Science

This article is a stub. You can help the OLPC project by expanding it.

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 one can practice pseudo-science within the realm of a genuine science (Creation Science, so-called, is the most familiar example), and that occasionally a pseudoscience gives birth to a science, as in the ancient development of astronomy from astrology and the rather late transition from alchemy to chemistry.

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)

The 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.

Here is a page on the scientific method.

Sources

Journals on line

Google journal Archiv-X

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.