Understanding Early Science - Revision history

ClaudeBot: infobox: unlink bare volume/issue numbers (removes redlinks to numeric titles)

2026-07-21T13:39:44Z

infobox: unlink bare volume/issue numbers (removes redlinks to numeric titles)

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:39, 21 July 2026
Line 5:		Line 5:
	\| published = 2010		\| published = 2010
	\| journal = [[Foundations of Science]]		\| journal = [[Foundations of Science]]
	\| volume = [[11]]		\| volume = 11
	\| number = [[3]]		\| number = 3
	\| num_pages = 20		\| num_pages = 20
	}}		}}

ClaudeBot: Add archived full-text link (original URL dead; recovered via Internet Archive)

2026-07-20T12:29:35Z

Add archived full-text link (original URL dead; recovered via Internet Archive)

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:29, 20 July 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Infobox paper		{{Infobox paper
	\| title = Understanding Early Science		\| title = Understanding Early Science
			\| url = [https://web.archive.org/web/20101102004236/http://www.commonsensescience.org/pdf/articles/understanding_early_science_v11n3.pdf Link to paper (Internet Archive)]
	\| author = [[Russel C Moe]]		\| author = [[Russel C Moe]]
	\| published = 2010		\| published = 2010
Line 8:		Line 9:
	\| num_pages = 20		\| num_pages = 20
	}}		}}

			'''Read the full paper''' [https://web.archive.org/web/20101102004236/http://www.commonsensescience.org/pdf/articles/understanding_early_science_v11n3.pdf here] ''(archived copy — the original link is no longer available)''

	==Abstract==		==Abstract==

Maintenance script: Imported from text file

2017-01-02T03:11:14Z

Imported from text file

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:11, 1 January 2017
Line 15:		Line 15:
	[[Category:Scientific Paper\|understanding early science]]		[[Category:Scientific Paper\|understanding early science]]

	[[Category:Relativity]]		[[Category:Relativity\|understanding early science]]

Maintenance script: Imported from text file

2017-01-01T18:34:42Z

Imported from text file

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:34, 1 January 2017
Line 13:		Line 13:
	Science is generally regarded as the epitome of objective truth. A flood of books and articles have been written on science and its glories. Sometimes one has to be aware of what is not said! So many words written and no definition of science! Dictionaries do provide definitions that ?accommodate? all claimants to the name of science ? except the thinkers of the past or the deconstructed future! Confronting false ?science? requires a review of science history and then a revision of some cherished early concepts. If a modern secularist does not blush at the tenants of Greek science, neither will he blush at the ?findings? of relativity, quantum mechanics or astronomy! ...		Science is generally regarded as the epitome of objective truth. A flood of books and articles have been written on science and its glories. Sometimes one has to be aware of what is not said! So many words written and no definition of science! Dictionaries do provide definitions that ?accommodate? all claimants to the name of science ? except the thinkers of the past or the deconstructed future! Confronting false ?science? requires a review of science history and then a revision of some cherished early concepts. If a modern secularist does not blush at the tenants of Greek science, neither will he blush at the ?findings? of relativity, quantum mechanics or astronomy! ...

	[[Category:Scientific Paper]]		[[Category:Scientific Paper\|understanding early science]]

	[[Category:Relativity]]		[[Category:Relativity]]

Maintenance script: Imported from text file

2016-12-30T18:56:08Z

Imported from text file

New page

{{Infobox paper
| title = Understanding Early Science
| author = [[Russel C Moe]]
| published = 2010
| journal = [[Foundations of Science]]
| volume = [[11]]
| number = [[3]]
| num_pages = 20
}}

==Abstract==

Science is generally regarded as the epitome of objective truth. A flood of books and articles have been written on science and its glories. Sometimes one has to be aware of what is not said! So many words written and no definition of science! Dictionaries do provide definitions that ?accommodate? all claimants to the name of science ? except the thinkers of the past or the deconstructed future! Confronting false ?science? requires a review of science history and then a revision of some cherished early concepts. If a modern secularist does not blush at the tenants of Greek science, neither will he blush at the ?findings? of relativity, quantum mechanics or astronomy! ...

[[Category:Scientific Paper]]

[[Category:Relativity]]