Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Christian Science is generally considered a Christian new religious movement; however, some have called it "pseudoscience" because its founder, Mary Baker Eddy, used "science" in its name, and because of its former stance against medical science. Also, "Eddy used the term Metaphysical science to distinguish her system both from materialistic ...
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us; Pages for logged out editors learn more
The history of scientific method considers changes in the methodology of scientific inquiry, not the history of science itself. The development of rules for scientific reasoning has not been straightforward; scientific method has been the subject of intense and recurring debate throughout the history of science, and eminent natural philosophers and scientists have argued for the primacy of ...
A concept that was once accepted by the mainstream scientific community may become fringe science because of a later evaluation of previous research. [5] For example, focal infection theory, which held that focal infections of the tonsils or teeth are a primary cause of systemic disease, was once considered to be medical fact. It has since been ...
Kendrick Frazier said that scientific skeptics have a commitment to science, reason, evidence, and the quest for truth. [10] Carl Sagan emphasized the importance of being able to ask skeptical questions, recognizing fallacious or fraudulent arguments, and considering the validity of an argument rather than simply whether we like the conclusion.
But one counter-example can prove it false. That means that deductive logic is used in the evaluation of a theory. In other words, if A implies B, then not B implies not A. Einstein's theory of General Relativity has been supported by many observations using the best scientific instruments and experiments.
This category contains articles that contain predictions, speculative material or accounts of events that might not occur, to the extent that they violate Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.
There are many philosophical and historical theories as to how scientific consensus changes over time. Because the history of scientific change is extremely complicated, and because there is a tendency to project "winners" and "losers" onto the past in relation to the current scientific consensus, it is very difficult to come up with accurate and rigorous models for scientific change. [17]