Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A type of source that is good for scientific information is not usually as reliable for political information, and vice versa. Since Wikipedia's readers may make medical decisions based on information found in our articles, [ 1 ] we want to use high-quality sources when writing about biomedical information.
Antiscience is a set of attitudes and a form of anti-intellectualism that involves a rejection of science and the scientific method. [1] People holding antiscientific views do not accept science as an objective method that can generate universal knowledge.
ἀγαθός: good, proper object of desire. anthrôpos ἄνθρωπος: human being, used by Epictetus to express an ethical ideal. apatheia ἀπάθεια: serenity, peace of mind, such as that achieved by the Stoic sage. aphormê ἀφορμή: aversion, impulse not to act (as a result of ekklisis). Opposite of hormê. apoproêgmena
Source criticism (or information evaluation) is the process of evaluating an information source, i.e.: a document, a person, a speech, a fingerprint, a photo, an observation, or anything used in order to obtain knowledge. In relation to a given purpose, a given information source may be more or less valid, reliable or relevant.
Although translational research is relatively new, there are now several major research centers focused on it. In the U.S., the National Institutes of Health has implemented a major national initiative to leverage existing academic health center infrastructure through the Clinical and Translational Science Awards. Furthermore, some universities ...
"Wikipedia's articles are not intended to provide medical advice, but are important and widely used as a source of health information.[1] Therefore, it is vital that any biomedical information in articles be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and accurately reflect current knowledge."
High-quality textbooks can be a good source to start an article, and often include general overviews of a field or subject. However, books generally move slower than journal sources, and are often several years behind the current state of evidence. This makes using up-to-date books even more important.
With this in mind, this can also be a good thing in terms of the members of the public that can actively increase their own knowledge base, decrease the knowledge deficit and assess the truth and validity of what mass media outlets and governments are telling them. This should enhance and increase the relationship between the passive "blank ...