what are the charactiristics of science?
953274
Sixteen Postulates of Science \n\n1. Science is logical (utilizing the appropriate form of logic), reasonable, and rational. \n\n2. Science makes well-defined claims based upon the best available evidence. \n\n3. Scientific hypothesis must be falsifable. \n\n4. Scientific experiments should be repeatable under similar circumstances. \n\n5. Science requires that claims be examined by qualified peers. \n\n6. Science views unexplained gaps in theories or evidence with suspicion. \n\n7. Science requires caution both in performing experiments, and in examining and evaluating evidence. \n\n8. Science requires efforts at objectivity, both in control of variables and of biases. \n\n9. Science does not accept coincidence or unlinked or unproven correlations as proofs. \n\n10. Science does not accept undocumented anecdotal evidence as good proof by itself. \n\n11. Science demands extraordinarily good evidence for extraordinary unconventional claims. \n\n12. Scientific favors parsimony: that the simplest adequate explanation is preferred. \n\n13. Science assumes that the Laws of Nature are universal, if relative. \n\n14. Science demands the honest use of the scientific method and truthful reports. \n\n15. Science demands every effort be made to control or assess all variables. \n\n16. Science needs the uninhibited exchange of ideas and greatest possible discourse of the material.
430322
Yes!  Science is the spawn of Satan.  It tries to trick us into believing patent nonsense like a round earth, a solar centric system, the nonexistence of ghosts, "evil"ution, and communication at a distance - all things that god tells us are false.\n\nI think I've even seen scientists gathered together incanting magic spells to access great power.  Oh sure, they call these spells equations, but only a sorcerer could comprehend all those squiggles.\n\nYep, dey's 'da debil all right.  Plus, they all go to church together Sunday morning and donate 10% (gross or net according to their own conscience).  What more proof do you need that it's a cult!?
1127980
TWENTY SCIENCE ATTITUDES \n\nEmpiricism. Simply said, a scientist prefers to "look and see." You do not argue about whether it is raining outside--just stick a hand out the window. Underlying this is the belief that there is one real world following constant rules in nature, and that we can probe that real world and build our understanding--it will not change on us. Nor does the real world depend upon our understanding--we do not "vote" on science. \n\nDeterminism. "Cause-and-effect" underlie everything. In simple mechanisms, an action causes a reaction, and effects do not occur without causes. This does not mean that some processes are not random or chaotic. But a causative agent does not alone produce one effect today and another tomorrow. \n\nA belief that problems have solutions. Major problems have been tackled in the past, from the Manhattan Project to sending a man to the moon. Other problems such as pollution, war, poverty, and ignorance are seen as having real causes and are therefore solvable--perhaps not easily, but possible. \n\nParsimony. Prefer the simple explanation to the complex: when both the complex earth-centered system with epicycles and the simple Copernican sun-centered system explain apparent planetary motion, we choose the simpler. \n\nScientific manipulation. Any idea, even though it may be simple and conform to apparent observations, must usually be confirmed by work that teases out the possibility that the effects are caused by other factors. \n\nSkepticism. Nearly all statements make assumptions of prior conditions. A scientist often reaches a dead end in research and has to go back and determine if all the assumptions made are true to how the world operates. \n\nPrecision. Scientists are impatient with vague statements: A virus causes disease? How many viruses are needed to infect? Are any hosts immune to the virus? Scientists are very exact and very "picky". \n\nRespect for paradigms. A paradigm is our overall understanding about how the world works. Does a concept "fit" with our overall understanding or does it fail to weave in with our broad knowledge of the world? If it doesn't fit, it is "bothersome" and the scientist goes to work to find out if the new concept is flawed or if the paradigm must be altered. \n\nA respect for power of theoretical structure. Diederich describes how a scientist is unlikely to adopt the attitude: "That is all right in theory but it won't work in practice." He notes that theory is "all right" only if it does work in practice. Indeed the rightness of the theory is in the end what the scientist is working toward; no science facts are accumulated at random. (This is an understanding that many science fair students must learn!) \n\nWillingness to change opinion. When Harold Urey, author of one textbook theory on the origin of the moon's surface, examined the moon rocks brought back from the Apollo mission, he immediately recognized this theory did not fit the hard facts laying before him. "I've been wrong!" he proclaimed without any thought of defending the theory he had supported for decades. \n\nLoyalty to reality. Dr. Urey above did not convert to just any new idea, but accepted a model that matched reality better. He would never have considered holding to an opinion just because it was associated with his name. \n\nAversion to superstition and an automatic preference for scientific explanation. No scientist can know all of the experimental evidence underlying current science concepts and therefore must adopt some views without understanding their basis. A scientist rejects superstition and prefers science paradigms out of an appreciation for the power of reality based knowledge. \n\nA thirst for knowledge, an "intellectual drive." Scientists are addicted puzzle-solvers. The little piece of the puzzle that doesn't fit is the most interesting. Howev
516141
old school, it`s one but it`s literature buddy!!!\n\nI`d like to add more\n\nScientists’ Comments on the Scientific Miracles in the Holy Quran: \nThe following are some comments of scientists1 on the scientific miracles in the Holy Quran.  All of these comments have been taken from the videotape entitled This is the Truth.  In this videotape, you can see and hear the scientists while they are giving the following comments.  (To view the RealPlayer video of a comment, click on the link at the end of that comment.  For a copy of this videotape, please visit this page.) \n \n\n1)  Dr. T. V. N. Persaud is Professor of Anatomy, Professor of Pediatrics and Child Health, and Professor of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences at the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.  There, he was the Chairman of the Department of Anatomy for 16 years.  He is well-known in his field.  He is the author or editor of 22 textbooks and has published over 181 scientific papers.  In 1991, he received the most distinguished award presented in the field of anatomy in Canada, the J.C.B. Grant Award from the Canadian Association of Anatomists.  When he was asked about the scientific miracles in the Quran which he has researched, he stated the following: \n\n“The way it was explained to me is that Muhammad was a very ordinary man.  He could not read, didn’t know [how] to write. In fact, he was an illiterate.  And we’re talking about twelve [actually about fourteen] hundred years ago.  You have someone illiterate making profound pronouncements and statements and that are amazingly accurate about scientific nature.  And I personally can’t see how this could be a mere chance.  There are too many accuracies and, like Dr. Moore, I have no difficulty in my mind that this is a divine inspiration or revelation which led him to these statements.”  (View the RealPlayer video of this comment ) \n\nProfessor Persaud has included some Quranic verses and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad  in some of his books.  He has also presented these verses and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad  at several conferences. \n\n2)  Dr. Joe Leigh Simpson is the Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and Professor of Molecular and Human Genetics at the Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA.  Formerly, he was Professor of Ob-Gyn and the Chairman of the Department of Ob-Gyn at the University of Tennessee, Memphis, Tennessee, USA.  He was also the President of the American Fertility Society.  He has received many awards, including the Association of Professors of Obstetrics and Gynecology Public Recognition Award in 1992.  Professor Simpson studied the following two sayings of the Prophet Muhammad : \n\n{In every one of you, all components of your creation are collected together in your mother’s womb by forty days...}2 \n\n{If forty-two nights have passed over the embryo, God sends an angel to it, who shapes it and creates its hearing, vision, skin, flesh, and bones....}3 \n\nHe studied these two sayings of the Prophet Muhammad  extensively, noting that the first forty days constitute a clearly distinguishable stage of embryo-genesis.  He was particularly impressed by the absolute precision and accuracy of those sayings of the Prophet Muhammad .  Then, during one conference, he gave the following opinion: \n\n“So that the two hadeeths (the sayings of the Prophet Muhammad ) that have been noted provide us with a specific time table for the main embryological development before forty days.  Again, the point has been made, I think, repeatedly by other speakers this morning: these hadeeths could not have been obtained on the basis of the scientific knowledge that was available [at] the time of their writing . . . . It follows, I think, that not only there is no conflict between genetics and religion but, in fact, religion can guide science by adding revelation to some of the traditional scienti
369526
Watch, listen and be prepared to learn from others. A good scientist (much like a good person) will always be willing to accept new ideas and beliefs as fact until they can prove otherwise.\n\nNever let personal agendas or beliefs get in the way of your work.\n\nAlways be prepared to put your hand up and admit you were wrong. Then go and work out why you were wrong, if you're still convinced that you're right say so and be prepared to back up what you say.\n\nIn summary - courage, humility and a strong sense of self belief.\n\nBTW I'm a scientist ;D
257050
http://www.sciencebuddies.org/mentoring/areas_of_science.shtml
67841
The Scientific Method\n\nThe scientific method has evolved over many centuries and has now come to be described in terms of a well-recognized and well-defined series of steps. First, information, or data, is gathered by careful observation of the phenomenon being studied. On the basis of that information a preliminary generalization, or hypothesis, is formed, usually by inductive reasoning, and this in turn leads by deductive logic to a number of implications that may be tested by further observations and experiments (see induction; deduction). If the conclusions drawn from the original hypothesis successfully meet all these tests, the hypothesis becomes accepted as a scientific theory or law; if additional facts are in disagreement with the hypothesis, it may be modified or discarded in favor of a new hypothesis, which is then subjected to further tests. Even an accepted theory may eventually be overthrown if enough contradictory evidence is found, as in the case of Newtonian mechanics, which was shown after more than two centuries of acceptance to be an approximation valid only for speeds much less than that of light.\n\nRole of Measurement and Experiment\n\nAll of the activities of the scientific method are characterized by a scientific attitude, which stresses rational impartiality. Measurement plays an important role, and when possible the scientist attempts to test his theories by carefully designed and controlled experiments that will yield quantitative rather than qualitative results. Theory and experiment work together in science, with experiments leading to new theories that in turn suggest further experiments. Although these methods and attitudes are generally shared by scientists, they do not provide a guaranteed means of scientific discovery; other factors, such as intuition, experience, good judgment, and sometimes luck, also contribute to new developments in science.\n\nBranches of Specialization\n\nScience may be roughly divided into the physical sciences, the earth sciences, and the life sciences. Mathematics, while not a science, is closely allied to the sciences because of their extensive use of it. Indeed, it is frequently referred to as the language of science, the most important and objective means for communicating the results of science. The physical sciences include physics, chemistry, and astronomy; the earth sciences (sometimes considered a part of the physical sciences) include geology, paleontology, oceanography, and meteorology; and the life sciences include all the branches of biology such as botany, zoology, genetics, and medicine. Each of these subjects is itself divided into different branches—e.g., mathematics into arithmetic, algebra, geometry, and analysis; physics into mechanics, thermodynamics, optics, acoustics, electricity and magnetism, and atomic and nuclear physics. In addition to these separate branches, there are numerous fields that draw on more than one branch of science, e.g., astrophysics, biophysics, biochemistry, geochemistry, and geophysics.\n\nAll of these areas of study might be called pure sciences, in contrast to the applied, or engineering, sciences, i.e., technology, which is concerned with the practical application of the results of scientific activity. Such fields include mechanical, civil, aeronautical, electrical, architectural, chemical, and other kinds of engineering; agronomy, horticulture, and animal husbandry; and many aspects of medicine. Finally, there are distinct disciplines for the study of the history and philosophy of science.\n\nThe Beginnings of Science\n\nScience as it is known today is of relatively modern origin, but the traditions out of which it has emerged reach back beyond recorded history. The roots of science lie in the technology of early toolmaking and other crafts, while scientific theory was once a part of philosophy and religion. This relationship, with technology encouraging science rather than the other way around, remained the norm
1076424
Science (from Latin scientifko - knowledge)
49105
Visit this page http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Science/Scients.htm ... I believe it has a complete list of all the scientific men and women you might be looking for. I just want to help you out.
932936
science from the Latin, scire, to know, is a body of knowledge that is constructed via observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and logic for the purpose of explaining and predicting events or behavior.\n Observation, experimentation and critical reasoning all play crucial roles in the advancement of scientific knowledge..........
997754
There is science in everything you, touch, see, smell, taste, hear, and do.  Even your farts are science...\n\n   You could not live the life you have without science.  Plastic comes from crude oil.  Go around your home and see all that is made from plastics.  \n\n   Your food germinates and grows, science,\n   The meat you eat, biology, Science.\n   The clothing you wear science\n   The home you live in and the car you ride in Science\n   And yes your fart, methane gas, science!!!\n\n   So go eat some beans and be a genius for a day!!!
1080750
* Biology: Evolution by natural selection — Cell theory\n    * Chemistry: Atomic theory — Kinetic theory of gases\n    * Climatology: Global warming\n    * Computer science: Algorithmic information theory — Computation theory\n    * Economics: Decision theory\n    * Engineering: Circuit theory — Control theory — Signal theory - Systems theory\n    * Games: Rational choice theory — Game theory\n    * Geology: Continental drift — Plate tectonics\n    * Humanities: Critical theory\n    * Literature: Literary theory\n    * Mathematics: Catastrophe theory — Category theory — Chaos theory — Graph theory — Number theory — Probability theory — Set theory\n    * Music: Music theory\n    * Philosophy: Proof theory — Speculative reason — Theory of truth - Type theory - Value theory — Virtue theory\n    * Physics: Theory of relativity — Special relativity — General relativity - Quantum field theory — Acoustic theory — Antenna theory\n    * Planetary science: Giant impact theory\n    * Sociology: Social theory — Critical social theory\n    * Statistics : Extreme value theory
1083784
"i believe in science".....\n\nand \n\n"i hate all the orphans in the whole world"....
414676
1 is not true. Most scientists are religious. \n\n2 is true if you add "some" at the beginning. Not all people believe that there is a god.
914208
An oxymoron. Science is objective lucidity.  Creationism is subjective magical-thinking.
971976
http://www.mcn.org/ed/cur/cw/Science_Poetry/Poetry.html\nhttp://www.ericdigests.org/2003-1/poetry.htm\nhttp://www.firstscience.com/site/poems.asp\nhttp://library.unesco-iicba.org/English/SECONDARY_SCIENCE_SERIES/science_lessons/1_science_poems.htm
535470
proofs of God:\n\ncreation\n\n\nconscience