press. p. 104.
  10.  Fischer, M. R.; Fabry, G (2014). “Thinking and acting scientifically: Indispensable basis of medical education”. GMS Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ausbildung. 31 (2): Doc24. doi:10.3205/zma000916. PMC 4027809. PMID 24872859.
  11.  Sinclair, Marius (1993). “On the Differences between the Engineering and Scientific Methods”. The International Journal of Engineering Education. Archived from the original on 15 November 2017. Retrieved 7 September 2018.
  12.  Bunge, M. (1966). “Technology as Applied Science”. In Rapp, F. (ed.). Contributions to a Philosophy of Technology. Dordrecht: Springer. pp. 19–39. doi:10.1007/978-94-010-2182-1_2. ISBN 978-94-010-2184-5. S2CID 110332727.
  13.  Lindberg, David C. (2007). The beginnings of Western science: the European Scientific tradition in philosophical, religious, and institutional context (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-48205-7.
  14.  Grant, Edward (2007). A History of Natural Philosophy: From the Ancient World to the Nineteenth Century. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-68957-1.
  15.  Building Bridges Among the BRICs Archived 18 April 2023 at the Wayback Machine, p. 125, Robert Crane, Springer, 2014
  16.  Keay, John (2000). India: A history. Atlantic Monthly Press. p. 132. ISBN 978-0-87113-800-2. The great era of all that is deemed classical in Indian literature, art and science was now dawning. It was this crescendo of creativity and scholarship, as much as … political achievements of the Guptas, which would make their age so golden.
  17.  Sease, Virginia; Schmidt-Brabant, Manfrid. Thinkers, Saints, Heretics: Spiritual Paths of the Middle Ages. 2007. Pages 80–81 Archived 27 August 2024 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved 6 October 2023
  18.  Principe, Lawrence M. (2011). “Introduction”. Scientific Revolution: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 1–3. ISBN 978-0-19-956741-6.
  19.  Cahan, David, ed. (2003). From Natural Philosophy to the Sciences: Writing the History of Nineteenth-Century Science. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-08928-7.
  20.  Lightman, Bernard (2011). “13. Science and the Public”. In Shank, Michael; Numbers, Ronald; Harrison, Peter (eds.). Wrestling with Nature: From Omens to Science. University of Chicago Press. p. 367. ISBN 978-0-226-31783-0.
  21.  Harrison, Peter (2015). The Territories of Science and Religion. University of Chicago Press. pp. 164–165. ISBN 978-0-226-18451-7. The changing character of those engaged in scientific endeavors was matched by a new nomenclature for their endeavors. The most conspicuous marker of this change was the replacement of “natural philosophy” by “natural science”. In 1800 few had spoken of the “natural sciences” but by 1880 this expression had overtaken the traditional label “natural philosophy”. The persistence of “natural philosophy” in the twentieth century is owing largely to historical references to a past practice (see figure 11). As should now be apparent, this was not simply the substitution of one term by another, but involved the jettisoning of a range of personal qualities relating to the conduct of philosophy and the living of the philosophical life.
  22.  MacRitchie, Finlay (2011). “Introduction”. Scientific Research as a Career. New York: Routledge. pp. 1–6. ISBN 978-1-4398-6965-9. Archived from the original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  23.  Marder, Michael P. (2011). “Curiosity and research”. Research Methods for Science. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–17. ISBN 978-0-521-14584-8. Archived from the original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  24.  de Ridder, Jeroen (2020). “How many scientists does it take to have knowledge?”. In McCain, Kevin; Kampourakis, Kostas (eds.). What is Scientific Knowledge? An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology of Science. New York: Routledge. pp. 3–17. ISBN 978-1-138-57016-0. Archived from the original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  25.  Szycher, Michael (2016). “Establishing your dream team”. Commercialization Secrets for Scientists and Engineers. New York: Routledge. pp. 159–176. ISBN 978-1-138-40741-1. Archived from the original on 18 August 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  26.  “Science”. Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Archived from the original on 1 September 2019. Retrieved 16 October 2011.
  27.  Vaan, Michiel de (2008). “sciō”. Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the other Italic Languages. Indo-European Etymological Dictionary. p. 545. ISBN 978-90-04-16797-1.
  28.  Cahan, David (2003). From natural philosophy to the sciences: writing the history of nineteenth-century science. University of Chicago Press. pp. 3–15. ISBN 0-226-08927-4.
  29.  Ross, Sydney (1962). “Scientist: The story of a word”. Annals of Science. 18 (2): 65–85. doi:10.1080/00033796200202722.
  30.  “scientist”. Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.)
  31.  Ehret, Christopher (20 June 2023). Ancient Africa: A Global History, to 300 CE. Princeton University Press. p. 107. ISBN 978-0-691-24409-9.
  32.  Carruthers, Peter (2 May 2002). Carruthers, Peter; Stich, Stephen; Siegal, Michael (eds.). “The roots of scientific reasoning: infancy, modularity and the art of tracking”. The Cognitive Basis of Science. Cambridge University Press. pp. 73–96. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511613517.005. ISBN 978-0-521-81229-0.
  33.  Lombard, Marlize; Gärdenfors, Peter (2017). “Tracking the Evolution of Causal Cognition in Humans”. Journal of Anthropological Sciences. 95 (95): 219–234. doi:10.4436/JASS.95006. ISSN 1827-4765. PMID 28489015.
  34.  Graeber, David; Wengrow, David (2021). The Dawn of Everything. p. 248.
  35.  Budd, Paul; Taylor, Timothy (1995). “The Faerie Smith Meets the Bronze Industry: Magic Versus Science in the Interpretation of Prehistoric Metal-Making”. World Archaeology. 27 (1): 133–143. Bibcode:1995WoArc..27..133B. doi:10.1080/00438243.1995.9980297. JSTOR 124782.
  36.  Tuomela, Raimo (1987). “Science, Protoscience, and Pseudoscience”. In Pitt, J. C.; Pera, M. (eds.). Rational Changes in Science. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Vol. 98. Dordrecht: Springer. pp. 83–101. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-3779-6_4. ISBN 978-94-010-8181-8.
  37.  Smith, Pamela H. (2009). “Science on the Move: Recent Trends in the History of Early Modern Science”. Renaissance Quarterly. 62 (2): 345–375. doi:10.1086/599864. PMID 19750597. S2CID 43643053.
  38.  Fleck, Robert (March 2021). “Fundamental Themes in Physics from the History of Art”. Physics in Perspective. 23 (1): 25–48. Bibcode:2021PhP….23…25F. doi:10.1007/s00016-020-00269-7. ISSN 1422-6944. S2CID 253597172.
  39.  Scott, Colin (2011). “The Case of James Bay Cree Knowledge Construction”. In Harding, Sandra (ed.). Science for the West, Myth for the Rest?. The Postcolonial Science and Technology Studies Reader. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. pp. 175–197. doi:10.2307/j.ctv11g96cc.16. ISBN 978-0-8223-4936-5. JSTOR j.ctv11g96cc.16.
  40.  Dear, Peter (2012). “Historiography of Not-So-Recent Science”. History of Science. 50 (2): 197–211. doi:10.1177/007327531205000203. S2CID 141599452.
  41.  Rochberg, Francesca (2011). “Ch.1 Natural Knowledge in Ancient Mesopotamia”. In Shank, Michael; Numbers, Ronald; Harrison, Peter (eds.). Wrestling with Nature: From Omens to Science. University of Chicago Press. p. 9. ISBN 978-0-226-31783-0.
  42.  Krebs, Robert E. (2004). Groundbreaking Scientific Experiments, Inventions, and Discoveries of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 127. ISBN 978-0-313-32433-8.
  43.  Erlich, Ḥaggai; Gershoni, Israel (2000). The Nile: Histories, Cultures, Myths. Lynne Rienner. pp. 80–81. ISBN 978-1-55587-672-2. Retrieved 9 January 2020. The Nile occupied an important position in Egyptian culture; it influenced the development of mathematics, geography, and the calendar; Egyptian geometry advanced due to the practice of land measurement “because the overflow of the Nile caused the boundary of each person’s land to disappear.”
  44.  “Telling Time in Ancient Egypt”. The Met’s Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. February 2017. Archived from the original on 3 March 2022. Retrieved 27 May 2022.
  45.  Armelagos, George (2000). “Take Two Beers and Call Me in 1,600 Years: Use of Tetracycline by Nubians and Ancient Egyptians”. Natural History. 109 (5): 50–3. S2CID 89542474.
  46.  Depuydt, Leo (1 January 1998). “Gnomons at Meroë and Early Trigonometry”. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology. 84: 171–180. doi:10.2307/3822211. JSTOR 3822211.
  47.  Slayman, Andrew (27 May 1998). “Neolithic Skywatchers”. Archaeology Magazine Archive. Archived from the original on 5 June 2011. Retrieved 17 April 2011.
  48.  Neugebauer, O. (17 September 2004). A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 978-3-540-06995-9.
  49.  McIntosh, Jane R. (2005). Ancient Mesopotamia: New Perspectives. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. pp. 273–276. ISBN 978-1-57607-966-9. Retrieved 20 October 2020.
  50.  Aaboe, Asger (2 May 1974). “Scientific Astronomy in Antiquity”. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. 276 (1257): 21–42. Bibcode:1974RSPTA.276…21A. doi:10.1098/rsta.1974.0007. JSTOR 74272. S2CID 122508567.
  51.  Biggs, R. D. (2005). “Medicine, Surgery, and Public Health in Ancient Mesopotamia”. Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies. 19 (1): 7–18.
  52.  Lehoux, Daryn (2011). “2. Natural Knowledge in the Classical World”. In Shank, Michael; Numbers, Ronald; Harrison, Peter (eds.). Wrestling with Nature: From Omens to Science. University of Chicago Press. p. 39. ISBN 978-0-226-31783-0.
  53.  An account of the pre-Socratic use of the concept of φύσις may be found in Naddaf, Gerard (2006). The Greek Concept of Nature. SUNY Press, and in Ducarme, Frédéric; Couvet, Denis (2020). “What does ‘nature’ mean?” (PDF). Palgrave Communications. 6 (14) 14. Springer Nature. doi:10.1057/s41599-020-0390-y. Archived (PDF) from the original on 16 August 2023. Retrieved 16 August 2023. The word φύσις, while first used in connection with a plant in Homer, occurs early in Greek philosophy, and in several senses. Generally, these senses match rather well the current senses in which the English word nature is used, as confirmed by Guthrie, W. K. C. Presocratic Tradition from Parmenides to Democritus (volume 2 of his History of Greek Philosophy), Cambridge University Press, 1965.
  54.  Strauss, Leo; Gildin, Hilail (1989). “Progress or Return? The Contemporary Crisis in Western Education”. An Introduction to Political Philosophy: Ten Essays by Leo Strauss. Wayne State University Press. p. 209. ISBN 978-0-8143-1902-4. Retrieved 30 May 2022.
  55.  O’Grady, Patricia F. (2016). Thales of Miletus: The Beginnings of Western Science and Philosophy. New York: Routledge. p. 245. ISBN 978-0-7546-0533-1. Retrieved 20 October 2020.
  56.  Burkert, Walter (1 June 1972). Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-53918-1.
  57.  Pullman, Bernard (1998). The Atom in the History of Human Thought. Oxford University Press. pp. 31–33. Bibcode:1998ahht.book…..P. ISBN 978-0-19-515040-7. Retrieved 20 October 2020.
  58.  Cohen, Henri; Lefebvre, Claire, eds. (2017). Handbook of Categorization in Cognitive Science (2nd ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier. p. 427. ISBN 978-0-08-101107-2. Retrieved 20 October 2020.
  59.  Lucretius (fl.1st century BCE) De rerum natura
  60.  Margotta, Roberto (1968). The Story of Medicine. New York: Golden Press. Retrieved 18 November 2020.
  61.  Touwaide, Alain (2005). Glick, Thomas F.; Livesey, Steven; Wallis, Faith (eds.). Medieval Science, Technology, and Medicine: An Encyclopedia. New York: Routledge. p. 224. ISBN 978-0-415-96930-7. Retrieved 20 October 2020.
  62.  Leff, Samuel; Leff, Vera (1956). From Witchcraft to World Health. London: Macmillan. Retrieved 23 August 2020.
  63.  “Plato, Apology”. p. 17. Archived from the original on 29 January 2018. Retrieved 1 November 2017.
  64.  “Plato, Apology”. p. 27. Archived from the original on 29 January 2018. Retrieved 1 November 2017.
  65.  Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics (H. Rackham ed.). 1139b. Archived from the original on 17 March 2012. Retrieved 22 September 2010.
  66.  McClellan, James E. III; Dorn, Harold (2015). Science and Technology in World History: An Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 99–100. ISBN 978-1-4214-1776-9. Retrieved 20 October 2020.
  67.  Graßhoff, Gerd (1990). The History of Ptolemy’s Star Catalogue. Studies in the History of Mathematics and Physical Sciences. Vol. 14. New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-4468-4. ISBN 978-1-4612-8788-9.
  68.  Hoffmann, Susanne M. (2017). Hipparchs Himmelsglobus (in German). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. Bibcode:2017hihi.book…..H. doi:10.1007/978-3-658-18683-8. ISBN 978-3-658-18682-1.
  69.  Edwards, C. H. Jr. (1979). The Historical Development of the Calculus. New York: Springer. p. 75. ISBN 978-0-387-94313-8. Retrieved 20 October 2020.
  70.  Lawson, Russell M. (2004). Science in the Ancient World: An Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. pp. 190–191. ISBN 978-1-85109-539-1. Retrieved 20 October 2020.
  71.  Murphy, Trevor Morgan (2004). Pliny the Elder’s Natural History: The Empire in the Encyclopedia. Oxford University Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-19-926288-5. Retrieved 20 October 2020.
  72.  Doody, Aude (2010). Pliny’s Encyclopedia: The Reception of the Natural History. Cambridge University Press. p. 1. ISBN 978-1-139-48453-4. Retrieved 20 October 2020.
  73.  Conner, Clifford D. (2005). A People’s History of Science: Miners, Midwives, and “Low Mechanicks”. New York: Nation Books. pp. 72–74. ISBN 1-56025-748-2.
  74.  Grant, Edward (1996). The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages: Their Religious, Institutional and Intellectual Contexts. Cambridge Studies in the History of Science. Cambridge University Press. pp. 7–17. ISBN 978-0-521-56762-6. Retrieved 9 November 2018.
  75.  Wildberg, Christian (1 May 2018). “Philoponus”. In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the original on 22 August 2019. Retrieved 1 May 2018.
  76.  Falcon, Andrea (2019). “Aristotle on Causality”. In Zalta, Edward (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Archived from the original on 9 October 2020. Retrieved 3 October 2020.
  77.  Fisher, W. B. (1968–1991). The Cambridge history of Iran. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-20093-6.
  78.  “Bayt al-Hikmah”. Encyclopædia Britannica. Archived from the original on 4 November 2016. Retrieved 3 November 2016.
  79.  Hossein Nasr, Seyyed; Leaman, Oliver, eds. (2001). History of Islamic Philosophy. Routledge. pp. 165–167. ISBN 978-0-415-25934-7.
  80.  Smith, A. Mark (2001). Alhacen’s Theory of Visual Perception: A Critical Edition, with English Translation and Commentary, of the First Three Books of Alhacen’s De Aspectibus, the Medieval Latin Version of Ibn al-Haytham’s Kitāb al-Manāẓir: Volume Two. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. Vol. 91, parts 4 & 5. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society. ISBN 978-0-87169-914-5.
  81.  Toomer, G. J. (1964). “Reviewed work: Ibn al-Haythams Weg zur Physik, Matthias Schramm”. Isis. 55 (4): 463–465. doi:10.1086/349914. JSTOR 228328. See p. 464: “Schramm sums up [Ibn Al-Haytham’s] achievement in the development of scientific method.”, p. 465: “Schramm has demonstrated .. beyond any dispute that Ibn al-Haytham is a major figure in the Islamic scientific tradition, particularly in the creation of experimental techniques.” p. 465: “only when the influence of Ibn al-Haytham and others on the mainstream of later medieval physical writings has been seriously investigated can Schramm’s claim that Ibn al-Haytham was the true founder of modern physics be evaluated.”
  82.  Cohen, H. Floris (2010). “Greek nature knowledge transplanted: The Islamic world”. How modern science came into the world. Four civilizations, one 17th-century breakthrough (2nd ed.). Amsterdam University Press. pp. 99–156. ISBN 978-90-8964-239-4.
  83.  Selin, Helaine, ed. (2006). Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures. Springer. pp. 155–156. Bibcode:2008ehst.book…..S. ISBN 978-1-4020-4559-2.
  84.  Russell, Josiah C. (1959). “Gratian, Irnerius, and the Early Schools of Bologna”. The Mississippi Quarterly. 12 (4): 168–188. JSTOR 26473232. Perhaps even as early as 1088 (the date officially set for the founding of the University)
  85.  “St. Albertus Magnus”. Encyclopædia Britannica. Archived from the original on 28 October 2017. Retrieved 27 October 2017.
  86.  Numbers, Ronald (2009). Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion. Harvard University Press. p. 45. ISBN 978-0-674-03327-6. Archived from the original on 20 January 2021. Retrieved 27 March 2018.
  87.  Smith, A. Mark (1981). “Getting the Big Picture in Perspectivist Optics”. Isis. 72 (4): 568–589. doi:10.1086/352843. JSTOR 231249. PMID 7040292. S2CID 27806323.
  88.  “The man who had deposed the earth from its proud position as the centre of the universe and had recognized it to be merely one of the planets, had yet felt compelled to give it quite an exceptional position in his new system. Though he had said ‘in the midst of all stand the sun,’ he had in his planetary theories assumed the centre of all movements to be the centre of the earth’s orbit, where the sun was not.” Dreyer, J.L.E. A History of Astronomy from Thales to Kepler, (Dover Publications, 1953). p.343. ISBN 9780486600796
  89.  “…it was obvious to Copernicus…that the earth cannot move uniformly about a circle with the sun at the center. Thus Copernicus placed the sun not at the center of the earth’s orbit, but at some distance away. The center of the solar system, and of the universe, in the system of Copernicus is thus not the sun at all, but rather a ‘mean sun,’ of the center of the earth’s orbit. Hence, it is preferable to call the Copernican system a heliostatic system rather than a heliocentric system.” Cohen, I. Bernard. The Birth of a New Physics (Revised and Updated) (W.W. Norton & Company, 1985). p.44. ISBN 0-393-01994-2
  90.  “All movement within it (outside of the immediate vicinity of the Earth) is determined by the fundamental principle that heavenly movement is circular and therefore unchanging. Ptolemy, Copernicus thought, had betrayed this principle not…by adding epicycles to deferents in order to explain why the planets sometimes appear to move backwards in the sky, but by introducing the equant in order to speed them up and slow them down.” Wootton, David. The Invention of Science: A New History of the Scientific Revolution (Penguin, 2015). p.152. ISBN 0-06-175952-X
  91.  “My Copernican census eventually helped to establish that the majority of sixteenth-century astronomers thought eliminating the equant was Copernicus’ big achievement, because it satisfied the ancient aesthetic principle that eternal celestial motions should be uniform and circular or compounded of uniform and circular parts.” Gingerich, Owen. The Book Nobody Read (Walker & Company, 2004).p.55. ISBN 0-8027-1415-3
  92.  “It is easy to show that conventional Ptolemaic astronomy was thriving until 1610 [when Galileo observed the phases of Venus with a telescope] and went into crisis immediately afterwards…The evidence is clear: Ptolemaic astronomy was unaffected by Copernicus; it went into crisis briefly with the new star of 1572, but by the end of the sixteenth century it had fully recovered. The telescope, on the other hand, brought about its immediate and irreversible collapse.” Wootton, David. The Invention of Science: A New History of the Scientific Revolution (Penguin, 2015). p.152. ISBN 0-06-175952-X
  93.  Cohen, H. Floris (2010). “Greek nature knowledge transplanted and more: Renaissance Europe”. How modern science came into the world. Four civilizations, one 17th-century breakthrough (2nd ed.). Amsterdam University Press. pp. 99–156. ISBN 978-90-8964-239-4.
  94.  Koestler, Arthur (1990) [1959]. The Sleepwalkers: A History of Man’s Changing Vision of the Universe. London: Penguin. p. 1. ISBN 0-14-019246-8.
  95.  van Helden, Al (1995). “Pope Urban VIII”. The Galileo Project. Archived from the original on 11 November 2016. Retrieved 3 November 2016.
  96.  Gingerich, Owen (1975). “Copernicus and the Impact of Printing”. Vistas in Astronomy. 17 (1): 201–218. Bibcode:1975VA…..17..201G. doi:10.1016/0083-6656(75)90061-6.
  97.  Zagorin, Perez (1998). Francis Bacon. Princeton University Press. p. 84. ISBN 978-0-691-00966-7.
  98.  Davis, Philip J.; Hersh, Reuben (1986). Descartes’ Dream: The World According to Mathematics. Cambridge, MA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
  99.  Gribbin, John (2002). Science: A History 1543–2001. Allen Lane. p. 241. ISBN 978-0-7139-9503-9. Although it was just one of the many factors in the Enlightenment, the success of Newtonian physics in providing a mathematical description of an ordered world clearly played a big part in the flowering of this movement in the eighteenth century
  100.  “Gottfried Leibniz – Biography”. Maths History. Archived from the original on 11 July 2017. Retrieved 2 March 2021.
  101.  Freudenthal, Gideon; McLaughlin, Peter (20 May 2009). The Social and Economic Roots of the Scientific Revolution: Texts by Boris Hessen and Henryk Grossmann. Springer. ISBN 978-1-4020-9604-4. Retrieved 25 July 2018.
  102.  Goddard Bergin, Thomas; Speake, Jennifer, eds. (1987). Encyclopedia of the Renaissance. Facts on File. ISBN 978-0-8160-1315-9.
  103.  van Horn Melton, James (2001). The Rise of the Public in Enlightenment Europe. Cambridge University Press. pp. 82–83. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511819421. ISBN 978-0-511-81942-1. Archived from the original on 20 January 2022. Retrieved 27 May 2022.
  104.  “The Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment (1500–1780)” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 14 January 2024. Retrieved 29 January 2024.
  105.  “Scientific Revolution”. Encyclopædia Britannica. Archived from the original on 18 May 2019. Retrieved 29 January 2024.
  106.  Madigan, M.; Martinko, J., eds. (2006). Brock Biology of Microorganisms (11th ed.). Prentice Hall. ISBN 978-0-13-144329-7.
  107.  Guicciardini, N. (1999). Reading the Principia: The Debate on Newton’s Methods for Natural Philosophy from 1687 to 1736. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-64066-4.
  108.  Calisher, CH (2007). “Taxonomy: what’s in a name? Doesn’t a rose by any other name smell as sweet?”. Croatian Medical Journal. 48 (2): 268–270. PMC 2080517. PMID 17436393.
  109.  Darrigol, Olivier (2000). Electrodynamics from Ampère to Einstein. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-850594-9.
  110.  Olby, R. C.; Cantor, G. N.; Christie, J. R. R.; Hodge, M. J. S. (1990). Companion to the History of Modern Science. London: Routledge. p. 265.
  111.  Magnusson, Magnus (10 November 2003). “Review of James Buchan, Capital of the Mind: how Edinburgh Changed the World“. New Statesman. Archived from the original on 6 June 2011. Retrieved 27 April 2014.
  112.  Swingewood, Alan (1970). “Origins of Sociology: The Case of the Scottish Enlightenment”. The British Journal of Sociology. 21 (2): 164–180. doi:10.2307/588406. JSTOR 588406.
  113.  Fry, Michael (1992). Adam Smith’s Legacy: His Place in the Development of Modern Economics. Paul Samuelson, Lawrence Klein, Franco Modigliani, James M. Buchanan, Maurice Allais, Theodore Schultz, Richard Stone, James Tobin, Wassily Leontief, Jan Tinbergen. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-06164-3.
  114.  Lightman, Bernard (2011). “13. Science and the Public”. In Shank, Michael; Numbers, Ronald; Harrison, Peter (eds.). Wrestling with Nature: From Omens to Science. University of Chicago Press. p. 367. ISBN 978-0-226-31783-0.
  115.  Leahey, Thomas Hardy (2018). “The psychology of consciousness”. A History of Psychology: From Antiquity to Modernity (8th ed.). New York: Routledge. pp. 219–253. ISBN 978-1-138-65242-2.
  116.  Padian, Kevin (2008). “Darwin’s enduring legacy”. Nature. 451 (7179): 632–634. Bibcode:2008Natur.451..632P. doi:10.1038/451632a. PMID 18256649.
  117.  Henig, Robin Marantz (2000). The monk in the garden: the lost and found genius of Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics. pp. 134–138.
  118.  Miko, Ilona (2008). “Gregor Mendel’s principles of inheritance form the cornerstone of modern genetics. So just what are they?”. Nature Education. 1 (1): 134. Archived from the original on 19 July 2019. Retrieved 9 May 2021.
  119.  Rocke, Alan J. (2005). “In Search of El Dorado: John Dalton and the Origins of the Atomic Theory”. Social Research. 72 (1): 125–158. doi:10.1353/sor.2005.0003. JSTOR 40972005. S2CID 141350239.
  120.  Reichl, Linda (1980). A Modern Course in Statistical Physics. Edward Arnold. ISBN 0-7131-2789-9.
  121.  Rao, Y. V. C. (1997). Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics. Universities Press. p. 158. ISBN 978-81-7371-048-3.
  122.  Heidrich, M. (2016). “Bounded energy exchange as an alternative to the third law of thermodynamics”. Annals of Physics. 373: 665–681. Bibcode:2016AnPhy.373..665H. doi:10.1016/j.aop.2016.07.031.
  123.  Mould, Richard F. (1995). A century of X-rays and radioactivity in medicine: with emphasis on photographic records of the early years (Reprint. with minor corr ed.). Bristol: Inst. of Physics Publ. p. 12. ISBN 978-0-7503-0224-1.
  124.  Estreicher, Tadeusz (1938). “Curie, Maria ze Skłodowskich”. Polski słownik biograficzny, vol. 4 (in Polish). p. 113.
  125.  Thomson, J. J. (1897). “Cathode Rays”. Philosophical Magazine. 44 (269): 293–316. Bibcode:1897LEDPM..44..293T. doi:10.1080/14786449708621070.
  126.  Goyotte, Dolores (2017). “The Surgical Legacy of World War II. Part II: The age of antibiotics” (PDF). The Surgical Technologist. 109: 257–264. Archived (PDF) from the original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 8 January 2021.
  127.  Erisman, Jan Willem; Sutton, M. A.; Galloway, J.; Klimont, Z.; Winiwarter, W. (October 2008). “How a century of ammonia synthesis changed the world”. Nature Geoscience. 1 (10): 636–639. Bibcode:2008NatGe…1..636E. doi:10.1038/ngeo325. S2CID 94880859. Archived from the original on 23 July 2010. Retrieved 22 October 2010.
  128.  Emmett, Robert; Zelko, Frank (2014). Emmett, Rob; Zelko, Frank (eds.). “Minding the Gap: Working Across Disciplines in Environmental Studies”. Environment & Society Portal. RCC Perspectives no. 2. doi:10.5282/rcc/6313. Archived from the original on 21 January 2022.
  129.  Furner, Jonathan (1 June 2003). “Little Book, Big Book: Before and After Little Science, Big Science: A Review Article, Part I”. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science. 35 (2): 115–125. doi:10.1177/0961000603352006. S2CID 34844169.
  130.  Kraft, Chris; Schefter, James (2001). Flight: My Life in Mission Control. New York: Dutton. pp. 3–5. ISBN 0-525-94571-7.
  131.  Kahn, Herman (1962). Thinking about the Unthinkable. Horizon.
  132.  Shrum, Wesley (2007). Structures of scientific collaboration. Joel Genuth, Ivan Chompalov. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-28358-8.
  133.  Rosser, Sue V. (12 March 2012). Breaking into the Lab: Engineering Progress for Women in Science. New York University Press. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-8147-7645-2.
  134.  Penzias, A. A. (2006). “The origin of elements” (PDF). Science. 205 (4406). Nobel Foundation: 549–554. doi:10.1126/science.205.4406.549. PMID 17729659. Archived (PDF) from the original on 17 January 2011. Retrieved 4 October 2006.
  135.  Weinberg, S. (1972). Gravitation and Cosmology. John Whitney & Sons. pp. 464–495. ISBN 978-0-471-92567-5.
  136.  Futuyma, Douglas J.; Kirkpatrick, Mark (2017). “Chapter 1: Evolutionary Biology”. Evolution (4th ed.). Sinauer. pp. 3–26. ISBN 978-1-60535-605-1.
  137.  Miller, Arthur I. (1981). Albert Einstein’s special theory of relativity. Emergence (1905) and early interpretation (1905–1911). Reading: Addison–Wesley. ISBN 978-0-201-04679-3.
  138.  ter Haar, D. (1967). The Old Quantum Theory. Pergamon. pp. 206. ISBN 978-0-08-012101-7.
  139.  von Bertalanffy, Ludwig (1972). “The History and Status of General Systems Theory”. The Academy of Management Journal. 15 (4): 407–426. Bibcode:1972AManJ..15..407V. JSTOR 255139.
  140.  Naidoo, Nasheen; Pawitan, Yudi; Soong, Richie; Cooper, David N.; Ku, Chee-Seng (October 2011). “Human genetics and genomics a decade after the release of the draft sequence of the human genome”. Human Genomics. 5 (6): 577–622. doi:10.1186/1479-7364-5-6-577. PMC 3525251. PMID 22155605.
  141.  Rashid, S. Tamir; Alexander, Graeme J. M. (March 2013). “Induced pluripotent stem cells: from Nobel Prizes to clinical applications”. Journal of Hepatology. 58 (3): 625–629. doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2012.10.026. ISSN 1600-0641. PMID 23131523.
  142.  O’Luanaigh, C. (14 March 2013). “New results indicate that new particle is a Higgs boson” (Press release). CERN. Archived from the original on 20 October 2015. Retrieved 9 October 2013.
  143.  Abbott, B. P.; Abbott, R.; Abbott, T. D.; Acernese, F.; Ackley, K.; Adams, C.; Adams, T.; Addesso, P.; Adhikari, R. X.; Adya, V. B.; Affeldt, C.; Afrough, M.; Agarwal, B.; Agathos, M.; Agatsuma, K.; Aggarwal, N.; Aguiar, O. D.; Aiello, L.; Ain, A.; Ajith, P.; Allen, B.; Allen, G.; Allocca, A.; Altin, P. A.; Amato, A.; Ananyeva, A.; Anderson, S. B.; Anderson, W. G.; Angelova, S. V.; et al. (2017). “Multi-messenger Observations of a Binary Neutron Star Merger”. The Astrophysical Journal. 848 (2): L12. arXiv:1710.05833. Bibcode:2017ApJ…848L..12A. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9. S2CID 217162243.
  144.  Cho, Adrian (2017). “Merging neutron stars generate gravitational waves and a celestial light show”. Science. doi:10.1126/science.aar2149.
  145.  “Media Advisory: First Results from the Event Horizon Telescope to be Presented on April 10th”. Event Horizon Telescope. 20 April 2019. Archived from the original on 20 April 2019. Retrieved 21 September 2021.
  146.  “Scientific Method: Relationships Among Scientific Paradigms”. Seed Magazine. 7 March 2007. Archived from the original on 1 November 2016. Retrieved 4 November 2016.
  147.  Bunge, Mario Augusto (1998). Philosophy of Science: From Problem to Theory. Transaction. p. 24. ISBN 978-0-7658-0413-6.
  148.  Popper, Karl R. (2002a) [1959]. “A survey of some fundamental problems”. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Routledge. pp. 3–26. ISBN 978-0-415-27844-7.
  149.  Gauch, Hugh G. Jr. (2003). “Science in perspective”. Scientific Method in Practice. Cambridge University Press. pp. 21–73. ISBN 978-0-521-01708-4. Retrieved 3 September 2018.
  150.  Oglivie, Brian W. (2008). “Introduction”. The Science of Describing: Natural History in Renaissance Europe (Paperback ed.). University of Chicago Press. pp. 1–24. ISBN 978-0-226-62088-6.
  151.  “Natural History”. Princeton University WordNet. Archived from the original on 3 March 2012. Retrieved 21 October 2012.
  152.  “Formal Sciences: Washington and Lee University”. Washington and Lee University. Archived from the original on 14 May 2021. Retrieved 14 May 2021. A “formal science” is an area of study that uses formal systems to generate knowledge such as in Mathematics and Computer Science. Formal sciences are important subjects because all of quantitative science depends on them.
  153.  Löwe, Benedikt (2002). “The formal sciences: their scope, their foundations, and their unity”. Synthese. 133 (1/2): 5–11. doi:10.1023/A:1020887832028. ISSN 0039-7857. S2CID 9272212.
  154.  Rucker, Rudy (2019). “Robots and souls”. Infinity and the Mind: The Science and Philosophy of the Infinite (Reprint ed.). Princeton University Press. pp. 157–188. ISBN 978-0-691-19138-6. Archived from the original on 26 February 2021. Retrieved 11 May 2021.
  155.  “Formal system”. Encyclopædia Britannica. Archived from the original on 29 April 2008. Retrieved 30 May 2022.
  156.  Tomalin, Marcus (2006). Linguistics and the Formal Sciences.
  157.  Löwe, Benedikt (2002). “The Formal Sciences: Their Scope, Their Foundations, and Their Unity”. Synthese. 133 (1/2): 5–11. doi:10.1023/a:1020887832028. S2CID 9272212.
  158.  Bill, Thompson (2007). “2.4 Formal Science and Applied Mathematics”. The Nature of Statistical Evidence. Lecture Notes in Statistics. Vol. 189. Springer. p. 15.
  159.  Bunge, Mario (1998). “The Scientific Approach”. Philosophy of Science: Volume 1, From Problem to Theory. Vol. 1 (revised ed.). New York: Routledge. pp. 3–50. ISBN 978-0-7658-0413-6.
  160.  Mujumdar, Anshu Gupta; Singh, Tejinder (2016). “Cognitive science and the connection between physics and mathematics”. In Aguirre, Anthony; Foster, Brendan (eds.). Trick or Truth?: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics. The Frontiers Collection. Switzerland: Springer. pp. 201–218. ISBN 978-3-319-27494-2.
  161.  “About the Journal”. Journal of Mathematical Physics. Archived from the original on 3 October 2006. Retrieved 3 October 2006.
  162.  Restrepo, G. (2016). “Mathematical chemistry, a new discipline”. In Scerri, E.; Fisher, G. (eds.). Essays in the philosophy of chemistry. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 332–351. ISBN 978-0-19-049459-9. Archived from the original on 10 June 2021. Retrieved 31 May 2022.
  163.  “What is mathematical biology”. Centre for Mathematical Biology, University of Bath. Archived from the original on 23 September 2018. Retrieved 7 June 2018.
  164.  Johnson, Tim (1 September 2009). “What is financial mathematics?”. +Plus Magazine. Archived from the original on 8 April 2022. Retrieved 1 March 2021.
  165.  Varian, Hal (1997). “What Use Is Economic Theory?”. In D’Autume, A.; Cartelier, J. (eds.). Is Economics Becoming a Hard Science?. Edward Elgar. Pre-publication. Archived 25 June 2006 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved 1 April 2008.
  166.  Abraham, Reem Rachel (2004). “Clinically oriented physiology teaching: strategy for developing critical-thinking skills in undergraduate medical students”. Advances in Physiology Education. 28 (3): 102–104. doi:10.1152/advan.00001.2004. PMID 15319191. S2CID 21610124.
  167.  “Engineering”. Cambridge Dictionary. Cambridge University Press. Archived from the original on 19 August 2019. Retrieved 25 March 2021.
  168.  Brooks, Harvey (1 September 1994). “The relationship between science and technology” (PDF). Research Policy. Special Issue in Honor of Nathan Rosenberg. 23 (5): 477–486. doi:10.1016/0048-7333(94)01001-3. ISSN 0048-7333. Archived (PDF) from the original on 30 December 2022. Retrieved 14 October 2022.
  169.  Firth, John (2020). “Science in medicine: when, how, and what”. Oxford textbook of medicine. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-874669-0.
  170.  Saunders, J. (June 2000). “The practice of clinical medicine as an art and as a science”. Med Humanit. 26 (1): 18–22. doi:10.1136/mh.26.1.18. PMC 1071282. PMID 12484313. S2CID 73306806.
  171.  Davis, Bernard D. (March 2000). “Limited scope of science”. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews. 64 (1): 1–12. doi:10.1128/MMBR.64.1.1-12.2000. PMC 98983. PMID 10704471 & “Technology” in Davis, Bernard (March 2000). “The scientist’s world”. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews. 64 (1): 1–12. doi:10.1128/MMBR.64.1.1-12.2000. PMC 98983. PMID 10704471.
  172.  McCormick, James (2001). “Scientific medicine—fact of fiction? The contribution of science to medicine”. Occasional Paper (Royal College of General Practitioners) (80): 3–6. PMC 2560978. PMID 19790950.
  173.  Bell, David (2005). Science, Technology and Culture. McGraw-Hill International. p. 33. ISBN 978-0-335-21326-9.
  174.  Henderson, Mark (19 September 2005). “Politics clouds blue-sky science”. The Times. Archived from the original on 1 March 2007. Retrieved 26 April 2010.
  175.  Breznau, Nate (2022). “Integrating Computer Prediction Methods in Social Science: A Comment on Hofman et al. (2021)”. Social Science Computer Review. 40 (3): 844–853. doi:10.1177/08944393211049776. S2CID 248334446. Archived from the original on 29 April 2024. Retrieved 16 August 2023.
  176.  Hofman, Jake M.; Watts, Duncan J.; Athey, Susan; Garip, Filiz; Griffiths, Thomas L.; Kleinberg, Jon; Margetts, Helen; Mullainathan, Sendhil; Salganik, Matthew J.; Vazire, Simine; Vespignani, Alessandro (July 2021). “Integrating explanation and prediction in computational social science”. Nature. 595 (7866): 181–188. Bibcode:2021Natur.595..181H. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03659-0. ISSN 1476-4687. PMID 34194044. S2CID 235697917. Archived from the original on 25 September 2021. Retrieved 25 September 2021.
  177.  Nissani, M. (1995). “Fruits, Salads, and Smoothies: A Working definition of Interdisciplinarity”. The Journal of Educational Thought. 29 (2): 121–128. doi:10.55016/ojs/jet.v29i2.52385. JSTOR 23767672.
  178.  Moody, G. (2004). Digital Code of Life: How Bioinformatics is Revolutionizing Science, Medicine, and Business. John Wiley & Sons. p. vii. ISBN 978-0-471-32788-2.
  179.  Ausburg, Tanya (2006). Becoming Interdisciplinary: An Introduction to Interdisciplinary Studies (2nd ed.). New York: Kendall/Hunt Publishing.
  180.  Dawkins, Richard (10 May 2006). “To Live at All Is Miracle Enough”. RichardDawkins.net. Archived from the original on 19 January 2012. Retrieved 5 February 2012.
  181.  di Francia, Giuliano Toraldo (1976). “The method of physics”. The Investigation of the Physical World. Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–52. ISBN 978-0-521-29925-1. The amazing point is that for the first time since the discovery of mathematics, a method has been introduced, the results of which have an intersubjective value!
  182.  Diggle, Peter J.; Chetwynd, Amanda G. (2011). Statistics and Scientific Method: An Introduction for Students and Researchers. Oxford University Press. pp. 1–2. ISBN 978-0-19-954318-2.
  183.  Wilson, Edward (1999). Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. New York: Vintage. ISBN 978-0-679-76867-8.
  184.  Fara, Patricia (2009). “Decisions”. Science: A Four Thousand Year History. Oxford University Press. p. 408. ISBN 978-0-19-922689-4.
  185.  Aldrich, John (1995). “Correlations Genuine and Spurious in Pearson and Yule”. Statistical Science. 10 (4): 364–376. Bibcode:1995StaSc..1009870A. doi:10.1214/ss/1177009870. JSTOR 2246135.
  186.  Nola, Robert; Irzik, Gürol (2005). Philosophy, science, education and culture. Science & technology education library. Vol. 28. Springer. pp. 207–230. ISBN 978-1-4020-3769-6.
  187.  van Gelder, Tim (1999). “”Heads I win, tails you lose”: A Foray Into the Psychology of Philosophy” (PDF). University of Melbourne. Archived from the original (PDF) on 9 April 2008. Retrieved 28 March 2008.
  188.  Pease, Craig (6 September 2006). “Chapter 23. Deliberate bias: Conflict creates bad science”. Science for Business, Law and Journalism. Vermont Law School. Archived from the original on 19 June 2010.
  189.  Shatz, David (2004). Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-0-7425-1434-8.
  190.  Krimsky, Sheldon (2003). Science in the Private Interest: Has the Lure of Profits Corrupted the Virtue of Biomedical Research. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-0-7425-1479-9.
  191.  Bulger, Ruth Ellen; Heitman, Elizabeth; Reiser, Stanley Joel (2002). The Ethical Dimensions of the Biological and Health Sciences (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-00886-0.
  192.  Backer, Patricia Ryaby (29 October 2004). “What is the scientific method?”. San Jose State University. Archived from the original on 8 April 2008. Retrieved 28 March 2008.
  193.  Ziman, John (1978c). “Common observation”. Reliable knowledge: An exploration of the grounds for belief in science. Cambridge University Press. pp. 42–76. ISBN 978-0-521-22087-3.
  194.  Ziman, J. M. (1980). “The proliferation of scientific literature: a natural process”. Science. 208 (4442): 369–371. Bibcode:1980Sci…208..369Z. doi:10.1126/science.7367863. PMID 7367863.
  195.  Subramanyam, Krishna; Subramanyam, Bhadriraju (1981). Scientific and Technical Information Resources. CRC Press. ISBN 978-0-8247-8297-9.
  196.  Bush, Vannevar (July 1945). “Science the Endless Frontier”. National Science Foundation. Archived from the original on 7 November 2016. Retrieved 4 November 2016.
  197.  Godfrey-Smith, Peter (2003). Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. University of Chicago. ISBN 978-0-226-30062-7.
  198.  Popper, Karl (1972). Objective Knowledge.
  199.  Newton-Smith, W. H. (1994). The Rationality of Science. London: Routledge. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-7100-0913-5.
  200.  Votsis, I. (2004). The Epistemological Status of Scientific Theories: An Investigation of the Structural Realist Account (PhD thesis). University of London, London School of Economics. p. 39.
  201.  Bird, Alexander (2013). “Thomas Kuhn”. In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived from the original on 15 July 2020. Retrieved 26 October 2015.
  202.  Kuhn, Thomas S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. p. 206. ISBN 978-0-226-45804-5. Archived from the original on 19 October 2021. Retrieved 30 May 2022.
  203.  Brugger, E. Christian (2004). “Casebeer, William D. Natural Ethical Facts: Evolution, Connectionism, and Moral Cognition”. The Review of Metaphysics. 58 (2).
  204.  Ward, Zina B. (10 March 2026). “What Does it Mean to say That Science is Value-Laden?”. The Routledge Handbook of Values and Science. New York: Routledge. pp. 74–83. doi:10.4324/9781003469100-8. ISBN 978-1-003-46910-0. Retrieved 23 March 2026.
  205.  Kornfeld, W.; Hewitt, C. E. (1981). “The Scientific Community Metaphor” (PDF). IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. 11 (1): 24–33. Bibcode:1981ITSMC..11…24K. doi:10.1109/TSMC.1981.4308575. hdl:1721.1/5693. S2CID 1322857. Archived (PDF) from the original on 8 April 2016. Retrieved 26 May 2022.
  206.  “Eusocial climbers” (PDF). E. O. Wilson Foundation. Archived (PDF) from the original on 27 April 2019. Retrieved 3 September 2018. But he’s not a scientist, he’s never done scientific research. My definition of a scientist is that you can complete the following sentence: ‘he or she has shown that…’,” Wilson says.
  207.  “Our definition of a scientist”. Science Council. Archived from the original on 23 August 2019. Retrieved 7 September 2018. A scientist is someone who systematically gathers and uses research and evidence, making a hypothesis and testing it, to gain and share understanding and knowledge.
  208.  Lee, Adrian; Dennis, Carina; Campbell, Phillip (2007). “Nature’s guide for mentors”. Nature. 447 (7677): 791–797. Bibcode:2007Natur.447..791L. doi:10.1038/447791a. PMID 17568738.
  209.  Cyranoski, David; Gilbert, Natasha; Ledford, Heidi; Nayar, Anjali; Yahia, Mohammed (2011). “Education: The PhD factory”. Nature. 472 (7343): 276–279. Bibcode:2011Natur.472..276C. doi:10.1038/472276a. PMID 21512548.
  210.  Kwok, Roberta (2017). “Flexible working: Science in the gig economy”. Nature. 550 (7677): 419–421. doi:10.1038/nj7677-549a.
  211.  Woolston, Chris (2024). “How researchers in remote regions handle the isolation”. Nature. 629 (8014): 1193–1195. Bibcode:2024Natur.629.1193W. doi:10.1038/d41586-024-01523-5. PMID 38789626.
  212.  Whaley, Leigh Ann (2003). Women’s History as Scientists. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.
  213.  Spanier, Bonnie (1995). “From Molecules to Brains, Normal Science Supports Sexist Beliefs about Difference”. Im/partial Science: Gender Identity in Molecular Biology. Indiana University Press. ISBN 978-0-253-20968-9.
  214.  Parrott, Jim (9 August 2007). “Chronicle for Societies Founded from 1323 to 1599”. Scholarly Societies Project. Archived from the original on 6 January 2014. Retrieved 11 September 2007.
  215.  “The Environmental Studies Association of Canada – What is a Learned Society?”. Archived from the original on 29 May 2013. Retrieved 10 May 2013.
  216.  “Learned societies & academies”. Archived from the original on 3 June 2014. Retrieved 10 May 2013.
  217.  “Learned Societies, the key to realising an open access future?”. Impact of Social Sciences. London School of Economics. 24 June 2019. Archived from the original on 5 February 2023. Retrieved 22 January 2023.
  218.  “Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei” (in Italian). 2006. Archived from the original on 28 February 2010. Retrieved 11 September 2007.
  219.  “Prince of Wales opens Royal Society’s refurbished building”. The Royal Society. 7 July 2004. Archived from the original on 9 April 2015. Retrieved 7 December 2009.
  220.  Meynell, G. G. “The French Academy of Sciences, 1666–91: A reassessment of the French Académie royale des sciences under Colbert (1666–83) and Louvois (1683–91)”. Archived from the original on 18 January 2012. Retrieved 13 October 2011.
  221.  “Founding of the National Academy of Sciences”. .nationalacademies.org. Archived from the original on 3 February 2013. Retrieved 12 March 2012.
  222.  “The founding of the Kaiser Wilhelm Society (1911)”. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. Archived from the original on 2 March 2022. Retrieved 30 May 2022.
  223.  “Introduction”. Chinese Academy of Sciences. Archived from the original on 31 March 2022. Retrieved 31 May 2022.
  224.  “Two main Science Councils merge to address complex global challenges”. UNESCO. 5 July 2018. Archived from the original on 12 July 2021. Retrieved 21 October 2018.
  225.  Stockton, Nick (7 October 2014). “How did the Nobel Prize become the biggest award on Earth?”. Wired. Archived from the original on 19 June 2019. Retrieved 3 September 2018.
  226.  “Main Science and Technology Indicators – 2008-1” (PDF). OECD. Archived from the original (PDF) on 15 February 2010.
  227.  OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2015: Innovation for growth and society. OECD. 2015. p. 156. doi:10.1787/sti_scoreboard-2015-en. ISBN 978-92-64-23978-4. Archived from the original on 25 May 2022. Retrieved 28 May 2022 – via oecd-ilibrary.org.
  228.  Kevles, Daniel (1977). “The National Science Foundation and the Debate over Postwar Research Policy, 1942–1945”. Isis. 68 (241): 4–26. doi:10.1086/351711. PMID 320157. S2CID 32956693.
  229.  “Argentina, National Scientific and Technological Research Council (CONICET)”. International Science Council. Archived from the original on 16 May 2022. Retrieved 31 May 2022.
  230.  Innis, Michelle (17 May 2016). “Australia to Lay Off Leading Scientist on Sea Levels”. The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on 7 May 2021. Retrieved 31 May 2022.
  231.  “Le CNRS recherche 10.000 passionnés du blob”. Le Figaro (in French). 20 October 2021. Archived from the original on 27 April 2022. Retrieved 31 May 2022.
  232.  Bredow, Rafaela von (18 December 2021). “How a Prestigious Scientific Organization Came Under Suspicion of Treating Women Unequally”. Der Spiegel. ISSN 2195-1349. Archived from the original on 29 May 2022. Retrieved 31 May 2022.
  233.  “En espera de una “revolucionaria” noticia sobre Sagitario A*, el agujero negro supermasivo en el corazón de nuestra galaxia”. ELMUNDO (in Spanish). 12 May 2022. Archived from the original on 13 May 2022. Retrieved 31 May 2022.
  234.  Fletcher, Anthony C.; Bourne, Philip E. (27 September 2012). “Ten Simple Rules To Commercialize Scientific Research”. PLOS Computational Biology. 8 (9) e1002712. Bibcode:2012PLSCB…8E2712F. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002712. ISSN 1553-734X. PMC 3459878. PMID 23028299.
  235.  Marburger, John Harmen III (10 February 2015). Science policy up close. Crease, Robert P. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-41709-0.
  236.  Gauch, Hugh G. (2012). Scientific Method in Brief. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 7–10. ISBN 978-1-107-66672-6.
  237.  Benneworth, Paul; Jongbloed, Ben W. (31 July 2009). “Who matters to universities? A stakeholder perspective on humanities, arts and social sciences valorisation” (PDF). Higher Education. 59 (5): 567–588. doi:10.1007/s10734-009-9265-2. ISSN 0018-1560. Archived (PDF) from the original on 24 October 2023. Retrieved 16 August 2023.
  238.  Dickson, David (11 October 2004). “Science journalism must keep a critical edge”. Science and Development Network. Archived from the original on 21 June 2010.
  239.  Mooney, Chris (November–December 2004). “Blinded By Science, How ‘Balanced’ Coverage Lets the Scientific Fringe Hijack Reality”. Columbia Journalism Review. Vol. 43, no. 4. Archived from the original on 17 January 2010. Retrieved 20 February 2008.
  240.  McIlwaine, S.; Nguyen, D. A. (2005). “Are Journalism Students Equipped to Write About Science?”. Australian Studies in Journalism. 14: 41–60. Archived from the original on 1 August 2008. Retrieved 20 February 2008.
  241.  Webb, Sarah (December 2013). “Popular science: Get the word out”. Nature. 504 (7478): 177–179. doi:10.1038/nj7478-177a. PMID 24312943.
  242.  Wilde, Fran (21 January 2016). “How Do You Like Your Science Fiction? Ten Authors Weigh In On ‘Hard’ vs. ‘Soft’ SF”. Tor.com. Archived from the original on 4 April 2019. Retrieved 4 April 2019.
  243.  Petrucci, Mario. “Creative Writing – Science”. Archived from the original on 6 January 2009. Retrieved 27 April 2008.
  244.  Tyson, Alec; Funk, Cary; Kennedy, Brian; Johnson, Courtney (15 September 2021). “Majority in U.S. Says Public Health Benefits of COVID-19 Restrictions Worth the Costs, Even as Large Shares Also See Downsides”. Pew Research Center Science & Society. Archived from the original on 9 August 2022. Retrieved 4 August 2022.
  245.  Kennedy, Brian (16 April 2020). “U.S. concern about climate change is rising, but mainly among Democrats”. Pew Research Center. Archived from the original on 3 August 2022. Retrieved 4 August 2022.
  246.  Philipp-Muller, Aviva; Lee, Spike W. S.; Petty, Richard E. (26 July 2022). “Why are people antiscience, and what can we do about it?”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 119 (30) e2120755119. Bibcode:2022PNAS..11920755P. doi:10.1073/pnas.2120755119. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 9335320. PMID 35858405.
  247.  Gauchat, Gordon William (2008). “A Test of Three Theories of Anti-Science Attitudes”. Sociological Focus. 41 (4): 337–357. doi:10.1080/00380237.2008.10571338. S2CID 144645723.
  248.  Poushter, Jacob; Fagan, Moira; Gubbala, Sneha (31 August 2022). “Climate Change Remains Top Global Threat Across 19-Country Survey”. Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project. Archived from the original on 31 August 2022. Retrieved 5 September 2022.
  249.  McRaney, David (2022). How Minds Change: The Surprising Science of Belief, Opinion, and Persuasion. New York: Portfolio/Penguin. ISBN 978-0-593-19029-6.
  250.  McGreal, Chris (26 October 2021). “Revealed: 60% of Americans say oil firms are to blame for the climate crisis”. The Guardian. Archived from the original on 26 October 2021. Source: Guardian/Vice/CCN/YouGov poll. Note: ±4% margin of error.
  251.  Goldberg, Jeanne (2017). “The Politicization of Scientific Issues: Looking through Galileo’s Lens or through the Imaginary Looking Glass”. Skeptical Inquirer. 41 (5): 34–39. Archived from the original on 16 August 2018. Retrieved 16 August 2018.
  252.  Bolsen, Toby; Druckman, James N. (2015). “Counteracting the Politicization of Science”. Journal of Communication (65): 746.
  253.  Freudenberg, William F.; Gramling, Robert; Davidson, Debra J. (2008). “Scientific Certainty Argumentation Methods (SCAMs): Science and the Politics of Doubt” (PDF). Sociological Inquiry. 78 (1): 2–38. doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.2008.00219.x. Archived (PDF) from the original on 26 November 2020. Retrieved 12 April 2020.
  254.  van der Linden, Sander; Leiserowitz, Anthony; Rosenthal, Seth; Maibach, Edward (2017). “Inoculating the Public against Misinformation about Climate Change” (PDF). Global Challenges. 1 (2): 1. Bibcode:2017GloCh…100008V. doi:10.1002/gch2.201600008. PMC 6607159. PMID 31565263. Archived (PDF) from the original on 4 April 2020. Retrieved 25 August 2019.
  255.  Schooler, J. W. (2014). “Metascience could rescue the ‘replication crisis'”. Nature. 515 (7525): 9. Bibcode:2014Natur.515….9S. doi:10.1038/515009a. PMID 25373639.
  256.  Pashler, Harold; Wagenmakers, Eric Jan (2012). “Editors’ Introduction to the Special Section on Replicability in Psychological Science: A Crisis of Confidence?”. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 7 (6): 528–530. doi:10.1177/1745691612465253. PMID 26168108. S2CID 26361121.
  257.  Ioannidis, John P. A.; Fanelli, Daniele; Dunne, Debbie Drake; Goodman, Steven N. (2 October 2015). “Meta-research: Evaluation and Improvement of Research Methods and Practices”. PLOS Biology. 13 (10): –1002264. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002264. ISSN 1545-7885. PMC 4592065. PMID 26431313.
  258.  “Coping with fraud” (PDF). The COPE Report 1999: 11–18. Archived from the original on 28 September 2007. Retrieved 21 July 2011. It is 10 years, to the month, since Stephen Lock … Reproduced with kind permission of the Editor, The Lancet.
  259.  Hansson, Sven Ove (3 September 2008). “Science and Pseudoscience”. In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Section 2: The “science” of pseudoscience. Archived from the original on 29 October 2021. Retrieved 28 May 2022.
  260.  Shermer, Michael (1997). Why people believe weird things: pseudoscience, superstition, and other confusions of our time. New York: W. H. Freeman & Co. p. 17. ISBN 978-0-7167-3090-3.
  261.  Feynman, Richard (1974). “Cargo Cult Science”. Center for Theoretical Neuroscience. Columbia University. Archived from the original on 4 March 2005. Retrieved 4 November 2016.
  262.  Novella, Steven (2018). The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe: How to Know What’s Really Real in a World Increasingly Full of Fake. Hodder & Stoughton. p. 162. ISBN 978-1-4736-9641-9.
  263.  Duarte, José L.; Crawford, Jarret T.; Stern, Charlotta; Haidt, Jonathan; Jussim, Lee; Tetlock, Philip E. (2015). “Political diversity will improve social psychological science”. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 38. doi:10.1017/S0140525X14000430. ISSN 0140-525X. Retrieved 12 February 2026.

Back to Article