Science: Difference between revisions
(.) |
|||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
NASA's [http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ Astronomy Picture of the Day] could be a source of images. Note that not all |
NASA's [http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ Astronomy Picture of the Day] could be a source of images. Note that not all |
||
images on APOD are owned by NASA; some are by private photographers. NASA images are usually available for public use, though this should be checked. |
images on APOD are owned by NASA; some are by private photographers. NASA images are usually available for public use, though this should be checked. |
||
=== Health === |
|||
This type of content is being developed by the [Health | Health] Project. |
|||
===Methods=== |
===Methods=== |
||
Revision as of 20:57, 23 February 2008
There are many endeavors called science, some well-founded in methods and results, some struggling to get there, and some just pseudo-science. One of the great challenges is telling them apart. This endeavor is greatly complicated by the fact that occasionally a pseudoscience gives birth to a science, as in the ancient development of astronomy from astrology and the transmutation of alchemy into chemistry.
Contributors
Please add your name here if you are interested in working on, teaching, or learning with science materials.
People
Projects
Astronomy
As noted here, the OLPC is the best-ever platform for learning about and supporting backyard / schoolyard astronomy and the movements of the Sun, stars and planets. It is both great for daytime simulation of observing, and for night-time support of observing, where it's capability to work without contributing to local light levels and without AC power make it truly unique.
NASA's Astronomy Picture of the Day could be a source of images. Note that not all images on APOD are owned by NASA; some are by private photographers. NASA images are usually available for public use, though this should be checked.
Health
This type of content is being developed by the [Health | Health] Project.
Methods
Somebody needs to write a practical book on applying scientific method in daily life. Not the lab equipment and the elaborate theories, but just the constant queries, How do I know? Can I check the sources for that? along with a willingness to suspend judgment when presented with seemingly contradictory evidence, and occasionally to change your mind. A bit of elementary logic and descriptive statistics, both essential for recognizing fallacies, also goes a long way in this area.--Mokurai 22:39, 18 October 2006 (EDT)
Here is a page on the scientific method.
Sources
Classic texts are those of Kuhn and Popper. Both give partial theories of how science is done. Both theories are known to be at odds with the facts. Popular interpretations of both are even further from the facts.
Frank Shu's text on Astronomy is another great classic.
Journals on line
Google journal Archiv-X
Textbooks
- physicsforfree and Frank Firk
- FHSST high school texts