1. Source Log
By: Gregory Eccleston

2. Yes Sources

3. What is Science by Ian Campbell The author himself has many different degrees, mostly in the medical field, and has worked and participated in areas related to this. He has as a doctor, a researcher, a consultant, and a writer of scientific information. He also has plethora of publications in many scientific fields. He has a bias that science can be applied everywhere no matter what it is, which I believe comes from his extensive work in multiple scientific fields.
He provides a very through definition of what science is, and the ways that it is applied
Page 18 of the source specifically talks about where science can be applied
“But scientific methods can be and have been used in areas far remove from a laboratory, and the traditional distinction between "arts" and "science" subjects is not necessarily helpful. History is not generally considered as part of science, but many people would include archaeology in science, and historians place emphasis on good sources i.e. good evidence. Law is not generally considered as part of science, but forensic science clearly is.” (Page 18)
“The reasons for not basing policy on the available evidence are lack of awareness unsubstantiated beliefs being swayed by self-interest succumbing to outside pressure, and lacking the necessary skills” (Page 20)
Tim Gee (2011) Counter Power: Making Change Happen New Internationalist Publications Ltd, Oxford, UK
This source helps me to argue what the specific definition of science is, and where this science can be applied to, outside of scientific fields.

4. It specifically lists areas where science can not make judgements
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do. The website is published from Berkley University, but has a distinct lack of who created the articles. You can see who worked on the project as a whole, but there is not much information on these people as well other than their profession. There is also a list of organizations that collaborated with the project, and they are all science based. The article just provides the objective facts about things that science can and cannot do. The author/s does not input any personal opinion into these proposed situations and simply just states them. The author/s also does not try to publically draw any personal conclusions from the information stated.
It specifically lists areas where science can not make judgements
“Science doesn't make aesthetic judgments”
“Science doesn't make moral judgments”
“Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. For many, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality. “
This source helps me to argue where scientific principles can not be applied, and why.

5. So, Can Science Explain Everything
So, Can Science Explain Everything? By Thomas Burnett The author of the article has worked for the National Academy of Sciences, and for The BioLogos Foundation, an organization which promotes the blending of science and biblical faith. The article simply reports what other people said at a presentation and does not interpret their words in any form. But the information said by the other people is subject to their own biases that they bring with them to the interview, and the writer of the article does not really point out that these are the opinions of the people being interviewed, so it would be easy to think that the ideas presented are his own.
“She maintained that art is concerned primarily with human perceptions, sensations, and interactions with nature. Art draws its strength from the fact that it is deliberately subjective, and each viewer may experience it differently. Science, in contrast, tries to understand things about the world that are independent of individual perceptions. A scientific explanation should be the same for everyone, regardless of who, when, or where the observer is.”
“In addition to art, religion also belongs to a realm distinct from science. According to Randall, when we treat religion as a human phenomenon, it may have significant social and psychological value. However, there is a problem with believing in a god who exists outside the human mind, as it conflicts with a proper scientific understanding of the universe. Randall concluded, “Believing in an external deity is an unscientific way of thinking.””
“Once they are formulated into laws, they have unsurpassed predictive, explanatory power. However, the sweeping claim that “everything that ever happens in the universe must obey the laws of physics, without exception,” is a departure from the rigor of science and into the realm of philosophical speculation.”
This sources helps me to argue why science can not be applied to specific areas.

6. Information arts: intersections of art, science, and technology
Information arts: intersections of art, science, and technology. By Stephen Wilson Stephen Wilson worked as a professor of Conceptual and Information Arts at San Francisco State University, and publishes in cooperation with MIT. He has a clear bias against the majority of artists, saying that they openly refuse to incorporate scientific ideas into their works. He believes that the purpose of art is to spread the ideas of science and technology.
This source talks about the ways that science can be incorporated into art
It shows the importance of groundbreaking scientific advancements and how they can be used to fuel artistic development.
“The best ways artists can explore these ideas is mastering the research worlds from which they originate… deconstructive analysis, analyzing practical and ethical implications, and experimentation.” (How are biology-based theory and research important to the arts?)
This source helps me to argue how science can be applied to artistic fields, how science can benefit the arts, and why artists refuse to do so.

7. Science and Religion by Albert Einstein The author is Albert Einstein himself, one of the most famous scientists of all time, who happens to be religious, specifically Jewish. His bias clearly lies in the idea that religious ideas should trump over all scientific information available because of the fact that religion helps humanity establish morals and ethics, and can impart ideas that religion can.
This source argues that science is not the be all, end all, and that religious ideas triumphs over the facts of science
But he argues that the principles of science, such as critical thinking, but even that does not provide a complete answer to what your beliefs should be, and instead a person’s beliefs have no specific origin and instead come from a combination of the traditions of a healthy society, and a beings desire to find reason for existance
Humanity has every reason to place the proclaimers of high moral standards and values above the discoverers of objective truth. What humanity owes to personalities like Buddha, Moses, and Jesus ranks for me higher than all the achievements of the inquiring constructive mind”
“For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capable, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations.

11. No Sources

12. Wolfram, S. (n. d. ). A new kind of science
Wolfram, S. (n.d.). A new kind of science. Retrieved February 25, 2017, from
This source talks about applied science in the realm of mathematics and how to use this to create math based algorithms.

13. Barbour, I. G. , & Barbour, I. G. (2007)
Barbour, I. G., & Barbour, I. G. (2007). Religion and science: historical and contemporary issues. Cambridge: International Society for Science and Religion.
I could not find a full text of the article online that did not require paying money for it, but the abstract makes the article sound really useful to my research.

14. Niiniluoto, I. (2004). Critical scientific realism
Niiniluoto, I. (2004). Critical scientific realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
The source talks about being how to be supportive of current theories and models and not about how these concepts can be applied to other fields.