Understanding Early Science: Difference between revisions
Add archived full-text link (original URL dead; recovered via Internet Archive) |
infobox: unlink bare volume/issue numbers (removes redlinks to numeric titles) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| published = 2010 | | published = 2010 | ||
| journal = [[Foundations of Science]] | | journal = [[Foundations of Science]] | ||
| volume = | | volume = 11 | ||
| number = | | number = 3 | ||
| num_pages = 20 | | num_pages = 20 | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 09:39, 21 July 2026
| Scientific Paper | |
|---|---|
| Title | Understanding Early Science |
| Read in full | Link to paper (Internet Archive) |
| Author(s) | Russel C Moe |
| Published | 2010 |
| Journal | Foundations of Science |
| Volume | 11 |
| Number | 3 |
| No. of pages | 20 |
Read the full paper here (archived copy — the original link is no longer available)
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! ...