Editing Science (section)

== Research ==
Scientific research can be labelled as either basic or applied research. [[Basic research]] is the search for knowledge and [[applied research]] is the search for solutions to practical problems using this knowledge. Most understanding comes from basic research, though sometimes applied research targets specific practical problems. This leads to technological advances that were not previously imaginable.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://richarddawkins.net/articles/91 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120119113522/http://richarddawkins.net/articles/91 |archive-date=19 January 2012 |title=To Live at All Is Miracle Enough |first=Richard |last=Dawkins |publisher=RichardDawkins.net |date=10 May 2006 |access-date=5 February 2012}}</ref>

=== Scientific method ===
[[File:The Scientific Method.svg|thumb|A diagram variant of scientific method represented as an [[Scientific method#Elements of the scientific method|ongoing process]]|alt=6 steps of the scientific method in a loop]]

Scientific research involves using the [[scientific method]], which seeks to [[objectivity (science)|objectively]] explain the events of [[nature]] in a [[reproducible]] way.<ref name="di Francia1976">{{cite book |last=di Francia |first=Giuliano Toraldo |chapter=The method of physics |title=The Investigation of the Physical World |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=1976 |pages=1–52 |isbn=978-0-521-29925-1 |quote=The amazing point is that for the first time since the discovery of mathematics, a method has been introduced, the results of which have an intersubjective value!}}</ref> Scientists usually take for granted a set of basic assumptions that are needed to justify the scientific method: there is an [[objective reality]] shared by all rational observers; this objective reality is governed by [[natural law]]s; these laws were discovered by means of systematic [[observation]] and experimentation.<ref name="Heilbron2003"/> Mathematics is essential in the formation of [[hypotheses]], [[theories]], and laws, because it is used extensively in quantitative modelling, observing, and collecting [[measurements]].<ref>{{cite book |last=Popper |first=Karl R. |url=https://archive.org/details/logicscientificd00popp_574 |title=The Logic of Scientific Discovery |publisher=Routledge |year=2002e |isbn=978-0-415-27844-7 |location=New York |pages=[https://archive.org/details/logicscientificd00popp_574/page/n133 3]–26 |chapter=The problem of the empirical basis |orig-date=1959 |url-access=limited}}</ref> Statistics is used to summarise and analyse data, which allows scientists to assess the reliability of experimental results.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Diggle |first1=Peter J. |author-link=Peter Diggle |title=Statistics and Scientific Method: An Introduction for Students and Researchers |last2=Chetwynd |first2=Amanda G. |author2-link=Amanda Chetwynd |year=2011 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0199543182 |pages=1–2}}</ref>

In the scientific method an explanatory [[thought experiment]] or hypothesis is put forward as an explanation using [[Occam's razor|parsimony principles]] and is expected to seek [[consilience]]&nbsp;– fitting with other accepted facts related to an observation or scientific question.<ref>{{cite book |last=Wilson |first=Edward |title=Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge |publisher=Vintage |location=New York |year=1999 |isbn=978-0-679-76867-8}}</ref> This tentative explanation is used to make [[falsifiable]] predictions, which are typically posted before being tested by experimentation. Disproof of a prediction is evidence of progress.<ref name="di Francia1976" />{{Rp|pages=4–5}}<ref>{{cite book |last=Fara |first=Patricia |author-link=Patricia Fara |year=2009 |chapter=Decisions |title=Science: A Four Thousand Year History |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-922689-4 |page=[https://archive.org/details/sciencefourthous00fara/page/408 408] |chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/sciencefourthous00fara/page/306}}</ref> Experimentation is especially important in science to help establish [[causal relationships]] to avoid the [[correlation fallacy]], though in some sciences such as astronomy or geology, a predicted observation might be more appropriate.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Aldrich |first=John |journal=Statistical Science |volume=10 |year=1995 |pages=364–376 |title=Correlations Genuine and Spurious in Pearson and Yule |jstor=2246135 |doi=10.1214/ss/1177009870 |issue=4 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

When a hypothesis proves unsatisfactory it is modified or discarded. If the hypothesis survives testing, it may become adopted into the framework of a [[scientific theory]], a [[deductive logic|valid]]ly [[reason]]ed, self-consistent model or framework for describing the behaviour of certain natural events. A theory typically describes the behaviour of much broader sets of observations than a hypothesis; commonly, a large number of hypotheses can be logically bound together by a single theory. Thus, a theory is a hypothesis explaining various other hypotheses. In that vein, theories are formulated according to most of the same scientific principles as hypotheses. Scientists may generate a [[Scientific modelling|model]], an attempt to describe or depict an observation in terms of a logical, physical or mathematical representation, and to generate new hypotheses that can be tested by experimentation.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Nola |first1=Robert |last2=Irzik |first2=Gürol |year=2005 |title=Philosophy, science, education and culture |volume=28 |series=Science & technology education library |isbn=978-1-4020-3769-6 |publisher=Springer |pages=207–230}}</ref>

While performing experiments to test hypotheses, scientists may have a preference for one outcome over another.<ref>{{cite web |last=van Gelder |first=Tim |year=1999 |url=http://www.philosophy.unimelb.edu.au/tgelder/papers/HeadsIWin.pdf |title="Heads I win, tails you lose": A Foray Into the Psychology of Philosophy |publisher=University of Melbourne |access-date=28 March 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080409054240/http://www.philosophy.unimelb.edu.au/tgelder/papers/HeadsIWin.pdf |archive-date=9 April 2008}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Pease |first=Craig |date=6 September 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100619154617/http://law-and-science.net/Science4BLJ/Scientific_Method/Deliberate.bias/Text.htm |archive-date=19 June 2010 |title=Chapter 23. Deliberate bias: Conflict creates bad science |website=Science for Business, Law and Journalism |publisher=Vermont Law School |url=http://law-and-science.net/Science4BLJ/Scientific_Method/Deliberate.bias/Text.htm}}</ref> Eliminating the bias can be achieved through transparency, careful [[experimental design]], and a thorough [[peer review]] process of the experimental results and conclusions.<ref>{{cite book |first=David |last=Shatz |year=2004 |title=Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield |isbn=978-0-7425-1434-8}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |first=Sheldon |last=Krimsky |year=2003 |title=Science in the Private Interest: Has the Lure of Profits Corrupted the Virtue of Biomedical Research |publisher=Rowman & Littlefield |isbn=978-0-7425-1479-9 |url=https://archive.org/details/scienceinprivate0000krim}}</ref> After the results of an experiment are announced or published, it is normal practice for independent researchers to double-check how the research was performed, and to follow up by performing similar experiments to determine how dependable the results might be.<ref>{{cite book |first1=Ruth Ellen |last1=Bulger |year=2002 |last2=Heitman |first2=Elizabeth |last3=Reiser |first3=Stanley Joel |title=The Ethical Dimensions of the Biological and Health Sciences |edition=2nd |isbn=978-0-521-00886-0 |publisher=Cambridge University Press}}</ref> Taken in its entirety, the scientific method allows for highly creative problem solving while minimising the effects of subjective and [[confirmation bias]].<ref>{{cite web |last=Backer |first=Patricia Ryaby |date=29 October 2004 |url=http://www.engr.sjsu.edu/pabacker/scientific_method.htm |title=What is the scientific method? |publisher=San Jose State University |access-date=28 March 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080408082917/http://www.engr.sjsu.edu/pabacker/scientific_method.htm |archive-date=8 April 2008}}</ref> [[Intersubjective verifiability]], the ability to reach a consensus and reproduce results, is fundamental to the creation of all scientific knowledge.<ref>{{cite book |last=Ziman |first=John |title=Reliable knowledge: An exploration of the grounds for belief in science |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=1978c |isbn=978-0-521-22087-3 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/reliableknowledg00john/page/42 42–76] |chapter=Common observation |chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/reliableknowledg00john/page/42}}</ref>

=== Literature ===
{{Main|Scientific literature|Lists of important publications in science}}
[[File:Nature_cover,_November_4,_1869.jpg|thumb|Cover of the first issue of ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]'', 4 November 1869|alt=Decorated "NATURE" as title, with scientific text below]]
Scientific research is published in a range of literature.<ref>{{cite journal |author-link=John Ziman |last=Ziman |first=J. M. |journal=Science |title=The proliferation of scientific literature: a natural process |year=1980 |volume=208 |issue=4442 |pages=369–371 |doi=10.1126/science.7367863 |pmid=7367863 |bibcode=1980Sci...208..369Z}}</ref> [[Scientific journal]]s communicate and document the results of research carried out in universities and various other research institutions, serving as an archival record of science. The first scientific journals, {{lang|fr|[[Journal des sçavans]]}} followed by ''[[Philosophical Transactions]]'', began publication in 1665. Since that time the total number of active periodicals has steadily increased. In 1981, one estimate for the number of scientific and technical journals in publication was 11,500.<ref>{{cite book |first1=Krishna |last1=Subramanyam |last2=Subramanyam |first2=Bhadriraju |year=1981 |title=Scientific and Technical Information Resources |publisher=CRC Press |isbn=978-0-8247-8297-9}}</ref>

Most scientific journals cover a single scientific field and publish the research within that field; the research is normally expressed in the form of a [[scientific paper]]. Science has become so pervasive in modern societies that it is considered necessary to communicate the achievements, news, and ambitions of scientists to a wider population.<ref name="Bush1945">{{cite web |last=Bush |first=Vannevar |date=July 1945 |title=Science the Endless Frontier |url=https://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/vbush1945.htm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161107221306/https://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/vbush1945.htm |archive-date=7 November 2016 |access-date=4 November 2016 |publisher=National Science Foundation}}</ref>

=== Challenges ===
{{See also|Criticism of science|Academic bias}}
The [[replication crisis]] is an ongoing [[methodological]] crisis that affects parts of the [[social science|social]] and [[life science]]s. In subsequent investigations, the results of many scientific studies have been proven to be [[reproducibility|unrepeatable]].<ref>{{Cite journal |doi=10.1038/515009a |title=Metascience could rescue the 'replication crisis' |journal=Nature |volume=515 |issue=7525 |page=9 |year=2014 |last1=Schooler |first1=J. W. |pmid=25373639 |bibcode=2014Natur.515....9S |doi-access=free}}</ref> The crisis has long-standing roots; the phrase was coined in the early 2010s<ref>{{Cite journal |doi=10.1177/1745691612465253 |title=Editors' Introduction to the Special Section on Replicability in Psychological Science: A Crisis of Confidence? |journal=Perspectives on Psychological Science |volume=7 |issue=6 |pages=528–530 |year=2012 |last1=Pashler |first1=Harold |last2=Wagenmakers |first2=Eric Jan |pmid=26168108 |s2cid=26361121 |doi-access=free}}</ref> as part of a growing awareness of the problem. The replication crisis represents an important body of research in [[metascience]], which aims to improve the quality of all scientific research while reducing waste.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Ioannidis |first1=John P. A. |last2=Fanelli |first2=Daniele |last3=Dunne |first3=Debbie Drake |last4=Goodman |first4=Steven N. |date=2 October 2015 |title=Meta-research: Evaluation and Improvement of Research Methods and Practices |journal=PLOS Biology |volume=13 |issue=10 |pages=–1002264 |doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002264 |pmid=26431313 |pmc=4592065 |issn=1545-7885 |doi-access=free}}</ref>

An area of study or speculation that masquerades as science in an attempt to claim legitimacy that it would not otherwise be able to achieve is sometimes referred to as [[pseudoscience]], [[fringe science]], or [[junk science]].<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/pseudo-science |title=Science and Pseudoscience |at=Section 2: The "science" of pseudoscience |encyclopedia=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |first1=Sven Ove |last1=Hansson |editor-last=Zalta |editor-first=Edward N. |date=3 September 2008 |access-date=28 May 2022 |archive-date=29 October 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211029205141/https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/pseudo-science/ |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Shermer |first=Michael |author-link=Michael Shermer |year=1997 |title=Why people believe weird things: pseudoscience, superstition, and other confusions of our time |url=https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780965594875 |url-access=registration |location=New York |publisher=W. H. Freeman & Co. |isbn=978-0-7167-3090-3 |page=17}}</ref> Physicist [[Richard Feynman]] coined the term "[[cargo cult science]]" for cases in which researchers believe, and at a glance, look like they are doing science but lack the honesty to allow their results to be rigorously evaluated.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cult.html |title=Cargo Cult Science |last=Feynman |first=Richard |year=1974 |website=Center for Theoretical Neuroscience |publisher=Columbia University |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050304032544/http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cult.html |archive-date=4 March 2005 |url-status=dead |access-date=4 November 2016}}</ref> Various types of commercial advertising, ranging from hype to fraud, may fall into these categories. Science has been described as "the most important tool" for separating valid claims from invalid ones.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Novella |first=Steven |title=The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe: How to Know What's Really Real in a World Increasingly Full of Fake |title-link=The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe (book) |publisher=Hodder & Stoughton |year=2018 |isbn=978-1473696419 |page=162 |author-link=Steven Novella}}</ref>

There can also be an element of [[political bias]] or ideological bias on all sides of scientific debates. Sometimes, research may be characterised as "bad science", research that may be well-intended but is incorrect, obsolete, incomplete, or over-simplified expositions of scientific ideas. The term [[scientific misconduct]] refers to situations such as where researchers have intentionally misrepresented their published data or have purposely given credit for a discovery to the wrong person.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Coping with fraud |journal=The COPE Report 1999 |pages=11–18 |url=http://www.publicationethics.org.uk/reports/1999/1999pdf3.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070928151119/http://www.publicationethics.org.uk/reports/1999/1999pdf3.pdf |quote=It is 10 years, to the month, since Stephen Lock&nbsp;... Reproduced with kind permission of the Editor, The Lancet. |archive-date=28 September 2007 |access-date=21 July 2011}}</ref>