Science (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 6 June 2024 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Science article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience
This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors on August 2022.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors
[[Scientific method#Elements of the scientific method|ongoing process]] The anchor (Elements of the scientific method) has been deleted.
The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking the page history of the target pages, or updating the links.
Remove this template after the problem is fixed | Report an error
In the best-case scenario it's still an WP:EGG, but Testability seems much more general and less potentially leading. it's a very underdeveloped page though—which I do see as a potential reason one would link a related-enough page instead. Remsense ‥ 论 13:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)Remsense ‥ 论13:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But what about MOS:SOB? That's the only reason why I unlinked it. I also believe that the average user would know what testable/testability means and how it is used in a sentence. ZZZ'S13:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, it is recognizable as related to/involving the common sense, but the term is used in a specific way and has a specific history, but I'm not quite sure whether that's enough to say it's not a "common word being used in a straightforward manner". Remsense ‥ 论14:04, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If mathematics is a a science (which it is) as in you will be lauhed at if you dont agree with this opinion. Then "science" isn't just physics. Aka math, therefore testability is no criterion. Math neither predicts nor tests it described and deduces.
I propose trimming the definition to state: an organised system of knkwldge and link epistemology or maybe phil. of science in a folowing disambiguation. 109.245.227.37 (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying that... but here it is sectioned under formal sciences. Can't have your cake and eat it too. (It can't be boty a liberal and a formal science) You might as well assert that logic falls under liberal arts as well. And add history and philosophy while you're at it, frankly. Frankly it makes no sense it boggles me. No other knowledge is more certian nor systematic thab mathematical knowledge. Even since galileo and descartes the mathematical innovations and discoveries of early europe were the keystones of any scientific endeavour you can imagine not Newton without his calculus. 178.220.176.20 (talk) 10:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cite the article itself. It states that Science is subdivided into social, physcial and formal sciences. This clearl6 cibtrsdicts your first criterions which apply to physical and or social sciences only (both od them being the empirical kind). You don't do measurements in mathematics. You deduce theorems from first principles, just like you use comparative and historical methods in the social sciences, in short there's a glaring cobtradiction in the first paragraph that no one has seemed to notice yet. 178.220.176.88 (talk) 11:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's confusing.
This article should either include math and change it's definition or do away with deductive sciences altogether because clearly the definition in the opening sentence only applies to physics and maybe sociology. 178.220.176.88 (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't wholly agree. To the Historian and the Mathematician that proposition is a bit problematic. They could'nt really do their work in good consceince if they did not truly believe that they're doing scieintific research.... On the other hand i don't think the physicists perspective can really see the problems i'm alluding to. 2A06:63C5:8105:400:9D0C:6943:3F45:57C2 (talk) 10:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This user → Remsense is preventing me from publishing an edit to the Science article claiming my post is unconstructive and that I’m being disruptive. After two attempts to add two words to the article this user started a talk page making their claim, but my attempt to understand their continued removal of my post have gone unanswered. If anyone is being disruptive it is Remsense. Justwanaedit (talk) 04:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The world is very clearly meant as "existence external to ourselves and subject to empirical observation in general", as opposed to "the planet Earth". That you are reading it to mean the narrower latter sense is a hang-up particular to you, as far as I can tell.
Another editor may come along and decide to change the prose because this exchange is even occurring to begin with—better safe than sorry, and all that. I would strongly object to this: just because one editor has decided to become deliberately confused about the plain meaning of a passage does not mean that passage is actually confusing. Remsense ‥ 论05:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please, your inference that somehow I’m confused in my understanding of the world is only adding to your deliberate snide remark toward me initially and “hang-up” come on. The first sentence of the article ends prematurely because it infers the world is the limit of all science and my addition “and beyond” was meant to add clarity. Surely you don’t think “the world” includes other planets or someone should take it to mean all the universe. You may remember mom’s day-time soap opera “As the World Turns” perhaps they were confused too. Maybe we can agree instead of “world” it would be better to use “universe”. Just so those of us who are easily confused and get hung-up on the vague use of a word just might be able grasp the area of study. Justwanaedit (talk) 06:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry @ModernDaySlavery, but it does make sense. It is perfectly clear to me what the passage means as written, and echoing our dialogue about changes above, your edit clearly makes it worse. I'm fallible, but I have to be honest when I say that you not understanding what this passage means seems to be a you problem—hence "idiosyncratic"—and lends credence to my request that you please stop trying to tinker with it, and possibly also with other highly finessed passages within our most important broad-concept articles.
Such passages are, more often than not, already written the way they are for good reasons reflecting well-established language in our sources. Given you do not seem to be in the habit of actively cross-referencing the summaries provided in other authoritative secondary or tertiary sources, what we end up with are essentially expressions of your personal opinions regarding what aspects of these subjects are important or interesting. That's not productive, sorry. Remsense ‥ 论08:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That people consider the term "protoscience" recentist or denigrating isn't even mentioned in the protoscience article. Do we really need to include it here? It bloats the description of protoscience, which is only mentioned once in the entire article and is already qualified as what "some scholars use". Kaotao (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-1 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Response to third opinion request:
