nomenclature of science

description::
· the-set of names of concepts used in a-science.
===
"Nomenclature (UK: /nəˈmɛŋkləˌtʃər/, US: /ˈnoʊmənˌkleɪtʃər/)[1][2] is a system of names or terms, or the rules for forming these terms in a particular field of arts or sciences.[3] The principles of naming vary from the relatively informal conventions of everyday speech to the internationally agreed principles, rules and recommendations that govern the formation and use of the specialist terms used in scientific and any other disciplines.[4]
Naming "things" is a part of general human communication using words and language: it is an aspect of everyday taxonomy as people distinguish the objects of their experience, together with their similarities and differences, which observers identify, name and classify. The use of names, as the many different kinds of nouns embedded in different languages, connects nomenclature to theoretical linguistics, while the way humans mentally structure the world in relation to word meanings and experience relates to the philosophy of language.
Onomastics, the study of proper names and their origins, includes: anthroponymy (concerned with human names, including personal names, surnames and nicknames); toponymy (the study of place names); and etymology (the derivation, history and use of names) as revealed through comparative and descriptive linguistics.
The scientific need for simple, stable and internationally accepted systems for naming objects of the natural world has generated many formal nomenclatural systems.[citation needed] Probably the best known of these nomenclatural systems are the five codes of biological nomenclature that govern the Latinized scientific names of organisms."
[{2022-08-24 retrieved} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomenclature]

name::
* McsEngl.science'att012_nomenclature,
* McsEngl.science'nomenclature,
* McsEngl.science'terminology,

branch of science

description::
· any node in a-classification-tree.
· "(n) discipline, subject, subject area, subject field, field, field of study, study, bailiwick (a branch of knowledge) "in what discipline is his doctorate?"; "teachers should be well trained in their subject"; "anthropology is the study of human beings""
[{2023-08-22 retrieved} http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=discipline]

name::
* McsEngl.branch//science,
* McsEngl.discipline//science,
* McsEngl.division-of-science,
* McsEngl.field//science,
* McsEngl.science'branch,
* McsEngl.subbranch//science,
* McsEngl.superbranch//science,

specific-tree-of-branch//science::
* parent-child-branch,
* whole-part-branch,
* generic-specific-branch,

theory of science

description::
· theory is knowledge on a-subject, part of a-science, with a-known author.
· and the-theorists and organizations related to it.

name::
* McsEngl.science'att004-theory!⇒theory,
* McsEngl.science'theory!⇒theory,
* McsEngl.theory,
* McsEngl.theory-of-science!⇒theory,
* McsEngl.thr!⇒theory,
====== langoChinese:
* McsZhon.lǐlùn-理论!=theory,
* McsZhon.理论-lǐlùn!=theory,
====== langoEsperanto:
* McsEspo.teorio!=theory,
====== langoGreek:
* McsElln.θεωρία!=theory,

descriptionLong::
"In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that scientific tests should be able to provide empirical support for, or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[1] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which in formal terms is better characterized by the word hypothesis).[2] Scientific theories are distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and from scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of the way nature behaves under certain conditions.
Theories guide the enterprise of finding facts rather than of reaching goals, and are neutral concerning alternatives among values.[3]:131 A theory can be a body of knowledge, which may or may not be associated with particular explanatory models. To theorize is to develop this body of knowledge.[4]:46
The word theory or "in theory" is more or less often used erroneously by people to explain something which they individually did not experience or tested before.[5] In those instances, semantically, it is being substituted for another concept, a hypothesis. Instead of using the word hypothetically, it is replaced by a phrase: "in theory". In some instances the theory's credibility could be contested by calling it "just a theory" (implying that the idea has not even been tested).[6] Hence, that word "theory" is very often contrasted to "practice" (from Greek praxis, πρᾶξις) a Greek term for doing, which is opposed to theory.[6] A "classical example" of the distinction between "theoretical" and "practical" uses the discipline of medicine: medical theory involves trying to understand the causes and nature of health and sickness, while the practical side of medicine is trying to make people healthy. These two things are related but can be independent, because it is possible to research health and sickness without curing specific patients, and it is possible to cure a patient without knowing how the cure worked.[a]"
[{2020-03-28} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory]

qualification of wrkrScience

description::
· any skill-(theoritical-practical), diploma, education and experience a-scientist has.

name::
* McsEngl.wrkrScience'qualification,

product of wrkrScience

description::
·

name::
* McsEngl.wrkrScience'product,

award of wrkrScience

description::
·

name::
* McsEngl.wrkrScience'award,

job of wrkrScience

description::
·

name::
* McsEngl.wrkrScience'job,

place of wrkrScience

description::
·

name::
* McsEngl.wrkrScience'place,

academic-school of oznScience

description::
· "An academic school is a larger unit within a university that offers a variety of programs in a particular field of study, such as the School of Arts and Sciences or the School of Business. An academic department is a smaller unit within a school that focuses on a particular discipline, such as the Department of English or the Department of Mathematics."
[{2023-08-23 retrieved} https://bard.google.com/]

name::
* McsEngl.academic-school--of-science,
* McsEngl.science'att013-academic-school,
* McsEngl.science'academic-school,

academic-department of oznScience

description::
· "An academic school is a larger unit within a university that offers a variety of programs in a particular field of study, such as the School of Arts and Sciences or the School of Business. An academic department is a smaller unit within a school that focuses on a particular discipline, such as the Department of English or the Department of Mathematics."
[{2023-08-23 retrieved} https://bard.google.com/]

name::
* McsEngl.academic-department--of-science,
* McsEngl.science'att014-academic-department,
* McsEngl.science'academic-department,

learned-society of oznScience

description::
· "A learned society (/ˈlɜːrnɪd/; also learned academy, scholarly society, or academic association) is an organization that exists to promote an academic discipline, profession, or a group of related disciplines such as the arts and science.[1] Membership may be open to all, may require possession of some qualification, or may be an honour conferred by election.[2]
Most learned societies are non-profit organizations, and many are professional associations. Their activities typically include holding regular conferences for the presentation and discussion of new research results, and publishing or sponsoring academic journals in their discipline. Some also act as professional bodies, regulating the activities of their members in the public interest or the collective interest of the membership.[3]"

name::
* McsEngl.academic-association,
* McsEngl.learned-academy,
* McsEngl.learned-society,
* McsEngl.science'att015-learned-society,
* McsEngl.science'learned-society,
* McsEngl.scolarly-society,

philosophy-of-science

description::
"Philosophy of science is a branch of philosophy concerned with the foundations, methods, and implications of science.[1] The central questions of this study concern what qualifies as science, the reliability of scientific theories, and the ultimate purpose of science. This discipline overlaps with metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology, for example, when it explores the relationship between science and truth. Philosophy of science focuses on metaphysical, epistemic and semantic aspects of science. Ethical issues such as bioethics and scientific misconduct are often considered ethics or science studies rather than philosophy of science."
[{2020-07-31} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science]

name::
* McsEngl.science'att010-philosophy-of-science,
* McsEngl.science'philosophy-of-science,
* McsEngl.philosophy-of-science,

book.science-in-history

description::
"Science in History is a four-volume book by scientist and historian John Desmond Bernal, published in 1954. It was the first comprehensive attempt to analyse the reciprocal relations of science and society throughout history. It was originally published in London by Watts. There were three editions up to 1969. It was republished by MIT Press in 1971 and is still in print.
The Volumes
Vol.1, The Emergence of Science, ISBN 0-262-52020-6
Vol.2, The Scientific and Industrial Revolution, ISBN 0-262-52021-4
Vol.3, The Natural Sciences in Our Time, ISBN 0-262-52082-6
Vol.4, The Social Sciences: Conclusion, ISBN 0-262-52023-0"
[{2024-01-21 retrieved} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_History]

Volume-1
Part-1: THE EMERGENCE AND CHARACTER OF SCIENCE
Part-2: SCIENCE IN THE ANCIENT WORLD
Part-3: SCIENCE IN THE AGE OF FAITH
Volume-2
Part-4: THE BIRTH OF MODERN SCIENCE
Part-5: SCIENCE AND INDUSTRY
Volume-3
Part-6: SCIENCE IN OUR TIME
Volume-4
Part-7: CONCLUSIONS

name::
* McsEngl.irBook.000010.Bernal.science-in-history.{1954},
* McsEngl.irBook.{1954}.Bernal.science-in-history,
* McsEngl.irBook.Bernal.science-in-history.{1954},
* McsEngl.science'att018-book.science-in-history,
* McsEngl.science-in-history.book.Beranl,

addressWpg::
* https://ia800604.us.archive.org/27/items/B-001-002-183/B-001-002-183_hocr.html,

info-resource of researching

description::
* https://www.rd-alliance.org/, "The Research Data Alliance (RDA) builds the social and technical bridges to enable the open sharing and re-use of data"

name::
* McsEngl.researching'Infrsc,

revolution of science

description::
">scientific revolution:
The Scientific Revolution was a period of significant change in thought and understanding in the fields of science, technology, philosophy, and human cognition. This period, generally considered to have occurred between the 16th and 18th centuries, marked a profound shift from medieval views of the world, which were often based on tradition and religious dogma, to a framework built on empirical evidence, experimentation, and rational thought.
Key aspects and events of the Scientific Revolution include:
1. **Copernican Revolution**: Nicolaus Copernicus proposed a heliocentric model of the universe in the early 16th century, challenging the long-held geocentric model. This shift was not just scientific but also philosophical, altering how humans viewed their place in the universe.
2. **Advancements in Astronomy and Physics**: Johannes Kepler and Galileo Galilei made significant contributions. Kepler's laws of planetary motion and Galileo's telescopic observations further supported the heliocentric model. Galileo's work also laid the groundwork for Newton's laws of motion and universal gravitation.
3. **Development of the Scientific Method**: The Scientific Revolution saw the formulation and application of the scientific method. Figures like Francis Bacon and René Descartes emphasized the importance of empirical evidence and rational deduction in scientific inquiry.
4. **Advances in Medicine and Chemistry**: Andreas Vesalius's work in anatomy challenged prevailing notions of the human body. William Harvey's study of the circulatory system and Robert Boyle's work in chemistry were also significant.
5. **Impact on Society and Philosophy**: The Scientific Revolution had a profound impact on society and philosophy. It contributed to the Enlightenment, encouraging a questioning attitude towards tradition, authority, and the church. This period saw the gradual separation of science from philosophy and religion, laying the foundations for modern science.
6. **Institutional Changes**: This period also saw the establishment of scientific societies and academies, such as the Royal Society in England and the Académie des Sciences in France, which played crucial roles in promoting scientific research and dissemination of knowledge.
The Scientific Revolution is not just a historical event but a transformative process that shaped the modern world. It fundamentally changed how humans understand the natural world and their place within it, leading to the birth of modern science."

">timeline of scientific revolution:
The Scientific Revolution, a pivotal period in history that fundamentally changed our understanding of the natural world, spanned roughly from the mid-16th century to the early 18th century. Here's a timeline highlighting some key events and contributions:
### 16th Century
- **1543**: Nicolaus Copernicus publishes "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium" (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres), proposing a heliocentric model of the universe.
- **1572**: Tycho Brahe observes a supernova, challenging the Aristotelian belief in the unchangeability of the heavens.
### Early 17th Century
- **1609**: Johannes Kepler publishes "Astronomia Nova", containing his first two laws of planetary motion.
- **1610**: Galileo Galilei publishes "Sidereus Nuncius" (Starry Messenger), detailing his telescopic observations of the moons of Jupiter and phases of Venus, supporting Copernican heliocentrism.
- **1619**: Kepler publishes "Harmonices Mundi", where he describes his third law of planetary motion.
### Mid-17th Century
- **1632**: Galileo publishes "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems", comparing the Copernican and Ptolemaic models.
- **1637**: René Descartes' "Discourse on the Method" advocates for the use of deductive reasoning in scientific inquiry.
- **1642-1651**: Thomas Hobbes' "Leviathan" discusses, among other things, a materialistic view of the universe.
### Late 17th Century
- **1661**: Robert Boyle publishes "The Sceptical Chymist", laying the foundations of modern chemistry.
- **1662**: Establishment of the Royal Society in London.
- **1687**: Isaac Newton publishes "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica" (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy), outlining the laws of motion and universal gravitation.
### Early 18th Century
- **1704**: Newton's "Opticks", exploring light and color, is published.
### General Developments
- Throughout the 17th century, advancements in various scientific fields occurred, including medicine (William Harvey's work on the circulatory system) and mathematics (development of calculus independently by Newton and Leibniz).
This timeline provides an overview of some of the most significant moments and publications of the Scientific Revolution. Each event and figure contributed to the transformation from a primarily Aristotelian and Ptolemaic worldview to a new understanding based on observation, experimentation, and mathematical reasoning."
[{2024-01-27 retrieved} https://chat.openai.com/c/2af65093-a37c-4c3e-b0e3-a0f7dfed353b]

name::
* McsEngl.revolution.science,
* McsEngl.science'revolution,
* McsEngl.scientific-revolution,

parent-child-branch of science

description::
· any node in the-evolution-tree of science.

name::
* McsEngl.Scipcbranch,
* McsEngl.Scipcbranch!=parent-child-branch,
* McsEngl.parent-child-branch--of-science!⇒Scipcbranch,
* McsEngl.science'branch.parent-child!⇒Scipcbranch,

whole-part-branch of science

description::
· any node in the-whole-part-tree of science.

name::
* McsEngl.Sciwpbranch,
* McsEngl.Sciwpbranch!=science-whole-part-branch,
* McsEngl.science'branch.whole-part!⇒Sciwpbranch,
* McsEngl.science'whole-part-field!⇒Sciwpbranch,
* McsEngl.subfield-of-science!⇒Sciwpbranch,
* McsEngl.whole-part-field--of-science!⇒Sciwpbranch,

mereology

description::
"In logic, philosophy and related fields, mereology (from Greek μέρος 'part' (root: μερε-, mere-, 'part') and the suffix -logy, 'study, discussion, science') is the study of parts and the wholes they form. Whereas set theory is founded on the membership relation between a set and its elements, mereology emphasizes the meronomic relation between entities, which—from a set-theoretic perspective—is closer to the concept of inclusion between sets.

Mereology has been explored in various ways as applications of predicate logic to formal ontology, in each of which mereology is an important part. Each of these fields provides its own axiomatic definition of mereology. A common element of such axiomatizations is the assumption, shared with inclusion, that the part-whole relation orders its universe, meaning that everything is a part of itself (reflexivity), that a part of a part of a whole is itself a part of that whole (transitivity), and that two distinct entities cannot each be a part of the other (antisymmetry), thus forming a poset. A variant of this axiomatization denies that anything is ever part of itself (irreflexivity) while accepting transitivity, from which antisymmetry follows automatically.

Although mereology is an application of mathematical logic, what could be argued to be a sort of "proto-geometry", it has been wholly developed by logicians, ontologists, linguists, engineers, and computer scientists, especially those working in artificial intelligence. In particular, mereology is also on the basis for a point-free foundation of geometry (see for example the quoted pioneering paper of Alfred Tarski and the review paper by Gerla 1995).

In general systems theory, mereology refers to formal work on system decomposition and parts, wholes and boundaries (by, e.g., Mihajlo D. Mesarovic (1970), Gabriel Kron (1963), or Maurice Jessel (see Bowden (1989, 1998)). A hierarchical version of Gabriel Kron's Network Tearing was published by Keith Bowden (1991), reflecting David Lewis's ideas on gunk. Such ideas appear in theoretical computer science and physics, often in combination with sheaf theory, topos, or category theory. See also the work of Steve Vickers on (parts of) specifications in computer science, Joseph Goguen on physical systems, and Tom Etter (1996, 1998) on link theory and quantum mechanics."
[{2023-11-17 retrieved} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereology]

name::
* McsEngl.mereology,
* McsEngl.science.014-mereology,
* McsEngl.science.mereology,

generic-specific-branch of science

description::
· any node in the-generic-specific-tree of science.
· any specific of the-area-of-study of science.
· field-of-science is a-(widely)-recognized INSTANCE of science.

name::
* McsEngl.Scigsbranch,
* McsEngl.Scigsbranch!=generic-specific-branch-of-science,
* McsEngl.Gsfield-of-science!⇒Scigsbranch, {2023-08-15},
* McsEngl.Scigsbranch, {2023-08-15},
* McsEngl.Scigsbranch!=science-generic-specific-field,
* McsEngl.classification-of-science,
* McsEngl.branch-of-science!⇒Scigsbranch,
* McsEngl.discipline-of-science!⇒Scigsbranch,
* McsEngl.field-of-science!⇒Scigsbranch,
* McsEngl.generic-specific-branch-of-science!⇒Scigsbranch,
* McsEngl.science.004-field!⇒Scigsbranch,
* McsEngl.science.branch!⇒Scigsbranch,
* McsEngl.science.discipline!⇒Scigsbranch,
* McsEngl.science.field!⇒Scigsbranch,
* McsEngl.science.specifics-division,
* McsEngl.science-classification,
* McsEngl.scientific-discipline,
* McsEngl.scientific-field,
* McsEngl.topic-of-science!⇒Scigsbranch,

science.SPECIFIC

name::
* McsEngl.science.specific,

specific::
* formal-science,
* natural-science,
* social-science,
===
* applied,
* appliedNo,
===
* biology,
* chemistry,
* economics,
* linguistics,
* mathematics,
* philosophy,
* sociology,

science.spec-div.FOS-2007

description::
"About Field of science and technology classification
1. Definition
This classification is the Eurostat standard code list for the classification of fields of science and technology (FOS 2007). The classification of field of science is based on the nomenclature suggested by UNESCO: Recommendation concerning the International Standardisation of Statistics on Science and Technology.
2. Objectives
Classification of all the field of science and technology
Approved by consensus by experts
Used in Pan-European and Worldwide organisations
3. Owner
FOS 2007 has been developed under the supervision of the OECD.
4. Intended audience
FOS 2007 has been developed in order to provide to all persons and organisations that may need to have a classification of the field of science and technology such a tool. The main target was the statistical institutes or organisations that may need to create statistics on the topic. This classification should be used for the R&D expenditure of the government, higher education and PNP (Private Non-Profit) sectors and if possible of the BE (Business enterprise) sector and for personnel data in all sectors.
5. Long description
FOS 2007 defines six fields of science, which are:
natural sciences,
engineering and technology,
medical sciences,
agricultural sciences,
social sciences, and
humanities.
6. Known implementations
UNESCO and Eurostat both use this classification, as well as countries that have to deal with or provide information to them. Furthermore, United Nations’ UNstats has implemented FOS 2007 as well.
7. History / Key milestones
The previous FOS classification from the Frascati Manual in 2002 did not fully reflect changes in the science and technology area, especially with regard to emerging technology fields such as ICT, biotechnology and nanotechnology. Therefore, in 2002, the Working Party of National Experts on Science and Technology Indicators (NESTI) decided to set up a Task Force to work on this specific issue. They provided the current version of FOS in 2007. This Task Force was led by OECD and had on board the Netherlands, Australia, Norway, Portugal, as well as Eurostat and UNESCO.
8. Additional documents
UNESCO: Recommendation concerning the International Standardisation of Statistics on Science and Technology: http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13135&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
Revised Field of Science and Technology (FOS) Classification in the Frascati Manual: http://www.oecd.org/science/inno/38235147.pdf"
[{2022-08-24 retrieved} https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/eu-semantic-interoperability-catalogue/solution/field-science-and-technology-classification/about]

name::
* McsEngl.FOS-2007,
* McsEngl.field-of-science-and-technology-classification,
* McsEngl.science.spec-div.FOS-2007,

addressWpg::
* SciNoBo: A Hierarchical Multi-Label Classifier of Scientific Publications: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2204.00880.pdf,

science.spec-div.wikipedia

description::
"The branches of science, also referred to as sciences, scientific fields or scientific disciplines, are commonly divided into three major groups:
* Formal sciences: the study of formal systems, such as those under the branches of logic and mathematics, which use an a priori, as opposed to empirical, methodology.
* Natural sciences: the study of natural phenomena (including cosmological, geological, physical, chemical, and biological factors of the universe). Natural science can be divided into two main branches: physical science and life science (or biology).
* Social sciences: the study of human behavior in its social and cultural aspects.[1]
Scientific knowledge must be based on observable phenomena and must be capable of being verified by other researchers working under the same conditions.[2] This verifiability may well vary even within a scientific discipline.[3][4]
Natural, social, and formal science make up the fundamental sciences, which form the basis of interdisciplinarity- and applied sciences such as engineering and medicine. Specialized scientific disciplines that exist in multiple categories may include parts of other scientific disciplines but often possess their own terminologies and expertises.[5]"
[{2022-08-24 retrieved} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branches_of_science]

name::
* McsEngl.science.spec-div.wikipedia,

domain-of-discource of sciFormal

description::
"In the formal sciences, the domain of discourse, also called the universe of discourse, universal set, or simply universe, is the set of entities over which certain variables of interest in some formal treatment may range."
[{2023-11-13 retrieved} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_of_discourse]

name::
* McsEngl.domain-of-discource//sciFormal,
* McsEngl.sciFormal'domain-of-discource,
* McsEngl.universal-set//sciFormal,
* McsEngl.universe//sciFormal,
* McsEngl.universe-of-discource//sciFormal,

evoluting of sciFormal

description::
">evolution of formal-sciences:
The evolution of formal sciences has been a complex and rich journey that spans centuries. Here's a brief overview of the evolution of some key formal sciences:

1. **Ancient Mathematics:**
- **Babylonian Mathematics (c. 2000 BCE):** Babylonians made significant contributions to mathematics, particularly in the development of early algebra and the use of numerical systems.
- **Greek Mathematics (6th century BCE - 5th century CE):** Euclid's "Elements" laid the foundation for geometry, and Greek mathematicians made strides in areas like number theory and calculus.

2. **Medieval and Renaissance Era:**
- **Islamic Mathematics (8th century - 14th century):** Scholars in the Islamic world preserved and expanded upon Greek mathematical knowledge. Al-Khwarizmi, for example, played a key role in developing algebra.
- **European Renaissance (14th - 17th centuries):** The Renaissance saw a revival of interest in ancient mathematical ideas, and mathematicians like Leonardo Fibonacci and Johannes Kepler made significant contributions.

3. **The Age of Enlightenment:**
- **18th century:** The Enlightenment brought about advancements in formal sciences, with mathematicians like Euler and Lagrange contributing to fields such as calculus and number theory.

4. **19th Century and the Rise of Formal Logic:**
- **George Boole (1815-1864):** Boole's work laid the groundwork for modern symbolic logic with his algebraic approach to logic, which is essential in computer science.
- **Gottlob Frege (1848-1925):** Frege's work in mathematical logic, especially his "Begriffsschrift," significantly influenced the development of formal logic.

5. **20th Century and the Emergence of Computer Science:**
- **Alan Turing (1912-1954):** Turing's work on computability and the Turing machine had a profound impact on the foundations of computer science.
- **Development of Formal Languages:** The mid-20th century saw the formalization of programming languages, contributing to the growth of computer science as a formal science.

6. **Contemporary Era:**
- **Advancements in Formal Methods:** Formal methods, which use mathematical techniques for the specification, development, and verification of software and hardware systems, have become increasingly important.
- **Advances in Mathematical Logic:** Developments in set theory, model theory, and proof theory have continued to shape the landscape of formal sciences.

Throughout this evolution, formal sciences have become more specialized, with new branches and subfields continually emerging. The interplay between formal sciences and technological advancements, especially in the realm of computing, has been a defining feature of their evolution. Today, formal sciences continue to play a crucial role in various disciplines, providing the theoretical foundations for rigorous reasoning and analysis."
[{2023-11-13 retrieved} https://chat.openai.com/c/b6d4aa71-0b88-497e-bdb0-7c004edbd1f6]

name::
* McsEngl.evoluting-of-sciFormal,
* McsEngl.sciFormal'evoluting,

sciFormal.SPECIFIC

description::
* computer-science,
* logic,
* mathematics,

name::
* McsEngl.sciFormal.specific,

attribute of sciOpen

description::
"There are six commonly accepted pillars of open science: open data, open access, open methodology, open source, open peer review and open education."
[{2022-08-23 retrieved} https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-015-0669-2]

name::
* McsEngl.sciOpen'attribute,

open-data of sciOpen

description::
"Open data is the process of releasing both raw and processed data from your experiments, enabling others to analyse it without restriction. That data should be released is obvious; but which data? In my opinion, all raw data generated in the pursuit of your experiment should be released (especially the data you discarded), and at least enough to regenerate completely the analysis you yourself performed. As important as the data are the metadata; releasing raw data with poor metadata is just another way of obfuscating the scientific process.
We should consider the data to be the main publication, and the paper a secondary, less important part; the data will outlive the paper, as others re-analyse within the context of new scientific discoveries. Imagine if the human genome project had only released the ‘interesting parts’ of the genome? So many scientific discoveries would have been delayed.
Alongside the scientific argument is the moral argument; as Hannay alludes to, it is no longer acceptable for scientists to hold on to data until they have extracted every last possible publication from it. The data do not belong to the scientist, they belong to the funder (quite often the taxpayer). Datasets should be freely available to those who funded them. Scientists who hoard data, far from pushing back the boundaries of human knowledge, instead act as barriers to discovery.
Of course, we should always be careful to ensure appropriate consent is given, and that data cannot result in the harm of any given individual or group. However, it is ironic that many of us are careless about personal data every day, yet demand that scientific data are held up to a higher standard."
[{2022-08-24 retrieved} https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-015-0669-2#citeas]

name::
* McsEngl.open-data-of-sciOpen,
* McsEngl.sciOpen'open-data,

open-access of sciOpen

description::
"Open access is the model under which papers are available for anyone to read without having to pay, and that license allows secondary use such as text-mining. Others have spoken about this at great length, but some points are worth re-iterating: it is immoral to expect those who funded the research (taxpayers) to pay to access the results of that research; it is illogical that researchers (who work for the journals for free) have to pay; or that institutions who employ those authors have to pay. Nothing about the current closed-access publication model makes sense. Who should pay? The funder, of course; and when there is no funder, or there are no funds, then there are preprint servers (such as arXiv and bioRxiv) and institutional repositories.
I have no problem with publishers making money from the scientific process. However, I believe that in order to do so, they should add value. Many will say that they add value; and some do; but many more do not. Typesetting and PDF generation are not ‘adding value’. A good example of ‘adding value’ are the ‘living figures’ introduced by F1000Research [3], figures within papers that update in real-time as more data become available. Rather tellingly F1000Research is an open-access publisher."
[{2022-08-24 retrieved} https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-015-0669-2#citeas]

name::
* McsEngl.open-access-of-sciOpen,
* McsEngl.sciOpen'open-access,

open-methodology of sciOpen

description::
"An open methodology is simply one which has been described in sufficient detail to allow other researchers to repeat the work and apply it elsewhere. Isn’t that simply ‘the methods section’? Of course, there are times when researchers may have access to unique resources - a cell line, or specific computer hardware - which means that others cannot repeat what they did. That doesn’t matter. One of the major reasons we publish is so that others can learn from what we have done, and revealing how you carried out an experiment is at the heart of any publication."
[{2022-08-24 retrieved} https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-015-0669-2#citeas]

name::
* McsEngl.open-methodology-of-sciOpen,
* McsEngl.sciOpen'open-methodology,

open-source of sciOpen

description::
"Open source generally refers to open and free access to the blueprint of a product; applied to software, it refers to the source code. There are hundreds of different open-source software licenses, and the arguments for and against are detailed and nuanced. However, I refer you to ‘Open methodology’ above; if you use software as part of the scientific method, then the source code should be available to read (preferably via a website such as GitHub or SourceForge), the software should compile and run and there should be a description of the core algorithms. The software you develop is part of the methods section, and it is the easiest part to share. One can distribute software throughout the world at the push of a button; the same cannot be said of a laboratory. Software should be (and in fact is) driving the open-science movement."
[{2022-08-24 retrieved} https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-015-0669-2#citeas]

name::
* McsEngl.open-source-of-sciOpen,
* McsEngl.sciOpen'open-source,

open-peer-review of sciOpen

description::
"I have written extensively about this [4, 5], as have others [6]. The point of open peer review isn’t removing anonymity, though that’s part of it. Open peer review is about transforming the peer review process; it is about making peer review a collaborative process between authors and reviewers; it is about constructive criticism, but with the goal of helping the authors to get published. More than all of that, it’s about doing the right thing. The British Medical Journal gathered convincing evidence that open review did no damage to the quality of peer reviews [7]; yet still they insisted that they introduced open peer review for ‘ethical reasons’, believing that removing anonymity would help bring an end to the worst abuses of peer review, and transform the entire process from one of judgement to one of open, scientific discourse [7]. When reading those words, doesn’t it make you wonder why peer review was ever anything else?"
[{2022-08-24 retrieved} https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-015-0669-2#citeas]

name::
* McsEngl.open-peer-review-of-sciOpen,
* McsEngl.sciOpen'open-peer-review,

open-education of sciOpen

description::
"Open education refers to the open and free availability of educational resources. This does not mean that you cannot charge for education - no one can make the tutor work for free - but the resources that are used to educate can be made freely available. Why would you do that? So that others can use and improve them, and so that standards can be set and reached. In my own field, bioinformatics, this is being driven by movements such as GOBLET [8, 9] and Software/Data Carpentry [10]. More widely, massively open online courses (MOOCs) are increasingly popular. Open education brings science and education to everyone, regardless of social class, and that can only be a good thing."
[{2022-08-24 retrieved} https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-015-0669-2#citeas]

name::
* McsEngl.open-education-of-sciOpen,
* McsEngl.sciOpen'open-education,

descriptionLong::
"Open Education encompasses resources, tools and practices that are free of legal, financial and technical barriers and can be fully used, shared and adapted in the digital environment. Open Education maximizes the power of the Internet to make education more affordable, accessible and effective."
[{2023-09-30 retrieved} https://sparcopen.org/open-education/]

evaluation of sciOpen

description::
"Η Ανοικτή Επιστήμη αποτελεί πυλώνα του Ευρωπαϊκού οικοσυστήματος Υπεύθυνης Έρευνας και Καινοτομίας [10], καθώς:
• επισπεύδει τις επιστημονικές ανακαλύψεις, μέσα από τη συνεργατικότητα, την επέκταση και επανάχρηση των αποτελεσμάτων της έρευνας
• επιτρέπει την επαλήθευση των ερευνητικών συμπερασμάτων, οδηγώντας στην εξάλειψη του ανορθολογισμού της έρευνας
• συμβάλλει στην καλύτερη και ταχύτερη εμπορική αξιοποίηση των αποτελεσμάτων της έρευνας και αυξάνει την καινοτομία
• συνεισφέρει στην κατάρτιση του ανθρώπινου δυναμικού με ανταγωνιστικές δεξιότητες στο χειρισμό, ανάλυση και αξιοποίηση δεδομένων
• ενισχύει την ακεραιότητα των ερευνητών και της παραγόμενης επιστημονικής γνώσης, συμβάλλοντας στην ερευνητική αριστεία και τη σύναψη αξιόπιστων συνεργασιών
• ενισχύει την εμπιστοσύνη των πολιτών στην επιστημονική γνώση
• ενισχύει την επιστημονικά τεκμηριωμένη χάραξη βιώσιμης πολιτικής σε διάφορους τομείς που άπτονται της λειτουργίας του κράτους και της ζωής του πολίτη (π.χ. υγεία, κλίμα, καινοτομία)
• προωθεί την εξωστρέφεια των ερευνητικών και χρηματοδοτικών οργανισμών "
[{2020-07-02} https://oer.ellak.gr/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2020/06/OSP-v1.0-pub.pdf]

name::
* McsEngl.sciOpen'evaluation,

info-resource of sciOpen

description::
* Watson, M. When will ‘open science’ become simply ‘science’?. Genome Biol 16, 101 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-015-0669-2,
* https://zenodo.org/, "Built and developed by researchers, to ensure that everyone can join in Open Science",
* https://www.openaire.eu/,
* https://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/index.cfm?pg=open-science-cloud,
===
* https://oer.ellak.gr/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2020/06/OSP-v1.0-pub.pdf,

name::
* McsEngl.sciOpen'Infrsc,

science.trivium

description::
"trivium of rhetoric, grammar, and logic, and the quadrivium of astronomy, arithmetic, geometry, and music."
[{2023-09-30 retrieved} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts_education]

name::
* McsEngl.science.007-trivium,
* McsEngl.science.trivium,
* McsEngl.trivium,

science.quadrivium

description::
"trivium of rhetoric, grammar, and logic, and the quadrivium of astronomy, arithmetic, geometry, and music."
[{2023-09-30 retrieved} https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_arts_education]

name::
* McsEngl.quadrivium,
* McsEngl.science.008-quadrivium,
* McsEngl.science.quadrivium,