Discovering New Knowledge in Natural Science and History

The first thing I think about when trying to understand the title "to ignore knowledge ignored from time to time" is the evolution of theory and concepts. When a new discovery of the theory or concept is completed, the old theory or concept can be abandoned and can not be accepted as knowledge. However, old theories and concepts are not always thrown away, but can be claimed to evolve to become part of a new theory.

The history of science is a study on the development of science and scientific knowledge including natural science and social science. Science is a collection of experiences, theories, and practical knowledge about the natural world, created by scientists who emphasize the observation, interpretation and prediction of phenomena in the real world. In contrast, scientific historiography studies the method used by scientific historians.

Science seeks to understand the natural world through systematic observations and experiments. Through science, we develop new technologies. Technology is an application to the practical purpose of scientifically acquired knowledge. This technology can then be used to improve our scientific knowledge. Scientists used technology in all experiments. Every part of the experimental equipment is a model of technology. As technology advances, what we can investigate becomes increasingly complex. A microscope can be used to observe the smallest thing in the universe and a telescope can be used to observe the biggest thing. Measure more accurate than ever

• Does scientific knowledge progress? Does scientific knowledge grow constantly? In this respect, how does natural science compare with other knowledge fields such as history, humanities, ethics, art, etc? Is there "an end" in science? In other words, can we gain level knowledge that all scientifically important things are known? If so, what about the results? • Can you say that most scientific research exceeds the realities and concepts of the world's daily experiences such as the nature and behavior of electromagnetic fields, elementary particles, and spatiotemporal continuum? What is the substance of a scientist? Do you have a practical interpretation model or theory (eg Higgs boson, selfish guided child), or will it be useful to predict and control the natural world? What are the actual problems of these entities that may affect scientific understanding and understanding of the public? What?