Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a229f53e5f7da8fe

Jump to content

Template:Excerpt/testcases

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Errors

[edit]
{{Excerpt}}
Side by side comparison
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}
No page given
No page given
{{Excerpt|}}
Side by side comparison
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}
No page given
No page given
{{Excerpt| }}
Side by side comparison
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}
No page given
No page given
{{Excerpt|2 > 1}}
Side by side comparison
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}
Title «2 > 1» is not valid
Title «2 > 1» is not valid
{{Excerpt|Fake title}}
Side by side comparison
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}
Page 'Fake title' not found
Page 'Fake title' not found
{{Excerpt|Science#Fake section}}
Side by side comparison
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}
Section 'Fake section' not found
Section 'Fake section' not found
{{Excerpt|Science|Fake section}}
Side by side comparison
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}
Section 'Fake section' not found
Section 'Fake section' not found
{{Excerpt|Science|fragment=Fake fragment}}
Side by side comparison
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}
Section 'Fake fragment' not found
Section 'Fake fragment' not found

Leads

[edit]
{{Excerpt|Science}}
Side by side comparison
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}

Science is a systematic discipline that builds and organises knowledge in the form of testable explanations about nature and society.[1]:49–71[2] It is driven by the scientific method: an empirical cycle that typically involves making observations, producing hypotheses, testing them with evidence, and drawing conclusions. Science encompasses this process and the body of knowledge it produces, which the scientific community continuously challenges, validates, and organises.

Modern science is typically divided into two  or three  major branches:[3] the natural sciences, which study the physical world, and the social sciences, which study individuals and societies.[4][5] While referred to as the formal sciences, the study of logic, mathematics, and theoretical computer science are typically regarded as separate because they rely on deductive reasoning instead of the scientific method as their main methodology.[6][7][8][9] Meanwhile, applied sciences are disciplines that use scientific knowledge for practical purposes, such as engineering and medicine.[10][11][12]

The history of science spans the majority of the historical record, with the earliest identifiable predecessors to modern science dating to the Bronze Age in Egypt and Mesopotamia (c.3000–1200 BCE). Their contributions to mathematics, astronomy, and medicine entered and shaped the Greek natural philosophy of classical antiquity and later medieval scholarship, whereby formal attempts were made to provide explanations of events in the physical world based on natural causes; while further advances, including the introduction of the Hindu–Arabic numeral system, were made during the Golden Age of India and Islamic Golden Age.[13]:12[14]:1–26[15][16][13]:163–192

The recovery and assimilation of Greek works and Islamic inquiries into Western Europe during the Renaissance revived natural philosophy,[13]:193–224,225–253[17] which was later transformed by the Scientific Revolution that began in the 16th century[18] as new ideas and discoveries departed from previous Greek conceptions and traditions.[13]:357–368[14]:274–322 The scientific method soon played a greater role in the acquisition of knowledge, and in the 19th century, many of the institutional and professional features of science began to take shape,[19][20] along with the changing of "natural philosophy" to "natural science".[21]

New knowledge in science is advanced by research from scientists who are motivated by curiosity about the world and a desire to solve problems.[22][23] Contemporary scientific research is often highly collaborative and is frequently carried out by teams in academic and research institutions,[24] government agencies,[13]:163–192 and companies.[25] At the same time, many major advances—particularly in fundamental science—have come from individual researchers and are widely recognised through major international awards such as the Nobel Prize. The practical results of scientific work have led to the emergence of science policies that seek to prioritise the responsible development of commercial products, health care, public infrastructure, environmental protection, and defense capabilities.

Science is a systematic discipline that builds and organises knowledge in the form of testable explanations about nature and society.[26]:49–71[2] It is driven by the scientific method: an empirical cycle that typically involves making observations, producing hypotheses, testing them with evidence, and drawing conclusions. Science encompasses this process and the body of knowledge it produces, which the scientific community continuously challenges, validates, and organises.

Modern science is typically divided into two  or three  major branches:[3] the natural sciences, which study the physical world, and the social sciences, which study individuals and societies.[4][5] While referred to as the formal sciences, the study of logic, mathematics, and theoretical computer science are typically regarded as separate because they rely on deductive reasoning instead of the scientific method as their main methodology.[6][27][8][28] Meanwhile, applied sciences are disciplines that use scientific knowledge for practical purposes, such as engineering and medicine.[29][30][12]

The history of science spans the majority of the historical record, with the earliest identifiable predecessors to modern science dating to the Bronze Age in Egypt and Mesopotamia (c.3000–1200 BCE). Their contributions to mathematics, astronomy, and medicine entered and shaped the Greek natural philosophy of classical antiquity and later medieval scholarship, whereby formal attempts were made to provide explanations of events in the physical world based on natural causes; while further advances, including the introduction of the Hindu–Arabic numeral system, were made during the Golden Age of India and Islamic Golden Age.[13]:12[14]:1–26[31][32][13]:163–192

The recovery and assimilation of Greek works and Islamic inquiries into Western Europe during the Renaissance revived natural philosophy,[13]:193–224,225–253[33] which was later transformed by the Scientific Revolution that began in the 16th century[34] as new ideas and discoveries departed from previous Greek conceptions and traditions.[13]:357–368[14]:274–322 The scientific method soon played a greater role in the acquisition of knowledge, and in the 19th century, many of the institutional and professional features of science began to take shape,[35][36] along with the changing of "natural philosophy" to "natural science".[37]

New knowledge in science is advanced by research from scientists who are motivated by curiosity about the world and a desire to solve problems.[38][39] Contemporary scientific research is often highly collaborative and is frequently carried out by teams in academic and research institutions,[40] government agencies,[13]:163–192 and companies.[41] At the same time, many major advances—particularly in fundamental science—have come from individual researchers and are widely recognised through major international awards such as the Nobel Prize. The practical results of scientific work have led to the emergence of science policies that seek to prioritise the responsible development of commercial products, health care, public infrastructure, environmental protection, and defense capabilities.

{{Excerpt|Sciences}}
Side by side comparison
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}

Science is a systematic discipline that builds and organises knowledge in the form of testable explanations about nature and society.[42]:49–71[2] It is driven by the scientific method: an empirical cycle that typically involves making observations, producing hypotheses, testing them with evidence, and drawing conclusions. Science encompasses this process and the body of knowledge it produces, which the scientific community continuously challenges, validates, and organises.

Modern science is typically divided into two  or three  major branches:[3] the natural sciences, which study the physical world, and the social sciences, which study individuals and societies.[4][5] While referred to as the formal sciences, the study of logic, mathematics, and theoretical computer science are typically regarded as separate because they rely on deductive reasoning instead of the scientific method as their main methodology.[6][43][8][44] Meanwhile, applied sciences are disciplines that use scientific knowledge for practical purposes, such as engineering and medicine.[45][46][12]

The history of science spans the majority of the historical record, with the earliest identifiable predecessors to modern science dating to the Bronze Age in Egypt and Mesopotamia (c.3000–1200 BCE). Their contributions to mathematics, astronomy, and medicine entered and shaped the Greek natural philosophy of classical antiquity and later medieval scholarship, whereby formal attempts were made to provide explanations of events in the physical world based on natural causes; while further advances, including the introduction of the Hindu–Arabic numeral system, were made during the Golden Age of India and Islamic Golden Age.[13]:12[14]:1–26[47][48][13]:163–192

The recovery and assimilation of Greek works and Islamic inquiries into Western Europe during the Renaissance revived natural philosophy,[13]:193–224,225–253[49] which was later transformed by the Scientific Revolution that began in the 16th century[50] as new ideas and discoveries departed from previous Greek conceptions and traditions.[13]:357–368[14]:274–322 The scientific method soon played a greater role in the acquisition of knowledge, and in the 19th century, many of the institutional and professional features of science began to take shape,[51][52] along with the changing of "natural philosophy" to "natural science".[53]

New knowledge in science is advanced by research from scientists who are motivated by curiosity about the world and a desire to solve problems.[54][55] Contemporary scientific research is often highly collaborative and is frequently carried out by teams in academic and research institutions,[56] government agencies,[13]:163–192 and companies.[57] At the same time, many major advances—particularly in fundamental science—have come from individual researchers and are widely recognised through major international awards such as the Nobel Prize. The practical results of scientific work have led to the emergence of science policies that seek to prioritise the responsible development of commercial products, health care, public infrastructure, environmental protection, and defense capabilities.

Science is a systematic discipline that builds and organises knowledge in the form of testable explanations about nature and society.[58]:49–71[2] It is driven by the scientific method: an empirical cycle that typically involves making observations, producing hypotheses, testing them with evidence, and drawing conclusions. Science encompasses this process and the body of knowledge it produces, which the scientific community continuously challenges, validates, and organises.

Modern science is typically divided into two  or three  major branches:[3] the natural sciences, which study the physical world, and the social sciences, which study individuals and societies.[4][5] While referred to as the formal sciences, the study of logic, mathematics, and theoretical computer science are typically regarded as separate because they rely on deductive reasoning instead of the scientific method as their main methodology.[6][59][8][60] Meanwhile, applied sciences are disciplines that use scientific knowledge for practical purposes, such as engineering and medicine.[61][62][12]

The history of science spans the majority of the historical record, with the earliest identifiable predecessors to modern science dating to the Bronze Age in Egypt and Mesopotamia (c.3000–1200 BCE). Their contributions to mathematics, astronomy, and medicine entered and shaped the Greek natural philosophy of classical antiquity and later medieval scholarship, whereby formal attempts were made to provide explanations of events in the physical world based on natural causes; while further advances, including the introduction of the Hindu–Arabic numeral system, were made during the Golden Age of India and Islamic Golden Age.[13]:12[14]:1–26[63][64][13]:163–192

The recovery and assimilation of Greek works and Islamic inquiries into Western Europe during the Renaissance revived natural philosophy,[13]:193–224,225–253[65] which was later transformed by the Scientific Revolution that began in the 16th century[66] as new ideas and discoveries departed from previous Greek conceptions and traditions.[13]:357–368[14]:274–322 The scientific method soon played a greater role in the acquisition of knowledge, and in the 19th century, many of the institutional and professional features of science began to take shape,[67][68] along with the changing of "natural philosophy" to "natural science".[69]

New knowledge in science is advanced by research from scientists who are motivated by curiosity about the world and a desire to solve problems.[70][71] Contemporary scientific research is often highly collaborative and is frequently carried out by teams in academic and research institutions,[72] government agencies,[13]:163–192 and companies.[73] At the same time, many major advances—particularly in fundamental science—have come from individual researchers and are widely recognised through major international awards such as the Nobel Prize. The practical results of scientific work have led to the emergence of science policies that seek to prioritise the responsible development of commercial products, health care, public infrastructure, environmental protection, and defense capabilities.

{{Excerpt|page=Science}}
Side by side comparison
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}

Science is a systematic discipline that builds and organises knowledge in the form of testable explanations about nature and society.[74]:49–71[2] It is driven by the scientific method: an empirical cycle that typically involves making observations, producing hypotheses, testing them with evidence, and drawing conclusions. Science encompasses this process and the body of knowledge it produces, which the scientific community continuously challenges, validates, and organises.

Modern science is typically divided into two  or three  major branches:[3] the natural sciences, which study the physical world, and the social sciences, which study individuals and societies.[4][5] While referred to as the formal sciences, the study of logic, mathematics, and theoretical computer science are typically regarded as separate because they rely on deductive reasoning instead of the scientific method as their main methodology.[6][75][8][76] Meanwhile, applied sciences are disciplines that use scientific knowledge for practical purposes, such as engineering and medicine.[77][78][12]

The history of science spans the majority of the historical record, with the earliest identifiable predecessors to modern science dating to the Bronze Age in Egypt and Mesopotamia (c.3000–1200 BCE). Their contributions to mathematics, astronomy, and medicine entered and shaped the Greek natural philosophy of classical antiquity and later medieval scholarship, whereby formal attempts were made to provide explanations of events in the physical world based on natural causes; while further advances, including the introduction of the Hindu–Arabic numeral system, were made during the Golden Age of India and Islamic Golden Age.[13]:12[14]:1–26[79][80][13]:163–192

The recovery and assimilation of Greek works and Islamic inquiries into Western Europe during the Renaissance revived natural philosophy,[13]:193–224,225–253[81] which was later transformed by the Scientific Revolution that began in the 16th century[82] as new ideas and discoveries departed from previous Greek conceptions and traditions.[13]:357–368[14]:274–322 The scientific method soon played a greater role in the acquisition of knowledge, and in the 19th century, many of the institutional and professional features of science began to take shape,[83][84] along with the changing of "natural philosophy" to "natural science".[85]

New knowledge in science is advanced by research from scientists who are motivated by curiosity about the world and a desire to solve problems.[86][87] Contemporary scientific research is often highly collaborative and is frequently carried out by teams in academic and research institutions,[88] government agencies,[13]:163–192 and companies.[89] At the same time, many major advances—particularly in fundamental science—have come from individual researchers and are widely recognised through major international awards such as the Nobel Prize. The practical results of scientific work have led to the emergence of science policies that seek to prioritise the responsible development of commercial products, health care, public infrastructure, environmental protection, and defense capabilities.

Science is a systematic discipline that builds and organises knowledge in the form of testable explanations about nature and society.[90]:49–71[2] It is driven by the scientific method: an empirical cycle that typically involves making observations, producing hypotheses, testing them with evidence, and drawing conclusions. Science encompasses this process and the body of knowledge it produces, which the scientific community continuously challenges, validates, and organises.

Modern science is typically divided into two  or three  major branches:[3] the natural sciences, which study the physical world, and the social sciences, which study individuals and societies.[4][5] While referred to as the formal sciences, the study of logic, mathematics, and theoretical computer science are typically regarded as separate because they rely on deductive reasoning instead of the scientific method as their main methodology.[6][91][8][92] Meanwhile, applied sciences are disciplines that use scientific knowledge for practical purposes, such as engineering and medicine.[93][94][12]

The history of science spans the majority of the historical record, with the earliest identifiable predecessors to modern science dating to the Bronze Age in Egypt and Mesopotamia (c.3000–1200 BCE). Their contributions to mathematics, astronomy, and medicine entered and shaped the Greek natural philosophy of classical antiquity and later medieval scholarship, whereby formal attempts were made to provide explanations of events in the physical world based on natural causes; while further advances, including the introduction of the Hindu–Arabic numeral system, were made during the Golden Age of India and Islamic Golden Age.[13]:12[14]:1–26[95][96][13]:163–192

The recovery and assimilation of Greek works and Islamic inquiries into Western Europe during the Renaissance revived natural philosophy,[13]:193–224,225–253[97] which was later transformed by the Scientific Revolution that began in the 16th century[98] as new ideas and discoveries departed from previous Greek conceptions and traditions.[13]:357–368[14]:274–322 The scientific method soon played a greater role in the acquisition of knowledge, and in the 19th century, many of the institutional and professional features of science began to take shape,[99][100] along with the changing of "natural philosophy" to "natural science".[101]

New knowledge in science is advanced by research from scientists who are motivated by curiosity about the world and a desire to solve problems.[102][103] Contemporary scientific research is often highly collaborative and is frequently carried out by teams in academic and research institutions,[104] government agencies,[13]:163–192 and companies.[105] At the same time, many major advances—particularly in fundamental science—have come from individual researchers and are widely recognised through major international awards such as the Nobel Prize. The practical results of scientific work have led to the emergence of science policies that seek to prioritise the responsible development of commercial products, health care, public infrastructure, environmental protection, and defense capabilities.

{{Excerpt|article=Science}}
Side by side comparison
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}

Science is a systematic discipline that builds and organises knowledge in the form of testable explanations about nature and society.[106]:49–71[2] It is driven by the scientific method: an empirical cycle that typically involves making observations, producing hypotheses, testing them with evidence, and drawing conclusions. Science encompasses this process and the body of knowledge it produces, which the scientific community continuously challenges, validates, and organises.

Modern science is typically divided into two  or three  major branches:[3] the natural sciences, which study the physical world, and the social sciences, which study individuals and societies.[4][5] While referred to as the formal sciences, the study of logic, mathematics, and theoretical computer science are typically regarded as separate because they rely on deductive reasoning instead of the scientific method as their main methodology.[6][107][8][108] Meanwhile, applied sciences are disciplines that use scientific knowledge for practical purposes, such as engineering and medicine.[109][110][12]

The history of science spans the majority of the historical record, with the earliest identifiable predecessors to modern science dating to the Bronze Age in Egypt and Mesopotamia (c.3000–1200 BCE). Their contributions to mathematics, astronomy, and medicine entered and shaped the Greek natural philosophy of classical antiquity and later medieval scholarship, whereby formal attempts were made to provide explanations of events in the physical world based on natural causes; while further advances, including the introduction of the Hindu–Arabic numeral system, were made during the Golden Age of India and Islamic Golden Age.[13]:12[14]:1–26[111][112][13]:163–192

The recovery and assimilation of Greek works and Islamic inquiries into Western Europe during the Renaissance revived natural philosophy,[13]:193–224,225–253[113] which was later transformed by the Scientific Revolution that began in the 16th century[114] as new ideas and discoveries departed from previous Greek conceptions and traditions.[13]:357–368[14]:274–322 The scientific method soon played a greater role in the acquisition of knowledge, and in the 19th century, many of the institutional and professional features of science began to take shape,[115][116] along with the changing of "natural philosophy" to "natural science".[117]

New knowledge in science is advanced by research from scientists who are motivated by curiosity about the world and a desire to solve problems.[118][119] Contemporary scientific research is often highly collaborative and is frequently carried out by teams in academic and research institutions,[120] government agencies,[13]:163–192 and companies.[121] At the same time, many major advances—particularly in fundamental science—have come from individual researchers and are widely recognised through major international awards such as the Nobel Prize. The practical results of scientific work have led to the emergence of science policies that seek to prioritise the responsible development of commercial products, health care, public infrastructure, environmental protection, and defense capabilities.

Science is a systematic discipline that builds and organises knowledge in the form of testable explanations about nature and society.[122]:49–71[2] It is driven by the scientific method: an empirical cycle that typically involves making observations, producing hypotheses, testing them with evidence, and drawing conclusions. Science encompasses this process and the body of knowledge it produces, which the scientific community continuously challenges, validates, and organises.

Modern science is typically divided into two  or three  major branches:[3] the natural sciences, which study the physical world, and the social sciences, which study individuals and societies.[4][5] While referred to as the formal sciences, the study of logic, mathematics, and theoretical computer science are typically regarded as separate because they rely on deductive reasoning instead of the scientific method as their main methodology.[6][123][8][124] Meanwhile, applied sciences are disciplines that use scientific knowledge for practical purposes, such as engineering and medicine.[125][126][12]

The history of science spans the majority of the historical record, with the earliest identifiable predecessors to modern science dating to the Bronze Age in Egypt and Mesopotamia (c.3000–1200 BCE). Their contributions to mathematics, astronomy, and medicine entered and shaped the Greek natural philosophy of classical antiquity and later medieval scholarship, whereby formal attempts were made to provide explanations of events in the physical world based on natural causes; while further advances, including the introduction of the Hindu–Arabic numeral system, were made during the Golden Age of India and Islamic Golden Age.[13]:12[14]:1–26[127][128][13]:163–192

The recovery and assimilation of Greek works and Islamic inquiries into Western Europe during the Renaissance revived natural philosophy,[13]:193–224,225–253[129] which was later transformed by the Scientific Revolution that began in the 16th century[130] as new ideas and discoveries departed from previous Greek conceptions and traditions.[13]:357–368[14]:274–322 The scientific method soon played a greater role in the acquisition of knowledge, and in the 19th century, many of the institutional and professional features of science began to take shape,[131][132] along with the changing of "natural philosophy" to "natural science".[133]

New knowledge in science is advanced by research from scientists who are motivated by curiosity about the world and a desire to solve problems.[134][135] Contemporary scientific research is often highly collaborative and is frequently carried out by teams in academic and research institutions,[136] government agencies,[13]:163–192 and companies.[137] At the same time, many major advances—particularly in fundamental science—have come from individual researchers and are widely recognised through major international awards such as the Nobel Prize. The practical results of scientific work have led to the emergence of science policies that seek to prioritise the responsible development of commercial products, health care, public infrastructure, environmental protection, and defense capabilities.

{{Excerpt|Science|bold=yes |files=1 |hat=no |more=yes |references=no}}
For portals
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}

Science is a systematic discipline that builds and organises knowledge in the form of testable explanations about nature and society.:49–71 It is driven by the scientific method: an empirical cycle that typically involves making observations, producing hypotheses, testing them with evidence, and drawing conclusions. Science encompasses this process and the body of knowledge it produces, which the scientific community continuously challenges, validates, and organises.

Modern science is typically divided into two  or three  major branches: the natural sciences, which study the physical world, and the social sciences, which study individuals and societies. While referred to as the formal sciences, the study of logic, mathematics, and theoretical computer science are typically regarded as separate because they rely on deductive reasoning instead of the scientific method as their main methodology. Meanwhile, applied sciences are disciplines that use scientific knowledge for practical purposes, such as engineering and medicine.

The history of science spans the majority of the historical record, with the earliest identifiable predecessors to modern science dating to the Bronze Age in Egypt and Mesopotamia (c.3000–1200 BCE). Their contributions to mathematics, astronomy, and medicine entered and shaped the Greek natural philosophy of classical antiquity and later medieval scholarship, whereby formal attempts were made to provide explanations of events in the physical world based on natural causes; while further advances, including the introduction of the Hindu–Arabic numeral system, were made during the Golden Age of India and Islamic Golden Age.:12:1–26:163–192

The recovery and assimilation of Greek works and Islamic inquiries into Western Europe during the Renaissance revived natural philosophy,:193–224,225–253 which was later transformed by the Scientific Revolution that began in the 16th century as new ideas and discoveries departed from previous Greek conceptions and traditions.:357–368:274–322 The scientific method soon played a greater role in the acquisition of knowledge, and in the 19th century, many of the institutional and professional features of science began to take shape, along with the changing of "natural philosophy" to "natural science".

New knowledge in science is advanced by research from scientists who are motivated by curiosity about the world and a desire to solve problems. Contemporary scientific research is often highly collaborative and is frequently carried out by teams in academic and research institutions, government agencies,:163–192 and companies. At the same time, many major advances—particularly in fundamental science—have come from individual researchers and are widely recognised through major international awards such as the Nobel Prize. The practical results of scientific work have led to the emergence of science policies that seek to prioritise the responsible development of commercial products, health care, public infrastructure, environmental protection, and defense capabilities.

Science is a systematic discipline that builds and organises knowledge in the form of testable explanations about nature and society.:49–71 It is driven by the scientific method: an empirical cycle that typically involves making observations, producing hypotheses, testing them with evidence, and drawing conclusions. Science encompasses this process and the body of knowledge it produces, which the scientific community continuously challenges, validates, and organises.

Modern science is typically divided into two  or three  major branches: the natural sciences, which study the physical world, and the social sciences, which study individuals and societies. While referred to as the formal sciences, the study of logic, mathematics, and theoretical computer science are typically regarded as separate because they rely on deductive reasoning instead of the scientific method as their main methodology. Meanwhile, applied sciences are disciplines that use scientific knowledge for practical purposes, such as engineering and medicine.

The history of science spans the majority of the historical record, with the earliest identifiable predecessors to modern science dating to the Bronze Age in Egypt and Mesopotamia (c.3000–1200 BCE). Their contributions to mathematics, astronomy, and medicine entered and shaped the Greek natural philosophy of classical antiquity and later medieval scholarship, whereby formal attempts were made to provide explanations of events in the physical world based on natural causes; while further advances, including the introduction of the Hindu–Arabic numeral system, were made during the Golden Age of India and Islamic Golden Age.:12:1–26:163–192

The recovery and assimilation of Greek works and Islamic inquiries into Western Europe during the Renaissance revived natural philosophy,:193–224,225–253 which was later transformed by the Scientific Revolution that began in the 16th century as new ideas and discoveries departed from previous Greek conceptions and traditions.:357–368:274–322 The scientific method soon played a greater role in the acquisition of knowledge, and in the 19th century, many of the institutional and professional features of science began to take shape, along with the changing of "natural philosophy" to "natural science".

New knowledge in science is advanced by research from scientists who are motivated by curiosity about the world and a desire to solve problems. Contemporary scientific research is often highly collaborative and is frequently carried out by teams in academic and research institutions, government agencies,:163–192 and companies. At the same time, many major advances—particularly in fundamental science—have come from individual researchers and are widely recognised through major international awards such as the Nobel Prize. The practical results of scientific work have led to the emergence of science policies that seek to prioritise the responsible development of commercial products, health care, public infrastructure, environmental protection, and defense capabilities.

{{Excerpt|Wind power}}
With percent sign in a ref
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}
Wind farm in Xinjiang, China
World electricity production by source, 2000-2024

Wind power is the use of wind energy to generate useful work. Historically, wind power was used by sails, windmills and windpumps, but today it is mostly used to generate electricity. This article deals only with wind power for electricity generation. Today, wind power is generated almost completely using wind turbines, generally grouped into wind farms and connected to the electrical grid.

In 2025, wind supplied about 2,700 TWh of electricity, which was over 8% of world electricity.[138] With about 100 GW added during 2021, mostly in China and the United States, global installed wind power capacity exceeded 800 GW.[139][140][141] 30 countries generated more than a tenth of their electricity from wind power in 2024 and wind generation has nearly tripled since 2015.[142] To help meet the Paris Agreement goals to limit climate change, analysts say it should expand much faster – by over 1% of electricity generation per year.[143]

Wind power is a sustainable, renewable energy source, and has a much smaller impact on the environment than burning fossil fuels. Wind power is variable, so it needs energy storage or other dispatchable generation energy sources to attain a reliable supply of electricity. Land-based (onshore) wind farms have a greater visual impact on the landscape than most other power stations per energy produced.[144][145] Wind farms sited offshore have less visual impact and have higher capacity factors, although they are generally more expensive.[139] Offshore wind power currently has a share of about 10% of new installations.[146]

Wind power is one of the lowest-cost electricity sources per unit of energy produced. In many locations, new onshore wind farms are cheaper than new coal or gas plants.[147]

Regions in the higher northern and southern latitudes have the highest potential for wind power.[148] In most regions, wind power generation is higher in nighttime, and in winter when solar power output is low. So combinations of wind and solar power are suitable in many countries.[149]

Wind farm in Xinjiang, China
World electricity production by source, 2000-2024

Wind power is the use of wind energy to generate useful work. Historically, wind power was used by sails, windmills and windpumps, but today it is mostly used to generate electricity. This article deals only with wind power for electricity generation. Today, wind power is generated almost completely using wind turbines, generally grouped into wind farms and connected to the electrical grid.

In 2025, wind supplied about 2,700 TWh of electricity, which was over 8% of world electricity.[150] With about 100 GW added during 2021, mostly in China and the United States, global installed wind power capacity exceeded 800 GW.[139][140][151] 30 countries generated more than a tenth of their electricity from wind power in 2024 and wind generation has nearly tripled since 2015.[142] To help meet the Paris Agreement goals to limit climate change, analysts say it should expand much faster – by over 1% of electricity generation per year.[143]

Wind power is a sustainable, renewable energy source, and has a much smaller impact on the environment than burning fossil fuels. Wind power is variable, so it needs energy storage or other dispatchable generation energy sources to attain a reliable supply of electricity. Land-based (onshore) wind farms have a greater visual impact on the landscape than most other power stations per energy produced.[144][145] Wind farms sited offshore have less visual impact and have higher capacity factors, although they are generally more expensive.[139] Offshore wind power currently has a share of about 10% of new installations.[152]

Wind power is one of the lowest-cost electricity sources per unit of energy produced. In many locations, new onshore wind farms are cheaper than new coal or gas plants.[147]

Regions in the higher northern and southern latitudes have the highest potential for wind power.[153] In most regions, wind power generation is higher in nighttime, and in winter when solar power output is low. So combinations of wind and solar power are suitable in many countries.[154]

{{Excerpt|Yellow}}
Side by side comparison
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}

Yellow is a color between green and orange on the spectrum of light. It is evoked by light with a dominant wavelength of roughly 575–585 nm. It is a primary color in subtractive color systems, used in painting or color printing. In the RGB color model, used to create colors on television and computer screens, yellow is a secondary color made by combining red and green at equal intensity. Carotenoids give the characteristic yellow color to autumn leaves, corn, canaries, daffodils, and lemons, as well as egg yolks, buttercups, and bananas. They absorb light energy and protect plants from photo damage in some cases.[155] Sunlight has a slight yellowish hue when the Sun is near the horizon, due to atmospheric scattering of shorter wavelengths (green, blue, and violet).

Because it was widely available, yellow ochre pigment was one of the first colors used in art; the Lascaux cave in France has a painting of a yellow horse 17,000 years old. Ochre and orpiment pigments were used to represent gold and skin color in Egyptian tombs, then in the murals in Roman villas.[156] In the early Christian church, yellow was the color associated with the Pope and the golden keys of the Kingdom, but it was also associated with Judas Iscariot and used to mark heretics. In the 20th century, Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe were forced to wear a yellow star. In China, bright yellow was the color of the Middle Kingdom, and could be worn only by the emperor and his household; special guests were welcomed on a yellow carpet.[157]

According to surveys in Europe, Canada, the United States and elsewhere, yellow is the color people most often associate with amusement, gentleness, humor, happiness, and spontaneity; however it can also be associated with duplicity, envy, jealousy, greed, justice, and, in the U.S., cowardice.[158] In Iran it has connotations of pallor/sickness,[159] but also wisdom and connection.[160] In China and many Asian countries, it is seen as the color of royalty, nobility, respect, happiness, glory, harmony and wisdom.[161]

Yellow is a color between green and orange on the spectrum of light. It is evoked by light with a dominant wavelength of roughly 575–585 nm. It is a primary color in subtractive color systems, used in painting or color printing. In the RGB color model, used to create colors on television and computer screens, yellow is a secondary color made by combining red and green at equal intensity. Carotenoids give the characteristic yellow color to autumn leaves, corn, canaries, daffodils, and lemons, as well as egg yolks, buttercups, and bananas. They absorb light energy and protect plants from photo damage in some cases.[155] Sunlight has a slight yellowish hue when the Sun is near the horizon, due to atmospheric scattering of shorter wavelengths (green, blue, and violet).

Because it was widely available, yellow ochre pigment was one of the first colors used in art; the Lascaux cave in France has a painting of a yellow horse 17,000 years old. Ochre and orpiment pigments were used to represent gold and skin color in Egyptian tombs, then in the murals in Roman villas.[156] In the early Christian church, yellow was the color associated with the Pope and the golden keys of the Kingdom, but it was also associated with Judas Iscariot and used to mark heretics. In the 20th century, Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe were forced to wear a yellow star. In China, bright yellow was the color of the Middle Kingdom, and could be worn only by the emperor and his household; special guests were welcomed on a yellow carpet.[157]

According to surveys in Europe, Canada, the United States and elsewhere, yellow is the color people most often associate with amusement, gentleness, humor, happiness, and spontaneity; however it can also be associated with duplicity, envy, jealousy, greed, justice, and, in the U.S., cowardice.[162] In Iran it has connotations of pallor/sickness,[163] but also wisdom and connection.[164] In China and many Asian countries, it is seen as the color of royalty, nobility, respect, happiness, glory, harmony and wisdom.[165]

{{Excerpt|Yes and no|displaytitle=''Yes'' and ''no''}}
Handling italics
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}

Yes and no, or similar word pairs, are expressions of the affirmative and the negative, respectively, in several languages, including English. Some languages make a distinction between answers to affirmative versus negative questions and may have three-form or four-form systems. English originally used a four-form system up to and including Early Middle English. Modern English uses a two-form system consisting of yes and no. It exists in many facets of communication, such as: eye blink communication, head movements, Morse code,[clarification needed] and sign language. Some languages, such as Latin, do not have yesno word systems.

Answering a "yes or no" question with single words meaning yes or no is by no means universal. About half the world's languages typically employ an echo response: repeating the verb in the question in an affirmative or a negative form. Some of these also have optional words for yes and no, like Hungarian, Russian, and Portuguese. Others simply do not have designated yes and no words, like Welsh, Irish, Latin, Thai, and Chinese.[166] Echo responses avoid the issue of what an unadorned yes means in response to a negative question. Yes and no can be used as responses to a variety of situations  but are better suited in response to simple questions. While a yes response to the question "You don't like strawberries?" is ambiguous in English, the Welsh response ydw (I am) has no ambiguity.

The words yes and no are not easily classified into any of the conventional parts of speech. Sometimes they are classified as interjections.[167] They are sometimes classified as a part of speech in their own right, sentence words, or pro-sentences, although that category contains more than yes and no, and not all linguists include them in their lists of sentence words. Yes and no are usually considered adverbs in dictionaries, though some uses qualify as nouns.[168][169] Sentences consisting solely of one of these two words are classified as minor sentences.

Yes and no, or similar word pairs, are expressions of the affirmative and the negative, respectively, in several languages, including English. Some languages make a distinction between answers to affirmative versus negative questions and may have three-form or four-form systems. English originally used a four-form system up to and including Early Middle English. Modern English uses a two-form system consisting of yes and no. It exists in many facets of communication, such as: eye blink communication, head movements, Morse code,[clarification needed] and sign language. Some languages, such as Latin, do not have yesno word systems.

Answering a "yes or no" question with single words meaning yes or no is by no means universal. About half the world's languages typically employ an echo response: repeating the verb in the question in an affirmative or a negative form. Some of these also have optional words for yes and no, like Hungarian, Russian, and Portuguese. Others simply do not have designated yes and no words, like Welsh, Irish, Latin, Thai, and Chinese.[170] Echo responses avoid the issue of what an unadorned yes means in response to a negative question. Yes and no can be used as responses to a variety of situations  but are better suited in response to simple questions. While a yes response to the question "You don't like strawberries?" is ambiguous in English, the Welsh response ydw (I am) has no ambiguity.

The words yes and no are not easily classified into any of the conventional parts of speech. Sometimes they are classified as interjections.[171] They are sometimes classified as a part of speech in their own right, sentence words, or pro-sentences, although that category contains more than yes and no, and not all linguists include them in their lists of sentence words. Yes and no are usually considered adverbs in dictionaries, though some uses qualify as nouns.[172][173] Sentences consisting solely of one of these two words are classified as minor sentences.

{{Excerpt|x1 Centauri|displaytitle=x<sup>1</sup> Centauri}}
Handling complex article DISPLAYTITLES
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}
x1 Centauri
Observation data
Epoch J2000      Equinox ICRS
Constellation Centaurus[174]
Right ascension 12h 23m 35.420s[175]
Declination −35° 24 45.64[175]
Apparent magnitude (V) 5.32[174]
Characteristics
Spectral type B8/9V[176]
B−V color index −0.08[177]
Astrometry
Radial velocity (Rv)−10.00[178] km/s
Proper motion (μ) RA: −42.132 mas/yr[175]
Dec.: −6.896 mas/yr[175]
Parallax (π)7.3671±0.0953 mas[175]
Distance443 ± 6 ly
(136 ± 2 pc)
Absolute magnitude (MV)−0.2[179]
Details
Mass3[180] M
Radius3.6[181] R
Luminosity265[182] L
Temperature11,300[180] K
Age0.151[180] Gyr
Other designations
x1 Cen, CD−34°8117, GC 16892, HD 107832, HIP 60449, HR 4712, SAO 203420, G 113 G. Cen[182][183]
Database references
SIMBADdata

x1 Centauri is a star located in the constellation Centaurus. Its name is a Bayer designation; it is also known by its designations HD 107832 and HR 4712. The apparent magnitude of the star is about 5.32,[174] meaning it is only visible to the naked eye under excellent viewing conditions. Its distance is about 443 light-years (136 pc) from Earth based on parallax measurements.[175]

x1 Centauri's spectral type is B8/9V, meaning it is a late B-type main sequence star. These types of stars are a few times more massive than the Sun, and have effective temperatures of about 10,000 to 30,000 K. x1 Centauri is just over 3 times more massive than the Sun[180] and has a temperature of about 11,300 K.[180] The star x2 Centauri, which lies about 0.4 away from x1 Centauri, may or may not form a physical binary star system with x1 Centauri, as the two have similar proper motions and distances.[183][184]

x1 Centauri
Observation data
Epoch J2000      Equinox ICRS
Constellation Centaurus[174]
Right ascension 12h 23m 35.420s[175]
Declination −35° 24 45.64[175]
Apparent magnitude (V) 5.32[174]
Characteristics
Spectral type B8/9V[176]
B−V color index −0.08[177]
Astrometry
Radial velocity (Rv)−10.00[178] km/s
Proper motion (μ) RA: −42.132 mas/yr[175]
Dec.: −6.896 mas/yr[175]
Parallax (π)7.3671±0.0953 mas[175]
Distance443 ± 6 ly
(136 ± 2 pc)
Absolute magnitude (MV)−0.2[185]
Details
Mass3[180] M
Radius3.6[181] R
Luminosity265[182] L
Temperature11,300[180] K
Age0.151[180] Gyr
Other designations
x1 Cen, CD−34°8117, GC 16892, HD 107832, HIP 60449, HR 4712, SAO 203420, G 113 G. Cen[182][183]
Database references
SIMBADdata

x1 Centauri is a star located in the constellation Centaurus. Its name is a Bayer designation; it is also known by its designations HD 107832 and HR 4712. The apparent magnitude of the star is about 5.32,[174] meaning it is only visible to the naked eye under excellent viewing conditions. Its distance is about 443 light-years (136 pc) from Earth based on parallax measurements.[175]

x1 Centauri's spectral type is B8/9V, meaning it is a late B-type main sequence star. These types of stars are a few times more massive than the Sun, and have effective temperatures of about 10,000 to 30,000 K. x1 Centauri is just over 3 times more massive than the Sun[180] and has a temperature of about 11,300 K.[180] The star x2 Centauri, which lies about 0.4 away from x1 Centauri, may or may not form a physical binary star system with x1 Centauri, as the two have similar proper motions and distances.[183][186]

{{Excerpt|Pierre Chaunu}}
Fix birth and death dates
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}

Pierre Chaunu (French: [pjɛʁ ʃony]; 17 August 1923 – 22 October 2009)[187] was a French historian. His specialty was Latin American history; he also studied French social and religious history of the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries. A leading figure in French quantitative history as the founder of "serial history", he was professor emeritus at Paris IV-Sorbonne, a member of the Institut de France, and a commander of the Légion d'Honneur. A convert to Protestantism from Roman Catholicism, he defended his far-right views most notably in a longtime column in Le Figaro and on Radio Courtoisie.

Pierre Chaunu (French: [pjɛʁ ʃony]; 17 August 1923 – 22 October 2009)[187] was a French historian. His specialty was Latin American history; he also studied French social and religious history of the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries. A leading figure in French quantitative history as the founder of "serial history", he was professor emeritus at Paris IV-Sorbonne, a member of the Institut de France, and a commander of the Légion d'Honneur. A convert to Protestantism from Roman Catholicism, he defended his far-right views most notably in a longtime column in Le Figaro and on Radio Courtoisie.

Tables

[edit]
{{Excerpt|World population|Population by continent}}

{{Excerpt}}

Section 'Population by continent' not found

{{Excerpt/sandbox}}

Section 'Population by continent' not found
{{Excerpt|2016 Peruvian general election|President}}
Section with text and a table
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}
First round results by department (small left) and municipality (big right)

Second round results by department (small left) and municipality (big right)

The first round was held on 10 April. Exit polls indicated that Keiko Fujimori placed first in the first round of voting with approximately 40% of the vote, with Pedro Pablo Kuczynski and Veronika Mendoza each receiving approximately 20%.[188][189]

The second round was held on 5 June. Exit polls indicated that Pedro Pablo Kuczynski held a slight lead over Keiko Fujimori. As counting continued, the gap narrowed significantly. Preliminary results gave Kuczynski a 0.25 per cent advantage over Fujimori, with less than 50,000 votes between them. Approximately 50,000 votes were challenged during the count.[190] Fujimori conceded the election to Kuczynski on 10 June.[191]

CandidatePartyFirst roundSecond round
Votes%Votes%
Keiko FujimoriPopular Force6,115,07339.868,555,88049.88
Pedro Pablo KuczynskiPeruvians for Change3,228,66121.058,596,93750.12
Verónika MendozaBroad Front2,874,94018.74
Alfredo BarnecheaPopular Action1,069,3606.97
Alan GarcíaPopular Alliance894,2785.83
Gregorio SantosDirect Democracy613,1734.00
Fernando OliveraHope Front203,1031.32
Alejandro ToledoPossible Peru200,0121.30
Miguel HilarioPeru Progressing75,8700.49
Antero Flores AráozOrder65,6730.43
Total15,340,143100.0017,152,817100.00
Valid votes15,340,14381.8817,152,81793.51
Invalid/blank votes3,393,98718.121,190,0796.49
Total votes18,734,130100.0018,342,896100.00
Registered voters/turnout22,901,95481.8022,901,95480.09
Source: ONPE, ONPE
First round results by department (small left) and municipality (big right)

Second round results by department (small left) and municipality (big right)

The first round was held on 10 April. Exit polls indicated that Keiko Fujimori placed first in the first round of voting with approximately 40% of the vote, with Pedro Pablo Kuczynski and Veronika Mendoza each receiving approximately 20%.[192][193]

The second round was held on 5 June. Exit polls indicated that Pedro Pablo Kuczynski held a slight lead over Keiko Fujimori. As counting continued, the gap narrowed significantly. Preliminary results gave Kuczynski a 0.25 per cent advantage over Fujimori, with less than 50,000 votes between them. Approximately 50,000 votes were challenged during the count.[194] Fujimori conceded the election to Kuczynski on 10 June.[195]

CandidatePartyFirst roundSecond round
Votes%Votes%
Keiko FujimoriPopular Force6,115,07339.868,555,88049.88
Pedro Pablo KuczynskiPeruvians for Change3,228,66121.058,596,93750.12
Verónika MendozaBroad Front2,874,94018.74
Alfredo BarnecheaPopular Action1,069,3606.97
Alan GarcíaPopular Alliance894,2785.83
Gregorio SantosDirect Democracy613,1734.00
Fernando OliveraHope Front203,1031.32
Alejandro ToledoPossible Peru200,0121.30
Miguel HilarioPeru Progressing75,8700.49
Antero Flores AráozOrder65,6730.43
Total15,340,143100.0017,152,817100.00
Valid votes15,340,14381.8817,152,81793.51
Invalid/blank votes3,393,98718.121,190,0796.49
Total votes18,734,130100.0018,342,896100.00
Registered voters/turnout22,901,95481.8022,901,95480.09
Source: ONPE, ONPE
{{Excerpt|2020 Missouri Republican primary|Results}}
This table has a bug in the first link
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}
2020 Missouri Republican presidential primary[196]
Candidate Votes % Estimated
delegates
Donald Trump (incumbent) 301,953 96.8% 54
Uncommitted 4,216 1.4% 0
Bill Weld 2,171 0.7% 0
Joe Walsh (withdrawn) 2,015 0.6% 0
Bob Ely 844 0.3% 0
Matthew John Matern 594 0.2% 0
Total 311,793 100% 54
2020 Missouri Republican presidential primary[197]
Candidate Votes % Estimated
delegates
Donald Trump (incumbent) 301,953 96.8% 54
Uncommitted 4,216 1.4% 0
Bill Weld 2,171 0.7% 0
Joe Walsh (withdrawn) 2,015 0.6% 0
Bob Ely 844 0.3% 0
Matthew John Matern 594 0.2% 0
Total 311,793 100% 54
{{Excerpt|2016 Peruvian general election|President|only=table}}
Side by side comparison
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}
{{Excerpt|List of continents by population|South America|this=This table is}}
Side by side comparison
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}
Total South America
YearPop.±% p.a.
1950 113,739,000    
1960 149,066,000+2.74%
1970 193,486,000+2.64%
1980 242,862,000+2.30%
1990 297,869,000+2.06%
2000 349,796,000+1.62%
2010 397,085,000+1.28%
2021 434,254,119+0.82%
Total South America
YearPop.±% p.a.
1950 113,739,000    
1960 149,066,000+2.74%
1970 193,486,000+2.64%
1980 242,862,000+2.30%
1990 297,869,000+2.06%
2000 349,796,000+1.62%
2010 397,085,000+1.28%
2021 434,254,119+0.82%
{{Excerpt|2020 Nevada Democratic caucuses|Results|only=table}}
Side by side comparison
{{Excerpt}}{{Excerpt/sandbox}}
2020 Nevada Democratic presidential caucuses[198][199][200][201]
Candidate First
alignment
Final
alignment[a]
County
convention
delegates[b]
Pledged
national
convention

delegates[c]
Votes% Votes% Number%
Bernie Sanders 35,652 33.99 41,075 40.45 6,788 46.84 24
Joe Biden 18,424 17.57 19,179 18.89 2,927 20.20 9
Pete Buttigieg 16,102 15.35 17,598 17.33 2,073 14.31 3
Elizabeth Warren 13,438 12.81 11,703 11.53 1,406 9.70
Tom Steyer 9,503 9.06 4,120 4.06 682 4.71
Amy Klobuchar 10,100 9.63 7,376 7.26 603 4.16
Tulsi Gabbard 353 0.34 32 0.03 4 0.03
Andrew Yang (withdrawn) 612 0.58 49 0.05 1 0.01
Michael Bennet (withdrawn) 140 0.13 36 0.04 0 0.00
Deval Patrick (withdrawn) 86 0.08 8 0.01 0 0.00
John Delaney (withdrawn; not on the ballot) 1 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Uncommitted 472 0.45 367 0.36 7 0.05
Total 104,883 100% 101,543 100% 14,491 100% 36
2020 Nevada Democratic presidential caucuses[202][203][204][205]
Candidate First
alignment
Final
alignment[a]
County
convention
delegates[b]
Pledged
national
convention

delegates[c]
Votes% Votes% Number%
Bernie Sanders 35,652 33.99 41,075 40.45 6,788 46.84 24
Joe Biden 18,424 17.57 19,179 18.89 2,927 20.20 9
Pete Buttigieg 16,102 15.35 17,598 17.33 2,073 14.31 3
Elizabeth Warren 13,438 12.81 11,703 11.53 1,406 9.70
Tom Steyer 9,503 9.06 4,120 4.06 682 4.71
Amy Klobuchar 10,100 9.63 7,376 7.26 603 4.16
Tulsi Gabbard 353 0.34 32 0.03 4 0.03
Andrew Yang (withdrawn) 612 0.58 49 0.05 1 0.01
Michael Bennet (withdrawn) 140 0.13 36 0.04 0 0.00
Deval Patrick (withdrawn) 86 0.08 8 0.01 0 0.00
John Delaney (withdrawn; not on the ballot) 1 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Uncommitted 472 0.45 367 0.36 7 0.05
Total 104,883 100% 101,543 100% 14,491 100% 36

Notes

[edit]
  1. 1 2 Vote count after votes for candidates who did not get at least 15% of the vote in that precinct are reallocated to the voter's second choice.
  2. 1 2 County convention delegates (CCDs) are used to calculate how many pledged national convention delegates each candidate wins statewide and in the state's four congressional districts.
  3. 1 2 The number of pledged national convention delegates is determined by the number of CCDs won. However, a candidate must get both at least 15% of the total vote to get statewide delegates, and at least 15% of the vote in a congressional district to get delegates from that district. Each precinct has a certain number of CCDs and allocates them based on how many caucus goers there are for each candidate at that precinct.

References

[edit]
  1. Wilson, E. O. (1999). "The natural sciences". Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge (Reprint ed.). New York: Vintage. pp. 49–71. ISBN 978-0-679-76867-8.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Heilbron, J. L.; et al. (2003). "Preface". The Oxford Companion to the History of Modern Science. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. vii–x. ISBN 978-0-19-511229-0. ...modern science is a discovery as well as an invention. It was a discovery that nature generally acts regularly enough to be described by laws and even by mathematics; and required invention to devise the techniques, abstractions, apparatus, and organization for exhibiting the regularities and securing their law-like descriptions.
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Cohen, Eliel (2021). "The boundary lens: theorising academic activity". The University and its Boundaries: Thriving or Surviving in the 21st Century. New York: Routledge. pp. 14–41. ISBN 978-0-367-56298-4. Archived from the original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 4 May 2021.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Colander, David C.; Hunt, Elgin F. (2019). "Social science and its methods". Social Science: An Introduction to the Study of Society (17th ed.). New York: Routledge. pp. 1–22.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Nisbet, Robert A.; Greenfeld, Liah (16 October 2020). "Social Science". Encyclopædia Britannica. Archived from the original on 2 February 2022. Retrieved 9 May 2021.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Bishop, Alan (1991). "Environmental activities and mathematical culture". Mathematical Enculturation: A Cultural Perspective on Mathematics Education. Norwell, MA: Kluwer. pp. 20–59. ISBN 978-0-7923-1270-3. Retrieved 24 March 2018.
  7. Bunge, Mario (1998). "The Scientific Approach". Philosophy of Science: Volume 1, From Problem to Theory. Vol. 1 (revised ed.). New York: Routledge. pp. 3–50. ISBN 978-0-7658-0413-6.
  8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Fetzer, James H. (2013). "Computer reliability and public policy: Limits of knowledge of computer-based systems". Computers and Cognition: Why Minds are not Machines. Newcastle, United Kingdom: Kluwer. pp. 271–308. ISBN 978-1-4438-1946-6.
  9. Nickles, Thomas (2013). "The Problem of Demarcation". Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. The University of Chicago Press. p. 104.
  10. Fischer, M. R.; Fabry, G (2014). "Thinking and acting scientifically: Indispensable basis of medical education". GMS Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ausbildung. 31 (2): Doc24. doi:10.3205/zma000916. PMC 4027809. PMID 24872859.
  11. Sinclair, Marius (1993). "On the Differences between the Engineering and Scientific Methods". The International Journal of Engineering Education. Archived from the original on 15 November 2017. Retrieved 7 September 2018.
  12. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Bunge, M. (1966). "Technology as Applied Science". In Rapp, F. (ed.). Contributions to a Philosophy of Technology. Dordrecht: Springer. pp. 19–39. doi:10.1007/978-94-010-2182-1_2. ISBN 978-94-010-2184-5. S2CID 110332727.
  13. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Lindberg, David C. (2007). The beginnings of Western science: the European Scientific tradition in philosophical, religious, and institutional context (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-48205-7.
  14. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Grant, Edward (2007). A History of Natural Philosophy: From the Ancient World to the Nineteenth Century. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-68957-1.
  15. Building Bridges Among the BRICs Archived 18 April 2023 at the Wayback Machine, p. 125, Robert Crane, Springer, 2014
  16. Keay, John (2000). India: A history. Atlantic Monthly Press. p. 132. ISBN 978-0-87113-800-2. The great era of all that is deemed classical in Indian literature, art and science was now dawning. It was this crescendo of creativity and scholarship, as much as ... political achievements of the Guptas, which would make their age so golden.
  17. Sease, Virginia; Schmidt-Brabant, Manfrid. Thinkers, Saints, Heretics: Spiritual Paths of the Middle Ages. 2007. Pages 80–81 Archived 27 August 2024 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved 6 October 2023.
  18. Principe, Lawrence M. (2011). "Introduction". Scientific Revolution: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 1–3. ISBN 978-0-19-956741-6.
  19. Cahan, David, ed. (2003). From Natural Philosophy to the Sciences: Writing the History of Nineteenth-Century Science. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-08928-7.
  20. Lightman, Bernard (2011). "13. Science and the Public". In Shank, Michael; Numbers, Ronald; Harrison, Peter (eds.). Wrestling with Nature: From Omens to Science. University of Chicago Press. p. 367. ISBN 978-0-226-31783-0.
  21. Harrison, Peter (2015). The Territories of Science and Religion. University of Chicago Press. pp. 164–165. ISBN 978-0-226-18451-7. The changing character of those engaged in scientific endeavors was matched by a new nomenclature for their endeavors. The most conspicuous marker of this change was the replacement of "natural philosophy" by "natural science". In 1800 few had spoken of the "natural sciences" but by 1880 this expression had overtaken the traditional label "natural philosophy". The persistence of "natural philosophy" in the twentieth century is owing largely to historical references to a past practice (see figure 11). As should now be apparent, this was not simply the substitution of one term by another, but involved the jettisoning of a range of personal qualities relating to the conduct of philosophy and the living of the philosophical life.
  22. MacRitchie, Finlay (2011). "Introduction". Scientific Research as a Career. New York: Routledge. pp. 1–6. ISBN 978-1-4398-6965-9. Archived from the original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  23. Marder, Michael P. (2011). "Curiosity and research". Research Methods for Science. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–17. ISBN 978-0-521-14584-8. Archived from the original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  24. de Ridder, Jeroen (2020). "How many scientists does it take to have knowledge?". In McCain, Kevin; Kampourakis, Kostas (eds.). What is Scientific Knowledge? An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology of Science. New York: Routledge. pp. 3–17. ISBN 978-1-138-57016-0. Archived from the original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  25. Szycher, Michael (2016). "Establishing your dream team". Commercialization Secrets for Scientists and Engineers. New York: Routledge. pp. 159–176. ISBN 978-1-138-40741-1. Archived from the original on 18 August 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  26. Wilson, E. O. (1999). "The natural sciences". Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge (Reprint ed.). New York: Vintage. pp. 49–71. ISBN 978-0-679-76867-8.
  27. Bunge, Mario (1998). "The Scientific Approach". Philosophy of Science: Volume 1, From Problem to Theory. Vol. 1 (revised ed.). New York: Routledge. pp. 3–50. ISBN 978-0-7658-0413-6.
  28. Nickles, Thomas (2013). "The Problem of Demarcation". Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. The University of Chicago Press. p. 104.
  29. Fischer, M. R.; Fabry, G (2014). "Thinking and acting scientifically: Indispensable basis of medical education". GMS Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ausbildung. 31 (2): Doc24. doi:10.3205/zma000916. PMC 4027809. PMID 24872859.
  30. Sinclair, Marius (1993). "On the Differences between the Engineering and Scientific Methods". The International Journal of Engineering Education. Archived from the original on 15 November 2017. Retrieved 7 September 2018.
  31. Building Bridges Among the BRICs Archived 18 April 2023 at the Wayback Machine, p. 125, Robert Crane, Springer, 2014
  32. Keay, John (2000). India: A history. Atlantic Monthly Press. p. 132. ISBN 978-0-87113-800-2. The great era of all that is deemed classical in Indian literature, art and science was now dawning. It was this crescendo of creativity and scholarship, as much as ... political achievements of the Guptas, which would make their age so golden.
  33. Sease, Virginia; Schmidt-Brabant, Manfrid. Thinkers, Saints, Heretics: Spiritual Paths of the Middle Ages. 2007. Pages 80–81 Archived 27 August 2024 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved 6 October 2023.
  34. Principe, Lawrence M. (2011). "Introduction". Scientific Revolution: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 1–3. ISBN 978-0-19-956741-6.
  35. Cahan, David, ed. (2003). From Natural Philosophy to the Sciences: Writing the History of Nineteenth-Century Science. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-08928-7.
  36. Lightman, Bernard (2011). "13. Science and the Public". In Shank, Michael; Numbers, Ronald; Harrison, Peter (eds.). Wrestling with Nature: From Omens to Science. University of Chicago Press. p. 367. ISBN 978-0-226-31783-0.
  37. Harrison, Peter (2015). The Territories of Science and Religion. University of Chicago Press. pp. 164–165. ISBN 978-0-226-18451-7. The changing character of those engaged in scientific endeavors was matched by a new nomenclature for their endeavors. The most conspicuous marker of this change was the replacement of "natural philosophy" by "natural science". In 1800 few had spoken of the "natural sciences" but by 1880 this expression had overtaken the traditional label "natural philosophy". The persistence of "natural philosophy" in the twentieth century is owing largely to historical references to a past practice (see figure 11). As should now be apparent, this was not simply the substitution of one term by another, but involved the jettisoning of a range of personal qualities relating to the conduct of philosophy and the living of the philosophical life.
  38. MacRitchie, Finlay (2011). "Introduction". Scientific Research as a Career. New York: Routledge. pp. 1–6. ISBN 978-1-4398-6965-9. Archived from the original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  39. Marder, Michael P. (2011). "Curiosity and research". Research Methods for Science. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–17. ISBN 978-0-521-14584-8. Archived from the original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  40. de Ridder, Jeroen (2020). "How many scientists does it take to have knowledge?". In McCain, Kevin; Kampourakis, Kostas (eds.). What is Scientific Knowledge? An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology of Science. New York: Routledge. pp. 3–17. ISBN 978-1-138-57016-0. Archived from the original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  41. Szycher, Michael (2016). "Establishing your dream team". Commercialization Secrets for Scientists and Engineers. New York: Routledge. pp. 159–176. ISBN 978-1-138-40741-1. Archived from the original on 18 August 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  42. Wilson, E. O. (1999). "The natural sciences". Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge (Reprint ed.). New York: Vintage. pp. 49–71. ISBN 978-0-679-76867-8.
  43. Bunge, Mario (1998). "The Scientific Approach". Philosophy of Science: Volume 1, From Problem to Theory. Vol. 1 (revised ed.). New York: Routledge. pp. 3–50. ISBN 978-0-7658-0413-6.
  44. Nickles, Thomas (2013). "The Problem of Demarcation". Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. The University of Chicago Press. p. 104.
  45. Fischer, M. R.; Fabry, G (2014). "Thinking and acting scientifically: Indispensable basis of medical education". GMS Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ausbildung. 31 (2): Doc24. doi:10.3205/zma000916. PMC 4027809. PMID 24872859.
  46. Sinclair, Marius (1993). "On the Differences between the Engineering and Scientific Methods". The International Journal of Engineering Education. Archived from the original on 15 November 2017. Retrieved 7 September 2018.
  47. Building Bridges Among the BRICs Archived 18 April 2023 at the Wayback Machine, p. 125, Robert Crane, Springer, 2014
  48. Keay, John (2000). India: A history. Atlantic Monthly Press. p. 132. ISBN 978-0-87113-800-2. The great era of all that is deemed classical in Indian literature, art and science was now dawning. It was this crescendo of creativity and scholarship, as much as ... political achievements of the Guptas, which would make their age so golden.
  49. Sease, Virginia; Schmidt-Brabant, Manfrid. Thinkers, Saints, Heretics: Spiritual Paths of the Middle Ages. 2007. Pages 80–81 Archived 27 August 2024 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved 6 October 2023.
  50. Principe, Lawrence M. (2011). "Introduction". Scientific Revolution: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 1–3. ISBN 978-0-19-956741-6.
  51. Cahan, David, ed. (2003). From Natural Philosophy to the Sciences: Writing the History of Nineteenth-Century Science. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-08928-7.
  52. Lightman, Bernard (2011). "13. Science and the Public". In Shank, Michael; Numbers, Ronald; Harrison, Peter (eds.). Wrestling with Nature: From Omens to Science. University of Chicago Press. p. 367. ISBN 978-0-226-31783-0.
  53. Harrison, Peter (2015). The Territories of Science and Religion. University of Chicago Press. pp. 164–165. ISBN 978-0-226-18451-7. The changing character of those engaged in scientific endeavors was matched by a new nomenclature for their endeavors. The most conspicuous marker of this change was the replacement of "natural philosophy" by "natural science". In 1800 few had spoken of the "natural sciences" but by 1880 this expression had overtaken the traditional label "natural philosophy". The persistence of "natural philosophy" in the twentieth century is owing largely to historical references to a past practice (see figure 11). As should now be apparent, this was not simply the substitution of one term by another, but involved the jettisoning of a range of personal qualities relating to the conduct of philosophy and the living of the philosophical life.
  54. MacRitchie, Finlay (2011). "Introduction". Scientific Research as a Career. New York: Routledge. pp. 1–6. ISBN 978-1-4398-6965-9. Archived from the original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  55. Marder, Michael P. (2011). "Curiosity and research". Research Methods for Science. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–17. ISBN 978-0-521-14584-8. Archived from the original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  56. de Ridder, Jeroen (2020). "How many scientists does it take to have knowledge?". In McCain, Kevin; Kampourakis, Kostas (eds.). What is Scientific Knowledge? An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology of Science. New York: Routledge. pp. 3–17. ISBN 978-1-138-57016-0. Archived from the original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  57. Szycher, Michael (2016). "Establishing your dream team". Commercialization Secrets for Scientists and Engineers. New York: Routledge. pp. 159–176. ISBN 978-1-138-40741-1. Archived from the original on 18 August 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  58. Wilson, E. O. (1999). "The natural sciences". Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge (Reprint ed.). New York: Vintage. pp. 49–71. ISBN 978-0-679-76867-8.
  59. Bunge, Mario (1998). "The Scientific Approach". Philosophy of Science: Volume 1, From Problem to Theory. Vol. 1 (revised ed.). New York: Routledge. pp. 3–50. ISBN 978-0-7658-0413-6.
  60. Nickles, Thomas (2013). "The Problem of Demarcation". Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. The University of Chicago Press. p. 104.
  61. Fischer, M. R.; Fabry, G (2014). "Thinking and acting scientifically: Indispensable basis of medical education". GMS Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ausbildung. 31 (2): Doc24. doi:10.3205/zma000916. PMC 4027809. PMID 24872859.
  62. Sinclair, Marius (1993). "On the Differences between the Engineering and Scientific Methods". The International Journal of Engineering Education. Archived from the original on 15 November 2017. Retrieved 7 September 2018.
  63. Building Bridges Among the BRICs Archived 18 April 2023 at the Wayback Machine, p. 125, Robert Crane, Springer, 2014
  64. Keay, John (2000). India: A history. Atlantic Monthly Press. p. 132. ISBN 978-0-87113-800-2. The great era of all that is deemed classical in Indian literature, art and science was now dawning. It was this crescendo of creativity and scholarship, as much as ... political achievements of the Guptas, which would make their age so golden.
  65. Sease, Virginia; Schmidt-Brabant, Manfrid. Thinkers, Saints, Heretics: Spiritual Paths of the Middle Ages. 2007. Pages 80–81 Archived 27 August 2024 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved 6 October 2023.
  66. Principe, Lawrence M. (2011). "Introduction". Scientific Revolution: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 1–3. ISBN 978-0-19-956741-6.
  67. Cahan, David, ed. (2003). From Natural Philosophy to the Sciences: Writing the History of Nineteenth-Century Science. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-08928-7.
  68. Lightman, Bernard (2011). "13. Science and the Public". In Shank, Michael; Numbers, Ronald; Harrison, Peter (eds.). Wrestling with Nature: From Omens to Science. University of Chicago Press. p. 367. ISBN 978-0-226-31783-0.
  69. Harrison, Peter (2015). The Territories of Science and Religion. University of Chicago Press. pp. 164–165. ISBN 978-0-226-18451-7. The changing character of those engaged in scientific endeavors was matched by a new nomenclature for their endeavors. The most conspicuous marker of this change was the replacement of "natural philosophy" by "natural science". In 1800 few had spoken of the "natural sciences" but by 1880 this expression had overtaken the traditional label "natural philosophy". The persistence of "natural philosophy" in the twentieth century is owing largely to historical references to a past practice (see figure 11). As should now be apparent, this was not simply the substitution of one term by another, but involved the jettisoning of a range of personal qualities relating to the conduct of philosophy and the living of the philosophical life.
  70. MacRitchie, Finlay (2011). "Introduction". Scientific Research as a Career. New York: Routledge. pp. 1–6. ISBN 978-1-4398-6965-9. Archived from the original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  71. Marder, Michael P. (2011). "Curiosity and research". Research Methods for Science. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–17. ISBN 978-0-521-14584-8. Archived from the original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  72. de Ridder, Jeroen (2020). "How many scientists does it take to have knowledge?". In McCain, Kevin; Kampourakis, Kostas (eds.). What is Scientific Knowledge? An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology of Science. New York: Routledge. pp. 3–17. ISBN 978-1-138-57016-0. Archived from the original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  73. Szycher, Michael (2016). "Establishing your dream team". Commercialization Secrets for Scientists and Engineers. New York: Routledge. pp. 159–176. ISBN 978-1-138-40741-1. Archived from the original on 18 August 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  74. Wilson, E. O. (1999). "The natural sciences". Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge (Reprint ed.). New York: Vintage. pp. 49–71. ISBN 978-0-679-76867-8.
  75. Bunge, Mario (1998). "The Scientific Approach". Philosophy of Science: Volume 1, From Problem to Theory. Vol. 1 (revised ed.). New York: Routledge. pp. 3–50. ISBN 978-0-7658-0413-6.
  76. Nickles, Thomas (2013). "The Problem of Demarcation". Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. The University of Chicago Press. p. 104.
  77. Fischer, M. R.; Fabry, G (2014). "Thinking and acting scientifically: Indispensable basis of medical education". GMS Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ausbildung. 31 (2): Doc24. doi:10.3205/zma000916. PMC 4027809. PMID 24872859.
  78. Sinclair, Marius (1993). "On the Differences between the Engineering and Scientific Methods". The International Journal of Engineering Education. Archived from the original on 15 November 2017. Retrieved 7 September 2018.
  79. Building Bridges Among the BRICs Archived 18 April 2023 at the Wayback Machine, p. 125, Robert Crane, Springer, 2014
  80. Keay, John (2000). India: A history. Atlantic Monthly Press. p. 132. ISBN 978-0-87113-800-2. The great era of all that is deemed classical in Indian literature, art and science was now dawning. It was this crescendo of creativity and scholarship, as much as ... political achievements of the Guptas, which would make their age so golden.
  81. Sease, Virginia; Schmidt-Brabant, Manfrid. Thinkers, Saints, Heretics: Spiritual Paths of the Middle Ages. 2007. Pages 80–81 Archived 27 August 2024 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved 6 October 2023.
  82. Principe, Lawrence M. (2011). "Introduction". Scientific Revolution: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 1–3. ISBN 978-0-19-956741-6.
  83. Cahan, David, ed. (2003). From Natural Philosophy to the Sciences: Writing the History of Nineteenth-Century Science. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-08928-7.
  84. Lightman, Bernard (2011). "13. Science and the Public". In Shank, Michael; Numbers, Ronald; Harrison, Peter (eds.). Wrestling with Nature: From Omens to Science. University of Chicago Press. p. 367. ISBN 978-0-226-31783-0.
  85. Harrison, Peter (2015). The Territories of Science and Religion. University of Chicago Press. pp. 164–165. ISBN 978-0-226-18451-7. The changing character of those engaged in scientific endeavors was matched by a new nomenclature for their endeavors. The most conspicuous marker of this change was the replacement of "natural philosophy" by "natural science". In 1800 few had spoken of the "natural sciences" but by 1880 this expression had overtaken the traditional label "natural philosophy". The persistence of "natural philosophy" in the twentieth century is owing largely to historical references to a past practice (see figure 11). As should now be apparent, this was not simply the substitution of one term by another, but involved the jettisoning of a range of personal qualities relating to the conduct of philosophy and the living of the philosophical life.
  86. MacRitchie, Finlay (2011). "Introduction". Scientific Research as a Career. New York: Routledge. pp. 1–6. ISBN 978-1-4398-6965-9. Archived from the original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  87. Marder, Michael P. (2011). "Curiosity and research". Research Methods for Science. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–17. ISBN 978-0-521-14584-8. Archived from the original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  88. de Ridder, Jeroen (2020). "How many scientists does it take to have knowledge?". In McCain, Kevin; Kampourakis, Kostas (eds.). What is Scientific Knowledge? An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology of Science. New York: Routledge. pp. 3–17. ISBN 978-1-138-57016-0. Archived from the original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  89. Szycher, Michael (2016). "Establishing your dream team". Commercialization Secrets for Scientists and Engineers. New York: Routledge. pp. 159–176. ISBN 978-1-138-40741-1. Archived from the original on 18 August 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  90. Wilson, E. O. (1999). "The natural sciences". Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge (Reprint ed.). New York: Vintage. pp. 49–71. ISBN 978-0-679-76867-8.
  91. Bunge, Mario (1998). "The Scientific Approach". Philosophy of Science: Volume 1, From Problem to Theory. Vol. 1 (revised ed.). New York: Routledge. pp. 3–50. ISBN 978-0-7658-0413-6.
  92. Nickles, Thomas (2013). "The Problem of Demarcation". Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. The University of Chicago Press. p. 104.
  93. Fischer, M. R.; Fabry, G (2014). "Thinking and acting scientifically: Indispensable basis of medical education". GMS Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ausbildung. 31 (2): Doc24. doi:10.3205/zma000916. PMC 4027809. PMID 24872859.
  94. Sinclair, Marius (1993). "On the Differences between the Engineering and Scientific Methods". The International Journal of Engineering Education. Archived from the original on 15 November 2017. Retrieved 7 September 2018.
  95. Building Bridges Among the BRICs Archived 18 April 2023 at the Wayback Machine, p. 125, Robert Crane, Springer, 2014
  96. Keay, John (2000). India: A history. Atlantic Monthly Press. p. 132. ISBN 978-0-87113-800-2. The great era of all that is deemed classical in Indian literature, art and science was now dawning. It was this crescendo of creativity and scholarship, as much as ... political achievements of the Guptas, which would make their age so golden.
  97. Sease, Virginia; Schmidt-Brabant, Manfrid. Thinkers, Saints, Heretics: Spiritual Paths of the Middle Ages. 2007. Pages 80–81 Archived 27 August 2024 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved 6 October 2023.
  98. Principe, Lawrence M. (2011). "Introduction". Scientific Revolution: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 1–3. ISBN 978-0-19-956741-6.
  99. Cahan, David, ed. (2003). From Natural Philosophy to the Sciences: Writing the History of Nineteenth-Century Science. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-08928-7.
  100. Lightman, Bernard (2011). "13. Science and the Public". In Shank, Michael; Numbers, Ronald; Harrison, Peter (eds.). Wrestling with Nature: From Omens to Science. University of Chicago Press. p. 367. ISBN 978-0-226-31783-0.
  101. Harrison, Peter (2015). The Territories of Science and Religion. University of Chicago Press. pp. 164–165. ISBN 978-0-226-18451-7. The changing character of those engaged in scientific endeavors was matched by a new nomenclature for their endeavors. The most conspicuous marker of this change was the replacement of "natural philosophy" by "natural science". In 1800 few had spoken of the "natural sciences" but by 1880 this expression had overtaken the traditional label "natural philosophy". The persistence of "natural philosophy" in the twentieth century is owing largely to historical references to a past practice (see figure 11). As should now be apparent, this was not simply the substitution of one term by another, but involved the jettisoning of a range of personal qualities relating to the conduct of philosophy and the living of the philosophical life.
  102. MacRitchie, Finlay (2011). "Introduction". Scientific Research as a Career. New York: Routledge. pp. 1–6. ISBN 978-1-4398-6965-9. Archived from the original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  103. Marder, Michael P. (2011). "Curiosity and research". Research Methods for Science. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–17. ISBN 978-0-521-14584-8. Archived from the original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  104. de Ridder, Jeroen (2020). "How many scientists does it take to have knowledge?". In McCain, Kevin; Kampourakis, Kostas (eds.). What is Scientific Knowledge? An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology of Science. New York: Routledge. pp. 3–17. ISBN 978-1-138-57016-0. Archived from the original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  105. Szycher, Michael (2016). "Establishing your dream team". Commercialization Secrets for Scientists and Engineers. New York: Routledge. pp. 159–176. ISBN 978-1-138-40741-1. Archived from the original on 18 August 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  106. Wilson, E. O. (1999). "The natural sciences". Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge (Reprint ed.). New York: Vintage. pp. 49–71. ISBN 978-0-679-76867-8.
  107. Bunge, Mario (1998). "The Scientific Approach". Philosophy of Science: Volume 1, From Problem to Theory. Vol. 1 (revised ed.). New York: Routledge. pp. 3–50. ISBN 978-0-7658-0413-6.
  108. Nickles, Thomas (2013). "The Problem of Demarcation". Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. The University of Chicago Press. p. 104.
  109. Fischer, M. R.; Fabry, G (2014). "Thinking and acting scientifically: Indispensable basis of medical education". GMS Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ausbildung. 31 (2): Doc24. doi:10.3205/zma000916. PMC 4027809. PMID 24872859.
  110. Sinclair, Marius (1993). "On the Differences between the Engineering and Scientific Methods". The International Journal of Engineering Education. Archived from the original on 15 November 2017. Retrieved 7 September 2018.
  111. Building Bridges Among the BRICs Archived 18 April 2023 at the Wayback Machine, p. 125, Robert Crane, Springer, 2014
  112. Keay, John (2000). India: A history. Atlantic Monthly Press. p. 132. ISBN 978-0-87113-800-2. The great era of all that is deemed classical in Indian literature, art and science was now dawning. It was this crescendo of creativity and scholarship, as much as ... political achievements of the Guptas, which would make their age so golden.
  113. Sease, Virginia; Schmidt-Brabant, Manfrid. Thinkers, Saints, Heretics: Spiritual Paths of the Middle Ages. 2007. Pages 80–81 Archived 27 August 2024 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved 6 October 2023.
  114. Principe, Lawrence M. (2011). "Introduction". Scientific Revolution: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 1–3. ISBN 978-0-19-956741-6.
  115. Cahan, David, ed. (2003). From Natural Philosophy to the Sciences: Writing the History of Nineteenth-Century Science. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-08928-7.
  116. Lightman, Bernard (2011). "13. Science and the Public". In Shank, Michael; Numbers, Ronald; Harrison, Peter (eds.). Wrestling with Nature: From Omens to Science. University of Chicago Press. p. 367. ISBN 978-0-226-31783-0.
  117. Harrison, Peter (2015). The Territories of Science and Religion. University of Chicago Press. pp. 164–165. ISBN 978-0-226-18451-7. The changing character of those engaged in scientific endeavors was matched by a new nomenclature for their endeavors. The most conspicuous marker of this change was the replacement of "natural philosophy" by "natural science". In 1800 few had spoken of the "natural sciences" but by 1880 this expression had overtaken the traditional label "natural philosophy". The persistence of "natural philosophy" in the twentieth century is owing largely to historical references to a past practice (see figure 11). As should now be apparent, this was not simply the substitution of one term by another, but involved the jettisoning of a range of personal qualities relating to the conduct of philosophy and the living of the philosophical life.
  118. MacRitchie, Finlay (2011). "Introduction". Scientific Research as a Career. New York: Routledge. pp. 1–6. ISBN 978-1-4398-6965-9. Archived from the original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  119. Marder, Michael P. (2011). "Curiosity and research". Research Methods for Science. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–17. ISBN 978-0-521-14584-8. Archived from the original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  120. de Ridder, Jeroen (2020). "How many scientists does it take to have knowledge?". In McCain, Kevin; Kampourakis, Kostas (eds.). What is Scientific Knowledge? An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology of Science. New York: Routledge. pp. 3–17. ISBN 978-1-138-57016-0. Archived from the original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  121. Szycher, Michael (2016). "Establishing your dream team". Commercialization Secrets for Scientists and Engineers. New York: Routledge. pp. 159–176. ISBN 978-1-138-40741-1. Archived from the original on 18 August 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  122. Wilson, E. O. (1999). "The natural sciences". Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge (Reprint ed.). New York: Vintage. pp. 49–71. ISBN 978-0-679-76867-8.
  123. Bunge, Mario (1998). "The Scientific Approach". Philosophy of Science: Volume 1, From Problem to Theory. Vol. 1 (revised ed.). New York: Routledge. pp. 3–50. ISBN 978-0-7658-0413-6.
  124. Nickles, Thomas (2013). "The Problem of Demarcation". Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. The University of Chicago Press. p. 104.
  125. Fischer, M. R.; Fabry, G (2014). "Thinking and acting scientifically: Indispensable basis of medical education". GMS Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ausbildung. 31 (2): Doc24. doi:10.3205/zma000916. PMC 4027809. PMID 24872859.
  126. Sinclair, Marius (1993). "On the Differences between the Engineering and Scientific Methods". The International Journal of Engineering Education. Archived from the original on 15 November 2017. Retrieved 7 September 2018.
  127. Building Bridges Among the BRICs Archived 18 April 2023 at the Wayback Machine, p. 125, Robert Crane, Springer, 2014
  128. Keay, John (2000). India: A history. Atlantic Monthly Press. p. 132. ISBN 978-0-87113-800-2. The great era of all that is deemed classical in Indian literature, art and science was now dawning. It was this crescendo of creativity and scholarship, as much as ... political achievements of the Guptas, which would make their age so golden.
  129. Sease, Virginia; Schmidt-Brabant, Manfrid. Thinkers, Saints, Heretics: Spiritual Paths of the Middle Ages. 2007. Pages 80–81 Archived 27 August 2024 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved 6 October 2023.
  130. Principe, Lawrence M. (2011). "Introduction". Scientific Revolution: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 1–3. ISBN 978-0-19-956741-6.
  131. Cahan, David, ed. (2003). From Natural Philosophy to the Sciences: Writing the History of Nineteenth-Century Science. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-08928-7.
  132. Lightman, Bernard (2011). "13. Science and the Public". In Shank, Michael; Numbers, Ronald; Harrison, Peter (eds.). Wrestling with Nature: From Omens to Science. University of Chicago Press. p. 367. ISBN 978-0-226-31783-0.
  133. Harrison, Peter (2015). The Territories of Science and Religion. University of Chicago Press. pp. 164–165. ISBN 978-0-226-18451-7. The changing character of those engaged in scientific endeavors was matched by a new nomenclature for their endeavors. The most conspicuous marker of this change was the replacement of "natural philosophy" by "natural science". In 1800 few had spoken of the "natural sciences" but by 1880 this expression had overtaken the traditional label "natural philosophy". The persistence of "natural philosophy" in the twentieth century is owing largely to historical references to a past practice (see figure 11). As should now be apparent, this was not simply the substitution of one term by another, but involved the jettisoning of a range of personal qualities relating to the conduct of philosophy and the living of the philosophical life.
  134. MacRitchie, Finlay (2011). "Introduction". Scientific Research as a Career. New York: Routledge. pp. 1–6. ISBN 978-1-4398-6965-9. Archived from the original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  135. Marder, Michael P. (2011). "Curiosity and research". Research Methods for Science. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 1–17. ISBN 978-0-521-14584-8. Archived from the original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  136. de Ridder, Jeroen (2020). "How many scientists does it take to have knowledge?". In McCain, Kevin; Kampourakis, Kostas (eds.). What is Scientific Knowledge? An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology of Science. New York: Routledge. pp. 3–17. ISBN 978-1-138-57016-0. Archived from the original on 5 May 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  137. Szycher, Michael (2016). "Establishing your dream team". Commercialization Secrets for Scientists and Engineers. New York: Routledge. pp. 159–176. ISBN 978-1-138-40741-1. Archived from the original on 18 August 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2021.
  138. "Electricity Data Explorer". ember-energy.org. Retrieved June 12, 2026.
  139. 1 2 3 4 "Wind Power – Analysis". IEA. Archived from the original on 23 November 2021. Retrieved 2021-11-23.
  140. 1 2 "Wind energy generation vs. installed capacity". Our World in Data. Archived from the original on 19 October 2021. Retrieved 2021-11-23.
  141. "Global wind industry breezes into new record". Energy Live News. 2022-03-25. Retrieved 2022-04-02.
  142. 1 2 "Global Electricity Review 2025". Ember. 2024-05-07. Retrieved 2025-04-13.
  143. 1 2 "Expansion of wind and solar power too slow to stop climate change". ScienceDaily. Retrieved 2021-11-24.
  144. 1 2 "What are the pros and cons of onshore wind energy?". Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, London School of Economics and Political Science. 2018-01-12. Archived from the original on 22 June 2019.
  145. 1 2 Jones, Nathan F.; Pejchar, Liba; Kiesecker, Joseph M. (2015-01-22). "The Energy Footprint: How Oil, Natural Gas, and Wind Energy Affect Land for Biodiversity and the Flow of Ecosystem Services". BioScience. 65 (3): 290–301. doi:10.1093/biosci/biu224. ISSN 0006-3568. Retrieved 2022-11-09.
  146. "Global Wind Report 2019". Global Wind Energy Council. 19 March 2020. Archived from the original on 24 June 2023. Retrieved 28 March 2020.
  147. 1 2 "Levelized Cost Of Energy, Levelized Cost Of Storage, and Levelized Cost Of Hydrogen". Lazard.com. Retrieved 2021-11-24.
  148. "Global Wind Atlas". DTU Technical University of Denmark. Archived from the original on 24 February 2020. Retrieved 28 March 2020.
  149. Nyenah, Emmanuel; Sterl, Sebastian; Thiery, Wim (2022-05-01). "Pieces of a puzzle: solar-wind power synergies on seasonal and diurnal timescales tend to be excellent worldwide". Environmental Research Communications. 4 (5): 055011. Bibcode:2022ERCom...4e5011N. doi:10.1088/2515-7620/ac71fb. ISSN 2515-7620. S2CID 249227821.
  150. "Electricity Data Explorer". ember-energy.org. Retrieved June 12, 2026.
  151. "Global wind industry breezes into new record". Energy Live News. 2022-03-25. Retrieved 2022-04-02.
  152. "Global Wind Report 2019". Global Wind Energy Council. 19 March 2020. Archived from the original on 24 June 2023. Retrieved 28 March 2020.
  153. "Global Wind Atlas". DTU Technical University of Denmark. Archived from the original on 24 February 2020. Retrieved 28 March 2020.
  154. Nyenah, Emmanuel; Sterl, Sebastian; Thiery, Wim (2022-05-01). "Pieces of a puzzle: solar-wind power synergies on seasonal and diurnal timescales tend to be excellent worldwide". Environmental Research Communications. 4 (5): 055011. Bibcode:2022ERCom...4e5011N. doi:10.1088/2515-7620/ac71fb. ISSN 2515-7620. S2CID 249227821.
  155. 1 2 Armstrong, G.A.; Hearst, J.E. (1996). "Carotenoids 2: Genetics and molecular biology of carotenoid pigment biosynthesis". FASEB J. 10 (2): 228–37. doi:10.1096/fasebj.10.2.8641556. ISSN 0892-6638. PMID 8641556. S2CID 22385652. Archived from the original on 14 July 2020. Retrieved 22 November 2012.
  156. 1 2 "Antiquity". Pigments through the Ages. Archived from the original on Feb 3, 2023.
  157. 1 2 Cited in Eva Heller (2000), Psychologie de la couleur – effets et symboliques, p. 82.
  158. Eva Heller (2000), Psychologie de la couleur – effets et symboliques, pp. 69–86.
  159. Price, Massoume (December 2001). "Culture of Iran: Festival of Fire". Iran Chamber Society. Archived from the original on Feb 3, 2023.
  160. Amjadi, Maryam Ala (2012). "Shades of doubt and shapes of hope: Colors in Iranian culture". Payvand. Archived from the original on Dec 21, 2022.
  161. Eva Heller (2000), Psychologie de la couleur – effets et symboliques, pp. 69–86
  162. Eva Heller (2000), Psychologie de la couleur – effets et symboliques, pp. 69–86.
  163. Price, Massoume (December 2001). "Culture of Iran: Festival of Fire". Iran Chamber Society. Archived from the original on Feb 3, 2023.
  164. Amjadi, Maryam Ala (2012). "Shades of doubt and shapes of hope: Colors in Iranian culture". Payvand. Archived from the original on Dec 21, 2022.
  165. Eva Heller (2000), Psychologie de la couleur – effets et symboliques, pp. 69–86
  166. Holmberg, Anders (2016). The syntax of yes and no. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 64–72. ISBN 9780198701859.
  167. "Interjections - TIP Sheets - Butte College". www.butte.edu. Retrieved 2023-11-14.
  168. "YES Definition & Usage Examples". Dictionary.com. Retrieved 2023-11-14.
  169. "Yes Definition & Meaning | Britannica Dictionary". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 2023-11-14.
  170. Holmberg, Anders (2016). The syntax of yes and no. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 64–72. ISBN 9780198701859.
  171. "Interjections - TIP Sheets - Butte College". www.butte.edu. Retrieved 2023-11-14.
  172. "YES Definition & Usage Examples". Dictionary.com. Retrieved 2023-11-14.
  173. "Yes Definition & Meaning | Britannica Dictionary". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 2023-11-14.
  174. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Anderson, E.; Francis, Ch. (2012). "XHIP: An extended hipparcos compilation". Astronomy Letters. 38 (5): 331. arXiv:1108.4971. Bibcode:2012AstL...38..331A. doi:10.1134/S1063773712050015. XHIP record for this object at VizieR.
  175. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Vallenari, A.; et al. (Gaia collaboration) (2023), "Gaia Data Release 3. Summary of the content and survey properties", Astronomy and Astrophysics, 674: A1, arXiv:2208.00211, Bibcode:2023A&A...674A...1G, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243940, S2CID 244398875. Gaia DR3 record for this source at VizieR.
  176. 1 2 Houk, Nancy (1979). Michigan catalogue of two-dimensional spectral types for the HD stars. Vol. 3. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Dept. of Astronomy, University of Michigan. Bibcode:1982mcts.book.....H.
  177. 1 2 Johnson, H. L.; et al. (1966). "Ubvrijkl Photometry of the Bright Stars". Communications of the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory. 4: 99–110. Bibcode:1966CoLPL...4...99J.
  178. 1 2 Gontcharov, G. A. (2006). "Pulkovo Compilation of Radial Velocities for 35 495 Hipparcos stars in a common system". Astronomy Letters. 32 (11): 759–771. arXiv:1606.08053. Bibcode:2006AstL...32..759G. doi:10.1134/S1063773706110065. S2CID 119231169.
  179. Jaschek, C.; Gomez, A. E. (1998). "The absolute magnitude of the early type MK standards from HIPPARCOS parallaxes". Astronomy and Astrophysics. 330 (619–625): 619. Bibcode:1998A&A...330..619J.
  180. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Grosbol, P. J. (1978). "Space velocities and ages of nearby early-type stars". Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series. 32: 409–421. Bibcode:1978A&AS...32..409G.
  181. 1 2 Pasinetti Fracassini, L. E.; et al. (2001). "Catalogue of Apparent Diameters and Absolute Radii of Stars (CADARS) - Comments and statistics". Astronomy & Astrophysics. 367 (2) (Third ed.): 521–24. arXiv:astro-ph/0012289. Bibcode:2001A&A...367..521P. doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20000451. S2CID 425754.
  182. 1 2 3 4 de Vaucouleurs, A. (1957). "Spectral types and luminosities of B, A and F southern stars". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 117 (4): 449. Bibcode:1957MNRAS.117..449D. doi:10.1093/mnras/117.4.449.
  183. 1 2 3 4 "* x1 Cen". SIMBAD. Centre de données astronomiques de Strasbourg. Retrieved 15 January 2016.
  184. "* x2 Cen". SIMBAD. Centre de données astronomiques de Strasbourg. Retrieved 16 January 2017.
  185. Jaschek, C.; Gomez, A. E. (1998). "The absolute magnitude of the early type MK standards from HIPPARCOS parallaxes". Astronomy and Astrophysics. 330 (619–625): 619. Bibcode:1998A&A...330..619J.
  186. "* x2 Cen". SIMBAD. Centre de données astronomiques de Strasbourg. Retrieved 16 January 2017.
  187. 1 2 L'historien Pierre Chaunu est mort
  188. "ONPE - Oficina Nacional de Procesos Electorales". www.web.onpe.gob.pe (in Spanish). Retrieved 2018-11-23.
  189. "Peru election: Keiko Fujimori wins first round, say exit polls – BBC News". BBC News. 11 April 2016. Retrieved 2016-04-11.
  190. "Peru election: Kuczynski wins, but Fujimori has yet to concede". BBC News. Retrieved 11 June 2016.
  191. "Peru elections: Keiko Fujimori concedes to Kuczynski". BBC News. Retrieved 11 June 2016.
  192. "ONPE - Oficina Nacional de Procesos Electorales". www.web.onpe.gob.pe (in Spanish). Retrieved 2018-11-23.
  193. "Peru election: Keiko Fujimori wins first round, say exit polls – BBC News". BBC News. 11 April 2016. Retrieved 2016-04-11.
  194. "Peru election: Kuczynski wins, but Fujimori has yet to concede". BBC News. Retrieved 11 June 2016.
  195. "Peru elections: Keiko Fujimori concedes to Kuczynski". BBC News. Retrieved 11 June 2016.
  196. "2020_Presidential_Preference_Primary_All_Results.pdf" (PDF). 9 April 2020.
  197. "2020_Presidential_Preference_Primary_All_Results.pdf" (PDF). 9 April 2020.
  198. "2020 primary Elections Nevada results". NBC News. February 24, 2020. Retrieved March 2, 2022.
  199. "Nevada democratic Caucus Results". USA Today. February 24, 2020. Retrieved March 2, 2022.
  200. "2020 Nevada Democratic presidential caucuses". The Washington Post. February 24, 2020. Retrieved March 2, 2022.
  201. "2020 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses, and Conventions – Nevada Democrat". The Green Papers. November 24, 2021. Retrieved March 2, 2022.
  202. "2020 primary Elections Nevada results". NBC News. February 24, 2020. Retrieved March 2, 2022.
  203. "Nevada democratic Caucus Results". USA Today. February 24, 2020. Retrieved March 2, 2022.
  204. "2020 Nevada Democratic presidential caucuses". The Washington Post. February 24, 2020. Retrieved March 2, 2022.
  205. "2020 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses, and Conventions – Nevada Democrat". The Green Papers. November 24, 2021. Retrieved March 2, 2022.