Science (from Latin *scientia*, knowledge or understanding) in a wide sense means systematic gathering, inference and organization of knowledge, in a more strict sense this process has to be kept rational by obeying some specific strict rules and adhering to whatever principles of objectivity are currently accepted, nowadays for example the [scientific method](scientific_method.md) or mathematical [proof](proof.md). Sciences in the strict sense include [mathematics](math.md) (so called formal science), [physics](physics.md), biology, chemistry, [computer science](computer_science.md), as well as "soft sciences" such as [psychology](psychology.md), sociology etc. Science is not to be confused with [pseudoscience](pseudoscience.md) (such as [gender studies](gender_studies.md) or [astrology](astrology.md)) and [soyence](soyence.md) (political propaganda masked as "science").
TODO: some noice tree of sciences or smth
**There is no simple objective definition of a strict science** -- the definition of science changes with development of society, technology, culture, politics and so on. Science should basically stand for the most rational and objective knowledge we're able to practically obtain, however the specific criteria for this are unclear and have to be agreed on. The [scientific method](scientific_method.md) is evolving and there are many debates over it, with some even stating that there can be no universal method of science. The [p-value](p_value.md) used to determine whether measurements are statistically significant has basically just an arbitrarily set value for what's considered a "safe enough" result. Some say that if a research is to be trusted, it has to be [peer reviewed](peer_review.md), i.e. that what's scientific has to be approved by chosen experts -- this may be not just because people can make mistakes but also because in current highly competitive society there appears science [bloat](bloat.md), obscurity and tendencies to push fake research and purposeful deception, i.e. our politics and culture are already defining what science is. However the stricter the criteria for science, the more monopolized, centralized, controlled and censored it becomes.
**What should we then accept as legit science?** [We](lrs.md), in the context of our [ideal society](less_retarded_society.md), argue for NOT creating a strict definition of science, just as we are for example against "formalizing morality" with laws etc. What is and is not science is to be judged on a case-by-case basis, science cannot be a mass produced stream of papers that can automatically be marked as OK or NOT OK. We might define the term **[less retarded science](less_retarded_science.md)** so as to distinguish today's many times twisted and corrupted "science/[soyence](soyence.md)" from the real, good and truly useful science. Less retarded science should follow similar principles as [our technology](lrs.md), it should be completely free as in freedom, [selfless](selflessness.md), [suckless](suckless.md) as much as possible, unobscured etc.
