nyuuzyou/wikis huggingface dataset:
Schumann Resonance

The Schumann resonance is a spectrum peak in the Earth's electromagnetic field spectrum, excited by lightning discharges in the upper atmosphere.
==What it is==
The resonance occurs when lightning disturbs ions in the atmosphere. The Earth's atmosphere just happens to be of the proper dimensions for electromagnetic radiation of extreme low frequency to resonate, which is exacerbated by the lightning strikes. Schumann resonances are the principal background in the electromagnetic spectrum,The electrical nature of storms By D. R. MacGorman, W. D. Rust, W. David Rust. Page 114. ranging from 3 to 60 HzHandbook of atmospheric electrodynamics, Volume 1 By Hans Volland. Page 277. — on the threshold of human hearing.Range of human hearing — but remember that sound and electromagnetic radiation are very different phenomena. You can't actually hear Schumann resonances.
==Woo==
The alleged mystery of the Schumann resonance has attracted New Agers and other woo-pushers to it.
Gregg Braden has claimed in his book Awakening to Zero PointBraden, Gregg S., Awakening to Zero Point that the resonance is increasing in frequency, and that this has something to do with the Fibonacci sequence. Of course, he misrepresents the harmonic frequencies in order to make this claim. In actual fact, the harmonic series of waves all occur at the same time, and can either reinforce each other or cancel out. If this implied that the Schumann resonance is increasing, then music would be impossible on string instruments.
Since the Schumann resonance covers about the same frequency range as brain waves, some New Agers go even farther, and assume that the Earth's ionospheric oscillations are evidence of the Earth's state of consciousness. And that therefore, programs which induce a different frequency of ionospheric oscillation (e.g. HAARP) are altering the Earth's consciousness, which will cause things like crop failures and droughts if you do it at a "bad" frequency. Conversely, there's also the claim that you can "heal the Earth" by inducing such oscillations at the frequency of alpha waves — or that if enough people all put their own brains into an alpha-wave state at the same time, this will induce the Schumann resonance to oscillate at the same frequency and cause the same healing of Mother Earth.
==In fiction==
The New Age interpretation is mentioned in the anime series Serial Experiments Lain, in which it has something to do with the plot. We're not sure, really. But it still makes more sense than Braden's book.
==References==
Category:Physics
SciBabe

SciBabe (real name Yvette d’Entremont Née Guinevere) is a Monsanto shill chemist, pin-up lady and science communicator best known for an epic takedown of Food Babe posted on Gawker.Gawker.com: archive.is, archive.org
==Background==
SciBabe holds three degrees, one in Theater, a Bachelor's of Science in Chemistry and a Master's in Forensic Science (focused on biological criminalistics).Criminalistics. (2017). In ScienceAid. Retrieved Dec 30, 2017Burney I, Pemberton N. Making space for criminalistics: Hans Gross and fin-de-siècle CSI. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences. 2013;44(1):16-25. doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2012.09.002http://www.inquisitr.com/2904086/scibabe-ushers-readers-into-a-brave-new-world-of-food-without-fear/
==Work for Monsanto==
Before becoming a science communicator on the internet, Guinevere worked in testing labs for Monsanto. This has, of course, led to many of her detractors accusing her of being a shill for them.
==Takedown of Food Babe==
SciBabe achieved minor fame with an article on Food Babe. In it SciBabe debunks major talking points about Food's appendicitis, her abuse of the word toxic, organic foodstuffs and how the preying on fear is her weapon. The topic of banning over supposed shilling, racism or sexism is brought up while also mentioning that Food Babe only seems to be okay with supposedly bad ingredients such as aluminum and agave nectar when they come from her, in products she sells at ridiculous markups.
Most importantly SciBabe talks about food allergies and how lying about them at Food Babe's request is causing severe damage to people who actually have food allergies, like SciBabe herself. Unlike most people who espouse a gluten-free diet, SciBabe is one of the few people who actually has to adhere to it due to having celiac disease. As the prevalence of these fake allergies rises, their effects can be detrimental to people with the actual disease. If, for example, so many fakes come in to a restaurant and order with a "hold the gluten", some businesses might flat-out ignore this and then persons with celiac who order the same thing might suffer severe complications. 
==External links==
*Website
*Facebook page
==References==
Category:Authors
Category:Living people
Category:Popular science
Category:Bloggers
Category:Living people
Science (français)

La science est la méthode utilisée pour acquérir de l'information objective et fiable. La science utilise la méthodologie scientifique, presque toujours utilisant la méthode scientifique. Le but de la science est d'acquérir de l'information pour améliorer le monde.
== Types de sciences==
La science est divisée en plusieurs sections suivant les phénomènes étudiés :
On parle souvent de sciences et de sciences humaines, bien que certaines spécialités fassent le lien entre les deux:
-Sciences dures ;
*La biologie : L'étude de la vie
*La géologie : L'étude de la terre
*La chimie : L'étude des atomes et de certaines de leurs réaction
*La Physique : L'étude de l'Univers et de son évolution
-Sciences humaines :
*La Sociologie : L'étude des sociétés humaines
*L'Histoire : L'étude des évènements passés
*La Linguistique : L'étude du langage et des langues
== Le mouvement anti-science ==
Quand la science parle de certains phénomènes, des groupes variés (souvent motivés par des raisons religieuses, politiques, idéologiques ou commerciales), qui n'aiment pas cette théorie, l'attaquent. Cela peut causer des problèmes sérieux : par exemple, le rejet du réchauffement planétaire aurait des conséquences désastreuses pour l'environnement, et il y a un risque de mauvaises informations sur les sujets importants, comme le dessein intelligent (DI) en biologie. Certains personnalités politiques n'aiment pas les résultats obtenus par la science puisqu'ils contredisent leur idéologie.
==Pseudo-science==
On appelle pseudo-science des mouvements qui se prétendent scientifiques mais qui n'appliquent pas la méthode scientifique, par exemple l'astrologie ou la numérologie. Il arrive parfois qu'une science naisse à partir de pseudo-science (par exemple la chimie se développant à partir de l'alchimie). Dans le domaine des sciences humaines, la distinction est parfois difficile à faire.
==Voir aussi==
===Versions en autres langues===
Category:Français
Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures

Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, first published in 1875, and written by 19th century spiritual leader Mary Baker Eddy, is the primary source for the theology of Christian Science, laying out its theology of reality-denial, the nonexistence of evil, and the primacy of spirit over matter. 
Most of the book is set up in commentary form, somewhat similar to the final form of Blaise Pascal's Pensées, but a large section at the end of the book consists of personal testimonies, mostly of faith healing experiences. Readings from Science and Health are used in lieu of a sermon in church services, according to a schedule set down by Eddy early in the church's history. 
The text of the book is in the public domain in the United States due to the 1987 vacating of a 1972 copyright extension granted at the behest of Church of Christ, Scientist members in the Nixon administration. Since the intent of the law that gave a copyright extension specifically to the book was to assist a specific religion, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it violated the separation of church and state.Christian Science Text's Copyright Is Ruled Illegal by Appeals Court September 23, 1987 The New York Times.
==External links==
*Science and Health text at Project Gutenberg
==References==
Category:Pseudoscience
Category:Religious books
Science and Human Origins

Science and Human Origins is a misleadingly named Christian anti-evolution book written by developmental biologist Ann Gauger, molecular biologist Douglas Axe and attorney Casey Luskin. It was published by the Discovery Institute in June 2012.
All of the authors are Christian creationists and belong to the Discovery Institute.Science and Human Origins at the Discovery Institute Press Whilst the authors are well-qualified in their own fields none of them have any education in anthropology.
==Overview==
The book argues that humans do not share a common ancestor with chimpanzees, and that humanity has descended from the biblical Adam and Eve.Science and Human Origins conclusion: It is possible we came from just two parents"Science and Human Origins”: the Discotute misrepresent science once more According to the book, humans cannot have evolved as we have intelligence.Which is something the authors lack. Furthermore, a natural process cannot explain human origins so God must have done it.
==Reception==
Many feel that is an anti-science book and has received negative reviews from scientists for pushing a religious agenda. The sole purpose of the book was an attempt to try and prove Adam and Eve existed. The book has been debunked chapter by chapter in a lengthy online review by Auckland University of Technology Ph.D. candidate Paul McBride.Paul McBride reviews “Science and Human Origins”Science and Human origins Review
==Notes==
==References==
Category:Intelligent design creationism
Category:Religious books
Category:Discovery Institute
Science and Public Policy Institute

The Science and Public Policy Institute is a misleadingly named think tank specialising in global warming denial.It should not be confused with the earlier pro-public-health think tank of the same name.
The SPPI states it is "a nonprofit institute of research and education dedicated to sound public policy based on sound science. Free from affiliation to any corporation or political party." It does not reveal its funding sources; however, it shares a building and personnel with the "Centre for Science and Public Policy," a project of "Frontiers of Freedom," which gets its money from the oil industry (a million from ExxonMobilThe money, it's everywhere! for a start).
It awarded Christopher Monckton, who writes quite a lot of its papers, an imaginary Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.<capture>Can't delete this.</capture>
SPPI's greatest hits include a report in which they claim that sea levels have not risen, their evidence being a graph showing sea level rise, but tilted such that the long-term trend is flat.Monckton Myth #16: Bizarro World Sea Level, Skeptical Science Yes, really.
Also among its personnel listed are Craig Idso of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and Willie Soon.
==References==
Category:Think tanks
Category:Global warming denialists
Category:Denialist organizations
Category:Misnomers
Scientific American

Scientific American is, as the name suggests, an American popular science magazine which is also the oldest published magazine in the U.S., having been published continuously since 1845, when it was founded by Rufus Porter (1792–1884). The monthly magazine is the densest and most technical of popular science magazines.
Martin Gardner had an enjoyable column in the magazine for many years titled "Mathematical Games". Among many other things, he introduced Conway's Game of Life to the masses in the column.
==Feud with Musk==
In 2024, Scientific American dared to tell the truth about Elon Musk's lack of talent and luck,Elon Musk Owes His Success to Coming in Second (and Government Handouts): The world’s richest man, Elon Musk, owes his superstar success to self-satisfied competitors who blew obvious opportunities by Daniel Vergano (September 13, 2024) Scientific American. starting a feud that ended which later resulted in Musk calling for the editor-in-chief Laura Helmuth's firing, apparently for truthfully calling out E. O. Wilson as a racialist.“Scientific” American needs a change in management by Elon Musk (7:01 AM · Nov 12, 2024) Twitter (archived from 18 Nov 2024 02:06:21 UTC). Laura Helmuth either resigned or was pushed out shortly thereafter, apparently for her objectively true social media comments following the 2024 U.S. presidential election that Trump voters were “racist and sexist” and “fucking fascists”.Scientific American Loses Its Bold Leader by John Horgan (Nov 15, 2024) Cross-Check.
==Criticism==
The March 2008 issue of Scientific American epitomizes the problems of popular science magazines. The cover makes a desperate and hilarious attempt at sensationalism ("The End of Cosmology! In 100 billion years..."). The same issue also illustrates science journalists' obsession with connecting science fiction to science, when a quantum physicist bitch-slapped a science journalist for trying to make a Star Trek connection when discussing particle teleportation.Dramatization of the encounter
==See also==
*New Scientist, roughly the British equivalent.
==External links==
*Scientific American official website
==References==
Category:Journalism
Category:Magazines
Category:Popular science
Category:American media
Scientific Creationism (book)

Scientific Creationism is the Orwellian title of a 1974 book by Henry Morris, published by the Institute for Creation Research. It was printed in a God-awful font that was intelligently designed to put people off reading it.
The book was issued in two versions: a General Edition for bookstores, and a much slimmer Public School Edition which omitted any Biblical references.
==Contents==
The book is 255 pagesSecond Edition (1985), paperback 25th reprint 2009 long and divided into 7 chapters whose titles are posed as questions, thereby smearing the scientific viewpoint with ambivalence, whilst the eighth and final chapter which deals with the Biblical account is presented as only certainty. You might recognize some false dichotomies in the first few chapters.
*Chapter 1 - Evolution or Creation? (16 pages)
*Chapter 2 - Chaos or Cosmos? (20 pages)
*Chapter 3 - Uphill or Downhill? (22 pages)
*Chapter 4 - Accident or Plan? (32 pages)
*Chapter 5 - Uniformitarianism or Catastrophism (40 pages)
*Chapter 6 - Old or Young? (40 pages)
*Chapter 7 - Apes or Men? (32 pages)
*Chapter 8 - Creation According to Scripture (53 pages)
==References==
Category:Creationism
Category:Books
Scientific consensus

Scientific consensus is what most scientists in a particular field of study agree is true on a given question, when disagreement on the question is limited and insignificant.
The consensus may or may not turn out to be confirmed by further research. When it is confirmed, a hypothesis becomes known as a (lower-case) theory, or, given enough time and evidence, an (upper case) Theory, such as Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Numerous times in the history of science, one theory has been superseded by another as anomalies or counter-examples accrued over time and the scientific community has discarded an older theory in favor of a new theory which accounted for more of the data in a more satisfactory way. This often occurs as the result of improvements in the accuracy of the instruments used to observe, record, and measure phenomena.
==Misunderstanding==
Advocates of pseudosciences tend to see scientific consensus as just an argument from authority (or even a conspiracy).Hostility towards scientific consensus: A sign of a crank, Respectful Insolence Some even assume the existence of a mysteriously ill-defined "scientific establishment" enforcing received scientific orthodoxy by diktat.
Compare:
The twisting of "science was wrong before" (pseudoskeptics may intone), and then what about the Galileo gambit? Furthermore, since the notion of falsifiability exists (no theory can ever be fully certain or religiously dogmatic), we should then ignore the mountains of literature already available. Or the opponents of "the" consensus simply equate falsifiability with "false".
Portraying scientific consensus as a form of majoritarian rule is hilarious for two reasons:
# The scientific community has the inherent role of keeping a check on popularly-held (either "right" or "wrong") opinions.Scheufele, Dietram. "Communicating science in social settings." PNAS 110(3), 2013.
# If a new idea proves its case despite mainstream academic thought at the time, it will eventually become the new consensus.Compare Thomas Kuhn. (For a while, at least.)
==See also==
*Essay:Scientific consensus for a more thorough examination of this topic
==External links==
*Steven Novella explores the issue of scientific consensus.
*The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science, Psychology Today
==References==
Category:Science
Scientific dogma

Scientific dogma is used in two ways: one to refer to very, very well-established theories in science (which is a pretty decent usage, albeit different from the traditional religious use) and one to negatively refer to scientific theories that the speaker doesn't like, with the implication that science is unchanging and suppressive of minority views (like religious dogmas). This second usage is unfounded.
==Creationism==
Creationists often argue that scientists are pressured not to challenge the established dogma of evolution and radiometric dating.Anon, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., p. 182.
There are several issues with this claim:
#This is not historically true. When Albert Einstein proposed his Theory of Relativity, it caused a massive upheaval in the scientific community. The same also occurred with quantum theory, atomic theory, and most other major scientific discoveries — even the theory of evolution, for that matter. If scientists are pressured to never challenge "established dogma," astronomers, for example, would still be using Ptolemy's theory of epicycles to explain planetary retrograde motion.
#This is not presently true.
##Scientists are, in fact, pressured to challenge dogma. Proving that science is doing it wrong is just as, if not more, likely to bring a scientist fame and funding. Einstein is noted (at least in part) because he questioned classical mechanics.
##Scientists conduct experiments that may or may not prove current theories to be true. If this claim were true, scientists would never conduct any experiments on anything — out of fear that they might challenge an aspect of the system.Wells, Jonathan, n.d. Unification Sermons and Talks: Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D. See also: Anonymous, n.d. Dr. Jonathan Wells Returns to UTS. 
#This claim directly contradicts another creationist claim, "science was wrong before". It is very bizarre to think that scientists uphold "established dogma" with constantly changing data.
#Hypocritically, creationists, themselves, are pressured not to challenge their own established dogma, given as how so many creationist organizations, including ICR, Answers in Genesis, and even CreationWiki, require that their members swear to reject all evidence that would potentially contradict a literal interpretation of the Bible.
#This argument functions in part as an appeal to pity by arguing that creationists have to fight against peer pressure.
#"Dogma" is loaded language and suggests a closed-minded religious attitude. Its use in science, as noted above, is vastly different.
#This argument relies on the conspiracy theory that some scientists knowingly are withholding the truth.
==External links==
*Mark Isaak's page for this claim
*Conspiracy by Mark Hoofnagle, 30 April 2007
*Preacher Mike's Conspiracy, Law Evolution Science and Junk Science, 13 March 2005
==References==
Category:EvoWiki ports
Scientific evidence for God's existence

The following is a compilation of all scientific evidence for the existence of a deity. 
==See also==
*Arguments against the existence of God
*Evidence for God's existence according to a Storehouse of Knowledge
*One RWer's summation of the negative evidence
*Absence of evidence - For those who like to pull the "you can't prove the non-existence" card.
===Want to read this in another language?===
==External links==
* <S>300</S> 667 proofs of God's existence
Category:Lists
Category:Challenge articles
Scientific evidence for a flat Earth

The following is a list of all the proof for the Earth being flat. Good luck! 
==The list==
===If you can actually come up with something scientifically valid===
You will get free everything for the rest of your life.
==See also==
*Flat Earth
*Neil deGrasse Tyson
*Flat Earth Society
===Want to read this in another language?===
Category:Flat Earth
Scientific law

Scientific laws are repeatedly observed phenomena in nature that appear to be nearly universally true. Oftentimes laws will be developed from and described by mathematical models of the phenomena in question. Laws are different from theories in that they are not designed to provide a causal framework in which to describe why a series of observations reliably occur but are rather merely descriptions of the observed phenomenon; laws are not, as many assume, hierarchically ranked above theories in terms of verity. Creationists often like to refer to scientific laws as the unimpeachable authority of science and often try and use such things as the Second Law of Thermodynamics to argue against evolution. This is, of course, a logical fallacy that relies on equivocation.
A posteriori laws are capable of being precisely mathematically analyzed and described. They also permit the prediction of future events by extrapolation from past events or present circumstances.
For instance: 
:A law of gravity will tell you that two objects will be attracted to each other and the magnitude of the force, contrastingly a theory of gravity will offer an explanation for the existence of the force.
==See also==
*Science
*Other types of laws
==References==
category:science
category:Philosophy of science