This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Science article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Article milestones Date Process Result April 8, 2006 WikiProject peer review Reviewed June 6, 2024 Peer review Reviewed
	This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of May 29, 2007.

This  level-1 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors on August 2022.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors History of Science Top‑importance This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Science High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophy of science Science Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

There is a request, submitted by [[User:Sdkb|Sdkb]] ([[User talk:Sdkb|talk]]), for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: Level-1 vital article.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article contains broken links to one or more target anchors: [[Scientific method#Elements of the scientific method|ongoing process]] The anchor (Elements of the scientific method) has been deleted. The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking the page history of the target pages, or updating the links. Remove this template after the problem is fixed | Report an error

The redirect Draft:Science has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 24 § Draft:Science until a consensus is reached. Absolutiva 23:34, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"physical world" in both the 1st para, 2nd line and 2nd para, 2nd line lead to "Universe", while "universe" in the 1st para, 1st line does not.

"scientific method" in both the 1st para, 3rd line and 3rd para, 2nd line lead to "Scientific method". ThatLivesInABlueWorld (talk) 12:09, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dealt with this myself by now. ThatLivesInABlueWorld (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think the first paragraph has some subtle but important issues that leave room for improvement.

Firstly, it doesn't explicitly mention the dual nature of science: that it is both a process for building and verifying explanations as well as the collection of those explanations (scientific knowledge). The current version doesn't deny the dual aspect but I think explicit emphasis is important.

It also contains a critical inaccuracy hiding in plain sight. "...knowledge in the form of testable hypotheses and predictions about the universe" is inaccurate. Hypothesis are proposed explanations, they aren't knowledge, they are part of the scientific method instead. An alternative term is 'explanations' or 'testable explanations'. It may be more accurate and accessible.

Lastly, I think the biggest problem is that the entire lead section has only one sentence (the very first one) that explains what science is. I think the topic certainly needs a larger introduction to make it more accurate and accessible. This leads to some fundamental aspects about science missing from the lead section. The scientific method, for instance, is vaguely mentioned as science's alternative to deductive reasoning. I would dedicate the first paragraph entirely to explaining briefly what science is, what it does, and how it does it.

Here is a proposal which I think may be an improvement in accuracy and accessibility:

Science is a systematic discipline that builds and organizes testable explanations about nature and the universe. Science follows an empirical method, known as the scientific method, to produce and validate such explanations. It typically involves making observations, formulating a hypothesis, testing the hypothesis with an experiment, and drawing conclusions. Science is not only this process but also the collection of testable explanations that this process produces, often referred to as scientific knowledge.

Or more concisely:

Science is a systematic discipline that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations. It is driven by the scientific method: an empirical cycle of observing natural phenomena, proposing hypotheses, evaluating them with experiments, and drawing conclusions. Science is not only this process but also the knowledge this process produces.

It would be followed by a description of the different branches of science and its contrast with other fields, which currently are the second through last sentences of the first paragraph.

Thoughts? Cicada419 (talk) 03:37, 29 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Given that no comments were made I will edit the proposed changes into the article. Here is final the version:

Science is a systematic discipline that builds and organises knowledge in the form of testable explanations about nature and society. It is driven by the scientific method: an empirical cycle that typically involves making observations, producing hypotheses, testing them with experiments, and drawing conclusions. Science is not only this process but also the body of knowledge it produces, which is essential in applied fields such as engineering, technology, and medicine.

These are the reasons for it (most are detailed above):

- Fixes critical inaccuracy

- Improves accessibility

- Puts emphasis in the dual nature of science

- Introduces the scientific method (current version simply lists it)

- Shows the notability of the topic, via the last sentence, which isn't done elsewhere in the entire section. Cicada419 (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This edit to the first paragraph made the second and third paragraph redundant. I also dont see how this edit makes the page more accesible. It just makes the lead section confusing. It just seems that you only read the first paragraph and said: "This does not encapsulates the entirety of what science is" wich is fine because the first paragraph is an introductory idea to the lead section and not an abstract of the entire page. At least make it consistent with the rest of the lead section. MrChoripan (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If the newest edit compresses sentences from the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, it also makes it possible to say more in those paragraphs; for example Emil Artin insisted that mathematics is an art, not a science; computer science's retooling the Lean (proof assistant) (from embedded C++ to native Lean 4) is showing that Category theory can now be empirically tested / demonstrated all the way up to the Yoneda lemma. This demonstrates that an intuitive pronouncement that "Yoneda lemma is trivial" is manifestly untrue. Rather, Yoneda lemma can be backed up experimentally by Stephen Diehl's computer code. -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 01:28, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding accessibility, it makes it more accessible because it uses simpler (and more accurate) vocabulary such as 'testable explanations' over 'hypotheses'. It also explains how science does what it does, which is fundamental to science, and it does so in a way that is easy to understand. The previous version had only one sentence, with a critical inaccuracy (hypothesis = knowledge), explaining what science is and would then jump straight into the taxonomy.

Regarding your comment on the new paragraph attempting to encapsulate everything that science is. I don't see it. It explains briefly what science does, how it does it, and why the topic is notable. We can certainly argue if some of those things do not belong in the lead paragraph. I think the how certainly does since it is arguably the most important aspect of science.

Regarding redundancy, it certainly did not make the third paragraph redundant, that one covers history. It made some aspects about the second paragraph redundant, the last sentence in particular. The redundancy is not necessarily problematic but we can improve it. @Ancheta Wis made some good suggestions on that aspect. I will draft some changes whenever I get time. Cicada419 (talk) 02:13, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@MrChoripan, @Ancheta Wis, and everyone reading. I've drafted a new version of the last sentence that may address the redundancy concerns by replacing the redundant portion with essential information. Here it is:

Science encompasses this process and the body of knowledge it produces, which is continuously challenged, validated, and organised through peer review and scientific consensus.

For reference, here is how the whole paragraph would read:

Science is a systematic discipline that builds and organises knowledge in the form of testable explanations about nature and society. It is driven by the scientific method: an empirical cycle that typically involves making observations, producing hypotheses, testing them with experiments, and drawing conclusions. Science encompasses this process and the body of knowledge it produces, which is continuously challenged, validated, and organised through peer review and scientific consensus.

It drops the applied fields remark and instead introduces the fact that the body of knowledge is constantly challenged (arguably very important), validated, and organised, and also mentions the essential mechanisms, which even have their own articles and are not present anywhere else in the lead section.

Thoughts? Cicada419 (talk) 19:37, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to add a vignette on the Origin of water on Earth into this page's 21st Century section. It starts with William Kenneth Hartmann's championing of the giant impact hypothesis, his suggestion that Robin Canup apply her simulation of Saturn moon formation to Earth's Moon itself (There is a video clip in Origin of the Moon), Jacob Kegerreis' simulation of a 4000 K magma ocean due to the impact of Theia on proto-Earth, and finally Miozzi et al 2025's infusion of hydrogen into the magma ocean, and the production of copious amounts of water in the 4000 K magma ocean. For me the missing piece was the justification of a 4000 K magma ocean (due to Kegerreis) -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 03:21, 4 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]