Talk:Science/Archive 1

message: The divorce of science from philosophy is completely unjustified.  --Daniel C. Boyer
:Because?...B
::Because it is a set of theories or a method of inquiry about how the world is, it is fundamentally an aspect of philosophy, and the divorce exists for no other reason than to enable science to get away without ever having to defend the a priori assumptions on which it bases its method.  Why are these assumptions beyond challenge? --Daniel C. Boyer
:::Daniel, I agree with the gist of your reply. My "Because?..." was questioning what I misunderstood to be a comment about the historically divergent paths of these disciplines. Generally, scientists are not adequately familiar with the philosophical presumptions upon which science rests, and they have become dogmatic and overly-confident in these presumptions. For example, how many scientists have studied formal logic, epistemology or acknowledge the problem of induction. Yet they bandy about such words as "logical", "true", "knowledge and "fact" as if they knew what these concepts mean! Not all of the rules of logic have been sorted out and there is still not a sufficiently developed theory of truth or theory of knowledge in philosophy, yet scientists act as if this has already been done. —B 21:14, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)
::Was there ever a parting of philosophy and science?  Even very recent philosophers have been influential (for better or for worse).  A few names that spring to mind are Wittgenstein, Popper, Victor Kraft, Lacatos, Kuhn and Feyerabend.  NielsBohr seems to have been a relativist . Einstein, who wrote philosophical papers of his own, was inspired by ErnstMach.  Einstein and Bohr, of course did challenge a priori assumptions about our ability to be objective. --ChrisSteinbach
:::Chris, in a sense, yes, there was a parting, and this parting is the problem described in different ways by both Daniel and me above. Namely, that in order to do science well, scientists need to have a better background in certain philosophical subjects, but this has become more difficult since science became a discipline separate from philosophy with their own unique subjects of study. Some scientists have made contributions to the philosophy of science, but generally they go on with their research without adequately grasping the philosophical limitations of science. —B 21:14, Nov 4, 2003 (UTC)
----
The leading assertion of the second paragraph in the current article is false:
:"Certain fundamental assumptions are needed for science. The first assumption is that of realism."
Realism as defined in the article or scientific realism is not necessary to science.  Science is no less compatible with instrumentalism than it is with realism.  Science does not require that unobservable theoretical entities, such as electrons, are "real"; science only requires that unobservables help explain and predict sense-data. Besides the leading sentence, the rest of the paragraph has another sophmoric problem.  In particular, equating "facts" and "physical objects and events"  with the same ontological status: "facts are real"; "physical objects and events are facts". (Whatever that is supposed to mean...although that terminology may be popular or conventional, it's meaning is far from clear.  Hmm, sounds like an analytic philosophy critique.) The third paragraph about consistency fails to even mention or explain science's (or rather scientific theories' or laws') dependence on the much more relevant principal of induction. (Nevermind the problem of induction.) B 17:03 Jan 8, 2003 (UTC)
I removed this: "Some scientists in the hard sciences consider all scientific-like fields of study outside of the hard sciences (including the soft sciences) not to be true science, or even relegate them to the realm of pseudoscience."
:The way this is phrased, that's just not true.  In fact, this entire article was laced with unfounded anti-science remarks that were just egregiously POV.  It started to look like a leftist Derrida-inspired deconstructionist tract to deligitimize science. RK 13:53 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)
::I looked at the "anti-realism" paragraphs you removed, maybe it should be put in its own article, like Scientific realism and rewritten as NPOV? (I don't understand much about the philosophy of science, so maybe I'm misled here) -- Rotem Dan 14:00 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)
----
Ought there not be some sort of criticism of Science
: ChrisG 17:39, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: (Several Different Points)

message: I revised the definition of theory. The idea of a theory is that it is a framework, a set of ideas. To be a scientific theory, it is hopefully capable of making predictions. This is in contrast to, facts or observations, such as "the rock is black", which cannot be used to make predictions. A theory might be: "rocks of volcanic origin are black." Plenty of theories have been falsified, while plenty of others have received overwhelming support. To a scientist a theory doesn't stop being a theory simply because it is in conflict with observations, it simply becomes a wrong theory. 
Also, (like one of the authors above) I don't agree with calling it an "experimental verification" of evolution. Evolution has been verified mainly by countless observations, and the mechanism (DNA) has studied, experimentally, in the lab. But evolutionary history is not an experiment. Likewise, astrophysicists make observations, not experiments. --Joke137 01:07, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have rewritten this section somewhat; it was starting to become repetitive. – Smyth\talk 15:26, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theory 

message: This very diverse field is either torn apart in the more natural disciplines or jumbled together in "engineering", which seems to be a subdiscipline of physics. Huh? Likewise, agricultural sciences is not biology, it is applied biology. Also, I always tended to make the sciences distinction like this:
*humane sciences (history and language)
*social sciences (psychology, social and politic sciences, and economics)
*exact sciences (science in a strict sense)
**natural sciences 
**applied sciences (including computer science)
Phlebas 10:34, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Applied Sciences

message: I have added this as a seperate heading since it is a crossover between natural sciences and social sciences.  Alan Liefting 22:13, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Environmental sciences 

message: The humanities (as opposed to the social sciences) are not sciences, even loosely defined, as they do not use the scientific method. They are identical to the arts (as opposed to the fine arts), as best I know.  Neither is mathematics a science, because it has its origin in axioms rather than experiment or observation of the world. It happens to one of the best tools we have for doing science, but that's a different issue. --Joke137 17:31, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humanities and Mathematics? 

message: 
There are two Wikiportals, Mathematics and Physics which, by their existence show up the lack of one for Science. Ancheta Wis 00:01, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiportal 

message: Formal science is not a very widely used term, but it is gathering momentum due to the effort made by Benedict Loewe in pushing it; roughly speaking it is those sciences that study sorts of formal entities.  Mathematics and logic are its most characteristic inhabitants, computer science and linguistics are counted members by the Foudantions of the Formal Sciences conference series.
I think the term is relevant to the Science article, but I am hesitant where to go about introducing it, because it rather cuts across the way the scientific method is invoked in the article.  Any thoughts? --- Charles Stewart 18:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You might add a paragraph under its own heading. That way it won't interfere with the rest of the article.--MarSch 10:29, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Formal science

message: The article is very confusing. It says "Empiricist philosopher, Karl Popper", yet Popper is not even mentioned at Empiricism and Karl Popper#Popper's philosophy claims the opposite: "Popper coined the term critical rationalism to describe his philosophy. This designation is significant, and indicates his rejection of classical empiricism." Interesting to note also that the article does not mention at all said critical rationalism which as far as I understood provides just the definition of science that has widely become accepted nowadays. --Rtc 19:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is not useful for the wikipedia Science article to say that Popper is an "empiricist philosopher". It would be more constructive to just label him as a philosopher of science, as is done at Karl Popper. More radical corrective surgery would be to move out of the Science article all of the analysis of science in terms of philosophical theory (it belongs in Philosophy of science). --JWSchmidt 19:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just deleting those two words doesn't seem to hurt much - or adding PoS instead. BTW I don't see why critical rationalism is exactly the oposite of empirisism, although former was used to reject the latter. Almost all religions reject each other but that doesn't mean that every religion is the opposite of all others.  Greenleaf 10:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing 

message: It appears that people involved in wikipedia are very conservative;
although it is said that anyone can edit or make useful additions, but my experience is that some people just do not tolerate any changes whatsoever, they act dictatorialy, and keep on reverting changing and their only response is "put your ideas somewhere else not on wikipedia. I stongly feel, it against the awoed policy of wikipedia, people should not be so possesive and intolerant, let others also express their opinion before changes are rejected.
202.141.141.10 11:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Useful additions. This from the person who created List of cocepts [sic] in science. If you have contructive edits to make, please do. But don't expect the community to fix your spelling mistakes, and your haphazzard inclusions. Yes, 'concepts' are part of science. What's your point? Should we include a disconnected sentence into the article, or should we find a better stop to make that point, if it needs to be made at all? -- Ec5618 11:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: As for this edit of yours, heat is not a form of energy. It is the transfer of energy. Why did you change correct wording into something false? -- Ec5618 11:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Similar situation with the definition of molecule as well as a few other paragraphs from that article.  While not interested in discouraging contributions from new users, I sometimes wish there was some sort of initiation or training required before one such user were allowed to contribute to an existing article --just reviewing some of the last major edits should well enough help the novice understand how things work and at what level the contributions go.--Unconcerned 22:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  conservative wiki 

message: would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  publication 

message: --Kubrick 908 18:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In principle there is no reason why history could not be a science. But it has to rely on humanistic methods for much of its analysis for a whole range of reasons. E.g. it often attempts to draw very specific inferences about what was in individual people's minds, or about the significance of quite specific events, but getting data on that which can be rigorously evaluated is very hard to do. By contrast, paleontologists don't care about what specific plans some specific dinosaur had 100 million years ago. They may conjecture about this from time to time, for fun, or because it is of some relevance to a scientific point, but it's just not at the heart of the sciences in the way it is at the heart of humanistic disciplines like history or literary criticism where we are trying for a different kind of understanding of people and their actions and works. Often historians fall back on methods of humanistic interpretation based on their implicit understandings of what people are like, etc., etc. In principle, however, the truths of history must be consistent with those of all other disciplines. We may not be sure exactly why Charlemagne decided to be crowned Holy Roman Emperor, or why the pope crowned him, or whatever, but we can be sure they did not violate any laws of physics at the time, or think in some way that was inconsistent with human biology. Metamagician3000 14:05, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Paleontology a Science? 

message: I have tried to introduce this topic n this page. I plan to improve it in coming days. Any comments and editing is welcome.Charlie 07:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I spruced it up a bit. Karol 22:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Literature of science

message: I have tried to make the content of this pge a bit interdisciplinary. Any comments? Charlie 08:54, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Economics of Science

message: I have added soil science.  I have posted my views on the hierarchical placement of soil science  on my user talk page. I have further stated them on my blog  
Paleorthid 18:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Soil Science

message: This section mentions nothing about computation.  Consider:
"Now I am going to discuss how we would look for a new law.  In general we look for a new law by the following process.  First we guess it.  Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right.  Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works.  If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science."
- The Character of Physical Law, Richard Feynman, page 156
:It doesn't have to be a computation in the sense of any complex calculations being involved (though it almost always would require these in modern physics, which is Feynman's field). All it takes is some kind of logical prediction from the hypothesis. An experiment or observation is then conducted to test the hypothesis. If I discover a new kind of dinosaur skeleton that is missing the jaw, I might conjecture/hypothesise that it was a plant-eater. From that, I might predict that if the next such skeleton has a fossilised jaw then the teeth will be a certain shape. That is my hypothesis, and I might well get a chance to test it. Feynman's discussion is too specific to physics, and to modern physics at that. In the past a lot of progress could be made even in physics without doing anything that could readily be described as computation. Actually, even what I have just described is a narrow Popperian account of how science is done. Popper may have had a lot going for him, but science can't be straightjacketed entirely into his conjecture/refutation model. Scientific arguments often take other forms. Metamagician3000 13:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The method of making predictions does not have to be mathematical. Explanations with superior predictive power are preferred. That is of course until a better one comes along. However if counting or measuring is involved in the predictions then some kind of mathematical operation will most likely be involved. If only because as Feynman also said, "Mathematics makes counting easier." Gkochanowsky 14:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section "The Scientific Method" 

message: I am cutting out the content added to the scientific method section. A separate article exists so that this section doesn't grow too big. I guess someone could scrap some material from this onto that page, if useful, although I notice some of the content overlaps and is contradictory... Karol 09:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scrapping scientific method section 

message: I reverted these edits that tried to introduce links to some new science disciplines: Conscientiology and Projectiology. I suggest editors keep an eye on other articles edited by  who seems to be on a mission to spread the word about those two as well as Conscientiotherapy. Funny thing is when I looked at therapy, I can't really say it doesn't fit there any less than its neighbours. Algae 21:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Next contestant

message: People: Mathematics is no more a science than pure empiricism is. 
If you can't use Logic to study the world you do not have science. 
If you can't use Mathematics to study the world you do not have science. 
If you study Logic to build Logic tools, you learn. Learning is what science is. 
If you study Mathematics to build Mathematical tools, you learn. Learning is what science is. 
If you study empiricism to build empirical tools, you learn. Learning is what science is. 
If you study nature to build natural tools, you learn. Learning is what science is. 
The fist Scientists took what was "knowledge" at the time (Several religiously followed philosophies.) and combined them. 
Science isn't any single one thing, nor must it include any other area of it to learn new "knowledge". What we learn empirically is science, but we also can learn without empirical input. Science doesn't equate to the philosophy of the empiricists, although there are many that believe so. 
Believing so, doesn't make it so. Choose what you like to study from knowledge or belief, your choice.
--Eric Norby 10:00(PST), 2006, January 29(AD)
:Moved comment down.
:What's your point? How does this help the article? -- Ec5618 18:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'What science is', a discussion 

message: Shouldn't the huge list of links be below the etymology section?  One looks like a typical artical while the other is just a list.  Don't get me wrong, I came to the Science page hoping for a list, but it just doesn't look right when placed above a legitamate artical section.
:You're right. I've moved the section up, it now directly follows 'what is science'. I'm not opposed to it being moved again, but it certainly didn't belong down there.
:Perhaps we should consider a Fields of science article. -- Ec5618 23:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Fields of science/temp now has a copy of the "Fields of science" sub-section content. — RJH 22:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Could you suggest a more appropriate classification scheme? It could be implemented on the Fields of science sub-page, and would give the page more value. Thanks. — RJH 22:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fields of Science 

message: I removed this sentence, which is erroneous, from the first paragraph of the article for further consideration as to content and placement within the article...Kenosis 22:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The basic unit of knowledge is the theory, which is a hypothesis that is predictive. 22:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed sentence from introductory paragraph

message: These three paragraphs are now here for consideration as to placement and content in the article, because they are not part of the etymology of "science."  Possibly this material belongs, in more compact form, in the Philosophy of science section, more specifically with respect to the problem of demarcation.  Possibly some or all of the content of the last paragraph belongs in the Math section of the article...Kenosis 08:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fields of study are sometimes distinguished in terms of hard sciences and soft sciences and these terms are often synonymous with the terms natural and social science (respectively). Physics, chemistry, biology and geology are all forms of "hard sciences".  Studies of anthropology, history, psychology, and sociology are sometimes called "soft sciences."   Even within the fields there is sorting of the fields. Although it might be difficult to say whether geology or biology is "harder", physics is usually considered the "hardest". Especially "hard" are the fields of high energy physics and cosmology. In this usage, "hard" means mathematic, or in experimental area, expensive.08:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Proponents of this division use the arguments that the "soft sciences" do not use the scientific method, admit anecdotal evidence, or are not mathematical, all adding up to a "lack of rigor" in their methods. Opponents of the division in the sciences counter that the "social sciences" often make systematic statistical studies in strictly controlled environments, or that these conditions are not adhered to by the natural sciences either (for example, ethology or behavioural ecology relies upon fieldwork in uncontrolled environments, astronomy cannot design experiments, only observe limited conditions). Opponents of the division also point out that some of the current "hard sciences" suffered a similar "lack of rigor" in their own infancy.08:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The term "Maths" is sometimes pressed into service for new and interdisciplinary fields that make use of scientific methods at least in part, and which in any case aspire to be systematic and careful explorations of their subjects, including computer science, library and information science, and environmental science. Mathematics and computer science reside under "Q" in the Library of Congress classification, along with all else we now call science.08:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Three paragraphs removed from Etymology for further consideration 

message: I have removed this sentence from the opening paragraph of the article for further analysis by the editors.  At minimum, certainly the social sciences would disagree in many instances, and certainly biology would not limit its field to this demarcation line...Kenosis 06:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mathematics is the language used by science to describe this knowledge. Thus, anything that cannot be described by mathematics is not science.06:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: sentence removed for further consideration

message: The list of fields of science is getting so long it might be worthwhile to move it to a separate page. Karol 07:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I set up a Fields of science/temp page if you would like to edit it. — RJH 22:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Judging by some of the edits I've seen ("Mr. Peapody is a great science teacher!,"  "Mr. Wilson's science class $@(#*^$", etc, etc) many elementary and early high-schoolers check into this article.  In a way it's a useful list for the naturally curious and those interested in probing through some of these realms. Frankly don't see the need to eliminate these links quite yet.  Cladistics, for instance, is in there; I find it hard to imagine the basic list could get all that much longer, and if it does so the editors can certainly hack away the fringes and link to an article such as that you just created.  On the other hand, maybe the criteria for exclusion would be so vague we'd either need to eliminate the list completely with a seealso, or leave it as is?...Kenosis 23:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no positive support for the idea, so I renamed the sub-page to Fields of science and left the duplicate content in place... for now. — RJH 22:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think trimming it out of the science article is appropriate.--ragesoss 22:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay it has been trimmed. I tried to give a single paragraph overview, but I'm quite sure it can be much improved. Thank you. — RJH (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fields of science 

message: There is a reference to Eugene Wigner and The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences, seen as 
and typed in as .
I've tried to fix this, but to no avail. What causes the automatic "and" to be added to the back of Wigner's last name and linked, and what can be done to fix it? 13:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "and" comes from "Template:see" which has been deprecated. Using "Template:further" as suugested under the "see" page fixes it. --Bduke 21:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eugene Wignerand 

message: As far as I can remember, there is a template with the fields of science. Which is that? NCurse work 14:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template 

message: ---Mathematics.. the ultimate science??
Empirical truth is subject to falsification through a contradictory observation made of a new experiment but mathematics deals with pure rationality and reasoning. Its results are based on axioms. Its results exist independent of systems and observers. Is it not the purest of sciences? It seems that the physical world consists of special cases of mathematical realities (r^2 coulumb law,and derivation of the Maxwell equations.) Shreyaskaptan
Math and science
The paragraph at the beginning on the nature and significance of math in relation to science is succinct and readable, especially for high school students (I asked some to read it and they got the point). It is an important point to be sure. However, it would be nice to quote and/or cite an authority or two. Is that possible? I am referring to the section that begins, " Whether mathematics is a science is a matter of perspective."  Malangthon 03:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mathematics

message: Polls suggest that leading scientists tend not to believe in the possibility of human immortality. This was noted in the Immortality article but was removed (). I feel that if the article mentions certain religious viewpoints then it should also mention the secular and scientific perspectives. Anyone wants to help add it back? Shawnc 02:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Immortality]] 

message: Placed here for analysis as to relevance. ... Kenosis 05:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *"A fundamental philosophical issue is that it is impossible to prove a negative. This means that science can only tell us what has been understood to happen, in a given set of circumstances but it cannot tell us what doesn't happen." ... 05:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *"The lessons learned from the history of science are that, in the light of new developments and understanding, confidently-held tenets can be found wanting, requiring new models and theories to embrace the newer understanding. Scientific establishment must therefore, always be aware that its cherished beliefs of today may be tomorrow's object of historical interest." ... 05:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *Particular specialized studies that make use of empirical methods are often referred to as sciences as well.  ... 03:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed material

message: (moved from another talk page)
Hgilbert, may we parse through the first two paragraphs of the article on science?  The definition you added seems fine, but there is a bit of crossover and redundancy between the first and second paragraphs of that article at the moment.  Can we sort this out in a way that gives proper accord to natural and social sciences while making the categorical distinction in a way that is consistent with the exclusion of the more casual use of "science" in reference to areas of study such as, say, "political science", that are not included in this article's focus?  Always a tough task to get this touchy issue right, but I think it can be done with some further thought about how it's explained there. ... Kenosis 00:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: RE: OK, I tried to reduce the redundancy (and go from the largest category to the smallest, big picture to details, perhaps a mistake here). Let's try to build up a picture of the introduction, however; how do you see it?Hgilbert 02:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine that the specific definition of the article's content should go first as before.  I was concerned that the sentence in the second paragraph about "particular specialized studies" that make use of the empirical method was redundant with what you had added to the first paragraph.  Maybe we should proceed to move this discussion to the article's talk page.  I might not have a chance to get back to this tonight.  ... Kenosis 02:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text: NP by me.  Could be from the general to the specific, or start with the specific and add qualifiers about the more general sense of the word.  Currently it goes from the general to the specific, as you had proposed, providing at least one definition with a very reasonably credible citation. ... Kenosis 17:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: There is a dispute on antiscience concerning the matter of whether certain religious and conservative groups have traditionally been critical of science.  Since this article concerns related conflicts, perhaps some editors might be interested in helping break our deadlock. Al 18:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antiscience 

message: So how is the concept of causillity or "cause and effect" more justifiable than the existence of God? Both cannot be empirically tested; you can not "experience" both with your five senses. I understand that one concept can be "believed in more" than the other; for example, you COULD say that you believe in cause and effect more than you believe in the existence of God. But you can't say, from an empiricist point of view; that you KNOW casualty or God exists. So what I'm asking is how can scientists (and empiricists) believe in the concept of "cause and effect" more than they believe in the existence of God? How is causility more justified (and therefore, more readily "assumeable") than the existence of God? You can't say you know they both exist according to Hume, if you are an empiricist, but why would anyone be an atheist (not believe in God), but assume that causility exist? 165.196.139.24 21:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cause and effect V.s the existence of a God 

message: Oh boy, I don't know about this, but here goes.  There is apparently (unless I've missed it) no article, project or portal on Wikipedia devoted to current or ongoing scientific research findings/breakthroughs.  Kind of a big gaping hole IMO. Now, starting such a thing would involve a lot of work, because it would require informed contributions from people who keep abreast of the wide and deep scientific research world by reading the current literature.  It would be a major effeort, but it would also be a great contribution.  Please list yourself below and make any comments about how to go about it if you are at all interested in making this happen.  Thanks! Jeeb 18:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really see a reason for one to be started. First of all, the newest ongoing scientific research is original research by Wikipedia standards. The parts of it that have been accepted as standard knowledge are usually well covered already by WP articles (no point in listing examples), and are or can be linked to on the Portal:Science or where be it. Also, don't forget about wikinews. Karol 16:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Scientific Discoveries 

message: * "GSCE science textbook". Wikibooks.org
* Strange Science and Technology News (Alternative and under-reported video and audio streams with an analysis-ready news network with Online Analytical Processing and embedded Extract, Transform, and Load Data Mining capabilities.)
The latter link is dead in the sense that it says "Were you looking for 7/7 London Bombings - A Summary Of The Evidence? Go here." and has links that are more about politics than science. Art LaPella 03:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead links I can't fix