Product links

THEORIES ------ TRUE NORTH V/s MAGNETIC NORTH

Magnetic Variation: possibly the most bogus theory of them all. When the Coast Guard put their name on this theory they neutered a lot of their credibility. No one had heard about this theory until the Coast Guard put out a little hastily written chit about 30 years ago, stating their position on the subject of the Bermuda Triangle.
It reads, in part:

Countless theories attempting to explain the many disappearances have been offered throughout the history of the area. The most practical seem to be environmental and those citing human error. The majority of disappearances can be attributed to the area's unique environmental features. First, the "Devil's Triangle" is one of the two places on earth that a magnetic compass does point towards true north. Normally it points toward magnetic north. The difference between the two is known as compass variation. The amount of variation changes by as much as 20 degrees as one circumnavigates the earth. If this compass variation or error is not compensated for, a navigator could find himself far off course and in deep trouble.

This is a very misleading statement. For one, the area of no compass variation is a very narrow corridor, tantamount to a fraction of the overall Triangle. It also overlooks the fact that one cannot even plot a course without having a navigational chart, and all navigational charts have the amount of variation written on them for every degree of longitude. Before a navigator could even chart a course he would have to know the amount of variation. This also overlooks the large number of disappearances of pilots and skippers who were old hands in this part of the world, being charter pilots and the like. They were very familiar with local variation.
It also presupposes that the navigator was stupid enough not to compensate. Yet compensation in navigating is second nature to any navigator.


But lets expand on compass variation, since many do not understand it. Compass variation does not mean that the compass needle points somewhere else. The compass always points to Magnetic North. The problem with this is Magnetic North is not at the North Pole, the absolute geographic northern spot on this planet; it is 1,500 miles away. As far as the compass is concerned, the absolute north of this planet is at Prince of Wales Island in the Northwest Territories of Canada.
The magnetic field of the earth can be likened to a bar magnet running through the earth from north to south. Both ends of the bar would be the north and south magnetic poles. The bar itself would be the axis or, as it is called in geophysics, the Agonic Line.
This would not pose any problem to the navigator were it not for the fact that Magnetic North is located 1,500 miles away from the North Pole. Therefore, geographic north on the earth, the area we mentally consider absolute north, is not where the compass points. Following the N on your compass is not going to

lead you to the North Pole; it will lead you to Prince of Wales Island.


See illustration.






The red dots indicate True North, that is, the absolute geographic north of this planet (North Pole); and Magnetic North, 1,500 miles in a southerly direction from it. The central axis (Agonic Line) of the magnetic field extends through the planet to the South Magnetic Pole at Antarctica. When off Florida, both the North Pole and the Magnetic Pole are in line. The Compass truly points to the North Pole here but only briefly. It is merely incidental because Magnetic North is directly due south of the North Pole here.



To compensate for this, the navigator must know the number of degrees of difference between Magnetic North and True North in his longitude. This changes according to one’s longitude around the earth. For instance, at the Azores Islands there is a 20 degree difference between True North and Magnetic North. Off the east coast of Florida, there is none. The compass is still pointing to Magnetic North. It just so happens that True North is directly north of here. See illustration.



Right: as the Compass sees the four cardinal points. See what happens if you blindly follow your magnetic compass. Everything is tilted because it believes North is 1,500 miles south of the North Pole. West is slightly southwest; East is slightly northeast; North is slightly northwest; South: southeast. Wherever a navigator is, he must adjust his heading to maintain a true course. . . except at the Agonic Line.






Except for this narrow corridor, there is always some form of compensation the navigator must go through.* For example, at the Azores, if a navigator wanted to go straight north, he could not follow the N on his compass. If he did, he would end up in Canada and not in Greenland. So he heads 020 degrees and now he is heading True north. That is what Compass Variation means: the amount of difference between the North Pole and the Magnetic North Pole at a given location. The result is a simple navigational adjustment to stay on course.






Right, what we imagine the Compass to reflect: the true North, East, West, and South of this geographic sphere. Far left, the Compass’ concept of where North, West, East, and South are located, if viewed from the Azores. True North is actually 020o.



This amount of variation will decrease the further one travels West until one reaches the Agonic Line. Soon after, the amount of variation will increase again, with the compass pointing Easterly of True North.
There is little reason to suppose that this has contributed to any loss. Failure to compensate the amount of variation correctly can cause a pilot to get lost anywhere in the world, whether there is no degree variation to compensate for or 15 degrees. One degree off can, over time, result in many miles in error, making a pilot miss his intended destination.
But as I said this can happen anywhere in the world. The Triangle does not stand out as unique because there is no variation in degrees to calculate for a brief period in a very narrow corridor of it.
I try and list theories objectively. But in this case a dead horse is a dead horse. There is no merit to this theory at all.
A further factor contributing to this deduction is that the Agonic Line moves as the magnetic pole shifts, due to many factors in the rotation of the earth. Over time the Agonic Line can be miles from where it was. Actually every 2 months or so a flight is manned and sent to find the magnetic pole. The upshot is that the Agonic Line is not in the Triangle anymore. It is located in the Gulf of Mexico beyond Key West— to those who demand adherence to a strict shape to the “Triangle,” completely outside of it.
The artwork and maps above show the Agonic Line where it was when the Coast Guard made up their little chit about 30 years ago. Magnetic Variation was not a satisfactory explanation before. It is even more passé now. Disappearances still occur in the same places as before, even though the Line is on the other side of Florida now.

LIST OF LOST AIRCRAFTS

1. 1945, December 5: The entire training flight of five Navy
TBM Avengers. Plane #s FT-28, FT-36, FT-117,
FT-3, FT-81. Crew: 14

2. 1945, December 5: PBM Martin Mariner. Off Banana
River, Florida at 28o 59’ NL 80o 25 WL. Crew:13

3. 1947, July 3: a C-54 Douglas en route from Bermuda to
Miami in cargo service. Crew: 7.

4. 1948, January 30: BSAAC Tudor IV Airliner Star Tiger
near Bermuda, northest. 29 crew and passengers, includ
ing Air Marshal Sir Arthur Coningham. GAHNP.

5. 1948, December 28: NC-16002, Douglas DC-3 passenger
airliner; south of Miami on approach to the airport
(within 50 miles). crew and passengers: 31.

6. 1949, January 17: Tudor IV Star Ariel (sister of Star
Tiger) Bermuda for Kingston, Jamaica. Crew and
pasengers: 19. GAGRE.

7. 1954, October 30: Super Constellation, in Navy service.
Maryland for Lajes, in the Azores. Crew and passengers:
42.

8. 1956, November 9: Martin Marlin amphibious patrol
plane, about 350 miles north of Bermuda. Crew: 10.

9. 1961, October 15: an 8 engine SAC B-52 “Pogo 22” north
of Bermuda while returning from routine maneuvers.

10. 1962, January 8: Air Force KB-50 Aerial tanker. North
Carolina to Lajes, Azores. Crew: 8.

11. 1962, May 27: a C-133 Cargomaster, between Dover and
Lajes, Azores. Crew:10.

12. 1963, August 28: 2 KC-135 Stratotanker jets
mysteriously disintergrate over the Sargasso Sea,
enroute back to Miami from refueling near Bermuda.
Crew: 10 total.

13 1963, September 22: another C-133 Cargomaster; Dover
for the Azores. Crew: 10.

14. 1964, February 8: Piper Apache between Grand Bahama
Island and West Palm Beach, Florida. 4 persons. N2157P

15. 1964, December 5: Cessna 140 with 2 persons; off New
Smyrna Beach, Florida. N81089

16. 1965, June 5: a C-119 “Flying Boxcar”; Miami to Grand
Turk. Crew: 10. Was within 100 miles of Grand Turk.

17. 1965, September 15: Beechcraft c18s, with 3 persons,
near St. Thomas, VI, around 7:26 P.M. N8063H

18. 1965, October 31: Cessna 182 somewhere between
Marathon Key and Key West, Florida. 2 persons. N4010D

19. 1965, December 6: Ercoupe F01; between Fort
Lauderdale and West End, Grand Bahama. 2 persons.
N99660

20. 1965, December 29: a Piper Cherokee; South Caicos for
San Juan. 3 persons. N6077P

21. 1966, April 5: a converted cargo B-25; Fort Lauderdale
to Aruba. N92877

22. 1966, September 20: Tampa to Baton Rouge; Piper
Commanche. 2 persons. (see arguments on shape)
N7090P

23. 1967, January 11: Chase YC-122; between Fort
Lauderdale and Bimini in the Bahamas. 4 Persons.
N122E

24. 1967, January 14: a Beechcraft Bonanza near Key
Largo.N7210B 4 persons.

25. 1967, January 17: Piper Cherokee en route St. Thomas
from San Juan. N4129P

26. 1967, July 2: near Mayaguez, PR, a Cherokee. 4
persons. N5100W

27. 1967, August 6: between Miami & Bimini; Piper
Cherokee. 3 persons. N8165W

28. 1967, October 3: Cherokee; Great Inagua for San Juan.
N3775K

29. 1967, November 8: Cessna 182; George Town, Great
Exuma and Nassau. 4 persons. N7121E

30. 1967, November 22: Cherokee near Cat Island,
Bahamas. 4 persons. N9443J

31. 1968, May 29: Cessna 172 near Grand Turk. 2 persons.
N1483F

32. 1968, July 8: between Grand Bahama & West Palm
Beach; Cessna 180. 2 persons. N944MH

33. 1969, January 5: Piper Comanche between Pompano
Beach, FL & North Carolina. 2 persons. N8653P

34. 1969, February 15: Beechcraft 95-c55 en route Miami
from Georgia. N9490S

35. 1969, March 8: big Douglas DC-4 in cargo service;
after leaving the Azores. Crew: 3. N3821

36. 1969, March 22: a Beechcraft between Kingston,
Jamaica & Nassau. 2 persons. N609R

37. 1969, June 6: Cessna 172 between Grand Turk &
Caicos Island. 2 persons. N8040L

38. 1969, June 29: a B-95 Beechcraft Executive; Great
Inagua for San Juan. N590T

39. 1969, August 3: Piper PA-22; West Palm Beach to
Albion, New Jersey. 2 persons. N8971C

40. 1969, October 11: Pilattus-Brittan-Norman Islander;
Great Inagua for Puerto Rico. 2 persons. N852JA

41. 1970, January 17: Piper Comanche; between Nassau &
Opa Locka, FL. 2 persons. N9078P

42. 1970, July 3: between Maiquetia, Venesuela & San
Juan, PR. Cessna 310G. 6 persons. N1166T

43. 1970, November 23: Piper Comanche between West
Palm Beach & Kingston, Jamaica. 3 persons. N9346P

44. 1971, March 20: a Cessna 177b with pilot en route
Andros Island from Miami at 3:18 P.M. N30844

45. 1971, July 26: Horizon Hunter Club’s rental; near
Barbados. 4 persons.

46. 1971, September 10: Phantom II F-4E Jet; on routine
maneuvers 82 miles south of Miami. 2 pilots.

47. 1971, December 21: Cessna 150j with pilot after leaving
Pompano Beach; destination unknown. N61155

48. 1972, October 10: Super Constellation between Miami
& Santo Domingo. 4 crew. N564E

49. 1973, March 28: Cessna 172 after leaving West Palm
Beach, FL, with pilot. N7050T

50. 1973, May 25: a Navion A16 between Freeport and
West Palm Beach. 2 persons. N5126K

51. 1973, August 10: Beechcraft Bonanza between Fort
Lauderdale & Marsh Harbour, Bahamas. 4 persons.
N7956K

52. 1973, August 26: after departing Viaquez, PR; Cessna
150. 3 persons. N50143

53. 1973, December 20: a Lake Amphibian between
Nassau and Bimini. (near Bimini). 3 persons. N39385

54. 1974, February 10: pilot and his Cessna 414 vanish
after leaving treasure Cay, Bahamas. N8103Q

55. 1974, February 10: that night a Pilattus -Brittan-
Norman Islander with pilot and co-pilot disappear at
7:31 P.M. on approach St. Thomas. N864JA

56. 1974, July 13: Piper PA-32 between West Palm Beach &
Walker Cay, Bahamas. N83CA

57. 1974, August 11: Beech K35 Bonanza after departing
Pompano Beach, FL. for Philadelphia. 2 persons.
N632Q

58. 1975, February 25: Piper PA-30; Greensboro, NC. to
Freeport, GBI; pilot only. N414DG

59. 1975, May 2: Cessna “Skymaster”; Fort Lauderdale
area. N86011

60. 1975, July 28: Cessna 172; vicinity Fort Lauderdale. 1
N8936V

61. 1975, December 9: Cessna 172; St. Croix to St. Kitts. 1;
N5182R

62. 1976, June 4: Beech D50; Pahokee, FL., to Dominican
Republic; 2. N1157

63. 1976, August 8: Piper PA-28; Vera Cruz, Mexico to
Brownsville, TX; 1. (See Q&A Arguments on shape)
N6377J

64. 1976, October 24: Beech E-50; Opa Locka, FL. to Grand
Turk Island. N5665D

65. 1976, December 28: Piper PA-23; Anguilla to Beef
Island; 6. N4573P

66. 1978, February 22: a KA-6 Navy attack bomber
vanished from radar 100 miles off Norfolk en route
U.S.S. John F. Kennedy; 2.

67. 1978, March 25: Aero Commander 680; Opa Locka-
Imokalee, FL. to Freeport, Grand Bahama; 2. N128C

68. 1978, April 27: Ted Smith 601; Pompano Beach to
Panama City, FL.; 1. N555BU

69. 1978, April 30: Cessna 172; Dillon, SC., to unknown; 1.
N1GH

70. 1978, May 19: Piper PA-28 Fort Pierce to Nassau; 4.
N47910

71. 1978, May 26: Beech 65; Port-au-Prince to Bahamas; 2.
N809Q

72. 1978, July 18: Piper PA-31; Santa Marta, Col. to
Port-au- Prince; 2. N689WW

73. 1978, September 21: Douglas DC-3; Fort Lauderdale to
Havana; 4. N407D

74. 1978, November 3: Piper PA-31; St. Croix to St.
Thomas; 1. N59912 (right off St. Thomas)

75. 1978, November 20: Piper PA-23; De Funiak Springs to
Gainsville, FL.; 4. N54615

76. 1979, January 11: Beech A23A; Opa Locka to St.
Thomas; 2. N925RZ

77. 1979, April 2: Beech E18s; Fort Lauderdale to Cat
Island, Bahamas; 1. N4442

78. 1979, April 24: Piper PA-28R; Fort Lauderdale to
Nassau; 4. N7480J

79. 1979, June 30: Cessna 150J; St. Croix to St. Thomas; 2.
N60936

80. 1979, September 9: Cessna 182; New Orleans to
Pensacola, Florida. 3 persons. N2183R

81. 1979, October 4: Aero Commander 500; Andros Island
to West Palm Beach, FL.; pilot; N3815C

82. 1979, October 27: Piper PA-23; Montego Bay, Jamaico
to Nassau; pilot. N13986

83. 1979, November 19: Beech D50b; Delray Beach, FL to
to Key West; 1. N1706

84. 1979, December 21: Piper PA-23; Aguadilla to South
Caicos Island; 4 persons. N1435P

85. 1980, February 11: Beech 58; St. Thomas to unknown;
only pilot aboard; reported stolen. N9027Q

86. 1980, May 19: Lear Jet; West Palm Beach to New
Orleans; 2. N25NE

87. 1980, June 28; Erco 415-D; Santo Domingo, DR., to San
Juan, PR; 2 persons. Pilot reported UFO before
disappearing. N3808H

88. 1981, January 6: Beech c35; Bimini to Nassau; 4
persons N5805C

89. 1982, July 5: Piper PA-28R-201T; Nashville to Venice,
FL.; 4. N505HP

90. 1982, September 28: Beech H35; Marsh Harbour to
Fort Pierce, FL.; 2. N5999

91. 1982, October 20: Piper PA-31; Anguilla to ST.
Thomas, VI. 8 persons. Charter Service. N777AA

92. 1982, November 5: Beech 65-B80; Fort Lauderdale to
Eleuthera Island, Bahamas; 3 persons. N1HQ

93. 1983, October 4: a Cessna T-210-J; Andros Town,
Bahamas to Fort Pierce, FL.; 3 persons. N2284R

94. 1983, November 20: Cessna 340A disappeared near
Orangeville, Fl.; pilot. N85JK

95. 1984, March 12: a Piper between Key West and
Clearwater, Florida; 4 persons. N39677

96. 1984, March 31: Cessna 402b between Fort
Lauderdale and Bimini; 6 persons. N44NC

97. 1984, December 23: Aeronca 7AC between Cross City,
Florida and Alabama; pilot. N81947

98. 1985, January 14: a Cessna 337 in Atlantic northeast
of Jacksonville; 4 persons. N505CX

99. 1985, May 8: Cessna 210k; Miami to Port-au-Prince,
Haiti; pilot. N9465M

100. 1985, July 12: Piper between Nassau and Opa Locka;
4 persons. N8341L

101. 1985, August 3: a Cessna 172; somewhere near Fort
Meyers, FL.; pilot. ??

102. 1985, September 8: a Piper northeast of Key West at
10:08 P.M. en route from Fort Lauderdale; 2 persons.
N5488W

103. 1985, October 31: Piper at 8:29 A.M. ; between
Sarasota, FL. and Columbus, Georgia; pilot. N24MS

104. 1986, March 26: a Piper en route from Miami to West
End or Freeport, GBI.; 6 persons. N3527E

105. 1986, August 3: A Twin Otter charter, around St.
Vincent; 13 persons.

106. 1987, May 27: a Cessna 402c; between Palm Beach,
FL. and Marsh Harbour, Great Abaco,Bahamas; 1.
N2652B

107. 1987, June 3: a Cessna 401; Freeport to Crooked
Island; 4 persons. N7896F

108. 1987, December 2: Cessna 152; La Romana to nearby
San Juan; pilot. N757EQ

109. 1988, February 7: a Beechcraft over the Caribbean
Sea; 4 persons. N844G

110. 1989, February 6: a Piper; after departing
Jacksonville, Florida; pilot despondent. 1. N6834J

111. 1990, January 24: Cessna 152 on instructional flight;
near West Palm Beach, FL. 2 persons. N4802B

112. 1990, June 5: Piper; St. Maarten to St. Croix; pilot.
N7202F

113. 1990, August 10: Piper; between Sebastian, FL. and
Freeport, GBI.; 4 persons. N6946D. Body found off
Virginia.

114. 1991, April 24: Piper Comanche; off Florida; pilot.
N8938P

115. 1991, May 30: near Long Boat Key; Piper signalled
directional gyro not working; spun into ocean; 2.
N6376P

116. 1991, October 31: Grumman Cougar jet; over Gulf of
Mexico; vanished on ascent while on radar; 2. N24WJ

117. 1993, September 30: Within Miami sector; Cessna
152, with only pilot on board. N93261

118. 1994, August 28: Piper PA-32; Treasure Cay,
Bahamas to Fort Pierce; 2 persons. N69118

119. 1994, September 19: Piper PA-23; over Caribbean; 5.
N6844Y

120. 1994, December 25: Piper PA-28; unknown; over
Florida; pilot. N5916V

121. 1996, May 2: Aero Commander; Atlantic/Caribbean;
vanished with 3 in charter service. N50GV

122. 1998, August 19: Piper PA-28; Atlantic\Caribbean; 4.
N25626

123. 1999. May 12, Aero Commander N6138X; near Nassau
only pilot aboard.

124. 2001, October 27, Cessna 172, after leaving
Winterhaven, Florida; only pilot aboard.

125. 2002, September 6, Piper Pawnee, southeast of
Nassua, Bahamas; only pilot on board. N59684

BERMUDA TRIANGLE :::: THE MYSTERY

The Bermuda Triangle, also known as the Devil's Triangle, is a region in the western part of the North Atlantic Ocean in which a number of aircraft and surface vessels are alleged to have mysteriously disappeared in a manner that cannot be explained by human error, piracy, equipment failure, or natural disasters. Popular culture has attributed these disappearances to the paranormal, a suspension of the laws of physics, or activity by extraterrestrial beings.

A substantial body of documentation reveals, however, that a significant portion of the allegedly mysterious incidents have been inaccurately reported or embellished by later authors, and numerous official agencies have stated that the number and nature of disappearances in the region is similar to that in any other area of ocean.

Origins

The earliest allegation of unusual disappearances in the Bermuda area appeared in a September 16, 1950 Associated Press article by E.V.W. Jones. Two years later, Fate magazine published "Sea Mystery At Our Back Door", a short article by George X. Sand covering the loss of several planes and ships, including the loss of Flight 19, a group of five U.S. Navy TBM Avenger bombers on a training mission. Sand's article was the first to lay out the now-familiar triangular area where the losses took place. Flight 19 alone would be covered in the April 1962 issue of American Legion Magazine. It was claimed that the flight leader had been heard saying "We are entering white water, nothing seems right. We don't know where we are, the water is green, no white." It was also claimed that officials at the Navy board of inquiry stated that the planes "flew off to Mars." Sand's article was the first to suggest a supernatural element to the Flight 19 incident. In the February 1964 issue of Argosy, Vincent Gaddis's article "The Deadly Bermuda Triangle" argued that Flight 19 and other disappearances were part of a pattern of strange events in the region. The next year, Gaddis expanded this article into a book, Invisible Horizons.

Others would follow with their own works, elaborating on Gaddis's ideas: John Wallace Spencer (Limbo of the Lost, 1969, repr. 1973); Charles Berlitz (The Bermuda Triangle, 1974); Richard Winer (The Devil's Triangle, 1974), and many others, all keeping to some of the same supernatural elements outlined by Eckert.

SCIENCE

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is, in its broadest sense, any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. In this sense, science may refer to a highly skilled technique or practice.[1]

In its more restricted contemporary sense, science is a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, and to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.[2][3] This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word. Science as discussed in this article is sometimes called experimental science to differentiate it from applied science, which is the application of scientific research to specific human needs—although the two are commonly interconnected.

Science is a continuing effort to discover and increase human knowledge and understanding through disciplined research. Using controlled methods, scientists collect observable evidence of natural or social phenomena, record measurable data relating to the observations, and analyze this information to construct theoretical explanations of how things work. The methods of scientific research include the generation of hypotheses about how phenomena work, and experimentation that tests these hypotheses under controlled conditions. Scientists are also expected to publish their information so other scientists can do similar experiments to double-check their conclusions. The results of this process enable better understanding of past events, and better ability to predict future events of the same kind as those that have been tested.

The ability of the general population to understand the basic concepts related to science is referred to as scientific literacy.


Basic classifications

Scientific fields are commonly divided into two major groups: natural sciences, which study natural phenomena (including biological life), and social sciences, which study human behavior and societies. These groupings are empirical sciences, which means the knowledge must be based on observable phenomena and capable of being tested for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions.[3] There are also related disciplines that are grouped into interdisciplinary and applied sciences, such as engineering and health science. Within these categories are specialized scientific fields that can include elements of other scientific disciplines but often possess their own terminology and body of expertise.[4]

Mathematics, which is classified as a formal science, has both similarities and differences with the natural and social sciences. It is similar to empirical sciences in that it involves an objective, careful and systematic study of an area of knowledge; it is different because of its method of verifying its knowledge, using a priori rather than empirical methods.[3] Formal science, which also includes statistics and logic, is vital to the empirical sciences. Major advances in formal science have often led to major advances in the empirical sciences. The formal sciences are essential in the formation of hypotheses, theories, and laws,[3] both in discovering and describing how things work (natural sciences) and how people think and act (social sciences).
[edit] History and etymology
Main article: History of science

While empirical investigations of the natural world have been described since antiquity (for example, by Aristotle, Theophrastus and Pliny the Elder), and scientific methods have been employed since the Middle Ages (for example, by Ibn al-Haytham, Abu Rayhan Biruni and Roger Bacon), the dawn of modern science is generally traced back to the early modern period during what is known as the Scientific Revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries.[5]

The word "science" comes through the Old French, and is derived in turn from the Latin scientia, "knowledge", the nominal form of the verb scire, "to know". The Proto-Indo-European (PIE) root that yields scire is *skei-, meaning to "cut, separate, or discern".[6] Similarly, the Greek word for science is 'επιστήμη', deriving from the verb 'επίσταμαι', 'to know'. From the Middle Ages to the Enlightenment, science or scientia meant any systematic recorded knowledge.[7] Science therefore had the same sort of very broad meaning that philosophy had at that time. In other languages, including French, Spanish, Portuguese, and Italian, the word corresponding to science also carries this meaning.

Prior to the 1700s, the preferred term for the study of nature was natural philosophy, while English speakers most typically referred to other philosophical disciplines (such as logic, metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and aesthetics) as moral philosophy. Today, "moral philosophy" is more-or-less synonymous with "ethics". Far into the 1700s, science and natural philosophy were not quite synonymous, but only became so later with the direct use of what would become known formally as the scientific method. By contrast, the word "science" in English was still used in the 17th century (1600s) to refer to the Aristotelian concept of knowledge which was secure enough to be used as a sure prescription for exactly how to do something. In this differing sense of the two words, the philosopher John Locke wrote disparagingly in 1690 that "natural philosophy [the study of nature] is not capable of being made a science".[8]

Locke was to be proven wrong, however. By the early 1800s, natural philosophy had begun to separate from philosophy, though it often retained a very broad meaning. In many cases, science continued to stand for reliable knowledge about any topic, in the same way it is still used in the broad sense (see the introduction to this article) in modern terms such as library science, political science, and computer science. In the more narrow sense of science, as natural philosophy became linked to an expanding set of well-defined laws (beginning with Galileo's laws, Kepler's laws, and Newton's laws for motion), it became more popular to refer to natural philosophy as natural science. Over the course of the nineteenth century, moreover, there was an increased tendency to associate science with study of the natural world (that is, the non-human world). This move sometimes left the study of human thought and society (what would come to be called social science) in a linguistic limbo by the end of the century and into the next.[9]

Through the 1800s, many English speakers were increasingly differentiating science (i.e., the natural sciences) from all other forms of knowledge in a variety of ways. The now-familiar expression “scientific method,” which refers to the prescriptive part of how to make discoveries in natural philosophy, was almost unused until then, but became widespread after the 1870s, though there was rarely total agreement about just what it entailed.[9] The word "scientist," meant to refer to a systematically-working natural philosopher, (as opposed to an intuitive or empirically-minded one) was coined in 1833 by William Whewell.[10] Discussion of scientists as a special group of people who did science, even if their attributes were up for debate, grew in the last half of the 19th century.[9] Whatever people actually meant by these terms at first, they ultimately depicted science, in the narrow sense of the habitual use of the scientific method and the knowledge derived from it, as something deeply distinguished from all other realms of human endeavor.

By the twentieth century (1900s), the modern notion of science as a special kind of knowledge about the world, practiced by a distinct group and pursued through a unique method, was essentially in place. It was used to give legitimacy to a variety of fields through such titles as "scientific" medicine, engineering, advertising, or motherhood.[9] Over the 1900s, links between science and technology also grew increasingly strong.
[edit] Scientific method
DNA determines the genetic structure of all life
Main article: Scientific method
The Bohr model of the atom, like many ideas in the history of science, was at first prompted by and later partially disproved by experiment

A scientific method seeks to explain the events of nature in a reproducible way, and to use these reproductions to make useful predictions. It is done through observation of natural phenomena, and/or through experimentation that tries to simulate natural events under controlled conditions. It provides an objective process to find solutions to problems in a number of scientific and technological fields.[11]

Based on observations of a phenomenon, a scientist may generate a model. This is an attempt to describe or depict the phenomenon in terms of a logical physical or mathematical representation. As empirical evidence is gathered, a scientist can suggest a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon. This description can be used to make predictions that are testable by experiment or observation using scientific method. When a hypothesis proves unsatisfactory, it is either modified or discarded.
Personification of "Science" in front of the Boston Public Library

While performing experiments, scientists may have a preference for one outcome over another, and it is important to ensure that this tendency does not bias their interpretation.[12][13] A strict following of a scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of a scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. This can be achieved by correct experimental design, and a thorough peer review of the experimental results as well as conclusions of a study.[14][15] After the results of an experiment are announced or published, it is normal practice for independent researchers to double-check how the research was performed, and to follow up by performing similar experiments to determine how dependable the results might be.[16]

Once a hypothesis has survived testing, it may become adopted into the framework of a scientific theory. This is a logically reasoned, self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of certain natural phenomena. A theory typically describes the behavior of much broader sets of phenomena than a hypothesis—commonly, a large number of hypotheses can be logically bound together by a single theory. These broader theories may be formulated using principles such as parsimony (traditionally known as "Occam's Razor"). They are then repeatedly tested by analyzing how the collected evidence (facts) compares to the theory. When a theory survives a sufficiently large number of empirical observations, it then becomes a scientific generalization that can be taken as fully verified.

Unlike a mathematical proof, a scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification if new evidence is presented. Even the most basic and fundamental theories may turn out to be imperfect if new observations are inconsistent with them. Critical to this process is making every relevant aspect of research publicly available, which allows ongoing review and repeating of experiments and observations by multiple researchers operating independently of one another. Only by fulfilling these expectations can it be determined how reliable the experimental results are for potential use by others.
[edit] Mathematics
Data from the famous Michelson–Morley experiment

Mathematics is essential to the sciences. One important function of mathematics in science is the role it plays in the expression of scientific models. Observing and collecting measurements, as well as hypothesizing and predicting, often require extensive use of mathematics. Arithmetic, algebra, geometry, trigonometry and calculus, for example, all are essential to physics. Virtually every branch of mathematics has applications in science, including "pure" areas such as number theory and topology.

Statistical methods, which are mathematical techniques for summarizing and analyzing data, allow scientists to assess the level of reliability and the range of variation in experimental results. Statistical analysis plays a fundamental role in many areas of both the natural sciences and social sciences.

Computational science applies computing power to simulate real-world situations, enabling a better understanding of scientific problems than formal mathematics alone can achieve. According to the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, computation is now as important as theory and experiment in advancing scientific knowledge.[17]

Whether mathematics itself is properly classified as science has been a matter of some debate. Some thinkers see mathematicians as scientists, regarding physical experiments as inessential or mathematical proofs as equivalent to experiments. Others do not see mathematics as a science, since it does not require an experimental test of its theories and hypotheses. Mathematical theorems and formulas are obtained by logical derivations which presume axiomatic systems, rather than the combination of empirical observation and logical reasoning that has come to be known as scientific method. In general, mathematics is classified as formal science, while natural and social sciences are classified as empirical sciences.[18]
[edit] Scientific community
Main article: Scientific community

The scientific community consists of the total body of scientists, its relationships and interactions. It is normally divided into "sub-communities" each working on a particular field within science.
[edit] Fields
Main article: Fields of science
The Meissner effect causes a magnet to levitate above a superconductor

Fields of science are widely-recognized categories of specialized expertise, and typically embody their own terminology and nomenclature. Each field will commonly be represented by one or more scientific journal, where peer reviewed research will be published.
[edit] Institutions
Louis XIV visiting the Académie des sciences in 1671

Learned societies for the communication and promotion of scientific thought and experimentation have existed since the Renaissance period.[19] The oldest surviving institution is the Accademia dei Lincei in Italy.[20] National Academy of Sciences are distinguished institutions that exist in a number of countries, beginning with the British Royal Society in 1660[21] and the French Académie des Sciences in 1666.[22]

International scientific organizations, such as the International Council for Science, have since been formed to promote cooperation between the scientific communities of different nations. More recently, influential government agencies have been created to support scientific research, including the National Science Foundation in the U.S.

Other prominent organizations include the National Scientific and Technical Research Council in Argentina, the academies of science of many nations, CSIRO in Australia, Centre national de la recherche scientifique in France, Max Planck Society and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft in Germany, and in Spain, CSIC.
[edit] Literature
Main article: Scientific literature

An enormous range of scientific literature is published.[23] Scientific journals communicate and document the results of research carried out in universities and various other research institutions, serving as an archival record of science. The first scientific journals, Journal des Sçavans followed by the Philosophical Transactions, began publication in 1665. Since that time the total number of active periodicals has steadily increased. As of 1981, one estimate for the number of scientific and technical journals in publication was 11,500.[24] Today Pubmed lists almost 40,000, related to the medical sciences only.[25]

Most scientific journals cover a single scientific field and publish the research within that field; the research is normally expressed in the form of a scientific paper. Science has become so pervasive in modern societies that it is generally considered necessary to communicate the achievements, news, and ambitions of scientists to a wider populace.

Science magazines such as New Scientist, Science & Vie and Scientific American cater to the needs of a much wider readership and provide a non-technical summary of popular areas of research, including notable discoveries and advances in certain fields of research. Science books engage the interest of many more people. Tangentially, the science fiction genre, primarily fantastic in nature, engages the public imagination and transmits the ideas, if not the methods, of science.

Recent efforts to intensify or develop links between science and non-scientific disciplines such as Literature or, more specifically, Poetry, include the Creative Writing Science resource developed through the Royal Literary Fund.[26]
[edit] Philosophy of science
Main article: Philosophy of science
Velocity-distribution data of a gas of rubidium atoms, confirming the discovery of a new phase of matter, the Bose–Einstein condensate

The philosophy of science seeks to understand the nature and justification of scientific knowledge. It has proven difficult to provide a definitive account of scientific method that can decisively serve to distinguish science from non-science. Thus there are legitimate arguments about exactly where the borders are, which is known as the problem of demarcation. There is nonetheless a set of core precepts that have broad consensus among published philosophers of science and within the scientific community at large. For example, it is universally agreed that scientific hypotheses and theories must be capable of being independently tested and verified by other scientists in order to become accepted by the scientific community.

There are different schools of thought in the philosophy of scientific method. Methodological naturalism maintains that scientific investigation must adhere to empirical study and independent verification as a process for properly developing and evaluating natural explanations for observable phenomena.[27] Methodological naturalism, therefore, rejects supernatural explanations, arguments from authority and biased observational studies. Critical rationalism instead holds that unbiased observation is not possible and a demarcation between natural and supernatural explanations is arbitrary; it instead proposes falsifiability as the landmark of empirical theories and falsification as the universal empirical method. Critical rationalism argues for the ability of science to increase the scope of testable knowledge, but at the same time against its authority, by emphasizing its inherent fallibility. It proposes that science should be content with the rational elimination of errors in its theories, not in seeking for their verification (such as claiming certain or probable proof or disproof; both the proposal and falsification of a theory are only of methodological, conjectural, and tentative character in critical rationalism).[28] Instrumentalism rejects the concept of truth and emphasizes merely the utility of theories as instruments for explaining and predicting phenomena.[29]

Another aspect is that philosophy is at least implicitly at the core of every decision made. The schools of philosophical thought determine what is a necessity for scientific inquiry to take place.[30] For instance, there are basic philosophical assumptions implicit at the foundation of science - namely, 1) that reality is objective and consistent, 2) that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately, and 3) that rational explanations exist for elements of the real world. These assumptions are based in naturalism, critical rationalism, and instrumentalism, within which science is done.[30] Biologist Stephen J. Gould maintained that certain philosophical propositions--i.e., 1) Uniformity of law and 2) uniformity of processes across time and space--must first be assumed before you can proceed as a scientist doing science. Gould summarized this view as follows: "You cannot go to a rocky outcrop and observe either the constancy of nature's laws nor the working of unknown processes. It works the other way around." You first assume these propositions and "then you go to the out crop of rock."[31]
[edit] Pseudoscience, fringe science, and junk science
Main articles: Pseudoscience, Fringe science, Junk science, Cargo cult science, and Scientific misconduct

An area of study or speculation that masquerades as science in an attempt to claim a legitimacy that it would not otherwise be able to achieve is sometimes referred to as pseudoscience, fringe science, or "alternative science". Another term, junk science, is often used to describe scientific hypotheses or conclusions which, while perhaps legitimate in themselves, are believed to be used to support a position that is seen as not legitimately justified by the totality of evidence. A variety of commercial advertising, ranging from hype to fraud, may fall into this category. There also can be an element of political or ideological bias on all sides of such debates. Sometimes, research may be characterized as "bad science", research that is well-intentioned but is seen as incorrect, obsolete, incomplete, or over-simplified expositions of scientific ideas. The term "scientific misconduct" refers to situations such as where researchers have intentionally misrepresented their published data or have purposely given credit for a discovery to the wrong person.
[edit] Critiques
[edit] Philosophical critiques

Historian Jacques Barzun termed science "a faith as fanatical as any in history" and warned against the use of scientific thought to suppress considerations of meaning as integral to human existence.[32] Many recent thinkers, such as Carolyn Merchant, Theodor Adorno and E. F. Schumacher considered that the 17th century scientific revolution shifted science from a focus on understanding nature, or wisdom, to a focus on manipulating nature, i.e. power, and that science's emphasis on manipulating nature leads it inevitably to manipulate people, as well.[33] Science's focus on quantitative measures has led to critiques that it is unable to recognize important qualitative aspects of the world.[33]

Philosopher of science Paul K Feyerabend advanced the idea of epistemological anarchism, which holds that there are no useful and exception-free methodological rules governing the progress of science or the growth of knowledge, and that the idea that science can or should operate according to universal and fixed rules is unrealistic, pernicious and detrimental to science itself.[34]. Feyerabend advocates treating science as an ideology alongside others such as religion, magic and mythology, and considers the dominance of science in society authoritarian and unjustified.[34]. He also contended (along with Imre Lakatos) that the demarcation problem of distinguishing science from pseudoscience on objective grounds is not possible and thus fatal to the notion of science running according to fixed, universal rules.[34]

Professor Stanley Aronowitz scrutinizes science for operating with the presumption that the only acceptable criticisms of science are those conducted within the methodological framework that science has set up for itself. That science insists that only those who have been inducted into its community, through means of training and credentials, are qualified to make these criticisms.[35] Aronowitz also alleges that while scientists consider it absurd that Fundamentalist Christianity uses biblical references to bolster their claim that the bible is true, scientists pull the same tactic by using the tools of science to settle disputes concerning its own validity.[36]

Psychologist Carl Jung believed that though science attempted to understand all of nature, the experimental method imposed artificial and conditional questions that evoke equally artificial answers. Jung encouraged, instead of these 'artificial' methods, empirically testing the world in a holistic manner.[37] David Parkin compared the epistemological stance of science to that of divination.[38] He suggested that, to the degree that divination is an epistemologically specific means of gaining insight into a given question, science itself can be considered a form of divination that is framed from a Western view of the nature (and thus possible applications) of knowledge.

Philosopher Alan Watts criticized science for operating under a materialist model of the world that he posited is simply a modified version of the Abrahamic worldview, that "the universe is constructed and maintained by a Lawmaker" (commonly identified as God or the Logos). Watts asserts that during the rise of secularism through the 18th to 20th century when scientific philosophers got rid of the notion of a lawmaker they kept the notion of law, and that the idea that the world is a material machine run by law is a presumption just as unscientific as religious doctrines that affirm it is a material machine made and run by a lawmaker.[39]

Philosopher and polymath Robert Anton Wilson stated that the instruments used in scientific investigation produce meaningful answers relevant only to the instrument, and that there is no objective vantage point from which science could verify its findings since all findings are relative to begin with.[40] He also was critical of the scientific community for being funded largely in part by the military industrial complex[41] and claimed that because of their strong association with one another that research and results might be geared towards the expectations or wants of the military (or whoever is doing the funding). Because of this, he suggests that the results of scientists could in fact be tainted by the prejudices of their research sponsors, and are not entirely scientific.[42]

Several academics have offered critiques concerning ethics in science. In Science and Ethics, for example, the philosopher Bernard Rollin examines the relevance of ethics to science, and argues in favor of making education in ethics part and parcel of scientific training.[43]
[edit] Media perspectives

The mass media face a number of pressures that can prevent them from accurately depicting competing scientific claims in terms of their credibility within the scientific community as a whole. Determining how much weight to give different sides in a scientific debate requires considerable expertise regarding the matter.[44] Few journalists have real scientific knowledge, and even beat reporters who know a great deal about certain scientific issues may know little about other ones they are suddenly asked to cover.[45][46]
[edit] Politics

Many issues damage the relationship of science to the media and the use of science and scientific arguments by politicians. As a very broad generalisation, many politicians seek certainties and facts whilst scientists typically offer probabilities and caveats. However, politicians' ability to be heard in the mass media frequently distorts the scientific understanding by the public. Examples in Britain include the controversy over the MMR inoculation, and the 1988 forced resignation of a Government Minister, Edwina Currie for revealing the high probability that battery eggs were contaminated with Salmonella.