text:
Talk:Philosophy of science/Archive 1

Moved from talk:philosophy of science

There are serious problems with the wiki dictionary entries for both the 'philosophy of science' and 'scientific method'. First and most importantly they are dated! Not only can science progress but sometimes even philosophy can. The consensus among philosophers of science today is that we are in a 'post-positivist' era. This means that there are no longer any (or very few indeed) professional philosophers supporting any of the various versions of empiricism that have been put forward as theories of knowledge or modified to directly address the issues of scientific method, criteria of judgement and so on. This is true to the point where the terms empiricist and positivist are often used pejoratively. Now many non-philosophically inclined scientists are perhaps unaware of this. Some of them cling to the simple beliefs about science taught to them when they were college freshman in spite of the fact that these old fashioned beliefs bear little relation to their actual practice. Many scientists, a little more self reflective, and a little more aware of the philosophical and sociological discussions of science, vainly attempted to hold onto some sort of Karl Popper falsification notion. Many of them have been rightly annoyed by the various postmodernist critiques of science but Popper does not give them adequate philosophicval ground to deal with the critiques of Kuhn and Feyerabend let alone the more extreme social constructionist issues put forward by poststructuralist and postmodernist critics. There is a new philosophy of science - Critical Realism - which both scientists and lay persons, as well as professional philosophers, find quite compelling. It projects a deeper critique of empiricism on the one hand, while refuting postmodernist versions of relativism on the other. It does so in a way which most people also find in accord with commonsense.

The second problem with both entries is that while Wiki in general is very concerned with social issues, these entries do not consider either the social sciences or the philosophy of social science. The scientificity (or not) of social science is a raging contemporary debate that infects (or enriches, depending upon your point of view) most substantive sociological debate. Critical Realism has a unifying position with respect to the natural and social sciences; that is the latter can and should be scientific. This point of view has a bearing upon the question of the scientific method as well. It is only in the most vague and general sense that one can speak of a scientific method at all. It is something like an injunction to be be logical,systematic and observant. In any other important methodological respects sciences are disciplinary and sub-specialism disciplinary specific with respect to methods. The methods, to put it crudely, must be appropriate to their objects of knowledge.

There exists today a rich and varied literature about critical realism and also applying it to a plethora of questions. A starting point to investigate this perhaps would be my book 'The Philosophy of Social Science: New Perspectives' (available at Amazon and elsewhere: ISBN 0582369746). Garry Potter

An interesting assertion that philosophy of science can progress... after all, some would argue that the 'progression' away from positivism was actually more like a regression back to Kant. Still, I have a question, or at least food for thought: even if philosophy can progress, what is its role in science and in the community at large? I think it's a great subject to study, and more people should do so, but the majority of the population and indeed the majority of scientists seem to manage quite well without it - or even really being aware of it! --

Philosophy in general and the philosophy of science in particular progress when they better succeed at explaining the subject areas they set out to explain. Proving such progression is in one sense simply the argumentive proof for whatever it is one is attempting to prove. Hence, proof of our progress since Kant is dependent upon some of the myriad books, articles, arguments etc. that have been authored subsequently actually advancing our understanding of topic areas he engaged with. If one can not improve upon what has been written before why bother to write? Hence, contemporary philosophical work depends upon an implicit faith in both the possibility and actuality of progress.

It is very true as you say that both the public at large and scientists seem to get along just fine with littlle or no knowledge of philosophy. Historically there are broadly speaking two extremes in perspective with respect to philosophy's (potentially helpful) relation to science: the 'master scientist' and the 'under-labourer'. I tend towards the latter. Philosophy can improve scientific work through the clarification of concepts,logic and issues concerning criteria of judgement. It can also aid in properly situating scientific practice and results in terms of historical socio-economic context. . . and accordingly perhaps humbly teach science some humility. Science as Whitehead asserted continued blithely on indifferent to its 'refutation' by Hume (the problem of induction). This unfortunately is simultaneously weakness as well as strength.

One last point: I think perhaps that philosophy's greatest value with respect to science could be its (future) contribution to the public's greater understanding (and correction of misunderstandings!) of science. Garry Potter

Like Garry, I'm also concerned with the wikipedia articles for philosophy of science, scientific method and related articles. The subheadings for the current philosophy of science article are relevant but poorly represent the great host of issues with which the philosophy of science deals. It is, as Garry says, outdated. I also agree with what Garry implies that wikipedia currently has a strong non-philosophically-trained-scientist bent (to its detriment). (Most scientists do not have training in the philosophical foundations of science (which tends to make scientists dogmatic in regards to science, like RK) let alone formal LOGIC!...scientists think they know what logic is, but most don't know jack about it...which should be suprising/alarming since these folks are developing theories that should rely on sound logical formulation....Any ways....) And it is true that "there are...few...professional philosophers supporting any of the various versions of empiricism". A number of philosophy of science theories with different flavors had been developed over time from instrumentalism, prescriptivism to realism (realism is a sort of strict development of empiricism)...instrumentalist theories seem to have won the day with most philosophers of science. Philosophy of social science is currently completely neglected in wiki, and while I attempted to make a brief reference to the difference in scientific methods between so called hard and soft sciences in the science article, some dummy (scientist) deleted it.

 * I sympathize with your concerns about scientists not trained in philosophy trampling philosophy articles in their muddy boots, but you're not going to bring the two cultures any closer by calling people names like "dummy." Also, there's no need to encourage a view of this problem as cutting neatly between sciencey and philosophical Wikipedians. I trained as a scientist, and yet I've been over at scientific method often arguing single-handedly for weeks to keep the article agnostic about method and to make sure that the broad-based dissent among philosphers and social scientists gets mentioned.168... 02:11, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * The above comments (not from 168, the notes above him) strike me as an attack towards RK, and to scientists as a group. All I can say is that this person needs to go to Barnes and Noble, and read a few dozen books by scientists. Many certainly are well versed in logic and philosophy, and arguably more so than most philosophers are versed about science. We should not engage in unfounded condemnations of entire professions based on a philosophical disagreement. JeMa 20:15, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps what you say is true, but the fact still remains that philosophy of science and scientific method are both at best meagre reviews of their subjects, and attempts at improvement are stubbornly resisted. Methinks you protest too much. Banno 03:45, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I just noticed that my comments aren't very timely, this being a discussion that seems to have left off four months ago. Oh well.168... 02:42, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * The censorship by those fanatics of scientism is truly tiresome. It is tme to fight back in earnest, and modernize the view of various subjects here.  EofT

My primary counterpoint to Garry is concerning "Critical Realism". It seems to borrow from Instrumentalism. If merely another version of instrumentalism, I'm doubtful it is widely accepted version among professional philosophers of science, as it is only one of many instrumentalist theories (or philosphies of science in general). Garry seems to come from the philosophy of social science school which has developed somewhat independently from the philosophy of science tradition which started out focusing on physics, ignoring social science for some time. B 18:02 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Yes, it does seem instrumentalist. And there are deeper issues here too, like economics and whether it is religion or not.  Read this on the Physiocrats, surely that is at least one origin for "philosophy of social science".  Also review Sociology of knowledge, Islamic science and quasi-empiricism in mathematics.  These should be better integrated into philosophy of mathematics and philosophy of science.  But, also, we should be cognizant that many reject the idea of philosophy as such, and reject the idea that the process of philosophy actually reveals anything.  This view too should be represented, especially as more people hold it than hold the opposite view. EofT

 * Surely there should be discussions of various types of bias here too, those relevant to science? For a current messy debate on this see Talk:Gaia theory.  And there are big questions on ghost-writing of medical research and limits of inquiry and ethics of experiment and all that.  A total rewrite of the existing article is in order. EofT Also General Semantics, Theory of Everything, cognitive science of mathematics, other cognition and observation questions in philosophy of physics and the many issues around time and its measurement.  EofT

 * User:EntmootsOfTrolls/WikiProject Body, Cognition and Senses will deal with some of those issues in a fundamental way, starting from the right place. You are all encouraged to join it and help. - 142.

---

A suggestion: philosophy is usually defined as metaphysics (or ontology), ethics and epistemology. Good articles on the philosophy of science and philosophy of mathematics and for that matter philosophy of social science (including economics) should deal with all three issues, rather than let scientism, mathematical fetishism, and economism pick and choose which issues to deal with. There is work on all nine (three by three) issues, and a good research effort will cover it all. EofT

I am surprised --and suspicious-- about the "usuality" of your definition. It is interesting, unless precisely "useless, not even false" (Dirac?). I have an other problem with the distinction between "philosophy of science" and "epistemology". Is there any? To whom? On what grounds? Please note that there are no links to pages for a distinct philosophy of science in other languages, and I feel uneasy to add one in French. Marc Girod 10:44, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The following Moved by Banno 20:46, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Does anyone else find it bizarre that the article doesn’t even mention induction? Banno 10:50, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC) - Banno -- Either this or the Scientific Method article used to mention induction. It's been removed by someone. There are so many different agendas from so many editors on these articles (and those related) that I've found it impossible as a matter of practice to keep up.

Regrettably, many of their viewpoints are logically mutually exclusive, or at least in my view, violate the fundamental difference between science and other activities looked at by the philosphically inclined. That difference is that whatever science is at any particular time (the 'vector sum' of what all those scientists do -- not the crooks and charlatans and I'll finesse that one here) is entirely dependent on touching base with what the world tells us (as nearly as we can make it out) in experiments. Whether those experiments are deliberately and consciously designed to fit some philospohical scheme or another, all science (practicioners, observers, and culture) dumps any account that is clearly contradicted by experimental result. That there is much human bias, cultural attitude, pack behavior, fraud, confusion, friction (in the Clausewitzian sense), and tradition involved in actual practice down among the practicioners, their funders, spouses, kids, commentators, philosophers, etc changes nothing essential about that difference between science and other stuff. It is, in my view, the job of the philosophically inclined to accoutn for this difference, should they choose to accept. This comment will self-destruct in 10 seconds, Jim.

Many of the article editors, and commentors here, seem to have a different view.

Smoke, hissing, ...

 * Jim, the existence of a range of viewpoints should not be a problem for the Wikipedia community (yes, that is pretty idealistic, but hey, the whole project is pretty idealistic…). But Alternat views must at least be acknowledged.

 * Your statement, ‘all science dumps any account that is clearly contradicted by experimental result’ is a neat expression of the orthodoxy presently in place in the Wikipedia. Thank you for summing this position up so neatly. However this orthodoxy is at odds with the accounts given by Kuhn, Lakatos and Feyerabend, and is not supported by much of the history of science. Yet any mention of this within the main science-related articles is almost instantly removed. Take a look at the history of the scientific method page for a range of examples.

 * Banno, you are wrong. That page gives zero examples of ideas permanently held on to by scientists, once data becomes well known which disproves the previous theory. This page merely notes that out of tens of thousands of scientific discoveries, a handful have taken a bit longer to be accepted. Well, so what? Feyerabend and his friends are just having a fit, because the entire scientific community doesn't instantly make such changes. And its a damm good thing that they don't, or we would have to rewrite all of our science textbooks every year to include "proven new ideas" that really are flawed, due to experimental era, bias, or some other problem.  In the real world, a large community of scientists have the responsibility, and the time, to look at many experiments over a period of many years, to insure accuracy. Any policy to the contrary would be rash and damagin.  As for Kuhn and Lakatos, they also are not considered authorities by all scientists and philosophers.  They have an agenda to push that blinds them to what goes on. RK 15:03, Nov 28, 2003 (UTC)

Hi, RK. Pleased to meet you. I must admit that I’m not sure to which page you are referring. Do you agree that central to the thesis of Kuhn, Lakatos and Feyerabend is the idea that scientists defend falsified theories? If not, what is it you think Lakatos meant by a negative heuristic? What do Kuhn and Feyerabend mean by Incommensurability?

If you agree that they present a divergent view of science, what are your grounds for not having them represented in the article? Does this encyclopaedia lay down some sort of ruling as to who is to be considered an authority, and who not? I suggest that you would have a hard time finding another discussion on the philosophy of science that does not mention them. Banno 20:52, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * It seems these supposed defenders of science are so frightened that they will not permit even a hint of criticism. The result is a stultified and dishonest appraisal of the field. Such an environment is more likely to disenfranchise rather than encourage support for science, and so is essentially counterproductive.Banno 10:53, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * This is an ad homeninm attack and slander of all scientists, and of most contributors who work on Wikipedia science articles. If you truly believe that we are all this "dishonest", then your only choice is to engage us in edit wars with personal attacks, or to go away until you change your mind, and can work with us productively and in good faith. I hope you choose the latter. RK 15:03, Nov 28, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, it is an ad hominem attack, but not against “all scientists”, as you suggest, but against those who continually and persistently remove reference to criticism of the perceived orthodoxy. I suggest that the general scientific community has a much better understanding of methodology than is presented here – and would steer well clear of the mediocrity of these articles. Your reply is more offensive, given that it is a personal attack. Banno 20:52, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Moti Nissani's article on The Plight of the Obscure Innovator in Science recounts nearly four dozen examples of scientific discoveries which:
 * are universally accepted nowadays, but
 * which were ignored, ridiculed or otherwise marginalized when first mentioned by their discoverers

It's a pretty impressive list. The impression it makes on me is, don't rock the boat unless you're prepared for a long chilly swim. Seems to me that no matter people aren't as eager to find and welcome new ideas as some rosy-colored views of "the march of scientific progress" would lead us to think. --Uncle Ed 19:17, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * True, yet I believe that this supports my point. Even though some scientific theories are at first ignored or ridiculed, if they are demonstratably correct, then they are eventually accepted. It just doesn't always happen quickly. People are not always willing to accept new ideas, especially in religion and in politics. But in science, people eventually will have to accept these new ideas when enough evidence accumulates. RK 14:19, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)

I think we agree: demonstrably correct ideas, even if dismissed at first, have always been able to enter the mainstream after the passage of sufficient time.

If we disagree at all, it might be over:
 * how long it takes (several months to a few years vs. DECADES)
 * how easy the process is (enlightened, objective, curious scientists avidly seeking new insights vs. prejudice, outright hostility, funding battles, vicious character assassination campaigns) --Uncle Ed 16:57, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Nothing would make me happier than to be able to agree with you both. Certainly, the theories we have now are better than those of even twenty years ago. But tell me what the statement “if (theories) are demonstratably correct, then they are eventually accepted” might mean. What is it for a statement to be “demonstrably correct”? Do you know of a way of knowing which theories that are now held to be ‘demonstrably correct’ will in future be found to be false? Or do you know that all our present theories will never be replaced by better ones? Banno 03:50, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * I think you are disagreeing with a position that we do not have. I agree with you that we certainly hold some beliefs now that in the future can be proven incomplete, or even incorrect. One well-known example are the theories of quantum mechanics and special relativity. Both of these theories have been tested to a degree further than any other theories in the history of science, and both have passed every test with flying colors. Yet physicists are well aware that these theories paint incompatible pictures of the ultimate nature of the universe, and that in their present form, these theories cannot be made to work with each other. This is a very clear sign that both of these theories, however true, are incomplete; both are aspects of a greater whole, and we do not yet see the entire picture. RK 04:19, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

 * So of course we now cannot tell what the future will hold. But that was never my point. Rather, my point was that the arguments against science in this and related articles were very flawed. They list theories which people took a long time to accept, and concluded "Hah! Scientists sometimes refuse to accept new ideas"  Yet in every case stated (by definition!) these theories were accepted. It just took some time. As time goes by there is no reason to assume that this process of acceptance will someday stop - unless people abandon science for political dogma or fundamentalist religion. When something is proven true by experiment, by enough people in enough ways, eventually the scientific community comes around to recognizing that it is true. That is all that I am saying. RK 04:19, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

 * I suspect you meant to say quantum mechanics and general relativity. Dirac incorporated SR into QM while it was still fresh off the griddle. 168... 05:41, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Whoops! Yes, that is precisely what I meant to write. Thanks. RK

This re-phrasing might be something with which I could agree. But I want to be very clear, so I will ask for further clarification. There appear to be two different views expressed here. What will you choose as the arbiter of which theory is correct – that it be “demonstrably correct”, as in the first post, or that it be accepted by the scientific community, as in the second? Or do you think these two are the very same thing? Banno 06:09, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I think they are usually the same thing. When are new theories accepted by the majority of the scientific community without proof? Scientists are skeptical about claims, and will not accept claims as provem until not only is demonstratable evidence produced, but they wait until many such people, in different labs, can reproduce such evidence on their own. (Of course sometimes they wait too long, other times not long enough.) The results of science, of course, are only as relibale as the particular humans involved in the field. RK 14:26, Dec 6, 2003 (UTC)

So a theory’s being demonstrably correct is the same as it being accepted by the scientific community? We have agreed that at different times, theories cease to be accepted - I’m thinking of the Tower Argument, or Newton’s laws. But if being demonstrably correct is the same as being accepted by the scientific community, doesn’t this imply that it is possible for a theory that was once “demonstrably correct” to, as some other time, become “demonstrably incorrect”?

And if that is the case, then doesn’t it appears that when a scientist says of a certain theory that it is demonstrably correct, he or she means precisely that, at the present time, it is accepted by the scientific community? Isn't this substantially the point made by Kuhn? Banno 22:51, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Banno -- No. Kuhn was making points about the sociology of science, how people (ie, scientists) cope with change in the intellectual content of their field (ie, theories). He was correct, in my view, in noting the pattern(s) of change which occurs in many cases amongst scientists, and so in science. But scientists are hardly immune to human behavior patterns and this should not have been a surpise to anyone -- though perhaps less than clearly noticed, of course. Blunder, persistent blunder, misunderstanding, foolishness, mendacity, rivalry, fraud, misjudgement, mistake, and other human stuff should be expected to be inevitable. None, not one -- however regrettable, changes the underlying nature of science nor its philosophy. With respect to the philosophical underpinings of science (ie, what it is that science fundamentally *is*), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is largely, in my view, irrelevant. Interesting and useful, perhaps, but irrelevant. Whatever science is, and whatever it's fundamentally about, is not affected by boneheaded scientists (or others), nor by the stodginess or lack thereof of scientific groups or schools or whatever, nor by mistake, fraud, rivalry, or other goofiness, nor even by the incredible brilliance of this or that scientist here or there.

'Science' will surely be done differently in detail (organizationally, cooperatively, prestigiously, ...) by little green men from Arcturus, women, Asians, intelligent ants, and Eskimos than it is by its practicioners heretofore here on Earth. But, Newton's laws of motion will be the same (at low velocities and outside of sufficiently intense gravitational fields) regardless of the ethnic, racial, specieal nature of the scientists involved. And General Relativistic corrections to those Laws will still describe behavior better, however they may have been arrived at locally. They will still be needed for any designing a cyclotron, attempting to make sense of some astronomical observations, trying to generate energy from atomic phenomena, or to explain certain isotopic residues equivalent to those found in equatorial W African sediments, ... Kuhn's observations (about how theories/paradigms/... change) will not be accurate for many of these groups, but any who thought gravitational attraction was an inverse fourth power law will have much trouble. And it is that universal trouble when getting *it* (ie, science) wrong that is key, in my view, to the nature of science. In its limited baliwick (experimentally testable theories only), it works; Hume's critique of induction as a method of reaching truth does not apply, for science (ie which theory to take seriously) is governed by past observation, not future anticipation/application. This is unlike just about everything else in theology or religion or history or ... In those cases, disagreement cannot be referred to experiment for resolution with the result taken as unavoidable for all (including the intelligent ants and the little green men from Arcturus). If no such resolution is possible, no theory need be abandoned by those committed to it which is very much unlike science.

Since this approach only provides a way to throw out inadequate theories (eg, experiment B has torpedoed theory A, so it's no longer worth bothering with about, but the experimental result does not preclude some further experiment C from showing that theory A is untenable in some other respect: examples include pholgiston, spontaneous generation (at least of ordinary Earth life), Aristotlian/Ptolmaic cosmology, Lysenkoism, Aryan superiority, ...), it is an inherently asymptotic approach to *anything* that might be claimed to be truth. ALL SCIENCE is composed of temporarily *best available* theories; there is no truth here and no mechanism for finding it. Another reason Hume's critique is irrelevant. A better theory (by the sole test of better accounting for observed phenomena) is to be preferred by all who practice science -- modulo their psychological/sociological situation which may permit only a limited reorientation as to the currently best theory. Said phychological/sociological reality may be interesting (eg, to Kuhn and others, and even to me), but has nothing to do with the underlying science.

Now, there are people who believe they have found *truth* in some scientific theory (practicioners of one type of scientism) and there are folks whose need for certainty compels them somewhere (perhaps even to science), and there are folks whose need to resist the 'pressure of orthodoxy' is such that they oppose anything with considerable prestige and widely accepted, and there are folks who cannot abide anything which contradicts (or seems to do) some aspect of their religious committments. All of these save the first may account for the vehemence of some committments to this or that economic theory, and those who misunderstand the nature of science may even be motivated by the first. Such committments are common in today's world. But not one of these modifying factors has *anything* to do with the underlying science, for each is different for different people, broadly for different groups, and most likely for different species as well. But each of these people, groups, and species confront the same universe and so must reach the same understanding(s) of it or their buildings will fall down, their ships will sink (assuming oceans and ships of course), their airplanes will crash, their medical engineering will kill unecessarily, and so endlessly on.

Nothing Kuhn, or any other, says changes this underlying relation with reality with which it is the business of the philosophy of science to cope. Noting that there is disagreement amongst published academics -- even famous ones or recent ones or less recent ones for that matter -- is neither sufficient to change fundamentals of science and so of its philosophy, nor even in many cases relevant. It is scholasticism revived, though under a new name, to think otherwise. This is not a majority voting issue at this level -- there are real constraints which apply and which cannot be ignored lest your philosophy no longer be of science, but about something else. That some philosophical position may become so popular that 'most' scholars adopt it will mean exactly nothing (in re science anyway) if that philosophical account does not recognize and deal with the testable nature of science, and its tentative contingent quality as well. In my view, "this way to the Lysenkoism", or some intellectually equivalent nonsense.

Humans have not characteristically coped well with contingent things, especially contingency which cannot be foreseeable. Kahneman and Tversky (and others) have turned up characteristic ways in which human thought is universally defective, and there is likely a connection with scientism and such, but that's for another time I think. A new experiment may cause such problems with existing theory(s) as to cause abandonment, but what that experiment is is only dimly (very dimly indeed in most cases) foreseeable. Until then, there is a hard and non-contingent quality of every existing theory -- it's the best we've managed to dream up, given our knowledge and it works (so far). And that's a hard thing to get around for those who are disinclined to accept it. Most folks aren't comfortable nagivating intellectually in such tricky waters. Those who are are, by comparison, rather unusual and more than a little odd. This reaction (and limitation) may account for some of the vehemence about the philosophy of science that we can observe with regard to the relevant Wiki articles and discussion pages, and of course in much else.

ww
 * Ww, I am very, very pleased that my questions have elicited such a extensive and passionate reply.

 * I quite agree that Kuhn is mostly irrelevant to the way science is actually done. But, as 168 has been at pains to point out, so are all statements in the philosophy of science. Science works, and is astonishingly effective. All philosophers and philosophies of science, not just Kuhn, are pretty well irrelevant to the scientific process. But isn’t this true as much of Wiki’s hypothetico-deductive orthodoxy as it is of Kuhn?

 * As for alien science, I think the language you use needs to be a bit more precises. It’s not true that Newton’s laws of motion will be the same for aliens as for us, since Newton’s laws are expressed in English, and aliens certainly will not express themselves in English. Isn’t it rather motion itself that will be the same for aliens as for us, regardless of how it is expressed?

 * I have entirely failed to follow much of the remainder of your post. Sorry. Banno 08:33, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---
 * Banno,

 * I'm sorry that you have failed to follow most of my post. If you will note the obscure bits, I'll try to assist.

 * On the question of whether phrasing an inverse square law in English versus Intelligent Ant or indeed versus 'human female language' (if such there be aside from grammar differences in some languages), we have a very severe disconnect. It is my view that any theory in science (and make sure that it is understood that I am using science carefully to reflect only experimentally testable theories) is invariant across any restatement. If nothing else, a mathematical statement (of which there are many -- all equivalent) should make that clear. If you are serious in endorsing 168's claim then you (and 168) and I have perhaps an unbridgeable gulf.

 * As for the point that discussions of the philosophy of science are not themselves science, well I'd regard that as tautologically true. No such philosophical statement is experimentally testable (or in Popperian terms falsifiable) and thus not science. None the less science is (or its practiciioners are) doing something and that something is susceptible to philosophically oriented discussion. And I think that discussion can be illuminating, if not scientific. It is certainly interesting to this discussant.

 * I will note that, on review of your posts, I have detected a repeated concern for 'demonstrable correctness'. I think this is wrong headed. No experiment may demonstrate that some theory is demonstrably correct. The sum of past observation (including experimental observation) can at most merely decide that this or that theory is the best currently available. And often not even that much. Science does not produce 'correct' demonstable or not. It produces theories which are best at the moment, subject to correction/improvement/modification in future. Since the correction (etc) is generally in accounting for some new phenomena (in the case of Newton's gravitation this would be such things as the motion of Mercury), current theories will remain the best available within their scope. Thus, artillery designers don't bother with General Relativity, but stick with Newton, and none of our spacecraft have moved sufficiently quickly to require General Relativity correction either. Newton's account is, for certain purposes (pretty wide ones for the moment) a perfectly sensible approximation to an account we know is 'better'. Which is to say that it (General Relativity in one guise or another) accounts for observed phenomena better.

 * ww

I’m not speaking for 168. If what you mean is that the alien’s science could be translated into English, doubtless you are correct. But that was not what I took you to be saying in the other post. In the absence of any identifiable aliens we can chat to, let’s leave the point moot.

If you read the discussion closely you will see that the phrase 'demonstrably correct' was agreed to by RK and Uncle Ed. All I wanted to do was to find out what it was they meant by it.

This isn’t really the place for a general discussion of science. My purpose in the discussion with RK was to draw attention to the social aspects of science, which are poorly dealt with in the article. But I’m not sure of the relevance of the present discussion to the article itself. Banno 06:59, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Banno,

 * It seems that you wish no further clarification of my earlier posting which you failed to follow. Do I understand correctly?

 * In re 'demonstrably correct' -- I would think that RK and Uncle Ed are victims of some linguistic confusion. I suspect, having reread their posts, that what they meant is 'not demonstrably incorrect' or 'best available' or some such. Both appear to share what you have objected to in posts here as a view of the philosophy of science which insufficiently recognizes its social constructionness and is therefore naive and incorrect. Too conventional and orthodox if I undersnad correctly. Garry Potter and others have also made postings here and in Scientifc Method with a similar orientation. I suspect that RK and Uncle Ed are more in agreement with my view on this than with yours or Potter's. But perhaps they will notice this post and speak for themselves.

 * In re: no aliens to chat with -- That we haven't yet made contact with aliens (Ants or otherwise) has not stopped many from claiming that science is socially constructed / has no claim to objectivity / is not universal in some sense / deserves no (and has earned no) special place among the intellectual disciplines we have developed / etc. Indeed, in a recent post here, you noted that "science is by definition socially constructed". Since it, and everything else humans do, is done by humans I suppose there is a certain inevitability in such a claim. However, it is also intellectually nihilisticly tautological as such claims are too often used to block (preclude, trump, vitiate, ) any other account of the nature of science. In short, polemically.

 * That such claims have become fashionable among some observers (academics (and publishers)) in the era of Lacan and deconstruction and post modernism is of no particular significance. The only question about them I see as relevant is, "Are such claims helpful in understanding science or how it works or why it has a special intellectual place amongst our activities?". I think the only answer is not particularly, for they leave the field in a state of 'no agreement on anything is possible, save discussion of bias and distortion (socially constructed, psychologically constructed, or otherwise constructed)'. This is, in my view, not only a position of intellectual despair ('it is possible to understand nothing beyond bias analysis'), but is plainly wrong. Science, and only science, uses appeal to the observation -- typically and best, experimental observation -- to govern whether one should take theory A for the moment as 'the way things are'. That being so, and modulo the inevitable sloppy connections in individuals regarding an understanding of the consequences of any particular experiment for theory A and pending additional news from the other experiments, anyone (Intelligent Ants included) should have the same willingness to go with theory A as the best available assuming they have no access to additional information.

 * Since women (or (other than educated white male) ethnicities, or economic statuses, or educational attainments, or ...) fill the place of the Intelligent Ants in many (especially the post modern / deconstructionist sort) analyses of science, it's probably not necessary to even include  in our thinking. The same considerations are said to apply to many other, not so alien groups.

 * Science (by which I mean our techniques of theory construction in re the natural world) has earned a prestige that no other intellectual discipline can match and that prestige crosses ethnic, religous, gender, economic, ... boundaries. Thus, no one would be happy flying in an airplane (or riding an elevator, or in an automobile, ...) designed by an engineer who regarded the content of science as essentially dependent on local social / psychological / political / etc conditions. Basing your stress or lift calculations on Roman theories, or Cambodian theories, or ancient Greek theories, or female theories, or feline theories, or , theories about material strength or airfoil behavior would make me distrust every such engineer, and so probably anyone else who became aware of said engineer's unusual convictions about the theoretical basis of his practical craft. As well, an analysis of my (and my wife's) genetic situation by a Lysenkoist would not fill me with confidence. Yet, for some decades in the USSR, genetics and biology was socially / politically constructed in just that way. IT WAS ALSO WRONG.
 * And so also for spontaneous generation theories for such things as maggots and bacteria (after bacteria were noticed, of course) in spite of strong social (philosophic and religious mostly) support for them. They were, it turns out, WRONG all along, and the experiments which falsified those theories (by Spallanzi in the one case, and Pasteur in the other) demolished them entirely.
 * That those theories continued to be strongly believed by many even is something that is probably due to social construction and may be in need of some explanation. Here, questions of social construction may be quite relevant. Such books as Hoffer's True Believer or some of those attempting to understand the rise and acceptance of Nazi dogma might help. But none of that has anything to do with science -- unless some experimentally testable theory of how it happens could be developed. Tough to do, I suspect.

 * Social / political / psychological / ... support/construction for theories in science is a poor reed indeed on which to rely if one's goal is find better theories (by the criterion of better accounting for the phenomena, including experimental testing). Since that's the goal (however poorly followed in particular cases) of science, it follows that social constructionism arguments are less useful than one would hope an explanatory approach would be.

 * Hope some of this clarifies the previously unclear.

 * ww

I agree with most of what you say, ww. It appears that you are arguing ardently against a position that I do not hold. Let me ask, though, since I agree with you, how is it that we both know that Lysenkoist genetics is wrong? I certainly have not done the experiments to check, have you? Or, if you prefer, what does it mean for a theory to be “taken for the moment as the way things are”? How do we justify our acceptance of Quantum or relativistic physics?Banno 21:32, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Banno,
 * If indeed I have argued, as you say, against a position you don't hold, I have stepped on a non-existent step. Sorry about that.

 * As for the question you raise about Lysenkoism, I agree that it is interesting. Perhaps, we may be able to agree that political pressure (up to and including imprisonment and death) is/was an inadequate way to support any theory on a scientific subject -- however much support that political position commands/commanded?

 * I regard quite a number of theories about the world as false enough not to rely on even if I have not personally repeated the experiences which allegedly demonstrated that falsity. For instance, I take some care to act as though I believe that ammonia leaks are dangerous (likely fatally dangerous) though I have not myself tested the claim that sufficient ammonia does not support life; every time I've encountered one, I've been unable to remain in the vicinity. And so also with hydrogen sulfide (aka, 'rotten egg smell'). Perhaps I would be bolder in the case of cyanide which is said to have an 'almondy' smell. As I type this, I would hope not. And so on with grenades and such. In these cases, as in almost all education, it is the reported experience of the species which is determinative. Not necessarily correct by some philosophic criterion of truth, but asymptotically approaching socially approved reliability if neither truth nor workability. This is not scientific, but merely practical; I don't have the time, nor do you or anyone else, to repeat tests beyond some certain minimum (which is actually rather small). However, this approach is eminently capable of internal contradiction; and has repeatedly encompassed such. For example, I am told in this instance that members of some group of people are not trustable (indeed are quite dangerous), but in another instance that members of that group (perhaps even some of the same people) are trustable to the extent of correctly and reliably performing low status work (cooking, sewer repair and installation, water supply repair and installation, unpleasant diamond mining, etc).

 * In contrast, the subject matters treated by science have mostly heretofore shown a considerable internal consistency in many respects, so there has been (and perhaps will continue to be) a check against inconsistency of the example type. If so, the experiments I personally perform to test theories will also be tests of some larger part of the existing theory collection. If so, well and good. If not, the experiments I perform to test a theory still serve, in that limited case, to identify theories which fail to account for observation -- in these cases, the experiments I have performed. Thus, I perform science in a small (and not very generalizable) way every time I am building something if I suppose something might work (this stud placed here to take that load), and conduct a test to determine whether it will or not. (Oops, wrong again. It fell down. But, even if it hasn't yet fallen down, this establishs only that the alternative theory (that it would) was wrong for loads and conditions encountered to date. Perhaps an additional straw added tomorrow would be too much, in which case my theory that the stud would be sufficient will have been shown to be inadequate).

 * Of course, if I misunderstand the significance of an experimental observation, some further experiment or another's correction of my misunderstanding will be required to lift the scales from my eyes. But if I never 'get it', I will remain, and so will any who agree with me in re that significance, on the side of what may be eventually shown to be in error. My status as a 'certified scientist' whatever that is, will change nothing. Consider the many 'certified scientists' with professorships and even Nobel Prizes who participated -- several with considerable venom and apparent sincerity howver odious -- in the banishment of 'Jewish science' from Nazi Germany. Their opinions changed absolutely nothing about whether Einstien's account of special or general relativity, or even of Brownonian motion or the photoelectric effect withstood experimental testing or failed to withstand it. And similarly for those who denied that theories of spontaneous generation (for 'religious' reasons or any other) could withstand (or had withstood) Spallanzani's and Pasteur's experimental tests.

 * Whether I (or you or they) ever 'get it' or not isn't of much consequence to "science", except to me and perhaps mine who are squashed by a falling wall, for it is not a voting process, even nominally. It is a reasoning process (determining whether some observation demonstrates that some theory is no longer tenable), which I may manage to fail repeatedly. Not many of Newton's contemporaries even understood his accounts of motion, probably largely because he wasn't very interested (for psychological reasons we can only guess at, I presume) in explaining himself intelligibly to his fellows. From a meta-science viewpoint, that didn't change invulnerability of his account to experimental falsification (or the lack thereof). At that time and place (and for some time thereafter), his account was the best available, whether understood or personally tested by his contemporaries or not.

 * Does that help?

 * ww

title: Talk:Philosophy of science/Archive 1


text:
Awa Province (Chiba)

Awa Province (安房国) was a province of Japan in the area of modern Chiba Prefecture. It lies on the tip of the Bōsō Peninsula (房総半島), whose name takes its first kanji from the name of Awa Province and its second from Kazusa and Shimōsa Provinces. Its abbreviated form name was Bōshū (房州) or Anshū (安州). Awa Province in Shikoku phonetically has the same name, but is written with different kanji (阿波国). Awa is classified as one of the provinces of the Tōkaidō. Under the Engishiki classification system, Awa was ranked as a "middle country" (中国) and a "far country" (遠国).

History
Awa was originally one of four districts of Kazusa Province. It was well-known to the Imperial Court in Nara period Japan for its bountiful seafoods, and is mentioned in Nara period records as having supplied fish to the Court as early as the reign of the semi-legendary Emperor Keikō. On May 2, 718 the district of Awa was elevated into status to a full province. On December 10, 741 it was merged back into Kazusa, but regained its independent status in 757. The exact location of the capital of the new province is not known, but is believed to have been somewhere within the borders of the modern city of Minamibōsō, Chiba; however, the Kokubun-ji was located in what is now the city of Tateyama, Chiba as is the Ichinomiya (Awa Shrine) of the province.

During the Heian period, the province was divided into numerous shōen controlled by local samurai clans. These clans sided with Minamoto no Yoritomo in the Genpei War. The history of the province in the Kamakura period is uncertain, but it came under the control of the Yūki clan and the Uesugi clan in the early Muromachi period. However, by the Sengoku period, the Satomi clan had gained control over much of Awa, Kazusa and Shimōsa provinces. The Satomi sided with Tokugawa Ieyasu in the Battle of Sekigahara, but after being implicated in the political intrigues of Ōkubo Tadachika in 1614, were forced to surrender their domains for Kurayoshi Domain in Hōki Province, Awa became tenryō territory administered by various hatamoto aside from five small domains created at various times in the Edo period (three of which survived to the Meiji Restoration), with an additional two domains created at the start of the Meiji period. The entire province had an assessed revenue of 95,736 koku.

The various domains and tenryo territories were transformed into short-lived prefectures in July 1871 by the abolition of the han system, and the entire territory of Awa Province became part of the new Chiba Prefecture on June 15, 1873.

Historical districts

 * Asai District (朝夷郡) – merged into Awa District (along with Hei and Nagasa Districts) on April 1, 1897
 * Awa District (安房郡) – absorbed Asai, Hei and Nagasa Districts on April 1, 1897
 * Heguri District (平群郡) – merged into Awa District (along with Asai and Nagasa Districts) on April 1, 1897
 * Nagasa District (長狭郡) – merged into Awa District (along with Asai and Hei Districts) on April 1, 1897

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Awa Province (Chiba)


text:
Jerry Goldsmith

Jerrald King Goldsmith (February 10, 1929 – July 21, 2004) was an American composer, with a career in film and television scoring that spanned nearly 50 years and over 200 productions, between 1954 and 2003. He was considered one of film music history's most innovative and influential composers. He was nominated for eighteen Academy Awards (winning in 1977 for The Omen), six Grammy Awards, five Primetime Emmy Awards, nine Golden Globe Awards, and four British Academy Film Awards.

He composed scores for five films in the Star Trek franchise and three in the Rambo franchise, as well as for films including Logan's Run, Planet of the Apes, Tora! Tora! Tora!, Patton, Papillon, Chinatown, The Omen, Alien, Poltergeist, The Secret of NIMH, Medicine Man, Gremlins, Hoosiers, Total Recall, Basic Instinct, Air Force One, L.A. Confidential, Mulan, and The Mummy. He also composed the fanfares accompanying the production logos used by multiple major film studios, and music for the Disney attraction Soarin'.

He collaborated with directors including Robert Wise, Howard Hawks, Otto Preminger, Joe Dante, Richard Donner, Richard Fleischer, Ridley Scott, Steven Spielberg, Michael Crichton, Roman Polanski, Gordon Douglas, Fred Schepisi, Paul Verhoeven, and Franklin J. Schaffner.

Early life and education
Goldsmith was born February 10, 1929, in Los Angeles, California. His family was mostly from Austro-Hungarian Empire, father half Austrian and Hungarian (grandmother Schwartz) Romanian Jewish. His parents were Tessa (née Rappaport), a school teacher, and Morris Goldsmith, a structural engineer. He started playing piano at age six, but only "got serious" by the time he was eleven. At age thirteen, he studied piano privately with concert pianist and educator Jakob Gimpel (whom Goldsmith would later employ to perform piano solos in his score to The Mephisto Waltz) and by the age of sixteen he was studying both theory and counterpoint under Italian composer Mario Castelnuovo-Tedesco, who also tutored such noteworthy composers and musicians as Henry Mancini, Nelson Riddle, Herman Stein, André Previn, Marty Paich, and John Williams.

At age sixteen, Goldsmith saw the 1945 film Spellbound and was inspired by Miklós Rózsa's unconventional score to pursue a career in music. Goldsmith later enrolled and attended the University of Southern California where he was able to attend courses by Rózsa, but dropped out in favor of a more "practical music program" at the Los Angeles City College. There he was able to coach singers, work as an assistant choral director, play piano accompaniment, and work as an assistant conductor.

1950s and work at CBS
In 1950, Goldsmith found work at CBS as a clerk typist in the network's music department under director Lud Gluskin. There he began writing scores for such radio shows as CBS Radio Workshop, Frontier Gentleman, and Romance. In an interview with Andy Velez from BarnesandNoble.com, Goldsmith stated: "It was about 1950. CBS had a workshop, and once a week the employees, whatever their talents, whether they were ushers or typists, would produce a radio show. But you had to be an employee. They needed someone to do music, and I knew someone there who said I'd be great for this. I'd just gotten married and needed a job, so they faked a typing test for me. Then I could do these shows. About six months later, the music department heard what I did, liked it, and gave me a job." He later progressed into scoring such live CBS television shows as Climax! and Playhouse 90. He also scored multiple episodes of the television series The Twilight Zone. He remained at CBS until 1960, after which he moved on to Revue Studios and then to Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer for producer Norman Felton, whom he had worked for during live TV and would later compose music for shows produced by MGM Television such as Dr. Kildare and The Man from U.N.C.L.E..

His feature film debut occurred when he composed the music for the western Black Patch (1957). He continued with scores to such films as the western Face of a Fugitive (also 1957), and the science fiction film City of Fear (1959).

1960s
Goldsmith began the decade composing for such television shows as Dr. Kildare, Gunsmoke, and Thriller as well as the drama film The Spiral Road (1962). However, he only began receiving widespread name recognition after his intimate score to the western Lonely Are the Brave (1962). His involvement in the picture was the result of a recommendation by composer Alfred Newman who had been impressed with Goldsmith's score on the television show Thriller and took it upon himself to recommend Goldsmith to the head of Universal's music department, despite having never met him. That same year, Goldsmith composed the mostly atonal and dissonant score to the biopic Freud (1962) that focused on a five-year period of the life of psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud. Goldsmith's score led to him gaining his first Academy Award nomination for Best Original Score, though he lost to fellow first-time nominee Maurice Jarre for his music to Lawrence of Arabia (also 1962). Goldsmith composed a score to The Stripper (1963), his first collaboration with director Franklin J. Schaffner for whom Goldsmith would later score the films Planet of the Apes (1968), Patton (1970), Papillon (1973), Islands in the Stream (1977), The Boys from Brazil (1978) and Lionheart (1987).

Following his success with Lonely Are the Brave and Freud, Goldsmith composed the theme music for The Man from U.N.C.L.E. (1964), and scores to such films as the western Rio Conchos, the political thriller Seven Days in May (both also 1964), the romantic drama A Patch of Blue (1965), the war film In Harm's Way (also 1965), the World War I air combat film The Blue Max (1966), the period naval war drama The Sand Pebbles (also 1966), the thriller Warning Shot (1967), the western Hour of the Gun (also 1967), and the mystery The Detective (1968). He almost did not accept the assignment for The Blue Max when he watched the final cut with the producers who had temp-tracked it with Richard Strauss's Also Sprach Zarathustra. He said: "I admit it worked fairly well but my first reaction was to get up and walk away from the job, but I couldn't. Once you've heard music like that with the picture, it makes your own scoring more difficult to arrive at, it clouds your thinking." Goldsmith's scores to A Patch of Blue and The Sand Pebbles garnered him his second and third Academy Award nominations, respectively, and were both one of the 250 nominees for the American Film Institute's top twenty-five American film scores. His scores for Seven Days in May and The Sand Pebbles also garnered Goldsmith his first two respective Golden Globe Award nominations for Best Original Score in 1965 and 1967. During this time, he also composed for many lighter, comedic films such as the family comedy The Trouble with Angels (1966), the James Bond parodies Our Man Flint (1966) and its sequel In Like Flint (1967), and the comedy The Flim-Flam Man (1967).

Goldsmith gained attention for the score of the post-apocalyptic science fiction film Planet of the Apes (1968), which was one of the first to be written entirely in an Avant garde style. When scoring Planet of the Apes, Goldsmith used such innovative techniques as looping drums into an echoplex, using the orchestra to imitate the grunting sounds of apes, having horns blown without mouthpieces, and instructing the woodwind players to finger their keys without using any air. He also used stainless steel mixing bowls, among other objects, to create unique percussive sounds. The score resulted in another Goldsmith nomination for the Best Original Score Oscar and ranks in No. 18 on the American Film Institute's top twenty-five American film scores. Though he did not return to compose for its sequel Beneath the Planet of the Apes (1970), Goldsmith scored the third installment in the Planet of the Apes franchise, Escape from the Planet of the Apes (1971).

Goldsmith concluded the decade with scores to such films as the western Bandolero! (1968), the spy thriller The Chairman, the science fiction film The Illustrated Man, and the western 100 Rifles (all 1969). He composed the theme for the comedy-drama television series Room 222 which debuted in 1969.

1970s
Throughout the score for the World War II biographical film Patton (1970), Goldsmith used an echoplex to loop recorded sounds of "call to war" triplets played on the trumpet that musically represented General George S. Patton's belief in reincarnation. The main theme also consisted of a symphonic march accompanied by a pipe organ to represent the protagonist's militaristic and deeply religious nature. The film's music subsequently earned Goldsmith an Oscar nomination for Best Original Score and was one of the American Film Institute's 250 nominees for the top twenty-five American film scores. Goldsmith's critical success continued with his emotional score to the prison escape film Papillon (1973), which also earned him an Academy Award nomination. In the early 1970s, Goldsmith also wrote the themes for two wildly different TV series, Barnaby Jones and The Waltons.

Goldsmith was faced with the daunting task of replacing a score by composer Phillip Lambro to the neo-film noir Chinatown (1974). With only ten days to compose and record an entirely new score, Goldsmith quickly produced a score that mixed an eastern music sound with elements of jazz in an ensemble that only featured a trumpet, four pianos, four harps, two percussionists, and a string section. Goldsmith received an Academy Award nomination for his efforts though he lost to Nino Rota and Carmine Coppola for The Godfather Part II. The score to Chinatown ranks No. 9 on the AFI's list of top 25 American film scores. It was also nominated for a Golden Globe Award for Best Original Score.

Goldsmith earned further critical praise with his score to the period adventure film The Wind and the Lion (1975), which relied upon a diverse ensemble including many Moroccan instruments and a large percussion section. The score garnered Goldsmith an Oscar nomination for Best Original Score, though he lost to John Williams for his score to Jaws. The Wind and the Lion was also one of the AFI's 250 nominees for the top twenty-five American film scores.

Goldsmith composed a dark choral score to the horror film The Omen (1976), which was the first film score to feature the use of a choir in an avant-garde style. The score was successful among critics and garnered Goldsmith his only Academy Award for Best Original Score and a nomination for Best Original Song for "Ave Satani". His wife, Carol Heather Goldsmith, also wrote lyrics and performed a vocal track titled "The Piper Dreams" released solely on the soundtrack album. Goldsmith would go on to compose for two more entries in the franchise; Damien - Omen II (1978) and Omen III: The Final Conflict (1981).

He continued to have critical success with scores to such films as the dystopian science fiction Logan's Run (1976), the period drama Islands in the Stream (1977, a score which remained one of his personal favorites), the science fiction suspense Coma (1978), the science fiction thriller Capricorn One (1977), the disaster film The Swarm (1978), the period comedy The Great Train Robbery (also 1978), and his Academy Award-nominated score to the science fiction thriller The Boys from Brazil (1978), in which he utilized lively waltzes juxtaposed against the film's concept of cloning Adolf Hitler.

Goldsmith composed a score to the science fiction film Alien (1979). His score featured an orchestra augmented by an Indian conch horn, didgeridoo, steel drum, and serpent (a 16th-century instrument), while creating further "alien" sounds by delaying string pizzicati through an echoplex. Many of the instruments were used in such atypical ways they were virtually unidentifiable. His score was, however, heavily edited during post-production and Goldsmith was required to rewrite music for several scenes. The final score resulted in several pieces being moved, replaced, or cut entirely. Director Ridley Scott and editor Terry Rawlings also, without Goldsmith's consent, purchased the rights to the "Main Title" from Freud (1962) which they used during the acid blood sequence. Despite the heavy edits and rewrites, Goldsmith's score for the film earned him a Golden Globe Award nomination for Best Original Score and was one of the AFI's 250 nominees for the top twenty-five American film scores.

Goldsmith concluded the decade composing the score for Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979). Having been Gene Roddenberry's initial choice to compose the original Star Trek pilot "The Cage" yet being unable to do so due to scheduling conflicts, Goldsmith was the first pick of both Paramount Pictures and director Robert Wise to compose a score for The Motion Picture. Faced with composing a new Star Trek theme for the film, Goldsmith initially struggled for inspiration, and proceeded to compose as much of the score as possible before the need to develop the main title theme. His initial score for the scene in which the newly-refit Starship Enterprise is revealed to the audience was not well received by the filmmakers, director Robert Wise feeling that it lacked a strong thematic hook and evoked sailing ships. Though somewhat irked by its rejection, Goldsmith consented to re-work his initial idea and finally arrived at the Star Trek theme which was ultimately used. The film's soundtrack also provided a debut for the Blaster Beam, an electronic instrument 12 to 15 ft long, created by musician Craig Huxley. The Blaster had steel wires connected to amplifiers fitted to the main piece of aluminum; the device was played with an artillery shell. Goldsmith heard it and immediately decided to use it for V'Ger's cues. An enormous pipe organ first plays the V'Ger theme on the Enterprise's approach, a literal indication of the machine's power. His score for The Motion Picture earned him Academy Award and Golden Globe Award nominations, and was one of the AFI's 250 nominees for the top twenty-five American film scores. Goldsmith would later compose the scores for Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989) (which included a revised arrangement of the theme from The Motion Picture), Star Trek: First Contact (1996), Star Trek: Insurrection (1998), and Star Trek: Nemesis (2002), as well as the theme to the television series Star Trek: Voyager in 1995. In addition, his theme for The Motion Picture, as arranged by Dennis McCarthy, was reused as the theme for Star Trek: The Next Generation in 1987.

1980s
Throughout the 1980s, Goldsmith found himself increasingly scoring science fiction and fantasy films in the ongoing wake of Star Wars (1977), composing for such films as The Omen sequels Damien: Omen II (1978) and Omen III: The Final Conflict (1981), space western Outland (1981), animated fantasy The Secret of NIMH (1982), and the film adaptation of The Twilight Zone, which he composed in four different styles to accompany the film's four stories.

Goldsmith was hired to compose the music to the Tobe Hooper-directed horror film Poltergeist (1982). He wrote several themes for the film including a gentle lullaby for the protagonist Carol Anne and her family's suburban life, a semi-religious theme for scenes concerning the souls trapped between the two worlds, and bombastic atonal bursts during scenes of horror. The film's score garnered him an Oscar nomination, though he lost again to John Williams for Spielberg's E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial.

He did, however, still manage to compose for such non-fantasy productions as the period television miniseries Masada (1981) winning an Emmy Award, the war film Inchon (1982), the action adventure First Blood (also 1982), and his Oscar- and Golden Globe Award-nominated score to political drama Under Fire (1983) in which he used the ethnic sounds of a South American pan flute, synthetic elements, and the prominently featured solo work of jazz guitarist Pat Metheny.

Throughout the decade, many of his compositions became increasingly laced with synthetic elements such as his scores for the horror sequel Psycho II (1983), the comedy horror film Gremlins (1984, winning a Saturn Award for Best Music), the fantasy superhero adaptation Supergirl (1984), Ridley Scott fantasy Legend (1985, initially heard only in European prints and then years later in a 2002 director's cut), action sequel Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985), family fantasy Baby: Secret of the Lost Legend (also 1985), and horror movie sequel Poltergeist II (1986), a more synthetic score than the original and the first of two sequels. He garnered another Oscar nomination for his innovative, critically acclaimed score to sports drama Hoosiers (1986), though he lost to Herbie Hancock for Round Midnight. The score incorporates synthesizers, orchestra, and the recorded sounds of basketball hits on a gymnasium floor. During the same period, Goldsmith scored the Michael Crichton film Runaway (1984), the composer's first all-electronic score. In an interview with Keyboard magazine in 1984, Goldsmith said that in order to simulate the ambiance of a real orchestra, several speakers were set up in an actual orchestra hall similar to how they would be arranged if they were live players. The playback was re-recorded to capture the feel of the hall.

Goldsmith finished out the decade with noteworthy scores to such films as the science-fiction fantasy family film Explorers (1985), medieval adventure Lionheart, science fiction comedy Innerspace (both 1987), action film Rambo III (1988), the science fiction horror Leviathan, and Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (both 1989), his second Star Trek film score. Goldsmith's score to Leviathan incorporated the use of recorded whale sounds during the main titles. His comedy score to The 'Burbs (1989) made use of pipe organ, recorded dog barking sound effects, and for parodying the trumpet "call to war" triplets on an echoplex from his previous score to Patton (1970).

1990s
Receiving critical acclaim for his music for the romantic drama The Russia House (1990), Goldsmith's score featured a unique mixture of Russian music and jazz to complement the nationalities and characteristics of the two main characters. He also composed critically acclaimed music for the science fiction action film Total Recall (also 1990), which Goldsmith later regarded as one of his best scores. Other scores of the era include Gremlins 2: The New Batch (also 1990, a film in which Goldsmith also made a brief cameo appearance), the psychological thriller Sleeping with the Enemy (1991), the family comedy Mom and Dad Save the World, the fantasy romance Forever Young (both 1992), the thriller The Vanishing, and the family comedy Dennis the Menace (both 1993). Goldsmith also composed a critically acclaimed score for the medical drama Medicine Man (1992). In concert, Goldsmith would later recount a story of how actor Sean Connery copied Goldsmith's signature ponytail hairstyle for his character Robert Campbell in the film.

Goldsmith composed and conducted a score to the erotic thriller Basic Instinct (1992). The soundtrack, an unsettling hybrid of orchestral and electronic elements, garnered him another Oscar nomination as well as a Golden Globe Award nomination and was later regarded by the composer as one of his most challenging works. He wrote an acclaimed score for the classic sports film Rudy (1993), which has since been used in the trailers for numerous films including Angels in the Outfield (1994), Good Will Hunting (1997), Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron (2002), and Seabiscuit (2003). It was also heard on the TV spot of "The Little Vampire" (2000) and an Arnold Schwarzenegger fitness commercial.

Goldsmith composed acclaimed scores for such films as the superhero adaptation The Shadow, the thriller The River Wild, the romantic comedy I.Q. (all 1994), the science fiction drama Powder, the action film Congo, the fantasy adventure First Knight (all 1995), the action film Executive Decision, and his third Star Trek film installment Star Trek: First Contact (both 1996) which he composed with his son Joel Goldsmith. Goldsmith also composed the theme for the UPN series Star Trek: Voyager (which debuted in 1995) for which he won a Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Main Title Theme Music. In 2020, Newsweek magazine said that the Voyager theme was the best of all Star Trek television series' theme songs.

Goldsmith composed the critically successful score to the horror action film The Ghost and the Darkness (1996) which featured a traditional Irish folk melody interwoven with African rhythms. He was hired to replace a score by Randy Newman for Air Force One (1997). Goldsmith, with the assistance of composer Joel McNeely, completed the brassy, heroic score in only twelve days. Goldsmith also composed a percussive, jazzy score for the critically acclaimed crime drama L.A. Confidential (also 1997). His score garnered him Oscar and Golden Globe Award nominations, and was also one of the AFI's 250 nominees for the top twenty-five American film scores.

Goldsmith composed a new theme for the Universal Pictures opening logo, first heard in The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) and the short version for the Universal Television closing logo, first heard on The Tom Show. The studio continues to use this theme, with a new arrangement of it scored by Brian Tyler to accompany the studio's current opening logo, introduced with The Lorax (2012) to coincide with the celebration of the studio's 100th anniversary. Goldsmith also continued with scores for such films as the 1997 survival drama The Edge (also 1997), his fourth Star Trek film installment, Star Trek: Insurrection (1998), the science fiction horror Deep Rising, the action thriller U.S. Marshals and the science fiction film Small Soldiers (all also 1998). He also composed a score of combined Eastern, orchestral, and synthetic elements for the Disney-animated film Mulan (also 1998), which subsequently earned him his final Oscar and Golden Globe Award nominations along with songwriter Matthew Wilder and lyricist David Zippel.

Goldsmith concluded the decade with critically successful scores to such popular films as action adventure horror The Mummy, the horror film The Haunting, and the action adventure The 13th Warrior (1999). In 1999, he also composed "Fanfare for Oscar" for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.

2000s and final scores
During the early years of the 2000s, Goldsmith composed scores to the science fiction thriller Hollow Man (2000), the mystery film Along Came a Spider, the drama The Last Castle (both 2001), the action/political thriller The Sum of All Fears, and his last Star Trek film Star Trek: Nemesis (both 2002). Goldsmith had composed the scores to five of the first ten Star Trek movies up to that point. Goldsmith also composed an original score to the simulator attraction Soarin' Over California which debuted February 8, 2001 at the Disneyland Resort, and the same attraction Soarin' which opened May 5, 2005 in Epcot at the Walt Disney World Resort. It was later said that when Goldsmith first rode the ride, he left in tears and said, "I'd do anything to be part of this project. I'd even score the film for free."

Goldsmith's final cinematic score, composed during declining health, was the critically acclaimed music for the live-action/animated hybrid film Looney Tunes: Back in Action (2003), directed by long-time Goldsmith collaborator Joe Dante. One of his last works was with another long-time collaborator, Richard Donner (for whom Goldsmith had scored The Omen in 1976), on the science fiction film Timeline (also 2003). However, due to a complicated post-production process, Goldsmith's score had to be replaced. Goldsmith's score was used for the preliminary cuts. But the score didn't fit the later cuts of the film and had to be re-scored. Goldsmith's unavailability led to composer Brian Tyler taking over. Goldsmith's unused score was later released on CD, September 7, 2004 through Varèse Sarabande, less than two months after his death in July. The album quickly became out of print.

Studio fanfares
Goldsmith composed the fanfares accompanying the production logos for multiple major film studios. He composed the 1976 fanfare for Paramount Pictures, which was used mainly for their home video label, as well as the 1988 Carolco Pictures fanfare and the Cinergi Pictures fanfare, with Bruce Broughton conducting the Sinfonia of London's performance of it.

With the release of The Lost World: Jurassic Park, his 1997 opening fanfare for Universal Pictures debuted. His work on the fanfare would later be re-composed by John Williams for the 20th anniversary of E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, a film in which Williams composed the film's score, with a customized fanfare, merging the Universal fanfare and the film's main theme, and the full Universal fanfare, only used in The Scorpion King; and composed and arranged by Brian Tyler for the studio's 100th anniversary.

Concert works

 * Toccata for Solo Guitar
 * In the 1950s, Goldsmith composed "Toccata for Solo Guitar". The music was later performed and recorded by Gregg Nestor and released through BSX Records January 5, 2010.
 * The Thunder of Imperial Names
 * In 1957, Goldsmith composed the patriotic piece based on a text by Thomas Wolfe titled The Thunder of Imperial Names for concert band and narration, which first appeared on the CBS Radio Workshop episode "1489 Words". "The Thunder of Imperial Names" was later performed and re-recorded in 2006 by the U.S. Air Force Tactical Command Band under conductor Lowell E. Graham and narrated by Gary McKenzie.
 * Christus Apollo
 * In 1969, the California Chamber Symphony commissioned Goldsmith to compose a cantata based on the text "Christus Apollo" by science fiction author Ray Bradbury, with whom Goldsmith had previously worked on dramatic radio and later the 1969 film The Illustrated Man. The piece, written in four movements, consisted of orchestra, choir, mezzo-soprano solo, and narration (originally performed by Charlton Heston).  Goldsmith composed the piece largely using the 12-tone system, later stating, "I feel there is a great relationship between impressionism and dodecaphonicism and that was the musical language I wanted for 'Christus Apollo'."  For the 2002 Telarc album release, Christus Apollo was performed by the London Symphony Orchestra, the London Voices, mezzo-soprano Eirian James, and narrated by actor Anthony Hopkins.
 * Music for Orchestra
 * In 1970, Goldsmith was approached by conductor Leonard Slatkin to compose a short piece for the Saint Louis Symphony Orchestra. The atonal composition was written in three sections developed from one common 12-tone row including the "turbulent" first section, the "introspective" second section, and climaxing in a "very agitated" third section.  Goldsmith later reflected that the piece was a result of much turbulence in his life, stating, "I was going through a divorce and my mother was seriously ill with cancer."  Goldsmith continued, "All of my personal turmoil – pain, anger, and sorrow – went into writing 'Music for Orchestra' in strict dodecaphonic form."
 * Fireworks: A Celebration of Los Angeles
 * In 1999, Goldsmith composed the energetic Fireworks: A Celebration of Los Angeles to conclude his first concert series with the Los Angeles Philharmonic at the Hollywood Bowl. Looking back on the experience, Goldsmith later said, "After starting to write what was to be a big fireworks extravaganza, I realized that I was writing about the city where I was born and had lived my entire life.  I decided instead to make the piece a grand celebration of my childhood, growing years, my years of maturity, and all the events that climaxed with my first appearance at the Hollywood Bowl."

Personal life and death
Goldsmith was married twice. He was first married to Sharon Hennagin in 1950; they divorced in 1970. He married Carol Heather Sheinkopf in 1972, and the couple remained together until his death in 2004. His oldest son Joel Goldsmith (1957–2012) was also a composer and collaborated with his father on the score for Star Trek: First Contact, composing approximately twenty-two minutes of the score. Goldsmith also conducted Joel's theme for The Untouchables and composed the theme for the pilot Hollister, scored by Joel. Goldsmith's daughter, Carrie Goldsmith, went to high school with Titanic film score composer James Horner, who also composed music for Star Trek's second and third films: Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and Star Trek III: The Search for Spock. Carrie Goldsmith was working on a biography of her father, though the book has been suspended indefinitely for unspecified reasons. Ellen Smith, who sang the title song for Wild Rovers, shortened her surname but was actually his daughter, Ellen Goldsmith.

Goldsmith died from colon cancer at his home in Beverly Hills, California, on July 21, 2004, at the age of 75. He was interred at Hillside Memorial Park Cemetery.

Style and influences
Goldsmith was greatly influenced by movements of early 20th-century classical music, notably modernism, Americana, impressionism, dodecaphonism, and early film scores. He has cited Igor Stravinsky, Aaron Copland, Miklós Rózsa, Bernard Herrmann, Béla Bartók, and Alban Berg, among others, as some of the main influences to his style of composition.

His style has been noted for its unique instrumentation, utilizing a vast array of ethnic instruments, recorded sounds, synthetic textures, and the traditional orchestra, often concurrently. When asked about his inclination for embracing new techniques and constantly shifting his musical palette throughout his career, Goldsmith said, "It seems like it's me, and that's that! Certain composers are doing the same thing over and over again, which I feel is sort of uninteresting.  I don't find that you grow very much in that way.  I like to keep changing, trying to do new things.  Basically, I'm saying the same thing with a little different twist on it. Once you get caught up in the creative process, something inside takes over, and your subconscious just does it for you."

One reason for the consistency of Goldsmith's aural resonance and signature sound is his long time professional association with orchestrator Arthur Morton. Their first collaboration was on the film, Take Her, She's Mine (1963). Goldsmith was commissioned to score the features, Von Ryan's Express and Morituri (both 1965). He recruited Morton to serve as his orchestrator. Their bond for a unique and expressive sound was born, and their friendship flourished. Goldsmith went on to compose the scores for Our Man Flint, The Trouble with Angels (with Frank De Vol), The Blue Max, The Sand Pebbles, and Stagecoach (all 1966). Morton was there providing his orchestration services, assisting Goldsmith in attaining his visionary sounds. Their partnership endured for over 30 years and included the notable scores for Planet of the Apes (1968), Patton (1970), Tora! Tora! Tora! (1970), Papillon (1973), Chinatown (1974), The Omen (1976), MacArthur (1977), Capricorn One (1978), Alien (1979), Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979), Poltergeist (1982), First Blood (1982), Under Fire (1983), The Russia House (1990). The final score that Arthur Morton orchestrated for Goldsmith was L.A. Confidential (1997).

Legacy
Jerry Goldsmith has been considered one of film music history's most innovative and influential composers. While presenting Goldsmith with a Career Achievement Award from the Society for the Preservation of Film Music in 1993, fellow composer Henry Mancini said of Goldsmith, "he has instilled two things in his colleagues in this town. One thing he does, he keeps us honest. And the second one is he scares the hell out of us." In his review of the 1999 re-issue of the Star Trek: The Motion Picture soundtrack, Bruce Eder highly praised Goldsmith's ability, stating, "one of the new tracks, 'Spock's Arrival', may be the closest that Goldsmith has ever come to writing serious music in a pure Romantic idiom; this could have been the work of Rimsky-Korsakov or Stravinsky — it's that good." In a 2001 interview, film composer Marco Beltrami (3:10 to Yuma, The Hurt Locker) stated, "Without Jerry, film music would probably be in a different place than it is now. I think he more than any other composer bridged the gap between the old Hollywood scoring style and the modern film composer."

In 2006, upon composing The Omen (a remake of the Goldsmith-scored 1976 film), Marco Beltrami dedicated his score to Goldsmith, which also included an updated arrangement of "Ave Satani" titled "Omen 76/06". Likewise, when composer Brian Tyler was commissioned in 2012 to update the Universal Studios logo for the Universal centennial, he retained the melody originally composed by Goldsmith in 1997, opting to "bring it into the 21st century."

Awards and nominations
Over the course of his career, Goldsmith received 18 total Academy Award nominations, making him one of the most nominated composers in the history of the Awards. Despite this, Goldsmith won only one Oscar, his score for The Omen (1976). This makes Goldsmith the most nominated composer to have won an Oscar only on one occasion. In 1991, Goldsmith received an Honorary Doctorate of Music from Berklee College of Music.

On May 9, 2017, Goldsmith posthumously received a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame for his achievements in the music industry, located at 6752 Hollywood Boulevard.

AFI
The American Film Institute respectively ranked Goldsmith's scores for Chinatown (1974) and Planet of the Apes (1968) No. 9 and No. 18 on their list of the 25 greatest film scores. He is one of only five composers to have more than one score featured in the list, including Elmer Bernstein, Bernard Herrmann, Max Steiner, and John Williams. His scores for the following films were also nominated for inclusion:
 * Alien (1979)
 * L.A. Confidential (1997)
 * The Omen (1976)
 * Papillon (1973)
 * A Patch of Blue (1965)
 * Patton (1970)
 * The Sand Pebbles (1966)
 * Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)
 * The Wind and the Lion (1975)

1950s

 * The Lineup (TV series, 1954)
 * Climax! (TV series, 1954)
 * Black Patch (1957)
 * Westinghouse Studio One: Tongue of Angels Season 10 episode 24 (live TV drama, 1958)
 * Face of a Fugitive (1959)
 * City of Fear (1959)
 * Playhouse 90 (TV series, 1959)
 * The Twilight Zone (TV series, 1959)
 * Perry Mason (1959 TV series incidental music, episode 3–75)

1960s

 * The Gambler, the Nun, and the Radio (TV film, 1960)
 * Full Circle (TV series theme, 1960)
 * Pete and Gladys (TV series theme, 1960)
 * Studs Lonigan (1960)
 * Thriller (TV series, 1960)
 * Dr. Kildare (theme and 7 episode scores, 1961)
 * The Expendables (TV film, 1962)
 * The Crimebusters (1962)
 * Lonely Are the Brave (1962)
 * The Spiral Road (1962)
 * Freud (1962)
 * The List of Adrian Messenger (1963)
 * The Stripper (1963)
 * A Gathering of Eagles (1963)
 * Lilies of the Field (1963)
 * Take Her, She's Mine (1963)
 * The Prize (1963)
 * Seven Days in May (1964)
 * Shock Treatment (1964)
 * Fate Is the Hunter (1964)
 * The Man from U.N.C.L.E. (TV series theme and 3 episode scores, 1964)
 * Rio Conchos (1964)
 * The Satan Bug (1965)
 * The Loner (TV series theme and 2 episode scores, 1965)
 * Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea (TV series: 1 episode, 1965)
 * In Harm's Way (1965)
 * Von Ryan's Express (1965)
 * Morituri (1965)
 * The Agony and the Ecstasy (co-composer, 1965)
 * A Patch of Blue (1965)
 * Our Man Flint (1966)
 * The Trouble with Angels (1966)
 * Stagecoach (1966)
 * The Blue Max (1966)
 * Seconds (1966)
 * The Sand Pebbles (1966)
 * Warning Shot (1967)
 * In Like Flint (1967)
 * The Flim-Flam Man (1967)
 * Hour of the Gun (1967)
 * Sebastian (1968)
 * Planet of the Apes (1968)
 * The Detective (1968)
 * Bandolero! (1968)
 * Room 222 (TV series: theme and 2 episodes, 1969)
 * 100 Rifles (1969)
 * The Illustrated Man (1969)
 * The Chairman (1969)
 * Justine (1969)

1970s

 * Patton (1970)
 * The Ballad of Cable Hogue (1970)
 * Prudence and the Chief (TV film, 1970)
 * The Brotherhood of the Bell (TV film, 1970)
 * Tora! Tora! Tora! (1970)
 * The Traveling Executioner (1970)
 * Rio Lobo (1970)
 * A Step Out of Line (TV movie, 1971)
 * The Mephisto Waltz (1971)
 * Escape from the Planet of the Apes (1971)
 * Wild Rovers (1971)
 * The Last Run (1971)
 * Do Not Fold, Spindle, or Mutilate (TV film, 1971)
 * Crosscurrent (1971) (TV movie)
 * The Homecoming: A Christmas Story (TV film, 1971, basis for The Waltons)
 * Lights Out (TV film, 1972)
 * Crawlspace (TV film, 1972)
 * The Culpepper Cattle Co. (stock music only, 1972)
 * The Other (1972)
 * The Man (1972)
 * Anna and the King (TV series theme and pilot score, 1972)
 * Pursuit (TV film, 1972)
 * The Waltons (TV series theme and several season 1 episodes, 1972)
 * Barnaby Jones (TV series theme and pilot score, 1973)
 * Shamus (1973)
 * Hawkins (TV movie and series theme, 1973)
 * The Red Pony (TV film, 1973)
 * Ace Eli and Rodger of the Skies (1973)
 * The Going Up of David Lev (TV film, 1973)
 * One Little Indian (1973)
 * The Don Is Dead (1973)
 * Papillon (1973)
 * Indict and Convict (TV film, 1974)
 * Police Story (TV theme and pilot score, 1974)
 * A Tree Grows in Brooklyn (TV film, 1974)
 * Winter Kill (TV film, 1974)
 * QB VII (1974) (miniseries)
 * Chinatown (1974)
 * S*P*Y*S (1974)
 * Ransom (1975)
 * Archer (1975, TV series theme and pilot score)
 * Breakout (1975)
 * The Reincarnation of Peter Proud (1975)
 * The Wind and the Lion (1975)
 * A Girl Named Sooner (TV film, 1975)
 * Adams of Eagle Lake (TV series theme, 1975)
 * Medical Story (1975, TV series theme)
 * Take a Hard Ride (1975)
 * Babe (TV film, 1975)
 * Breakheart Pass (1975)
 * The Hemingway Play (TV film, 1976)
 * The Last Hard Men (stock music only, 1976)
 * Logan's Run (1976)
 * The Omen (1976)
 * High Velocity (1976)
 * The Cassandra Crossing (1976)
 * Twilight's Last Gleaming (1977)
 * Islands in the Stream (1977)
 * MacArthur (1977)
 * Capricorn One (1977)
 * Damnation Alley (1977)
 * Contract on Cherry Street (TV film, 1977)
 * Coma (1978)
 * Damien - Omen II (1978)
 * The Swarm (1978)
 * The Boys from Brazil (1978)
 * Magic (1978)
 * The Great Train Robbery (1978)
 * Alien (1979)
 * Players (1979)
 * Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979)

1980s

 * Caboblanco (1980)
 * The Salamander (1981)
 * Omen III: The Final Conflict (1981)
 * Masada (TV miniseries, first half only, 1981)
 * Inchon (1981)
 * Outland (1981)
 * Raggedy Man (1981)
 * Night Crossing (1982)
 * Poltergeist (1982)
 * The Secret of NIMH (1982)
 * The Challenge (1982)
 * First Blood (1982)
 * Psycho II (1983)
 * Twilight Zone: The Movie (1983)
 * Under Fire (1983)
 * The Lonely Guy (1984)
 * Gremlins (1984)
 * Supergirl (1984)
 * Runaway (1984)
 * Baby: Secret of the Lost Legend (1985)
 * Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985)
 * Explorers (1985)
 * Legend (1985, European version)
 * King Solomon's Mines (1985)
 * Link (1986)
 * Amazing Stories (1986, TV series: episode "Boo!")
 * Poltergeist II: The Other Side (1986)
 * Hoosiers (1986)
 * Star Trek: The Next Generation (theme only, re-arranged by Dennis McCarthy, 1987)
 * Extreme Prejudice (1987)
 * Innerspace (1987)
 * Lionheart (1987)
 * Rent-a-Cop (1987)
 * Rambo III (1988)
 * Criminal Law (1988)
 * Alien Nation (rejected, 1988)
 * The 'Burbs (1989)
 * Leviathan (1989)
 * Warlock (1989)
 * Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989)

1990s

 * Total Recall (1990)
 * Gremlins 2: The New Batch (1990)
 * The Russia House (1990)
 * H.E.L.P. (1991, TV series theme)
 * Not Without My Daughter (1991)
 * Sleeping with the Enemy (1991)
 * Mom and Dad Save the World (1992)
 * Medicine Man (1992)
 * Basic Instinct (1992)
 * Forever Young (1992)
 * Mr. Baseball (1992)
 * Gladiator (rejected, 1992)
 * The Public Eye (rejected, 1992)
 * Hollister (TV film theme, 1992)
 * Love Field (1992)
 * The Vanishing (1993)
 * Dennis the Menace (1993)
 * Rudy (1993)
 * Six Degrees of Separation (1993)
 * Malice (1993)
 * Matinee (1993)
 * Angie (1994)
 * Bad Girls (1994)
 * The Shadow (1994)
 * The River Wild (1994)
 * I.Q. (1994)
 * Congo (1995)
 * First Knight (1995)
 * Star Trek: Voyager (TV series theme, 1995)
 * Powder (1995)
 * Babe (rejected, 1995)
 * City Hall (1996)
 * Executive Decision (1996)
 * 2 Days in the Valley (rejected, 1996)
 * Chain Reaction (1996)
 * Star Trek: First Contact (1996, additional music by Joel Goldsmith)
 * The Ghost and the Darkness (1996)
 * Fierce Creatures (1997)
 * Air Force One (1997, additional music by Joel McNeely)
 * L.A. Confidential (1997)
 * The Edge (1997)
 * Deep Rising (1998)
 * U.S. Marshals (1998)
 * Small Soldiers (1998)
 * Mulan (1998)
 * Star Trek: Insurrection (1998)
 * The Mummy (1999)
 * The Haunting (1999)
 * The 13th Warrior (1999)

2000s

 * Hollow Man (2000)
 * Soarin' Over California (simulator ride, 2001)
 * Along Came a Spider (2001)
 * The Last Castle (2001)
 * The Sum of All Fears (2002)
 * Star Trek: Nemesis (2002)
 * Looney Tunes: Back in Action (2003)
 * Timeline (replaced by Brian Tyler when film re-edited and Goldsmith too sick to continue, 2003)
 * The Kennedy Center Honors (song 2003)

Movie Studio Fanfares

 * Paramount Pictures (1979-2005)
 * Universal Pictures (1997-2012)
 * Carolco Pictures (1987-2017)
 * Warner Bros. Pictures (1988)

title: Jerry Goldsmith


text:
Kinai

Kinai (畿内) is a Japanese term denoting an ancient division of the country. Kinai is a name for the ancient provinces around the capital Nara and Heian-kyō. The five provinces were called go-kinai after 1760.

The name is still used to describe part of the Kansai region, but the area of the Kinai corresponds only generally to the land of the old provinces.

The region was established as one of the Gokishichidō ("Five provinces and seven roads") during the Asuka period (538-710). It consisted of Yamashiro, Yamato, Settsu, Kawachi, and Izumi provinces.

title: Kinai


text:
Ferenc Deák (politician)

Ferenc Deák de Kehida (archaically English: Francis Deak, Franjo Deák; 17 October 1803 – 28 January 1876) was a Hungarian statesman and Minister of Justice. He was known as "The Wise Man of the Nation" and one of the greatest figures of Hungary's liberal movement.

He was an instrumental contributor to a number of major events in Hungarian history, including passing and support of the April laws, the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 and the Hungarian Nationalities Law (1868). While generally supporting reformist policies, he was well recognized for finding and negotiating reasonable middle ground compromises between various extremist political factions throughout his career.

Early life and law career
Born in Söjtör in the county of Zala, in southwestern Hungary, Deák belonged to an ancient noble family. His father was Ferenc Deák de Kehida (1761–1808), jurist, landowner, chief magistrate of the district (főszolgabíró) of Kapornak. His mother was the noble lady Erzsébet Sibrik de Szarvaskend et Óvár (1768–1803). He studied law, and became successively an advocate and notary.

His reputation was quickly established, and he first went into politics in 1833 when he attended the assembly of Pressburg (now Bratislava) as a replacement for his older brother Antal Deák de Kehida (1789–1842), beginning his career that would make him one of the most important personalities in the Hungarian politics and reforms of the 1840s. His name became known as a result of his involvement in the suit of Miklós Wesselényi and his success in declaring the Hungarian Assembly's right to create laws.

Early activism
In 1836, Deák wrote and distributed a document about the causes that he supported without the permission of the censors; while it was confiscated, it was already widespread and made his name familiar in important circles. During the Diet of 1839–1840 Deák succeeded in bringing about an understanding between a reactionary government, then in want of money, and a Liberal opposition determined that the nation should have its political privileges respected. He was involved in the creation of the laws of that Diet, and became honorary member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. After the death of his brother in 1842, he liberated his serfs and voluntarily chose to pay taxes to show that he was sincere about his reforms. The abolition of the exemption of the nobles from all taxation in the Kingdom of Hungary and the liberation of serfs were some of the most important endeavours of the Reformist movement of the era. However, he refused to attend the Diet of 1843–44, supposedly due to strife surrounding his election.

Political career
In 1846, after the bloody end of the Polish uprising in Galicia the reformers gained popularity and they released the "Ellenzéki nyilatkozat" (Manifesto of Opposition) under the name of Deák, while it was in fact created by Kossuth. During the Hungarian Revolution of 1848 against the Austrian Empire, Deák stayed calm and opposed violence as a political tool. In 1848 he accepted a position as Minister of Justice in the Batthyány Government, mostly to show his support of Lajos Batthyány.

Once part of the revolutionary government, Deák continued to urge moderation and made several trips to the court in Vienna, seeking a compromise between the Habsburg monarchy and Kossuth's Extremist Liberals. When his efforts failed, he resigned his ministerial post, but remained a Member of Parliament, defending the constitutional legitimacy of the April laws. He retired to his estate at Kehida before the end of the War of Independence, and took no further active part in events surrounding the revolution. An Austrian court martial acquitted him after Hungary's defeat.

Deák spent most of the 1850s in semi-retirement, tacitly supporting various national causes without engaging in active politics. He, however, refused to assume any public role, office or position, thus becoming an emblem of the so-called passive resistance. He sold his estate to István Széchenyi, and moved to Buda to become the de facto leader of Hungarian public life. He steered a middle course between advocates of a second anti-Habsburg uprising aligned with Kossuth, and pro-Austrian collaborationists. The crisis attending the Second Italian War of Independence in 1859, with strong Hungarian popular support for the Italian cause, returned him to active political life, although he opposed the initial Austrian reform proposals of 1860. In 1861, he became the leader of the group calling for a petition to the Austrian crown, throwing the onus for a settlement onto the Habsburg court. In response to his prompting, Franz Joseph I dismissed his current administration and called for a new parliament to negotiate the settlement. Deák led the committee tasked with drafting a formula, working alongside Kálmán Tisza and other prominent contemporary politicians. The Austro-Prussian War of 1866 came just as they had completed their work, but Deák resisted extremist pressure to reopen the issue.

Gradually, Deák moderated his views on Hungary's independence. Although he maintained that the April Laws were fully valid, he began taking the line that foreign affairs, defence and finance were "common" to both Austria and Hungary under the Pragmatic Sanction of 1713. He believed that a constitutional arrangement could be worked out to incorporate these ideas while still respecting Hungary's internal independence. He supported the "Compromise" (Ausgleich or Kiegyezés) of 1867, which incorporated these ideas, with all his strength, leading the delegation that signed the actual accord. Although he was the obvious choice as the first prime minister of the Hungarian half of the newly formed Austria-Hungary, he stood down in favour of Gyula Andrássy. After 1867 his health was weakened by continuous work and the attacks on him by disappointed radical patriots used up most of his strength. His reformist ideas were often rejected by Parliament.

He died on 28 January 1876 and was buried with great pomp. Parliament created a law to remember his excellent service and ordered that a statue be created from national donations. Today one of the central squares of Budapest, Deák Ferenc Square is named after him, which is where three of the four lines of the Budapest Metro come together.

Legacy

 * Deák Ferenc Bilingual High School was named after him.
 * Deák Ferenc tér, a major transit hub in Budapest, and the adjacent metro station also named after him.
 * He is portrayed on the 20,000 forint bank note (the highest denomination Hungarian currency note).
 * Hungarian Post Office issued a postage stamp on 1 July 1932.
 * He was often referred to as 'The wise man of the homeland'.
 * Deak features prominently in the 1904 book THE RESURRECTION OF HUNGARY by the Irish nationalist Arthur Griffith, who argued that Deak's policy of non-recognition of the post-1848 Austrian administration in Hungary could be imitated by Irish nationalists to achieve self-rule within a British-Irish dual monarchy.

title: Ferenc Deák (politician)