Science (from the Latin word scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and

organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

The earliest roots of science can be traced to Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia in around 3500 to 3000
BCE. Their contributions to mathematics, astronomy, and medicine entered and shaped Greek natural
philosophy of classical antiquity, whereby formal attempts were made to provide explanations of events
in the physical world based on natural causes. After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, knowledge of
Greek conceptions of the world deteriorated in Western Europe during the early centuries (400 to 1000
CE) of the Middle Ages but was preserved in the Muslim world during the Islamic Golden Age. The
recovery and assimilation of Greek works and Islamic inquiries into Western Europe from the 10th to
13th century revived "natural philosophy", which was later transformed by the Scientific Revolution that
began in the 16th century as new ideas and discoveries departed from previous Greek conceptions and
traditions. The scientific method soon played a greater role in knowledge creation and it was not until
the 19th century that many of the institutional and professional features of science began to take shape;
along with the changing of "natural philosophy to natural science.

Modern science is typically divided into three major branches that consist of the natural sciences (e.g.,
biology, chemistry, and physics), which study nature in the broadest sense; the social sciences (e.g.,
economics, psychology, and sociology), which study individuals and societies; and the formal sciences
(e.g., logic, mathematics, and theoretical computer science), which study abstract concepts. There is
disagreement, however, on whether the formal sciences actually constitute a science as they do not rely
on empirical evidence. Disciplines that use existing scientific knowledge for practical purposes, such as
engineering and medicine, are described as applied sciences.

Science is based on research, which is commonly conducted in academic and research institutions as
well as in government agencies and companies. The practical impact of scientific research has led to the
emergence of science policies that seek to influence the scientific enterprise by prioritizing the
development of commercial products, armaments, health care, and environmental protection.

Branches of science
Modern science is commonly divided into three major branches that consist of the natural sciences,
social sciences, and formal sciences. Each of these branches comprise various specialized yet overlapping
scientific disciplines that often possess their own nomenclature and expertise. Both natural and social
sciences are empirical sciences as their knowledge are based on empirical observations and are capable
of being tested for its validity by other researchers working under the same conditions.

There are also closely related disciplines that use science, such as engineering and medicine, which are
sometimes described as applied sciences. The relationships between the branches of science are
summarized by the following table.

SCIENCE
 Empirical Science

Formal Science Natural Science Social Science

Foundation Logis; mathematics; Physics; chemistry; Economics; political

statistics. biology; Earth science; science; psychology.
space science.

Application Computer Science Engineering Agricultural Business Administration

science Medicine Jurisprudence
Dentistry Phamacy. Pedagogy.

Natural science

Natural science is concerned with the description, prediction, and understanding of natural phenomena based on
empirical evidence from observation and experimentation. It can be divided into two main branches: life science
(or biological science) and physical science. Physical science is subdivided into branches, including physics,
chemistry, astronomy and earth science. These two branches may be further divided into more specialized
disciplines. Modern natural science is the successor to the natural philosophy that began in Ancient Greece.
Galileo, Descartes, Bacon, and Newton debated the benefits of using approaches which were more mathematical
and more experimental in a methodical way. Still, philosophical perspectives, conjectures, and presuppositions,
often overlooked, remain necessary in natural science. Systematic data collection, including discovery science,
succeeded natural history, which emerged in the 16th century by describing and classifying plants, animals,
minerals, and so on. Today, "natural history" suggests observational descriptions aimed at popular audiences.

Social science
Social science is concerned with society and the relationships among individuals within a society. It has many branches that
include, but are not limited to, anthropology, archaeology, communication studies, economics, history, human geography,
jurisprudence, linguistics, political science, psychology, public health, and sociology. Social scientists may adopt various
philosophical theories to study individuals and society. For example, positivist social scientists use methods resembling those of
the natural sciences as tools for understanding society, and so define science in its stricter modern sense. Interpretivist social
scientists, by contrast, may use social critique or symbolic interpretation rather than constructing empirically falsifiable theories,
and thus treat science in its broader sense. In modern academic practice, researchers are often eclectic, using multiple
methodologies (for instance, by combining both quantitative and qualitative research). The term "social research" has also
acquired a degree of autonomy as practitioners from various disciplines share in its aims and methods.

Formal science

Formal science is involved in the study of formal systems. It includes mathematics, systems theory, and
theoretical computer science. The formal sciences share similarities with the other two branches by relying
on objective, careful, and systematic study of an area of knowledge. They are, however, different from the
empirical sciences as they rely exclusively on deductive reasoning, without the need for empirical evidence, to
verify their abstract concepts. The formal sciences are therefore a priori disciplines and because of this, there
is disagreement on whether they actually constitute a science. Nevertheless, the formal sciences play an
important role in the empirical sciences. Calculus, for example, was initially invented to understand motion in
physics. Natural and social sciences that rely heavily on mathematical applications include mathematical
physics, mathematical chemistry, mathematical biology, mathematical finance, and mathematical economics.

Goals of science

Science is a body of knowledge accumulated through the use of the scientific method. There are multiple
possible goals for doing science. For many scientists, the satisfaction of curiosity about nature and the desire
to share what they have learned about cause and effect relationships in nature are the primary goals. Other
scientists wish to improve the material welfare of humanity, to contribute to the security of their own
societies, or to increase their own personal wealth. So long as they make claims for truth based on the
scientific method, their goals are irrelevant.

In the process of using the scientific method, scientists often detect sufficient regularity in nature to make
predictions even before they can explain their underlying causes. One of the earliest uses of science may be
found in attempts by ancient cultures to predict the seasons in order to figure out when to plant crops and
when to harvest. Another early application of science was to predict the location of planets wanderers in the
night sky at a given time. By observing regular patterns of motion, early astronomers tried to build models of
how the stuff in the sky actually moved, and then further refined their models when predictions were shown
to be correct or incorrect.

Dogmatism.

One of the gross misconceptions about science is that its findings, like religious dogma, are fixed. In fact,
scientists are constantly revising their conclusions to account for new data and new ways of understanding
the world around us. This progress may be seen in the progression from the Ptolemaic system of geocentrism
to the Copernican heliocentric system, which was better able to predict the locations of planets; to Kepler's
ideas about astrophysics, which refined the orbits from circles to ellipses; to Newton, who finally explained
the mechanisms that made them orbit; to Einstein and relativity, which accounted for the precession of
perihelion of Mercury. Each so-called "paradigm shift" in science allows for better predictions about how the
natural world works.

Atheism.

Another misconception held by some deeply religious people is that science is trying to explain away God.
While scientists are not necessarily biased against religion—there are practising and respected scientists who
are also people of faith—scientists at work see the world through the lens of methodological naturalism,
which assumes that supernatural phenomena are not influencing their investigations.
The debate over evolution has been an important flash-point for conflicts over the alleged desire on the part
of scientists to write God out of the picture. This has been most well publicized in the United States, with
examples ranging from the Scopes trial to the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. However, a
better understanding of how scientists approach understanding the process of evolution, and how the
scientific method works in a more general sense, may help to show how science is not simply setting out to
do away with God.

The goal of evolution is not to say "creation stories are wrong" but rather to understand what life came before
how we got from raw chemicals to single-celled organisms to the diversity of life that we see today.
Understanding how evolution works helps scientists to predict what fossils can be found in a particular strata
of rock for instance, that one will not find early mammals in a rock strata below one containing a dimetrodon.

Darwin made some predictions about animals after seeing the "battle" that was fought between flowers and
their pollinators. Flowers want to get pollen attached to whatever creatures feed on their nectar. In fact, this
is not just a want it is how plants are able to reproduce themselves. In this "battle", the flowers that were
most successful were those that got the most pollen on their pollinators. Likewise, the animals want (or,
rather, need) to get more food (nectar) more easily.

When Darwin saw the Angraecum sesquipedale with a 20–35 cm distance between the opening of the flower
and where the nectar was stored, he theorized there must be a moth with a tongue that was that length too,
even though he never saw it.

Forty years later, a moth was found that fit the description Xanthopan morgani. This was not a prediction that
was made, based on the text of any holy book, or a recourse to supernatural phenomena. Rather, it was only
possible through the systematic observation of the natural world and an understanding of the natural history
of the species involved.

There is no inherent atheism in science. Instead there is an understanding that any worldview that can predict
anything or rather everything has no predictive power at all. Such approaches are not useful tools for
examining how the world works and the interactions between different things — be it atoms and molecules,
cells and organisms, or stars and galaxies. Only predictions that can be proven wrong are useful and advance
our understanding of how the universe works.

Curiosity.

There is also point of view, that the main goal of science is satisfaction of curiosity of researchers, and
attempts to submit science to any other goals leads to its profanation and degradation. This may lead to the
following definition:
Science is way of satisfaction of the personal curiosity of researchers, based on concepts having all the 6
properties below.

1. Applicability: Each concept has certain limited range of validity, distinguishable from the empty set.

2. Verifiability: In the terms of the already accepted concepts, some specific experiment with some specific
result, that confirms the concept, can be described.

3. Refutability: In the terms of the concept, some specific experiment with some specific result, that negates
the concept, can be described.

4. Self-consistency: No internal contradictions of the concept are known.

5. Principle of correspondence: If the range of validity of a new concept intersects the range of validity of
another already accepted concept, then, the new concept either reproduces the results of the old concept, or
indicates the way to refute it. (For example, the estimate of the range of validity of the old concept may be
wrong.)

6. Pluralism: Mutually-contradictive concepts may coexist; if two concepts satisfying 1-5 have some common
range of validity, then, in this range, the simplest of them has priority.

These axioms are suggested to be considered as core of the science that remains through all the scientific
revolutions; the governmental support of the research based on a concept that does not satisfy at least one
of the axioms above should be qualified as fraud.

Methods

Social science researchers follow the five steps of the scientific method to conduct their research.

Step 1

The scientific method begins with a question or curiosity. An example of a research question might be the
following: Does texting while driving increase the rate of car accidents?

Step 2

After a research question is determined, social science researchers must form a hypothesis. A hypothesis is an
educated guess regarding what the researchers expect to find. Usually, social science researchers base their
hypotheses on previous research in the field. In the case of our texting and driving example, researchers
might hypothesize that texting while driving increases car accidents because previous research determined
this.

Step 3

The third step that social science researchers take is to test the hypothesis through empirical research.
Empirical research is the process of collecting and analyzing data. This can be done through descriptive
research, experimental research, or correlational research. Descriptive research describes a behavior. In our
example, descriptive research might describe commonalities among those who are most likely to text and
drive.

Experimental research manipulates variables to measure changes in other variables. More specifically, social
science researchers manipulate the independent variable to see how that manipulation changes the
dependent variable. For our example, experimental research might compare accident rates in those who text
and drive versus those who do not text and drive. The behavior of texting and driving would be the
independent variable while the outcome (accident or no accident) would be the dependent variable.

Correlational research examines the relationships, if any, between variables. For our example, we might find
that younger drivers have an increased rate of accidents while texting and driving. This would show a
correlation between age and rate of accidents.

Often political theory is seen as a sub-field of political science. Unlike other sub-fields of political science,
political theory does not model its approach to knowledge on the natural sciences. Political theorists see
their field as among the humanities and as drawing from other humanities, such as the disciplines of ethics,
history, linguistics, cultural anthropology, and other relevant fields.

Political philosophy is often seen as a branch of academic philosophy, with especially close and sometimes
overlapping relationships to normative moral philosophy and meta-ethics. Aristotle is particularly clear in
underscoring his view of the reflexive nature of these relationships.

In comparing political philosophy with political theory, the scope and the broader more all-encompassing
nature of political philosophy strikes me as essential. Plato (Republic), Hobbes (Leviathan), and Marx (in the
entire body of his work), are but three examples of political philosophers. On the other hand, I would identify
Machiavelli, James Madison, and Isaiah Berlin as three on many examples of political theorists.

A work of political philosophy is an attempt to achieve a level of generality which explores and draws
conclusions about the nature and relationships between all the major features of government and politics, as
well as the context in which political systems operate and are understood. Works of political philosophy are
grounded on significant assumptions about meta-physics and epistemology. Such works are also grounded
theoretically by the mutually supportive nature of political principles, concepts, and institutions with
fundamental moral principles, concepts, and institutions, such as justice, authority, human nature, and
legitimacy. (This feature of political philosophy is no less the case in Marx's work than,for example, in the
work of Plato.) The broad scope of political philosophy is complemented by its goal of presenting and
defending timeless truths or bedrock meaning. (This is also the case with political philosophers, such as Hegel,
for whom history, its laws of development and historical revelation and change are of central importance

Of course, political theorists take an abstract approach, and they investigate "the political" at a level of
generality unfamiliar to scholars pursuing other sub-fields of political science. Political theory has a focus on
somewhat more specific basic or fundamental issues in politics than political philosophy. There is far more
attention to the development of mid-level or mid-range theory in approaching such issues than to ground
understanding and to defend conclusions about politics in the most basic philosophical sub-fields,such as
meta-physics, epistemology, or more recently linguistics and the meaning of meaning.

Machiavelli's concern with the principles and moral dilemmas of political leadership and the preservation and
stability of a state led to conclusions in The Prince which are examples of mid-range theory that continue to
stimulate examination and debate. Madison's constitutional architecture was prompted by his deeply rooted
goal to find institutional solutions under which citizens could be governed peacefully and effectively while, at
the same time, prevent these political elites from becoming tyrants. Madison's mid-range theory in achieving
this goal is considered by many to be the most original and influential feature of the US Constitution of 1787.
Finally, Berlin's profound grasp of history and human nature were the tools he found essential to convincingly
envision the possibility of tolerant and humane societies in which core objective moral values could be
recognized and serve to guide action, while at the same time never forgetting that moral conflict between
individuals, between individual societies, and even value conflict within the mind of each individual is
inevitable and unavoidable.

Broadly speaking, behavior is political whenever individuals or groups try to influence or escape the influence
of others. Political behavior is the subset of human behavior that involves politics and powers. Theorists who
have had an influence on this field include Karl Deutsch and Theodor Adorno.

7 Essential Considerations for your Qualitative Research Project

Individuals choose their study methodology based on their familiarity with a given method. In contrast, data
analysis methods should be based on the questions your research will address. Before choosing a method of
analysis, review the 7 essential considerations below to find out if qualitative research is the right choice for
your study and how to best go about the research process.

Research questions. Certain research questions are better answered with qualitative research. Studies that
seek to understand, explore or describe occurrences rather than find a definitive answer lend themselves to
the qualitative method. Some students even choose a mixed-method dissertation which employs both
quantitative and qualitative research. A great way to determine which method is best for your study is to
consider the research methods of studies on similar topics. It’s important to let the research questions inform
the qualitative analysis process.

Method of data collection. Data collection for qualitative research exists in several forms. Interviews, focus
groups, surveys, and extensive literature review are common methods used to collect qualitative data.
Furthermore, some studies choose to use a variety of methods to come to the conclusion.

Your collection tools. Most often qualitative research involves surveys, focus groups, and interviews. Since
qualitative studies are exploratory in nature it’s important to avoid asking leading questions. Carefully
examine, and better yet, have a second set of eyes examine your study to avoid leading questions, which can
weaken your methodology.

Data analysis. Qualitative analysis involves more than just merging a list of facts. A dissertation consultant can
work with you to thematize the data for your study.

Hiring a dissertation consultant. Your research advisor is busy and does not always have the time to work with
you on your project or address your research-related concerns. A dissertation consultant helps you work
through the qualitative analysis, regardless of your level of knowledge in the area.

Early data analysis. Early explorations and pilot studies serve as a way to explore the field without narrowing
down on any specific topic just yet. Explore the data to pick out early findings that you may want to explore in
depth. In a qualitative study this can take the form of doing focus groups with a small sample size or doing a
few interviews. You can also reconsider your research focus with informed early data analysis.

Clean and easy is not always best. Because qualitative projects are not as strictly defined, it’s important to
avoid the easy way out during the research process. Instead, let your questions and data drive the research
methods and qualitative analysis that you undertake in your project.

The nine main characteristics of science are as follows: 1. Objectivity 2. Verifiability 3. Ethical Neutrality 4.
Systematic Exploration 5. Reliability 6. Precision 7. Accuracy 8. Abstractness 9. Predictability.

1. Objectivity:

Scientific knowledge is objective. Objectivity simple means the ability to see and accept facts as they are, not
as one might wish them to be. To be objective, one has to guard against his own biases, beliefs, wishes, values
and preferences. Objectivity demands that one must set aside all sorts of the subjective considerations and
prejudices.

2. Verifiability:
Science rests upon sense data, i.e., data gathered through our senses—eye, ear, nose, tongue and touch.
Scientific knowledge is based on verifiable evidence (concrete factual observations) so that other observers
can observe, weigh or measure the same phenomena and check out observation for accuracy.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Is there a God? Is Varna’ system ethical or questions pertaining to the existence of soul, heaven or hell are not
scientific questions because they cannot be treated factually. The evidence regarding their existence cannot
be gathered through our senses. Science does not have answers for everything. It deals with only those
questions about which verifiable evidence can be found.

3. Ethical Neutrality:

Science is ethically neutral. It only seeks knowledge. How this knowledge is to be used, is determined by
societal values. Knowledge can be put to differing uses. Knowledge about atomic energy can be used to cure
diseases or to wage atomic warfare.

Ethical neutrality does not mean that the scientist has no values. It here only means that he must not allow
his values to distort the design and conduct of his research. Thus, scientific knowledge is value-neutral or
value- free.

4. Systematic Exploration:

A scientific research adopts a certain sequential procedure, an organised plan or design of research for
collecting and analysis of facts about the problem under study. Generally, this plan includes a few scientific
steps—formulation of hypothesis, collection of facts, analysis of facts (classification, coding and tabulation)
and scientific generalisation and predication.
5. Reliability:

Scientific knowledge must occur under the prescribed circumstances not once but repeatedly. It is
reproducible under the circumstances stated anywhere and anytime. Conclusions based on casual recollec-
tions are not very reliable.

6. Precision:

Scientific knowledge is precise. It is not vague like some literary writing. Tennyson wrote, “Every moment dies
a man; every moment one is born”, is good literature but not science. To be a good science, it should be
written as: “In India, according to the 2001 census, every 10th second, on the average, dies a man; every 4th
second, on the average, an infant is born.” Precision requires giving exact number or measurement. Instead of
saying “most of the people are against love marriages,” a scientific researcher says, “Ninety per cent people
are against love marriages”.

7. Accuracy:

Scientific knowledge is accurate. A physician, like a common man, will not say that the patient has slight
temperature or having very high temperature but after measuring with the help of thermometer, he will
pronounce that the patient is having 101.2 F temperature.

Accuracy simply means truth or correctness of a statement or describing things in exact words as they are
without jumping to unwarranted conclusions.

8. Abstractness:

Science proceeds on a plane of abstraction. A general scientific principle is highly abstract. It is not interested
in giving a realistic picture.

9. Predictability:
Scientists do not merely describe the phenomena being studied, but also attempt to explain and predict as
well. It is typical of social sciences that they have a far lower predictability compared to natural sciences. The
most obvious reasons are the complexity of the subject matter and inadequacy at control e.t.c.

7 Major problems political science is facing.

1. Financial crunch in academia

Researchers face perpetual struggle to secure and sustain funding. While the scientific workforce is
increasing, the funding in most countries has been on a decline over the past decade. The situation is
particularly perilous for early career researchers who find it hard to compete for funds with senior
researchers. This extreme competition is also impacting the way science is conducted. The respondents of the
Vox survey pointed out that since most grants are allotted only for a couple of years, researchers tend to opt
for short-term projects, which can sometimes be insufficient to study complex research questions. This means
researchers make choices based on what would keep the funding bodies and their institutions happy.
However, the consequences of these choices are an increasing number of published papers with sub-standard
quality and low research impact.

2. Poor study design in published papers

Poorly designed studies have become a major concern for academia. One of the primary reasons behind this
problem is that statistical flaws in published research often go undetected. Since breakthrough results are
valued the most, researchers feel compelled to hype their results in order to get published. Moreover, they
tend to focus on particular patterns in data and manipulate their study designs to make the results more
attractive for the journals. Instances of “p-hacking” in which researchers report only those hypotheses that
end in statistically significant results are also on a rise. In particular, biomedical studies have come under the
spotlight for misusing p-values. Thus, a huge chunk of published results are scientifically insignificant, which
also means a routine waste of money and resources.

3. Lack of replication studies

The inability to reproduce and replicate results is a major problem plaguing research. Recently, Nature
published the results of a survey that attempted to understand researchers’ views on reproducibility and
reported that a majority of participants believed the “crisis of reproducibility” is real. Inherent problems in
studies also hinder replication, such as inadequate data and complicated study design. However, major
stakeholders of science are in general skeptical about pursuing replication studies. Most journals prefer
publishing original and groundbreaking results because replication studies lack novelty. Researchers and
funding bodies are reluctant to invest their resources in replication studies on similar grounds. This is a major
loss to academia since results of most experiments are never validated and tested.

4. Problems with peer review

Although peer review is often considered the backbone of scientific publishing, it is not without problems.
Peer reviewers help in weeding out bad research and ensuring that a manuscript does not have any obvious
flaws. However, because it is not an incentivized task, reviewers have been known to delay their work or
provide unhelpful reviews. Moreover, authors regularly report facing reviewer bullying wherein reviewers
force authors to conduct additional experiments, cite certain papers, make unnecessary changes, and so on.
Most journals opt for single-blind peer review, which leaves room for biases and professional jealousy to
creep in. Apart from this, the excessive dependence on the peer review system has led authors, editors, and
third-party services to take advantage of it leading to peer review scams. As a result, the peer review system
in its present form is questioned by many academics.

5. The problem of research accessibility

Academia is gradually moving towards open science and open access by signing open data mandates and
making data sharing mandatory. However, there are many big publishers that operate their journals on
subscription-based models. Paying for paywalled research is becoming difficult for researchers as well as
institutions, particularly in the developing countries, due to the ever increasing subscription fees. Many of the
Vox survey respondents were critical of this as it affects the way scientific research is disseminated. Moreover,
subscription-based publishing model is probably the single most important factor responsible for the
foundation of Sci-Hub, a website that provides unauthorized access to almost all paywalled research papers.
The only way of avoiding such consequences is developing methods to make access to research easier for the
science community.

6. Lack of adequate and accurate science communication

It is a well-known fact that a wide communication gap exists between the scientific and the non-scientific
community. This has resulted in miscommunication of science, divided opinions about scientific matters, and
lack of informed decision-making among the public. Researchers are partly responsible for this because they
lack time or sometimes the inclination to engage with the public about their research work. Therefore, the
public is largely dependent on the media, which is often blamed for misconstruing scientific facts. The
competitive nature of academic research is also responsible for poor communication of research. In an
attempt to grab attention, sometimes researchers, universities, and even journals mislead the public by
hyping the results or promoting only positive results. However, the science community should take the
responsibility of projecting an accurate picture of science to the public since so that they can become
cognizant of scientific issues and have a say in the way their tax money is invested in research.

7. Stressful nature of academic/postdoc life

Unarguably, the life of a postdoctoral researcher is grueling. Although it is the postdocs who drive academic
research in many labs and are the future of academic research, they face challenges due to fierce
competition, low income, and low job security. While the number of postdoctoral researchers is increasing,
the number of permanent positions in academia is not increasing at a similar rate. Moreover, PhD programs
fail to train postdocs to find a non-academic job, which leaves them struggling to find a route to advance their
career. For scientific research to make strides, these young researchers should be absorbed in mainstream
science.

The Vox survey outlines some of the biggest concerns academia is grappling with at present. Apart from
these, academics are also not unknown to other rampant problems such as gender inequality,
research/academic misconduct, and excessive dependence on impact factor. Despite these problems, there is
still hope for science. The science community is attempting to avoid the stagnation of scientific progress by
taking steps toward bringing more transparency, spreading awareness about the importance of ethics, and
making science more inclusive rather than exclusive. However, there are no quick fixes when it comes to
science; thus, while bringing these changes will take time, each step would mean a leap toward scientific
progression.

REFERENCE

https://www.editage.com/insights/7-major-problems-science-is-facing-a-survey-overview

https://www.statisticssolutions.com/7-essential-considerations-for-your-qualitative-research-project/

http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/science/top-9-main-characteristics-of-science-explained/35060

https://www.reference.com/science/goals-science-f29e4b58eabb87e

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Goals_of_science

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science