Credibility of Common Sense Science: Difference between revisions
Imported from text file |
infobox: unlink bare volume/issue numbers (removes redlinks to numeric titles) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox paper | {{Infobox paper | ||
| title = Credibility of Common Sense Science | | title = Credibility of Common Sense Science | ||
| author = [[Charles William Lucas]], [[David L | | url = [https://web.archive.org/web/20060715094557/http://www.commonsensescience.org/pdf/articles/credibility_of_CSS_ps.pdf Link to paper (Internet Archive)] | ||
| author = [[Charles William Lucas]], [[David L Bergman]] | |||
| keywords = [[Validation]], [[Theory of knowledge]], [[Charged ring model]], [[Bonding]], [[Packing]], [[Force]] | | keywords = [[Validation]], [[Theory of knowledge]], [[Charged ring model]], [[Bonding]], [[Packing]], [[Force]] | ||
| published = 2003 | | published = 2003 | ||
| journal = [[Foundations of Science]] | | journal = [[Foundations of Science]] | ||
| volume = | | volume = 6 | ||
| number = | | number = 2 | ||
| num_pages = 17 | | num_pages = 17 | ||
}} | }} | ||
'''Read the full paper''' [https://web.archive.org/web/20060715094557/http://www.commonsensescience.org/pdf/articles/credibility_of_CSS_ps.pdf here] ''(archived copy — the original link is no longer available)'' | |||
==Abstract== | ==Abstract== | ||
?Who hath believed our report?? Sometimes we are asked what others say about Common Sense Science. Many want to know if our theory of matter is credible but lack confidence in their ability to make the evaluation themselves. This report identifies scientific criteria and includes an overview to enable an objective evaluation of CSS credibility.[[Category:Scientific Paper]] | ?Who hath believed our report?? Sometimes we are asked what others say about Common Sense Science. Many want to know if our theory of matter is credible but lack confidence in their ability to make the evaluation themselves. This report identifies scientific criteria and includes an overview to enable an objective evaluation of CSS credibility. | ||
[[Category:Scientific Paper|credibility common sense science]] | |||
[[Category:Toroidal Ring]] | |||
Latest revision as of 09:16, 21 July 2026
| Scientific Paper | |
|---|---|
| Title | Credibility of Common Sense Science |
| Read in full | Link to paper (Internet Archive) |
| Author(s) | Charles William Lucas, David L Bergman |
| Keywords | Validation, Theory of knowledge, Charged ring model, Bonding, Packing, Force |
| Published | 2003 |
| Journal | Foundations of Science |
| Volume | 6 |
| Number | 2 |
| No. of pages | 17 |
Read the full paper here (archived copy — the original link is no longer available)
Abstract
?Who hath believed our report?? Sometimes we are asked what others say about Common Sense Science. Many want to know if our theory of matter is credible but lack confidence in their ability to make the evaluation themselves. This report identifies scientific criteria and includes an overview to enable an objective evaluation of CSS credibility.