← Back to catalogue
Research draft

science

vr.tr.science · INF.KNW

Let an agent handle science by field, method, evidence strength and consensus, and separate it from pseudoscience.

Thing Registry Information and virtual systems

Research draft, second pass

A second pass drafted this model: the structure a model of this thing needs, and what is known about it in the world. The line under this one says how the second half was obtained - researched against sources, or recalled without web access, in which case nothing here was read anywhere and every claim is a lead to verify. Unreviewed either way.

written by Claude from model knowledge without web access - no source was read, every claim is a lead to verify

Researched by: Claude

Purpose and description

Let an agent handle science by field, method, evidence strength and consensus, and separate it from pseudoscience.

The systematic enterprise that builds and organises knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world, and the body of knowledge it produces, across natural, social and formal sciences.

What it is for: Understanding the world reliably and informing decisions.

It can be form and test hypotheses; publish and review results; assess evidence strength; communicate findings accurately.

Distinguishing features

Testable, revisable claims

Methods open to scrutiny

Consensus built on evidence

Pseudoscience lacks testability or openness

What it looks like

Research, experiments, observation, models and publications.

How it is recognised

Peer-reviewed publications

Methods sections and data

Fields such as physics or sociology

Related models

is a kind of - category

knowledge system and research

includes - fields

physics, biology, anthropology

uses - method

scientific method

is contrasted with - boundary

pseudoscience

In practice

Families and kinds

natural sciences

social sciences

formal sciences

applied sciences

open science practices

Standards and regulation

Research integrity codes such as the European Code of Conduct

Research ethics review

Open access and data policies

Failure modes and hazards

Overstating single studies

Misconduct and fabrication

Replication failures

Where this came from

wikidata · CC0 1.0

Also registered as vr.tr.science

Drafted structure

Bundle to layer to finding to question, as the second pass will find it: 4 bundles · 8 layers · 8 findings · 16 questions.

Field Which science.

Fields differ in methods.

Discipline

Natural, social, formal.

Discipline

Field.

  1. Which field of science is meant? definition
  2. What does it study? definition

Method

How it works.

Method

Method.

  1. Which methods does it use? definition
  2. How are claims tested? provenance
Evidence Strength of claims.

Evidence varies in strength.

Strength

Study design.

Strength

Evidence strength.

  1. How strong is the evidence for this claim? measurement
  2. Is it a single study or a systematic review? provenance

Consensus

Agreement.

Consensus

Consensus.

  1. Is there scientific consensus? provenance
  2. Which body states it? provenance
Integrity Good practice.

Integrity sustains trust.

Practice

Ethics and openness.

Practice

Research integrity.

  1. Was the research ethically approved and preregistered? provenance
  2. Are data available? provenance

Corrections

Retractions.

Corrections

Corrections.

  1. Has the work been corrected or retracted? provenance
  2. Has it replicated? provenance
Communication Accuracy.

Science is often misreported.

Reporting

Media.

Reporting

Reporting.

  1. Does the summary match what the study found? boundary
  2. Are limits stated? boundary

Boundary

Pseudoscience.

Boundary

Pseudoscience.

  1. Is the claim testable and open to scrutiny? boundary
  2. How should it be described? action

What the second pass must settle

  • Should fields be separate entries?
  • How should evidence strength be recorded?
  • How should consensus statements be linked?