Knowledge (XXG)

:Scientific peer review/Science - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

413:
tertiary... utility someplace else. Is that true? Is that relevant? What use is the reader supposed to make of this purported information? The sentence also implies that the only fruits of the empirical sciences may be hypotheses and theories. That sentence may be true, in a restricted sense, but it seems to imply that the theories would not have utility. The reader shouldn't be put in the position of having to try to figure out what the writer must have intended to say.
444:
I have incorporated most if not all the suggestions made here, although some had already been done. Of course the interpretation of how to incorporate these suggestions is mine alone, not that of the people who contributed to this review. This review is now archived and, I suggest, closed.
412:
What this sentence is actually saying is that certain mathematical methods have utility, and that their fundamental utility is in the empirical sciences. I'm not sure what a "non-empirical" science would be. Anyway, the sentence implies that the same mathematical units also have secondary,
146:
This is factually incorrect; science can be translated into German as Wissenschaft, which means "the sciences", including social science etc., or as "Naturwissenschaft", which does actually mean science. So an exact translation does exist, rendering the quoted statement incorrect.
231:
The major failing of the article is its omission of the peer review process itself, which is at the core of scientific progress, and also can be held accountable for most of its fault in the opinion of this reviewer. In any case, it is absolutely crucial to discuss!
218:
Some thinkers see mathematicians as scientists, regarding physical experiments as inessential or mathematical proofs as equivalent to experiments. Others do not see mathematics as a science, since it does not require experimental test of its theories and
371:
Atomic theory, for example, implies that a granite boulder which appears a heavy, hard, solid, grey object is actually a combination of subatomic particles with none of these properties, moving very rapidly in an area consisting mostly of empty
307:
I wonder whether Tinbergen's four "why"s should be discussed, as they illuminate a compartmentalisation of causality that may be applicable beyond biology - would this be original research or has it been published?
190:
Recommend expanding to include the notion that bias is avoided by correct experimental design, and that most false conclusions stem from an experimental design unsuited to the question whose answer is attempted.
33:
Article is presently in regular Peer Review process. Help is requested on the scientific specifics of the materials with a goal toward feature article status. Any help would be welcomed.
200:
Resting on reason and logic, such as the principle of Occam's Razor, scientific theories are formulated and the most promising theory is selected after analysing the collected evidence.
404:
Surely somebody who is capable of reading articles such as this one from the perspect of the average well-informed reader ought to vet the article first to correct sentences such as:
141:
It should be noted that in (at least) German, Russian, Finnish, and Scandinavian languages, the word corresponding to "science" (German Wissenschaft) still carries this meaning.
276:
According to empiricism, scientific theories are objective, empirically testable, and predictive — they predict empirical results that can be checked and possibly contradicted.
118:
Disagree: science is an exercise in model selection. Truth is not attainable. This is actually admitted later in the article, so the intro should not contradict it!
385:. Ordinary particles, such as photons, electrons, neutrons protons and *everything else* will perceive the boulder to be quite solid and not at all "empty space". 176:
Do we need to know what reply was made to this? E.g. population genetics is a field that was mathematical right from the start; same for quantitative genetics.
113:
Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge — based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism — aimed at finding out the truth.
77: 171:
Opponents of the division also point out that each of the current "hard sciences" suffered a similar "lack of rigor" in its own infancy.
17: 408:
Many mathematical methods have fundamental utility in the empirical sciences, of which the fruits are hypotheses and theories.
345: 319: 27: 449: 432: 417: 389: 349: 323: 159: 84: 37: 429: 414: 81: 381:. The only subatomic particles that would perceive a boulder to be "mostly empty space" are the 341: 315: 73: 34: 257:"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would it?" - Einstein 251: 224:
Mention proof by contradiction, attempts to disprove theorems by finding exceptions.
127:
The basic unit of knowledge is the theory, which is a hypothesis that is predictive.
337: 311: 295:
Investigating the causes of a disaster (such as a bridge collapse or airline crash)
95: 446: 386: 378: 356: 206: 132:
Again, this reviewer prefers use of the word "model" instead of "theory".
382: 155: 185:
it is important that this preference does not bias their interpretation.
68: 377:
This is incorrect, based on an appearent misunderstanding of the
281:
Not sure what "objective" means in this case. Seems redundant.
250:"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful." - 300:
I have seen the latter referred to as forensics as well.
290:
Obtaining and processing crime scene evidence (forensics)
435:(I have a Ph.D., but not in the hard sciences.) 246:Should this article have more quotations, e.g. 72:: This is the first article to be reviewed by 8: 423:Non-Board member name with link to userpage 58:Non-Board member name with link to userpage 154:Link to "behavioral biology" should be to 90:Board comments (anyone who is a nominee) 395:Board member name with link to userpage 48:Board member name with link to userpage 18:Knowledge (XXG):Scientific peer review 7: 265:Comments subject to second opinion 24: 205:Please also refer to the term " 1: 28:Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter 465: 433:03:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC) 418:03:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC) 390:02:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 350:09:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 324:00:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC) 85:23:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC) 450:00:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC) 366:contains the statement: 336:Accept with revision. - 78:chosen quite arbitrarily 38:16:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC) 410: 406: 364:Philosophy of science 160:behavioural ecology 400:Non-Board comments 254:(usually credited) 53:Non-Board comments 102:Specific comments 456: 440:Final Conclusion 464: 463: 459: 458: 457: 455: 454: 453: 442: 425: 402: 397: 362:The section on 360: 99: 92: 65: 60: 55: 50: 45: 31: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 462: 460: 441: 438: 437: 436: 428:Patrick Moran 424: 421: 401: 398: 396: 393: 375: 374: 359: 354: 353: 334: 333: 332:Recommendation 328: 303: 298: 297: 292: 284: 279: 278: 269: 268: 266: 261: 259: 258: 255: 241: 240: 235: 227: 222: 221: 212: 203: 202: 194: 188: 187: 179: 174: 173: 165: 150: 144: 143: 135: 130: 129: 121: 116: 115: 106: 105: 103: 98: 93: 91: 88: 64: 63:Recommendation 61: 59: 56: 54: 51: 49: 46: 44: 43:Board comments 41: 30: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 461: 452: 451: 448: 439: 434: 431: 427: 426: 422: 420: 419: 416: 409: 405: 399: 394: 392: 391: 388: 384: 380: 373: 369: 368: 367: 365: 358: 355: 352: 351: 347: 343: 339: 331: 330: 329: 326: 325: 321: 317: 313: 309: 305: 301: 296: 293: 291: 288: 287: 286: 282: 277: 274: 273: 272: 267: 264: 263: 262: 256: 253: 252:George EP Box 249: 248: 247: 244: 238: 237: 236: 233: 229: 225: 220: 216: 215: 214: 210: 208: 201: 198: 197: 196: 192: 186: 183: 182: 181: 177: 172: 169: 168: 167: 163: 161: 157: 152: 148: 142: 139: 138: 137: 133: 128: 125: 124: 123: 119: 114: 111: 110: 109: 104: 101: 100: 97: 94: 89: 87: 86: 83: 79: 75: 71: 70: 62: 57: 52: 47: 42: 40: 39: 36: 29: 26: 19: 443: 411: 407: 403: 376: 370: 363: 361: 335: 327: 310: 306: 302: 299: 294: 289: 283: 280: 275: 270: 260: 245: 242: 234: 230: 226: 223: 217: 211: 204: 199: 193: 189: 184: 178: 175: 170: 164: 153: 149: 145: 140: 134: 131: 126: 120: 117: 112: 107: 67: 66: 32: 239:Suggestions 219:hypotheses. 379:Bohr model 357:User:Linas 35:Jtmichcock 383:neutrinos 207:parsimony 346:contribs 320:contribs 156:ethology 338:Samsara 312:Samsara 96:Samsara 69:Science 372:space. 74:WP:SPR 447:Bduke 387:linas 82:Karol 16:< 342:talk 316:talk 304:13. 285:12. 271:11. 243:10. 430:P0M 415:P0M 228:9. 213:8. 209:". 195:7. 180:6. 166:5. 158:or 151:4. 136:3. 122:2. 108:1. 445:-- 348:) 344:• 322:) 318:• 162:. 80:. 76:, 340:( 314:(

Index

Knowledge (XXG):Scientific peer review
Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter
Jtmichcock
16:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Science
WP:SPR
chosen quite arbitrarily
Karol
23:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Samsara
ethology
behavioural ecology
parsimony
George EP Box
Samsara
talk
contribs
00:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Samsara
talk
contribs
09:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
User:Linas
Bohr model
neutrinos
linas
02:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
P0M
03:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
P0M

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.