Talk:Science/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

The relation between logic and scientific thinking and experimenting

Also, we could really use a section on logic as a formal science. Logic is on the graph in the lede (with math). But in the article there is no explicit comment on the relation between (say) logic and organization of knowledge, logic and prediction and hypothesis-formation, logic and experimentation, or logic and explanation. Examples

1. Logic and organization. Biological taxonomies are nested categories, the relations between which follow a categorical syllogistic form: "All members of the class arachaida are members of the phylum anthropoda. All spiders are members of the class arachnada. Therefore, all spiders are members of the phylum anthropoda."

2. Logic and hypothesizing. Hypotheses conform to conditional syllogistic form. "If x is true, then y probably follows. X is true. So let's go see if y follows."

3. Logic and experimentation. Hypothesis disconfirmation or confirmation conforms to hypothetical or conditional form as well: "If x were try, then y would be true. But y is false (according to the experiment conducted). Therefore x is false."

4. Logic and explanation. Explanations conform to the form of abductive reasoning. "If x is true, then it would explain how y is true. And indeed y is true. So perhaps x explains it." Explanations are always inductive, but they are essential and indispensable parts of scientific reasoning (for instance, cosmology, archeology, anthropology, physics, evolutionary biology, etc.)

Empirical and experimental scientific methods cannot achieve reliable results if they are built on models that contain formal fallacies. Anyone know good sources on this in philosophy of science or science textbooks? Thanks, CircularReason (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure formal logic plays much of a role at all in natural science. People try to make reasonable arguments okay but I wouldn't bet that the first scientist on the street I meet knows what even modus ponens is. Dmcq (talk) 17:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not talking about formal logic but classical (Aristotelian) syllogistic logic -- in other words, with logical thought in natural language. Also, knowing the (Latin) phrase "modus ponens" is neither necessary for sufficient for being able to recognize a valid conditional syllogism like "If it is material then it is atomic or composed of atoms. It is material. Therefore it is atomic or composed of atoms." CircularReason (talk) 14:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Following up, here is a one-liner on logic: the sequent is a handy symbolic form ( for a reasoning process called natural deduction), and ramsification allows you to create sentences, even about abstract ideas so that you can reason verbally. You can then test these ideas by the hypothetico-deductive method. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 02:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Why did you write that? Dmcq (talk) 14:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

The topics are exemplars for scholarship and study. Herbert Simon wrote that he had a naturally orderly mind. The study of logic and scholarship in general bespeaks the use of tools like logic, which falls quite naturally to some people. To paraphrase Richard Feynman, "Education works best for those who need it least". In other words, some people don't need to study logic. Their minds are structured that way. Frank P. Ramsey, Gerhard Gentzen, and their like seem to self-select. Isaac Newton neglected Euclid for that reason: 'the theorems were obvious'. But everyone is different and YMMV (your mileage may vary). --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 15:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't follow, were you thinking of putting that into the article and if so where, or what is your point? Dmcq (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

There are any number of subtopics which could be added, but it should be by consensus. Usually a point to be made will excite some resonance in the readership of the encyclopedia, from which a consensus emerges on the talk page. For example, Imre Lakatos' point that new knowledge was a requirement of his research programme, answers the potential charge of confirmation bias, because that new knowledge was unexpected, not just the action from a random variable in some scientific model. Note that the ability to state that some finding is new knowledge is a critical skill, an ability which shows the skill and judgement of the observers in that scientific community. This is a requirement to even qualify for membership. You can't expect a science journalist (in an unfamiliar field), for example, or a layman, to be able to tell what is unexpected in some finding. In fact, confirmation bias at the lay level ought to be a red flag to a member of the scientific community, to exercise caution. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 17:08, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

You seem to have ignored my query even though it was quite short. Are you just brainstorming with yourself on the talk page and that's why you don't have any particular problem or proposal to discuss? Dmcq (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe I answered you. What level of detail do you need? Do you need definitions, citations, links, or other motivations or specifics? I try not to repeat the obvious.

1. "I'm not sure formal logic..." Is this a comment, or is this citeable information? Notice that my contributions are all content and citable.
2. "Why did you write that?" If a comment is on point, 'why?' is another level of question. What context do you need?
3. "...were you thinking of ...?" Answered
4. "Are you just brainstorming..." No, I answered, but there was a disconnect, apparently.

I am working on a project, but if you need more, I can take the time, until this thread is comfortable for you. For years, I stayed away from this page, and if this is what you need, please say so. Atmospherics are not what we all need on the page. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 19:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

It is clear I am not going to get anything that I can see as some explanation so I'll just let you go on with your ruminations. I'll come back when I see some actual change to the article to look at. I don't see anything in what you wrote that I think would be a good addition. Dmcq (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Demarcation problem

This article could use (a) a section on the demarcation problem and (b) some reference to non-empirical sciences or borderline sciences.

For instance, the lede says "It [the term 'science'] is also often restricted to those branches of study that seek to explain the phenomena of the material universe."

But it could be:

"It is also often but not always restricted to those branches of study that seek to explain the phenomena of the material universe. For example, formal science includes computer science, game theory, and certain branches of linguistics."

CircularReason (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Now you are forcing me to look this up: Imre Lakatos' work suggested that scientific method was the proper approach to solving the demarcation problem. Among other results, his approach suggested that evolutionary theory Darwinism fails on this count (not a science -- it's in his article). BUT I didn't pursue this, and don't even remember where I read that he suggested that method demarcated science. I will start with Brendan Larvor (1998) Lakatos: An Introduction. A far more important point, to me, at least, is that when NEW (i.e., previously unknown and unsuspected) knowledge can be replicated, this solves the criticism about confirmation bias. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 22:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

You can see where Feyerabend goes off the track. What Feyerabend was missing was the expertise in a science which allowed him (Feyerabend) to know, intimately, what was known and what was unknown at any given time in some branch of scientific knowledge at that moment. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 22:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh contraire, Feyeraband was more well-versed in science than you or me. See the [Encyclopedia] article on him. While I do not agree with him that Reason and Science are ultimately relativistic, his critiques of the kind of scientistic philosophy that is not actually scientific are on point. CircularReason (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Here it is: Lakatos (1978) vol I, p.34 "A given fact is explained scientifically only if a new fact is predicted with it" The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes

Lakatos' critique of Darwinism doesn't seem compelling to me because the mechanism of evolution is explained completely by the DNA story.

But it seems to me that computer science and other mathematical topics are not just formal topics: Lakatos uses Poincare's rewriting the Euler characteristic as one of his examples of how informal mathematics is formalized in his Conjectures and refutations. In other words, they are as experimental and exploratory as natural science. Thus, the added sentence could also be:

"It is also often but not always restricted to those branches of study that seek to explain the phenomena of the material universe, and also includes computer science, game theory, and certain branches of linguistics."

O.K.? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 11:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Adding it in. CircularReason (talk) 14:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Well maths and computer science and suchlike are often called the formal sciences, that's a sort of way of saying they aren't part of the normal sciences but they aren't not part of science either. Whether a university awards an arts or a science degree in maths seems to be purely random. Dmcq (talk) 11:55, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Social science is also often in a similar position. There is a lot of it which follows the scientific method - but there is also a lot which could better be called part of the humanities with talk of fairnness and suchlike. I think the article has it right splitting into natural science, formal science and social science. Dmcq (talk) 12:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Ancheta and all. The problem with Lakatos suggestion is that the demarcation problem is iterative. It applies to the scientific method itself. The only way to solve a problem about the definition of 'science' by appeal to 'science' is circular reasoning, or begging the question. (What makes science scientific? It's scientific!) The demarcation problem, as I understand it, is this: what distinguishes non-scientific methods (common sense? intuition? abstract logical reasoning?) from scientific methods (experimentation, explanation) is the same thing that distinguishes non-sciences (common sense? phenomenology? platonism?) from sciences (physics, archeology). In other words, Lakatos assumes there is one scientific method that covers everything from comparative anatomy to computational science but excludes (say) metaphysics and Freudian psychology. Feyerabend argues, no such single method is articulable -- because no such single method exists. There are fundamentally a family of methods. That is not to say that there is no such thing as sciences or accurate scientific methods -- because clearly there are. It is just that they are not theoretically unified by a single criterion; each has to prove its own results in its own field. Cosmologists prove their results in one way, mathematicians in another, evolutionary biologists still another, and medical researchers a fourth. This is John Dupre's position today, and I find it persuasive. CircularReason (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is much of a problem. For the formal science there isn't something like Pythagoras's theorem possibly being found to be slightly wrong by later tests. In the social sciences there is a lot of value judgments which have no place is most of the rest of science. Dmcq (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, Dmcq. Are you saying social sciences aren't sciences because of the presence of some (or more) value judgments? CircularReason (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying they're not sciences, I'm saying they are different from the formal sciences and the natural sciences. If one says natural science is the only true science then yes much of social science isn't a science. Dmcq (talk) 17:33, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I have looked at Philosophy of science, Scientific method and Branches of science which are the main articles for subtopics here and deal with the various fields of science. The philosophy of science article references the demarcation problem under its definition of science. I think we should be summarizing what that article says rather than doing something different here. Dmcq (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Overall I'm in favor of changing the lead as outlined at the start of this discussion but I would just give the main divisions as said in the lead of Branches of science and not mention demarcation in the lead of this article. The emphasis on studying the natural world without mentioning formal science or social science except as other things gives undue weight. Dictionaries tend not to be the best sources on things like that. Dmcq (talk) 23:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay I've changed the lead to say a bit about the branches of science. It formerly seemed to be trying to say that only natural science was 'real' science. Dmcq (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey by Neil deGrasse Tyson

In the documentary Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey by Neil deGrasse Tyson in the 5th episode or Hiding in the Light from 13:30s to 13:50s Mr. Tyson says, "Alhazen discovered how images formed by light but that was far from his greatest achievement. Ibn al-Haytham was the first person ever to set down the rules of science. He created a error correcting mechanism, a systematic and relentless way to sift out misconceptions."

Video can be found on Daily Motion: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2idg47

This show was originally broadcasted simultaneously in the United States across ten 21st Century Fox networks. Also in Canada, the show was broadcast simultaneously on Global, National Geographic Channel and Nat Geo Wild.

The lead skips the Middle Ages and jumps from the classical antiquity to the early modern period. So I think we should add a line in the lead between the classical antiquity line and the early modern period line regarding Alhazen important contribution during the Middle Ages. Here is the list of some of the well known historians of sciences and scientists who agrees with the idea that Ibn al-Haytham was the first person ever to set down the rules of science are Neil deGrasse Tyson, Nader El-Bizri, Kenan Malik, Nomanul Haq, A. I. Sabra and Jim Al-Khalili. Johnzsmith (talk) 04:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Possibly. But maybe the reason we have not got this yet is simply because it is difficult to explain the medieval path to modernity in a few neutral sentences, which is the style of ledes. It is a tricky subject. Do you have any ideas?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

2015 is 'The Year of Light' (United Nations). That's why we are seeing all the programs on Alhacen, due to his 'iconic stature', as A. Mark Smith puts it (Smith 2001 p.cxii). Albert Mark Smith has spent the past 40 years in history of science, much of it documenting Ibn al-Haytham (Alhacen)'s contribution: see Talk p. archives) 'Smith 2001: p.lii "Alhacen's account of visual perception is exceptionally cautious and considered ... He guides the reader along by the shortest of leashes... forcing him to follow ... the exemplary landmarks ... in the way of illustrative examples, many of them experimentally based." via JSTOR'

H. Floris Cohen (2010) How Modern Science Came Into The World p.59: "Ibn al-Haytham’s synthesis of light and vision, together with the work of his contemporary al-Biruni, formed the high point of mathematical science in Islamic civilization."

In medieval Europe, Alhacen's iconic stature was a given. It took Kepler and the scientific revolution to eclipse the medieval viewpoint. Perhaps Alhacen's fate, like Aristotle's, can be viewed as a cautionary tale for any scientist, that the content of his science was to be overturned, leaving only his lasting effect on method. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 09:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

So we could say something as simple as: During the middle ages in the Middle East Alhazen laid the foundations for the scientific method. Johnzsmith (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Support Makes sense. Jjkajaja (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC) (Note: Jjkajaja and Johnzsmith are sockpuppets of Eulalefty.--Peaceworld 21:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2015

<--i need this information for ASL for CBSE-->

14.98.253.179 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

•  Not done. Empty/meaningless request. Deli nk (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Why rehash History of science

This edit requests a rehash ofHistory of science for this page. Yet the link to history of science is prominent already. We have already covered the requested material there. Why has no one else brought up this well-known fact? I will wait a week before acting, if no one else beats me to it. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 12:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

see the links just added in the article. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

My plan is to restore the article without the rehash, as the material is covered elsewhere. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 07:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I found a citation, Edward Grant, The American Scholar, Vol. 66, No. 1 (Winter 1997), pp. 105-113 JSTOR for the article as it stood before the rehash. There is no need to cite the global links already covered in history of science: Edward Grant (1997) "When did modern science begin?" The American Scholar pp.105-113, suffices. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 15:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I plan to restore the history section as it stood before the rehash. I will wait a week for other editors to respond. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 15:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Implemented. Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 10:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

History of science section

Is the {{Expand French|date=July 2015}} template really needed in the history section? I am sure that every Wikipedia article can be expanded from every other Wikipedia of other languages. 203.173.186.163 (talk) 23:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, WP:SOFIXIT, we are a work in progress and the section can be expanded from the French. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 23:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 08:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Meaning of consilience

In Science#The scientific method, the interpretation of consilience - "fitting well with other accepted facts related to the phenomena", does not seem consistent with the definition that Wilson provides on pages 8-9 of his book, where the emphasis is on a common groundwork of explanation across disciplines and consistency of different classes of facts. Also, the "generally expected" part should be supported by a source by someone other than the guy who popularized the term. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't claim to know much about the topic, but surely we're quoting E. O. Wilson on consilience, a term popularised rather earlier by William Whewell. Not sure if they meant the same by the term. . . dave souza, talk 19:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

My point is that we are not quoting Wilson (or Whewell); the definition in this section is not supported by the source. RockMagnetist(talk) 19:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Rather than tagging as 'dubious' right off the bat, how about a tag requesting a page number or a citation for a review of Wilson's Consilience. I'll search JSTOR right now. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 20:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I found a page number in the same book that has a differing interpretation, so the dubious tag is merited; in fact, the stronger disputed tag would probably be the correct choice. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

"The goal of consilience is to achieve progressive unification of all strands of knowledge in service to the indefinite betterment of the human condition. " Charles Gillispie, May-June 1998 "E. O. Wilson's Consilience: A Noble, Unifying Vision, Grandly Expressed". In that vein, the Unification dab page expresses some mathematical descriptions for consilience. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 20:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds more like a program proposed by Wilson than a general practice in science. For clarity, here is the entire sentence in question, complete with bad grammar: "An explanatory thought experiment or hypothesis is put forward, as explanation, using principles such as parsimony (also known as "Occam's Razor") and are generally expected to seek consilience—fitting well with other accepted facts related to the phenomena." I don't think the citation supports it. RockMagnetist(talk) 22:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

But if an explanation (hypothesis) has a logical hole (an exception), it will fail the test of repeatability. All a debunker of that explanation has to do is invent tests which cause the hypothesis to fail. Consilience, in that case, would only be a useful criterion for accepted, well-tested explanations, and not for front-line research with lots of disputation. Do you want to strike the sentence? That would be OK with me. I agree that a poorly constructed explanation deserves to be discarded.

For what it's worth James Watson and E.O. Wilson did not get along. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 22:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Assumption

In the definition of science, it says the knowledge put in the form of explanation and prediction, etc. What about assumptions? I don't think they are explanations or predictions. What about terms? They are used to refer to things not explaining them or making predictions. For example, "this is a spider-XYZ10. It has eight legs...". I don't think this statement (scientific knowledge) is an explanation nor is it a prediction.

Angelababy00 (talk) 02:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Epicurus#Prefiguring science and ethics cut past these difficulties by insisting that basic knowledge be founded in obvious (present before our eyes) things, without recourse to hidden things.

See definition, especially operational definition

But once a community arises, it (see Ludwik_Fleck#Thought collectives) will enjoy common definition (and assumptions) --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 05:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Engineering as Applied Science

I don't think engineering is applied science. Engineering is about getting the highest performance or utility when solving a problem. Applied science is about applying scientific knowledge to solve a problem. They have overlap but they are different things. For example, in engineering, you optimize the performance of a car by solving some optimization mathematical problem that may not involve scientific knowledge. And, engineering relies on rules of thumbs to make decisions where no scientific knowledge is used. So, I don't consider engineering is applied science. I have no objection to medicine being an applied science.

Angelababy00 (talk) 10:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Medieval science again

We have another attempt to edit war the same sentence on medieval science into the lead. Previous context is here, where there was a consensus against it. (The editor supporting it eventually stopped after being blocked at EWN, though there was apparent sockpuppetry afterwards, and a parallel to previous sockpuppetry was also noted.) Sunrise (talk) 05:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I reverted it. Twitteristhebest (talk) 02:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Twitteristhebest. Sunrise (talk) 03:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

A common interest

@Ramos1990, I am replying to your most recent edit: It seems to me that you are clarifying the difference between the subjects and the objects of science.

A scientific community, with a common interest in a scientific subject, will naturally discuss its common objects of study. Thus "Argeiphontes gave me the herb, drawing it from the ground, and showed me its nature." -- (Homer, Odyssey). When Aristotle, a superb naturalist, gave us insights which stand today, his subject was natural history, and his object of study was 'nature'. And we, as his students, draw inspiration from his objects of study today, for example Aristotle's octopi in the lagoon at Lesbos, which by themselves are only details in the panorama of science.

But Nature is a term from Ancient Greek which enjoys the exact same meaning today in English as it did then during the Hellenist civilization. And 'nature' serves as a common interest for those of us with an interest in science.

So I think that the editor who gave us the link to Earth in the former hatnote version is User:Isambard Kingdom, a scientist who was sharing an interest in Earth as an object of study, during his edits of the article, with us, his readers. Perhaps Earth, as inspiration, was in the hatnote for that reason, not necessarily Earth as subject of this article. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 11:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ancheta Wis, yes you are correct. I was clarifying the object of science and the subject of science. Since the section was about the history of the object of science, and not the history of any of the subjects of science themselves (earth or life), I thought it correct to remove the wiki links. The sciences of course expand beyond earth history and life history (chemistry, physics, medicine, etc are not really focusing on history of these issues, though one can certainly make them overlap in a few instances) so it does not make sense to limit the sciences to those 2 subjects. This was my thinking. What do your think?Mayan1990 (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Ancheta and Ramos, I edited the Science article maybe a year ago. It was early on in my Wiki career, when I was idealistic and lacking a panoramic appreciation of numerous issues. At the time, I contemplated contributing to a substantial rewrite of this article. Now, I am content making more incremental contributions to other articles, hopefully in a positive direction. I'm not quite following what is being discussed, here, but it seems it partly relates to specific links to "Earth", which I may have inserted, but which I now agree are not really necessary. Discussion of the "subject" of science versus the "object" of science reminds me, however, of how I once envisioned rewriting this article, something along the lines of (1) What is science? (2) How is science pursued? (3) How is science organized (into various disciplines)? (4) What is the motivation of science? (5) How is science supported? (6) What are some modern day issues? This list is not exhaustive, and I'm sure editors, here, might add to it. I guess I thought reorganization along these (or other) lines would give this article a distinction from other related articles, such as those about the history of science (which is, itself, another interesting subject). Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I made some changes to the recent edits based on chapter 1 of the Cahan source. A few of the issues addressed: the source doesn't refer to science as a whole, only to specific disciplines; no causal connection is made (can't use "due to"); "specialization" refers to terminology, not to scientists; the "scientific community" is a single entity distinguished from "communities" in general; etc. That said, I'm happy to be proven wrong if the book does support this and I missed it. Sunrise (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the inputs Isambard Kingdom and Sunrise. To Isambard, I think we are in agreement in relation to the links for earth history and life history.

To Sunrise, I like your wording. I accidentally deleted the line about the scientific method but you restored it. Thanks for that since this is true per William Whewell's influence on this. But just wanted to mention that Cahan's book does address science as a whole and each chapter focuses on different aspects of it (disciplines, communities, advances, practices, etc). Actually p.4 from Ch.1 has a nice quote of what I was intending to summarize -"As the contributors to this volume articulate in some detail, it was in the nineteenth century that the modern disciplines of chemistry, physics, mathematics, biology, and the earth sciences, as well as the social sciences, assumed their more or less contemporary form and simultaneously reshaped the institutional landscape of science. New terms like "biology" and "physics," and "biologist" and "physicist," were created to describe the new disciplines and their practitioners, just as the more general term "scientist" was created to reflect a new general social category. Longstanding designations like "mathematician," "astronomer," and "chemist" now took on new, more narrowly defined meanings. Certainly by the final third of the nineteenth century, one could speak legitimately, that is, in a modern sense, of "science," "scientists," and the disciplines of science. These new labels and categories reflected the fact that science had both delimited itself more fully from philosophy, theology, and other types of traditional learning and culture and differentiated itself internally into increasingly specialized regions of knowledge. At the same time, new institutions, such as specialized societies and institutes, were created, and the notion of a "scientific community" appeared. Moreover, interactions between and among the sciences and other aspects of culture, the economy, the state, and society in general became more significant. In many minds "the nineteenth century" and "science" became synonymous with "progress." I am not sure if what you said about "specialization" referring to terminology and not to scientists makes sense. When new titles or more narrow understanding of titles emerge, this usually means that the practitioners are distinguishing themselves, their disciplines and their research areas from others (going from generalists to specialists). Hope this helps. Mayan1990 (talk) 10:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mayan1990,@Arc,@Isambard Kingdom, and all editors: I moved the table of practical impacts of science to the section on scientific practice. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Ramos1990: I completely agree that the book addresses science as a whole. My reading of that quote, though, is that it's more specific than the original wording in the article. We have "the modern disciplines of chemistry, physics, [etc]...reshaped the institutional landscape of science" which is not quite the same as saying that the concept of science itself reached its modern shape. For specialization, going by this same paragraph, I don't see support for saying that scientists became more specialized during this time period. The closest I see is "Longstanding designations like "mathematician," "astronomer," and "chemist" now took on new, more narrowly defined meanings," so that's what I was referring to in my previous comment. I agree that specialization is a trend in the history of science and that new terminology often implies specialization, but this particular quote doesn't seem to take a position either way.

@Ancheta Wis: Good idea - it didn't fit as well in the history section. Perhaps "The scientific method" and "Mathematics and formal sciences" should also be moved. It would probably be best to have the Scientific practice section early in the article since it contains more of what I imagine readers are more likely to be searching for. Sunrise (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sunrise. I think you missed the remaining part of the quote which notes science reached it modern shape in the 19th century: "'Certainly by the final third of the nineteenth century, one could speak legitimately, that is, in a modern sense, of "science," "scientists," and the disciplines of science. These new labels and categories reflected the fact that science had both delimited itself more fully from philosophy, theology, and other types of traditional learning and culture and differentiated itself internally into increasingly specialized regions of knowledge. At the same time, new institutions, such as specialized societies and institutes, were created, and the notion of a "scientific community" appeared." Of course the other chapters of the book flesh out the increase in specialization in each field (and thus science as a whole) and also the increased association of science with the Baconian method of induction (which we now call the "scientific method") thanks in part to William Whewell who coined the term "scientist" in 1834. His works in the 19th century in particular laid out much of the foundations of current science including terms such as "physicist", "biologist" and many technical terms used today in scientific fields. His work called "The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences, Founded Upon Their History" (1840) is particularly interesting since it details so many dimensions of what we think of science today. Mayan1990 (talk) 07:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, good point. I missed "in a modern sense," which makes it a bit more ambiguous. Then again, the quotation marks and the phrase "These new labels and categories" imply that this is primarily about the labels. I think it's consistent with the source to read this as saying it was the modern use of this terminology that arose during this time period. If other parts of the book support either version, please feel free to edit (preferably with page numbers in the citations so they can be verified). Same for anything else you'd like to add. :-) Sunrise (talk) 00:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Better selection of images

It's pretty appalling when scrolling through this that science seems to be entirely practiced by white males. Does anyone have ideas for improvement?

How about May-Britt Moser, & Edvard Moser the husband & wife Nobel laureates for Brain's GPS

Vera Rubin found evidence of a gravitational anomaly, currently explained by dark matter.

File:Chien-shiung_Wu_(1912-1997).jpg physics experimentalist for conservation of parity.

File:Jane_Addams.jpg, founder of Hull House, a public policy idea

Rosalind Franklin, x-ray crystallographer in the DNA story

Henrietta Leavitt astronomer, provided the analysis for cepheid variable stars, used by Edwin Hubble

Christine Ladd logician, formulated truth table published by Wittgenstein

Emmy Noether mathematician, conservation laws of physics

Jocelyn Bell radio astronomer, found the first 4 pulsars. But her husband's job took precedence over her career.

Comment --Women programmers were in the field from its beginning, see ENIAC.

It's probably worth mentioning that 1976 marked a transition where more women entered scientific fields like physics, to the point where it was no longer remarkable.

Chien-shiung Wu: "If there is anything worse than coming home from the lab to a sink full of dirty dishes, it is not going to the lab at all." This was before automated dishwashers. Her husband and sons didn't help with the housework.

The phenomenon is called social stratification. There are projects which encourage the strengths of diversity. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

non muslim source verifying al hazen as founder of scientific method

hi,

i have an issue with the sources provided for al hazen. is it possible to provide a non-muslim citations that predate 1970 (any time prior to the saudis and americans' engagement aka 'petrodollar').

also: what makes these scholars' words more important than others? surely there have been more reputable (non muslim) authors who have contributed greatly to the scientific method.

i find the overemphasis on alhazen offensive and unacceptable. the khalili cult needs to seriously re-evaluate its life goals.

thanks. 174.3.155.181 (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

It was recognized by nineteenth-century German Orientalists, and in the middle ages from 1260 onward. See Alhazen quotation from Treatise on Light (رسالة في الضوء):

"How does light travel through transparent bodies? Light travels through transparent bodies in straight lines only.... We have explained this exhaustively in our Book of Optics. But let us now mention something to prove this convincingly: the fact that light travels in straight lines is clearly observed in the lights which enter into dark rooms through holes.... [T]he entering light will be clearly observable in the dust which fills the air." – Alhazen , translated into English from German by M. Schwarz, from "Abhandlung über das Licht", J. Baarmann (ed. 1882) Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft Vol 36 as quoted by Shmuel Sambursky ed.(1974) From the Pre-Socratics to the Quantum Physicists p.136 .

The A.Mark Smith (2001) translation of Alhazen's De Aspectibus characterizes Alhacen's approach as 'essentially hypothetico-deductive'.

--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 00:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

---

174.92.68.146, It may help for us to be cautious about the claim 'the first person ever ...'; there are many 'firsts' in any discovery or invention. Charles Sanders Peirce characterized the process as "It begins passively enough with ... impression ... . But impression soon passes into attentive observation, observation into musing, musing into a lively give-and-take of communion between self and self. If one's observations and reflections are allowed to specialise themselves too much, the Play will be converted into scientific study;" --Peirce, "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God".

John von Neumann (1956) noted that even after Aristotle's musings, "natural science took 1000 years to get anywhere" Collected Works von Neumann 6 p.101, as cited on Rashid (Jul.,2007) p518 via JSTOR. Thus it might help us to be charitable and sympathetic with the previous scientists, about how long it took other scientists to get past the errors of their predecessors. In the scientific revolution, Johannes Kepler himself detected errors in the Perspectivist theory behind the imaging chain which Alhacen built so laboriously. We credit their work in our encyclopedia for the part they played, of course.

Thus the part that Alhacen played in the 'invention and discovery' of science was

1. to read deeply in the writings of previous scientists like Aristotle, Euclid, Ptolemy, Galen, and the whole set of other scientists who came before him,
2. to use the discipline of mathematical proof in order to judge the truth of a statement,
3. to make mathematical models of the phenomena he was studying,
4. to build repeatable experiments for investigating the phenomena in order to understand the phenomena for himself as well as to convince others,
5. to criticize the findings of the scientists who came before him, and
6. to write about his practices in one grand synthesis, as A.Mark Smith and other historians have put it.

It is pretty clear that Alhazen regarded his work as a search for truth. That singlemindedness likely was his motive, like Newton's habit of 'continually thinking about' his problem until Newton was satisfied with his solution.

Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 19:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

---

In the documentary Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey by Neil deGrasse Tyson where in the 5th episode or Hiding in the Light from 13:30s to 13:50s Mr. Tyson says, "Alhazen discovered how images formed by light but that was far from his greatest achievement. Ibn al-Haytham was the first person ever to set down the rules of science. He created a error correcting mechanism, a systematic and relentless way to sift out misconceptions."

Video can be found on Daily Motion: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2idg47

This show was originally broadcasted simultaneously in the United States across ten 21st Century Fox networks. Also in Canada, the show was broadcast simultaneously on Global, National Geographic Channel and Nat Geo Wild.

Here is the list of some of the well known historians of sciences and scientists who agrees with the idea that Ibn al-Haytham was the first person ever to set down the rules of science are Neil deGrasse Tyson, Kenan Malik and Jim Al-Khalili. 174.92.68.146 (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

---

hi, i do not who posted above me (between the indented reply and this line is another reply), but i specifically said: BEFORE 1970, from a NON-MUSLIM SCHOLAR because of the PETRODOLLAR alliance that was formed around that time.

to user:Ancheta Wis thank you for your thoughtful response. i do understand what you're saying, i just feel that the sources provided for the claim aren't sufficient. they should be non-muslim sources and they should be prior to 1970. i do not know how you can expect the sources to be impartial.

hindus do it as much as muslims: they defend their "own" vigorously and often go to great lengths at distorting history to do so.

a good example is the rash of edits on pages like History of Mathematics where hindus often exaggerate the findings of their 'ancestors' to earlier dates, in order to reinforce their perception that "indians are superior at math because they discovered things about it first".

as you said though, user:Ancheta Wis (and i won't dispute it), that natural science needed 1000 years after Aristotle to advance. while i don't dispute alhazen is deserving of *some* mention for setting up the laborious apparatus (that was wrong), i don't feel the sources & claim he was instrumental to the scientific method was fair.

also to further that point: there's a quote from kepler where he briefly mentioned the laborious nature of what was a simple, but demanding, calculation. many of our heros in the past were inundated with limitations of their era, whether that be the lack of a calculation machine (kepler) or instruments and tools to allay imperfections in scientific apparatus (alhazen). in the case of kepler versus alhazen (not even close, kepler wins), kepler didn't get it wrong. alhazen did. is designing an apparatus harder than a laborious calculation without a calculator? possibly, but i think the answer depends on the person.

still looking for pre 1970, non muslim sources that describe alhazen's contributions to the scientific method in the same manner as the cited muslims are claiming. again. old sources. if i had access to my university account i'd be doing searches on my own, but there'd be too many paywalls for the type of journals i'd need to peruse.

great chat so far guys. thanks 174.3.155.181 (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@174.3.155.181, Again, here is Baarmann's 1882 translation of Alhacen, Treatise on Light (رسالة في الضوء): : J. Baarmann (ed. 1882) "Abhandlung über das Licht", Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft Vol 36 pp208-209, as far as I can read with my rusty German. M. Schwarz is the English translator (translation already given above) of Baarmann's 1882 German. Baarman provides Alhazen's 11th century Arabic below his German translation. Alhazen's work reads like modern science. That is to say, Alhazen makes no claim of absolute certainty, only his admission of fallibility. Alhazen displays careful, exhaustively precise writing to make his case by minimizing the sources of error to the best of his ability. The Latin translation dates to about 1260. I hope you can read Baarmann (1882). You will need to navigate the German pages by clicking the navigation arrows past page 195 to pages 208 and 209. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 01:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

hi user:Ancheta Wis, thank you for providing some important documentation. do you think we could rework how alhazen is mentioned using the source you've provided? i feel the source you've provided is much better than the three current ones combined. thank you for doing this.

is it feasible that the aforementioned passage could be faithfully translated while introducing the word 'skepticism'? the passage definitely shows his influence on descartes. just not sure it shows he's the father of the scientific method.

i would argue that archimedes' Method of Mechanical Theorems is more representative of an actual scientific method. i do understand that his work is old and much of it is lost, but the Method was central to Archimedes' findings. specifically, Archimedes' method required intuition in order for its results to be fruitful. when applied properly, we saw that the numbers the Method produced were extremely useful and worthy of further investigation.

of course, in the time of Archimedes, further scrutiny of the numbers produced by the Method would have been difficult. the method did, however, and will, produce fruit that will keep scientists busy for many years to come.

i feel if anyone deserves to be given credit for 'the [scientific] method', it should be archimedes. the scientific method is much more than just extreme skepticism, which of course is no small part!

i think i'm paying alhazen quite a compliment when i say that his influence on descartes is quite clear (thanks to your translation). maybe we can move alhazen further down in the article? i think archimedes should be in the lead, and alhazen anywhere after. thank you again for translating whatever you could. that source is much better. 174.3.155.181 (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@174.3.155.181 See Alhazen#Doubts_Concerning_Ptolemy --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Totally disagree. 174.92.68.146 (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

user:Ancheta Wis, the source provided for alhazen "questioning" ptolemy is the same source that says he's the key guy behind the scientific method. i would like an assortment of sources if you think we should seriously consider him better than archimedes. i find the concept laughable. pi lives with us to this day for a reason. also, the muslim who replied above me is clearly biased. he only enjoys editing muslim articles, suggesting he's predisposed to bias. why are all these large claims supported by citations from sabra? in the ptolemy section i saw multiple citations to sabra, and only one from a guy named langerman. i would like more sources, like the one provided from 1800s. unlike archimedes, alhazen has no famous constant that can embody his legacy and body of work. pi is more than just a number, as we all know. 174.3.155.181 (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@174.3.155.181, It is important to avoid expressing any ad hominems in the encyclopedia. 1911 Britannica was particularly cringeworthy about this. You might find Samuel Sambursky, (1965) Das Physikalische Weltbild der Antike, or (1956) The Physical World of the Greeks to your liking. Perhaps there is a quotation in them to support your view of Archimedes.

Francisco Sanches History_of_scientific_method#Skepticism_as_a_basis_for_understanding wrote one generation before Descartes.

We assume good faith --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

It may be useful to examine the Optics works of Euclid and Ptolemy: they assumed the rectilinear propagation of light (p. 12, Lindberg 1973 Theories of Vision from Al-kindi to Kepler). Alhacen proved it experimentally. See Baarmann 1882, discussed above. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@174.92.68.146, A.Mark Smith (2001, 2006, 2008, 2010) translated De Aspectibus, the Latin manuscript of Book of Optics, and A. I. Sabra translated Books 1 thru 5 of the Arabic manuscript before his death. Arabic Book 1's first three chapters are methodology (I learned this in a review from JSTOR). But Smith's 2001 translation of Latin Book I starts with Chapter 4, because the Latin manuscript skipped the 1st three Arabic chapters, so Latin Book I is half the size of the other books (Smith 2001 xxiii). It would be helpful to learn more about the content of Sabra's translation of the 1st three chapters of Arabic Book 1. I do not have access. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

---

See the article for the URLs of Smith, Sabra, etc. I learned another title for the list of Alhazen's works:

• Alhacen, Treatise on Optics According to Ptolemy's Method (Smith 2001 p.xvii)

--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 02:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

---

Review on JSTOR, GJ Toomer's 1964 review of Matthias Schramm (1963) Ibn Al-Haythams Weg Zur Physik Toomer p.464: "Schramm sums up [Ibn Al-Haytham's] achievement in the development of scientific method." --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

---

JSTOR-- Saleh Omar (1979) p.70 Ibn Al-Haytham's methodology: direct, empirical observation to establish scientific conclusions

p.71 Omar (1979) cites Manuscript Fatih 3212 Folio 4, and quotes from the introduction to

Al-Haytham's Book of Optics: "...recommencing the inquiry into its principles and premises, beginning the investigation with an induction of the existing things, a review of the conditions of the visual objects, and a discernment of the particulars. We will pick out by induction what pertains to the eye in the condition of visual perception, and what is permanent and unchanging, and obvious and certain in the manner of sensation. (Then) we will ascend in the inquiry and reasonings, gradually and in order, criticizing premises and taking care not to err, our aim in all that we induct and inspect being the application of truthfullness and not the pursuit of whims ... "

Omar notes that Aristotle's 'induction (epagoge)' gets re-instituted by Alhacen's book into its modern usage, into the sense in which we use it today. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

---

Larry Laudan

I propose Larry Laudan's view as a suitable counterbalance for Feyerabend's 'anything goes' view of science. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 08:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Citation not relevant

As the article stands this sentence: "The formal sciences are often excluded as they do not depend on empirical observations" receives this citation: "Editorial Staff (March 7, 2008). "The Branches of Science". South Carolina State University. Retrieved October 28, 2014."

When you click that link through, first of all, it's a nice little article but I'm not sure who wrote it.

More importantly, the author does not say anything about "excluding" formal sciences. The author says:

Formal Science is the branch of science dealing with abstract concepts. It includes the sub-branches of logic and mathematics. For most scientists, these branches serve as tools to better understand their own fields of study. For example, a physicist may use algebra and geometry to help them understand the path of an arrow through the air. Much of the mathematics and logic that we commonly use have been understood for centuries. We must remember, however, that at some point in history someone had to discover that the sum of the angles in a triangle equals 180 degrees. Mathematicians are still working to understand the complex relationships involved in large numbers, the geometry of curved surfaces, and prime numbers. The new discoveries are being used as tools for things like encryption for computer security.

I think a citation needed ref is appropriate as such: "The formal sciences are often excluded as they do not depend on empirical observations"[3]

Cheers CircularReason (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/49/45/24236156.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.  Paine  ^u/c 12:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2016

Please add "Forensic Science' in the inter-disciplinary section of this page. Jatinsharma9311 (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done: Since there is no such section in the article content titled "Interdisciplinary", it was assumed that you meant that section of the Science template at the TOP of the article, so I added [[Forensic science|Forensics]] to the Interdisciplinary section of the template.  Paine  ^u/c 12:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2016

can i edit please Robberandthetheif (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Issue around default size for scale of science image

This talk topic is to resolve a dispute about the default size for the image at the top of the article that maps the scale of the universe to branches of science. I would like the graphic to be 550px wide, Mlpearc wants it to be sized to 350px wide. I tried to compromise at 450px but Mlpearc is insisting on the 350px size as an absolute limit.

The reason I'm pressing this point is that at 350px wide the content of the image is mostly illegible. The default size is how the vast majority of users will see graphics, so we should be making the default size a good size to view the graphic at. For many placements a wider size would not work as it would disrupt article flow, but this graphic is situated next to the table of contents so it does not disrupt flow.

For review:

• The article is currently showing 350 pixels wide.
• Article with image sized to 450 pixels wide
• Article with image sized to 550 pixels wide

Hopefully others will weigh in on the issue so we can get this resolved. Thanks, --Efbrazil (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

My edit summaries convy my concerns here, here and here. - Mlpearc (open channel) 17:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Why have you removed the hierarchy of sciences?

Many philosophers agree on the hierarchy of sciences. One can not do physics without mathematics or do psychology by ignoring the biological principles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorua3 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2016

Another definition for science is that based on material evidence collected from the physical world, logical theories developed by man in order for understanding the truth and finding solutions to the problems and issues; and the very solutions so so discovered. Here it is important to depart from the spiritual theories advanced by various religions without being based on "material evidence from the physical world". Not only areas like biology, medicine, astronomy or chemistry but also subjects or terms like "legal science" or "political science" can well be described using this definition. For example; legal science is the subject in which, effects of rules and policies made by man himself are tested and measured by using the logical theories made based on the evidence (statistical or other) collected from various parts of the society. (source: Inoka Bandaranayake (2016) Defining Scientific Evidence) Inokabandaranayake (talk) 03:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Please see the policies of the encyclopedia on conflicts of interest and no original research in wikipedia --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 09:00, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for applied sciences

Is it possible to add the scientific application fields in the picture which illustrates the relationship between the sciences and the universe ?

To be synthetic :

  Formal sciences : computer science
  Physical sciences : enginneering
  Life sciences : medicine
  Social sciences : management

This is just a suggestion. It can be more completing.

Oh....I slightly get it but its okay im slighty smart of science Jillianne Mae (talk) 11:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Science. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061010084037/http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/nature/index.shtml to http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/nature/index.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Science

The science is derived from latin word scientia which means knowledge. The knowledge gained through observation and experiment is known as science. Hamza Ahmad Kalyar (talk) 03:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Renaissance and early modern science: Footnote i How Kepler observed the eclipse of 1600: You should observe a solar eclipse indirectly. Using Kepler and Tycho Brahe's method is safer for your eyes. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 15:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2017

{{subst:trim| Id like to change:

is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

to

is a systematic pursuit of knowledge that yields reliable explanations and predictions about the universe. Zarathustra sch (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Done SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 22:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I reverted the above good faith edit request on the lead sentence of this article as I believe it deserves further discussion. Aside from deviating from the E.O. Wilson reference, I find the new edit to be ambiguous and misleading. It states that there is this knowledge that is being pursued but makes no effort to define said knowledge, which somehow yields testable explanations and predictions, i.e., undefined knowledge —> testable explanation and predictions. The previous version, however, at least makes it clear that the knowledge that is being built and organized are the testable explanations and predictions themselves, i.e., organized knowledge = testable explanations and predictions. Moreover, the new edit appears to give the impression that this undefined knowledge already exists and like happiness, we just need to pursue it. That's not how science works. danielkueh (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Undone: This request has been undone. Undone per danielkueh SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 01:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Influences behind science

There are subjects of study which directly influence the development of science which need to be mentioned in the article. Joseph Needham sought the answer in his study of "What happened to science in China? " (Needham's grand question). What comes to mind are the subjects which were banned upon the advice given by Li Si to the first emperor of the Qin dynasty, namely history, poetry and philosophy, which were destroyed during the burning of books and burying of scholars. This resulted in the destruction of the hundred schools of thought, such as mohism and the school of names in favor of legalism. Needham's evaluation of this historical event was "a catastrophe". Where might these philosophical influences (especially the loss of the writings in the study of logic) be mentioned in the article?

A related question is the relation between stabilization of teaching, such the teaching of the classical Chinese writing system during the warring states period, and the teaching in other polities. In China, the scholars could make a living teaching children (just as Alhazen did in Cairo, and Aristotle did in Athens). One result was that Needham could read documents dating from two thousand years ago. He could compare and contrast Greek and Chinese thought from the same period. Often he was struck by their parallel, but independent work. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 15:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2017

No source is provided for the following addition:[1] Please remove it as original research.2A01:7C8:AAAE:11:0:0:0:1 (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

It's at least partially from the sources… the third reference in the closest cluster of footnotes mentions pre-Socratic theories that should support the claim. Pinging Khirurg, who might like to comment on this accusation. – Rhinopias (talk) 01:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. The antiquity section needs a total overhaul as it is totally lacking in modern secondary sources. I plan to take care of it in the coming weeks. That should take care of any sourcing issues. Khirurg (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Answered SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 20:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2017

Naturalism (philosophy) is the "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world." The Wikipedia article claims that the view first arose in the Indian school Charvaka.

The sentence in the lead "Non-supernatural explanations for natural phenomena appear in the 6th century BC in the works of Thales and the pre-Socratics." is controversial. Please add the atheist Charvaka school that rejects such explanations. The Charvaka were group of philosophers who lived in the 7th century BCE and rejected supernaturalism, source-[2]. Naturalism as a philosophy originated with Magi philosophers in Babylon who rejected the intervention of deities and claimed that everything is governed by Natural Laws, while Thales himself went to Mesopotamia to study Naturalism- source[3].2A01:7C8:AAAE:11:0:0:0:1 (talk) 08:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Charvaka (7th c. BCE) is already in the lede of the History of scientific method article as well as in body of the scientific method article. The philosophical emphasis on Thales's water (6th c. BCE), and its practical application, hydraulic engineering (7th c. BCE, before the philosophy) in China is already in the history of this article. What purpose will your request give to the direction of this article? How might this addition improve the body of the science article? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 09:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps what you are getting at is the existence of the Greek myths as hindrance to the development of science? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 10:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

This is POV-pushing nonsense. The source on Charvaka merely says that they were atheists, nothing more. Atheism is not science. To connect Charvaka to science is more than a stretch. The second source is patent nonsense, for example making the whacky claim that Buddha "was a famous religious leader, who became Emperor in Babylon, only to be overthrown (522 BCE) in a murderous plot orchestrated by a religious competitor, Zoroaster, and the Persian King of Kings, Darius the Great. He was born west of today's India, not in Nepal, as some have suggested." [4]. It's also published by BookBaby, a self-publishing outlet. Not a reliable source by any stretch. Khirurg (talk) 16:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The suggested sources are not significant mentions and have been challenged above. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if these links helps the original argument.

• https://books.google.ca/books?id=59eygxzQTWQC&pg=PA97&lpg=PA97&dq=Carvaka+and+science&source=bl&ots=s1S1oiok1_&sig=rs-7uzwwmGfw3iJFBstk4gRVRog&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2k53I6IfXAhVM2oMKHZtiBoIQ6AEIWTAJ#v=onepage&q=Carvaka%20and%20science&f=false
• https://books.google.ca/books?id=J_BCUdSRHLAC&pg=PA162&lpg=PA162&dq=Carvaka+and+science&source=bl&ots=Wly8gLl035&sig=wZvWnhlLVaI6NI95UEqq5EXGi5s&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2k53I6IfXAhVM2oMKHZtiBoIQ6AEIVjAI#v=onepage&q=Carvaka%20and%20science&f=false
• https://books.google.ca/books?id=D3yFSOH6B-YC&pg=PA162&lpg=PA162&dq=Carvaka+and+science&source=bl&ots=zNCau1GWmT&sig=7ZsEWsCcyTk8-9DtNiChAOLlfFs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiR95-i7IfXAhWk3YMKHROCDvQ4FBDoAQgqMAE#v=onepage&q=Carvaka%20and%20science&f=false
• https://books.google.ca/books?id=zcBcCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=Carvaka+and+science&source=bl&ots=w-_rXaMus_&sig=48QhxvS7cdgh_zM6kQbGL687XLY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1mbvX64fXAhUoyoMKHSc4Cnw4ChDoAQgnMAA#v=onepage&q=Carvaka%20and%20science&f=false
• https://www.britannica.com/topic/Charvaka
• http://www.iep.utm.edu/indmat/#SH2a Shumam (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

No they don't. They either do not back the claim being made or are not reliable. Such pointed searches ("Carvaka and science") are very poor form anyway. Khirurg (talk) 04:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

These sources say the Charvaka rejected any form of supernaturalism:2A01:7C8:AAAE:11:0:0:0:1 (talk) 11:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

https://books.google.com/books?id=ojFBAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT35 (Charvaka livend in the 7th century BC) https://books.google.com/books?id=nVN2AwAAQBAJ&pg=RA3-PA55 https://books.google.com/books?id=1gtxVmUr1ygC&pg=PA188 https://books.google.com/books?id=6YxpAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA52

That's not science. There is not a single instance of the Carvakas trying to explain a natural phenomenon, unlike the pre-socratics. Atheism is not science. Irreligion is not science. Epicureanism is not science. Khirurg (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Khirurg I am looking forward to your citations. I agree that the school of Epicurus failed to advance his canonical formulation. But see On the nature of things for his thinking, which clearly shows others understood his work. In fact, they qualify as physics, some of which holds to this day. If you follow the links I replied with, maybe you can find some support for your summaries (but please cite your summaries; otherwise they come across as a POV, without authority). --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 16:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Pre-Scoratics explained Atomism as a phenomenon for example, but there are no shown citations or examples of Thales. At the same period Atomism was explained in Carvaka and other schools in India, please see this written at the lead of Atomism. So there are instances.2A01:7C8:AAAE:11:0:0:0:1 (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

There are parallel threads to the contrast between an orthodoxy and its contenders: I refer you to Epicurus (the analog of Carvaka). The Stoics, Pre-socratics, Aristotle, etc., have another contender for the foundations of science. The similarities include: a materialist viewpoint, emphasis on enjoyment of the world (Epicurus innovated the birthday party) etc. The point is that Epicurus' Canon is embedded in the viewpoint that underlies science.

Carvaka, of course, by insisting on evidence, as trumping inference, also is requisite for the viewpoint that underlies science. As evidence of this strength (or alternatively the weakness of relying only on inference), I refer you to the eidolon, which can mean both image and substance. This confusion is embedded in Aristotle's theory of forms. It was not until Alhazen started delving into the mechanics of vision, when he tried to justify an Aristotelian form as fundamental for vision, that the problem in this Aristotelian explanation manifested itself. (A. Mark Smith has documented this during his 40 year career in medieval history of science. See the Alhazen article for the citations.) Of course, Kepler solved the puzzle. Witness the time that it took to get to the bottom of the puzzle, from 4th c. BCE to 1604 CE: 2000 years.

There are other examples of the contention for orthodoxy, in China, from the hundred schools of thought during the warring states period to the Legalism that supported the Qin dynasty (see Needham, Science and Civilisation in China).

So we see at least 3 civilizations where this kind of process took place. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

lead

I am not exactly sure why the lead version of the article was modified to present some of the very focused, irrelevant and disputed point of views. It probably happened this and last year when the lead was ruined by a sock who edit warred over it.[5] The version of the lead I have restored is pre-sock and it was not just a long term version but also NPOV. Lorstaking (talk) 01:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

You need to a consensus first before you remove all that sourced material. Shumam (talk) 04:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

At least the changes made with bold edits and without discussion should be reverted. There had been no discussion since August. Any controversial addition needs a consensus before being added. A lack of consensus for adding or modifying content results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit, WP:NOCONSENSUS. Please gain a consensus to add the incorrect sentence in question, which was debunked at the edit reuqests above, you need to have consensus to add it and you added it with bold edits without discussing it on the talk page.2A01:7C8:AAAE:11:0:0:0:1 (talk) 11:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

You did not "debunk" anything. You're just pushing the usual revisionist POV using sources that are either unreliable or do not back your claim. Khirurg (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

You have not provided a single reference backing your sentence in this specifc way and pushed it. The sources I provided and the article about the Charvaka are clear, these philosophers assumed non-supernatural explanations for natural phenomena. It is stated in clear context. This is just the way things were. 2A01:7C8:AAAE:11:0:0:0:1 (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Really? You're going to go with that? How about [6] [7] [8]. I could go on, but you get the idea. Now compare these sources, that explicitly mention science and scientific explanations, to the ones you have provided, which do not. Yes, indeed, this is how things were. Khirurg (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Note Shumam has been blocked as a confirmed sock of Eulalefty.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Discuss inline tags: Alhacen's experimental contribution; 15:37, 26 October 2017

@User:Narssarssuaq, perhaps we might discuss the recent tags? What is the criterion we might seek? What I can offer is a list of pages where Alhacen has discussed experiment in the Latin manuscript. I recall there are dozens of pages, at least.

Or if this is not the issue, might we clarify what they are. I will wait for a reply (in a day, in a week? Please respond with an time of expected reply); if appropriate, perhaps we might open this discussion up to other editors. They are always welcome. Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 20:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

11:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC): If you have a better source on Aristotle's propagation of forms than A.Mark Smith 1981, I would be very interested. Smith 1981 (as cited in the article as you have tagged it) p.569 lays out the theory of abstraction of the perspectivists, involving its conceptual basis, its psychological basis, and its causal basis. Smith shows how this framework is Aristotelian in nature.

11:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC): The next tag is more understandable, in my view. Over a period of 14 years until its publication in 2001, Smith translated Books I, II, and III of De Aspectibus, the Latin translation of the seven-book Book of Optics from the 22 existing manuscripts in the libraries of Europe. He also used Risner 1572, the printed version, Risner being the man who renamed Alhacen to Alhazen, which is the form we all used to use until it became clear than Alhacen is Ibn al-Haytham. But in Smith's findings, Risner introduced errors. Smith, having the advantages of computers, tabulated the differences between the manuscripts, rectified the text, and translated De Aspectibus. Smith has given us a complete English translation, a critical edition with Notes and Commentary, from the medieval Latin translation of Ibn al-Haytham's Kitab al-Manazir (See Smith 2001, 2006, 2008, 2010 in the Book of Optics article). This was a big step:

In 1964 G. J. Toomer reviewed Matthias Schramm's Habilitationsschrift 1963 Ibn al-Haytham's Weg Zur Physik and found he could not accept Schramm's assessment of Ibn al-Haytham's place in modern physics, accepting only that "Schramm has demonstrated .. beyond any dispute that Ibn al-Haytham is a major figure in the Islamic scientific tradition, particularly in the creation of experimental techniques."

That's how I used to think of Galileo myself, until I read Samuel Sambursky's anthology on Physical thought from the Pre-socratics to the quantum physicists (1974) and learned about Alhazen, p.136. This anthology included an excerpt, Schwarz's English translation of Baarman's translation of Treatise on Light from Arabic to German which showed clearly that Alhazen was a thoroughly modern experimenter, 600 years before Galileo's refinement of the applications for the telescope, namely to astronomy.

And if one doesn't think Alhacen didn't have skill in experiment and atmospheric physics (before our own time), consider that Alhacen deduced from here on Earth, that outer space was not filled with air, but was more rarified than air, 1000 years before us. What was his equipment? The naked eye, an armillary sphere, an astrolabe, and a place both high enough to observe your favorite fixed star, and the horizon. ("the body of the heavens is rarer than the body of air": Book of Optics Book VII [4.28-4.29]).

What I remember from reading Smith's critical edition is that I saw dozens of citable passages on experiment in Alhacen's theory of vision (Books I, II, and III). Alhacen shows clearly that he thought of experiment as a resource. Got a question? Just run the experiment. ... Anyway, Toomer 1964 stated that the historians needed the translations. Toomer 1964 stated that there aren't many historians like Schramm, (who could read Arabic, Greek, Latin, Chinese, Spanish etc, as well as mathematics articles). In 2010, thanks to Smith, we then had the data for historians to verify Schramm's claim that Ibn al-Haytham is the true founder of modern physics. I look forward to your reply. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 11:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Smith 2001 does trace influences on the Aristotelian theory of visual perception, from Euclid and Ptolemy to Galen, and the Islamic natural philosophers, physicians and anatomists, and mathematicians. But at 814 pages in Smith 2001, might I suggest that Smith 1981 is a more accessible source? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough resonse to my contribution. I think Smith's translation of the original text of Alhazen proves the strong claim about Alhazen in the article when it comes to the use of experiments. The article should link to this publication, Smith (2010), http://www.jstor.org/stable/20787651, from which this should be relatively obvious, provided that I am not missing something crucial. It is also common knowledge that structured experimentation was not in fashion in Catholic Europe in this period. I think "by emphasizing experiments" is better than "by emphasizing experimental data", as "data" is only a specific kind of knowledge to be gained from experiments. There is another claim in the article that Alhazen "furthered the Aristotelian viewpoint". This is a far too general sentence. You mention in the above that you are referring to Aristotle's theory of propagation of forms. I know Aristotle's theory of forms, but I have not heard about his theory of propagation of forms, and a Google search does not reveal much about it. Maybe this point is, nevertheless, more about the philosophy of science. There are many things that can be said about the philosophy of science in the article, but in that case I think we need to do it properly and not only mention it all of a sudden in this passage. My recommendation is therefore that Alhazen is relevant to the article, but that the mention of Aristotle is removed.Narssarssuaq (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

And thank you for your response. Aristotle is important to the story because as part of Alhacen's theoretical framework, Aristotle helped to imprison our understanding for 20 centuries including countless school children in not just Europe, but also the Mideast, leaving Kepler to decipher the puzzle. See the article, it's in the Renaissance section. We have centuries of scientists to thank for the process, (notably Francis Bacon, who had the courage to leave the university over this) not just Alhacen, but finally, Kepler 1604. I will try to unify the narrative about this. I would appreciate your feedback as we work through this.

Perhaps I might mention the eidolon of Ancient Greece, which has an explanation in the process of image formation in optics. In a nutshell, Aristotle left the door wide open on the phantasm as an allowed form (it's the cognate of idol). Alhacen's descendants, the Perspectivists imagined that these forms entered the eyes to reside in the ventricles of the brain, where the common sense could engage with them, perhaps in the soul. The theory led us astray. But we have to be careful in the article about assigning the blame. It's irrelevant after all. A red herring. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 19:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, I changed it. As for the Renaissance section, as it stands it uses too much space in the start discussing medieval figures. It is also somewhat difficult to follow. Could you rewrite this so the reader gets a clear understanding of why optics had such a central role and what the key difference between Alhazen and Kepler is, and how this development was a revolution of sorts? I think you are onto a key explanation here, if you manage to make the text more concise and clear. Narssarssuaq (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

By the way, from the philosophical point of view I think a parallel to the narrative of optical theories is the narrative of the problem of universals, but optics seems to be a more original and less convoluted way of approaching this matter. I am looking forward to your edits. Narssarssuaq (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Narssarssuaq, Smith's view is that Alhacen set the stage by preparing Europe for the revolution, and that others ignited that revolution, such as Kepler. As your edits currently stand, there is a nice transition away from Aristotle to Epicurus, as the article section shows more and more that A's teleological reasoning is falling away, just as you express it. I will attempt to reword Smith's explanations using the Perspectivists as the vehicle. It's in Smith 2001's Notes section, and in Smith 1981 p.569, as outline. Epicurus' Canon (rules 1 and 2) has been my guide (But Epicurus is not essential to your request. The ruler (Canon) comes from Elizabeth Asmis (1984), Epicurus' Scientific Method. More on this later, perhaps.). Can we work together on this: 'Apperception' comes from Smith 2001 p.lxiii, according to the article. I looked it up, apperception of the individual and universal forms is on p.lxiii. Smith has more on this as I recall, I have to look it up some more. 'Pivots' is from Smith 1981. As I recall he doesn't need all 4 forms / causes, just 3. Edits to come. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 22:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Narssarssuaq, I have simplified the 'pivot' statement, depicting the causal chain with only three of the four causes. The revolution is complete when we realize that no prime mover is required, by Newton's first law. Granted, we can shape the universe, but it takes resources (efficient cause). I'm pretty sure you will make more edits. The 1240 date comes from Smith 2001.--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 07:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The prime mover comes back, though, with the Second law of thermodynamics in the 19th century and the rejection of the Steady State theory in the 20th century. Arguably this idea never left the field of chemistry. Narssarssuaq (talk) 08:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I've made some changes, and removed a little of your text - we should avoid placing undue weight on Alhazen and Smith. I still think your sentences could be easier to understand for regular people. Kepler's most famous contribution was within cosmology, but that in turn was linked to optics and to the shift in ontology that you are trying to describe. You mention "This theory utilizes only three of Aristotle's four causes: formal, material, and final" and I would add ", and the implication of this is"............ what is the implication? Do you know? Narssarssuaq (talk) 10:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Narssarssuaq The biggest one is the fall of certainty in science.

A causal chain of four nested levels is broken. One needs only one cause, to have cause and effect.

Teleology becomes unnecessary if one need not ask "why", but teleology provided a comfort level for those who are willing to delegate their individual responsibility for their own lives. Aristotle was a biologist, but one can have biology without teleology. The formalism fell by the wayside as an unwieldy artifact. I admit this realization took centuries.

"Separation of concerns" is exemplified by Kepler's refusal to examine the optical chain beyond the back of the sphere of the eyeball. Others solved the problem of the optical chain after Kepler turned back to the orbit of Mars.

The disappearance of the eidolon is one result. No more monsters in the night to terrify children.

Although this didn't become completely clear until the 20th c. the shift from laws to models might be mentioned. Thus a model is a resource without the baggage of a 'law'.

It is still possible to have an ethics, ala Epicurus and atomism, even as an Aristotelian ethics fell. But Chinese ethics, for example, has held for thousands of years. These issues will be addressed by others, in time. (As in ethical responsibility, in the sense of a common sense? I don't have any citations.)

We just need for us to get the history section in shape to address the expectations of the encyclopedia. After you are satisfied, I suspect you might want to turn to the philosophy section, but later please.

How about dropping a few 'clarify' tags in the places where we need them, right now? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the history section has been upgraded by our edits. It's perhaps too long compared to the rest of the article, but I will not condense it now. Narssarssuaq (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to this article. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Formal sciences are sciences

The formal sciences are often excluded as they do not depend on empirical observations.[4] Q: EXCLUDED: FROM WHAT and BY WHO? CLARIFICATION NEEDED!

- From what? Obviously: from the definition of *science*.

  Citation needed --- "[4]" is a dead link, and for what is worth, may have never contained the above statement.

- By who? By an insignificant number of people who raise such questions on the Internet.

  The above statement sounds false as-is, and even "sometimes excluded" would be rather undue. For example, in all non-English versions of the science Wikipedia-article, formal sciences are first-class members of science.

The statement should be removed.

UPDATE: Someone found the missing link, but it turns out, that that source actually treats formal sciences as first-class members of science!

There are now two references and the statement has been changed. No distinctions are made with respect to 1st or 2nd class. Regards, danielkueh (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion: As the formal sciences can be said to be the TEHORETICAL foundation for all other sciences, any proposition about the formal sciences are outmost important. I tend towards saying that this statement (as quoted above) is biased and unsubstantiated in its present form with its present reference.

I am doing a meta-anlysis on the matter, and hope to be able to contribute further to the matter with substantial information.

In the meantime it seems totally paradoxical to have the quoted sentence and still keep formal science at the top of the box to the right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:c1a0:488a:d400:e5a0:ee9c:6d:b2d2 (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2017‎

When discussing the formal sciences like mathematics, it is not mentioned as part of the natural or social sciences. Indeed there are differences between how mathematicians is studied and how the natural and social sciences operate.[9]Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 02:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Please see Imre Lakatos, Proofs and Refutations for one method used in mathematics which is analogous to experiment in science in the physical or social world, namely a conjecture's role as a touchstone, and then awaiting its refutation by other mathematicians. This cycle of conjecture and refutation is analogous to the cycle of hypothesis and experiment. It appears that one kind of mathematics is to build theories as towers of abstraction e.g. ordinal analysis, which other mathematicians might spurn, or attempt to scale from their own towers, perhaps via proof assistants, as in Vladimir Voevodsky's efforts -- see his motivic cohomology. His motivation was to solve the following: "Mathematical research currently relies on a complex system of mutual trust based on reputations. —Voevodsky", which is also a problem in the encyclopedia, and not just in mathematics or science. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 17:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I think formal sciences are included too often in this article and by WP:WEIGHT their prominence should be very much reduced. A quick google search "is mathematics part of science?" will quickly indicate this. Since it is a question that is raised and they are called formal sciences they should be included but that part then pointed at formal science. That isn't a wonderful article currently but it is where the main discussion about formal science should be put. Dmcq (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The infinitudes of the number of possible forms can occupy mathematicians; perhaps others will work on that page. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 17:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Why did you write that? Dmcq (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Gravitational wave astronomy

I can't understand why this event is not part of the gravitational wave astronomy article. What am I missing? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 20:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Well I'm pretty certain it shouldn't be here. It would be better to get a list of things to put here from one of the innumerable such lists like [10] instead. Why didn't you put that in the gravitational wave astronomy article instead? Dmcq (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't think of the possibility that the article was short-handed. I will do the work. Thanks for motivating me to count the number of co-authors: it's at least 3380, conservatively speaking. 952 institutions. 30 teams collaborated. I saw 1 Nobel Laureate for sure. So granting that the Higgs discovery is important enough to mention in this article, the direct observation of a formerly theoretical event ought to be reckoned by the scientific community as in the same league as the Higgs boson, just based on the attention accorded by the co-authors. Other important ramifications are the direct observation of the creation of metals heavier than iron, in a matter of seconds from the neutron star merger, and an explanation of one source of 1/f noise. Corroboration of Einstein's prediction that gravitational waves travel at the speed of light. There must be a dozen results from this one science event. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 01:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The point is that is WP:OR, we should be using outside sources that say something like it is amongst the 50 most important scientific discoveries. Dmcq (talk) 09:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The project is among the select few listed (and funded), requesting funding in the yearly requests of the sponsoring scientific agencies -- such as NSF (See the map of gravitational-wave observatories on the NSF web page).

The number of names in a published paper in a reliable source is a verifiable fact. Counting is a routine calculation. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 11:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Because "chance favors the prepared mind"; it being the direct observation of a chance condition, a hoped-for but unexpected occurrence. Notice how a chance discovery by the systems of the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope was heavily dependent on luck. Literally thousands of scientists avoided the risks in confirmation bias, and minimized their need for inference of an imagined condition, because the automated detection software posted information about an appropriate quadrant of the sky in a timely way, which cut down their search volume in both space and time.

It could just as well have been a null result, and the systems could still have been out there searching until their funding or other resources had run out (It was a confidence booster for the post-docs as well. There are articles on LIGO which documents how their projects were removed after a few successful runs which demonstrated the science. Not to mention the predictions by theoreticians from the the 1990s, only now confirming that a gamma-ray burst from a neutron star merger lasts less than two seconds, or that kilonovas are confirmed to explain the origin of elements heavier than iron, which had been an open question even before George Gamow attempted his explanation. ).

LIGO was on the verge of shutdown for upgrade before the direct observation. Without the direct observation, it was a theoretical form only, accessible only to those imaginations capable of producing it, and selecting it from the infinitude of forms. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 11:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

This is still your original research. Have a look at [11] where it isn't even listed as one of the ones for 2017. I think it is important but we should be working from external sources for assessments like this. There needs to some basis for saying it is a better candidate for inclusion than other things as in that list and just describing the thing itself as you have above does not do that. Dmcq (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

That statement of OR is a judgement by an individual, in fact, which does not make it so. That methodology indeed holds for individuals, but not for teams working in concert on a shared goal.

I like how your survey suggestion includes the putative to-do list as of August 2017, followed by an escape clause ',(so far)' in the title, when the chance event we are referring to, was actually observed that month, 10 days before the suggested to-do list for us, was posted to the web 2017 August 18 for consumption by the public, 10 days later than the chance observation.

The observed event, now identified for us as GW170817 bespeaks a whole methodology behind the process that the scientific team utilized.

Might we, as the editors profitably apply a similar method to this article? That we build a like system for item selection?

As the article stands, the citation displays the team's methodology (it's in the IOP article), namely that they built their system (which embodies the hypotheses (theories, in the jargon)) over a number of years, they started the science (jargon for the observation process), find candidates (meaning let the system detect events), evaluate the candidates (meaning let the scientists compare their expectations/hopes and communicate them informally in the teams), and post the successful ones which embody the mooted theory, to the larger community and to us, the public).

Note this methodology, which has been successfully practiced for centuries, if not a thousand years, is becoming more formal over the centuries, as the science is devolving from solitary inquiry to communications of ever more formal results among a team of teams. Note that the individual contributors still seem to be able to recite the Big picture.

We can't predict the chance events, which makes the methodology in the citation so useful to them, and to the encyclopedia as well. It gives us respect for the scientists who are putting their futures on the line, as well as for the funding sources such as NSF. The 30 Collaborations listed in parentheses behind the names of the Principal investigators listed in the IOP article are payback to their funding sources, not to mention the payback to the 952 institutions listed in the affiliations of the 3380+ coauthors, by the fact of publication of this reliable source. 15:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Sample surveys like that do not prove your attempted point: Intel's surveys failed to predict the personal computer when in fact they were in a position to profit for decades from their first product semiconductor memory, or their hallmark microprocessor. I suggested a source: the National Science Foundation's annual reports, above (I put 2015 because 2016 already was able to report Nobel-quality success). That is in the article already under science policy. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 12:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't have to prove that we should not do original research. It is a Wikipedia policy WP:OR. Wikipedia should follow, not lead. That also follows from WP:N, we should remain neutral, and following what reliable sources say is the way to achieve that. As to predicting things see WP:CRYSTALBALL. Perhaps next year's lists of outstanding scientific achievements of this century will list it - but they don't do so at the moment. Dmcq (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The guideline that you appear to have internalized in your interactions in the encyclopedia is Wikipedia:Use of tertiary sources. It is an essay, not a policy. To me, you appear to have taken the essay as your interpretation of WP:NOR as policy; in fact you conspicuously do not use the term Tertiary. The essay blesses Secondary sources as well as Tertiary, which I have demonstrated that I adhere to.

But the Science article is so broad and general that attempts to turn it into a Good Article foundered 6 years ago for lack of decent Tertiary sources (this is the summary of the findings from 6 years ago: "Tertiary sources were needed" -- Fifelfoo's conclusion.) A review article qualifies as Secondary, according to the essay. This situation holds to this day. When you attempted to convey your interpretation of OR to me with well-meant examples (the lists of top 50, etc., which are Tertiary sources), your own suggestions similarly floundered, as shown in the interactions above, precisely because of the dearth of acceptable Tertiary sources (e.g., when I pointed out the bugs in the sources).

Now my contribution, above, used a Secondary source (the Science citation), but you will have noticed that I do not hesitate to use Primary sources (e.g., the IOP citation), because the difference is that use of Primary sources requires skill. That our interaction has demonstrated that you would in fact accept a decent Tertiary source, were it to appear in the future, regardless whether you term it that or not, shows that we could have a meeting of the minds in the future. I can wait. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 22:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Misattribution

@Dbachmann: A sentence by an author of children's books is getting mis-cited using a reference item which in fact cites the place of Alhacen in the development of scientific method, and ideas for which Gaileo is reknowned, six centuries after Alhacen. The appropriate sentence would have better acknowledged the place of Alhacen in the development of scientific method (as agreed by at least Toomer and Schramm in the 1960s), and also that Alhacen was "the true founder of modern physics" as stated by Schramm 1964. This claim was received skeptically in Toomer's 1964 review of Schramm's Habilitationsschrift 1963.

Schramm was able to read Greek, Latin, Chinese, Arabic, ... but now that Alhacen's Optics has been fully translated into English, it will be possible for other historians to address Toomer's point. I can create that sentence if you don't want to.

The article history shows the cut-and-paste operations which apparently created this situation. Apparently the Steffens sentence has been remedied, but we need the Toomer/Schramm sentence to be added in to repair the situation.

Since it is possible to trace these developments over the centuries, we might add them as well. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 16:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Misleading Picture: The scale of the universe mapped to the branches of science and the hierarchy of science.[1]

The picture is quite misleading, from an epistemological point of view it makes no sense to map science branches with size: - Physics is part of all sizes, not only on the atomic size. - Brains are not at the size of 1 mm. - Mathematics are on everything too.

Depending on epistemological axioms, physics can be seen as the most original science. Chemistry is an emergence of that (the combination/simplification of physcial rules for a large quantity of physical objects (atoms,...)). Biology as an emergence of Chemistry and so on. But this view is controversally discussed in epistemology, maybe it's worth a separate discussion.

In each way I suggest to delete the picture as it is wrong.

188.193.150.100 (talk) 09:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

See chapter 3 of The Feynman Lectures on Physics it refers to which is about the relation of physics to the other sciences. It seems to me to be a fairly reasonable illustration for what is there. I think you'd need to propose some better illustration rather than just saying you think that is wrong. Dmcq (talk) 10:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Section: Modern science

The section Modern Science, added in the past few months, makes a lot of broad statements unsupported by any citations. It also seems out of place; if any of the material is worth keeping, it belongs in Philosophy of science and Scientific practice. I propose deleting it. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. Support deletion per WP:BRD --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 18:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
2. Pablum ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
3. Weasel wording in the first sentence, reads like an essay, prescriptive generalities, out of place. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
4. Support per reasons given above. danielkueh (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

O.k., I think the consensus is pretty clear. RockMagnetist(talk) 03:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Lindberg citation, p.3

@RockMagnetist, thank you for your verification effort; the quote is of Lindberg p.3 himself, who cites Pingree on the zigzag functions of astronomical observations by the Mesopotamians, apparently. (Lindberg had a prodigious memory, apparently an ability needed for historians. I have Lindberg in paperback in my basement which I tried searching for, and it was a great relief to find an electronic copy.) I can fix the citation for Lindberg's statement by inverting the attribution. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 17:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad you have a copy - I have no access to Lindberg's book. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Popular culture

Should science in popular culture have its own section or "see also" link, or is it too "nonscientific" and broad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperTurboChampionshipEdition (talk • contribs) 15:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I have added a "see also" link. Science in popular culture has made an intriguing start, but a lot more could be done, and I think it merits its own section in this article. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The category Science in popular culture has several items in it, and I'm amused to see that Electromagnetic pulse in popular culture is 20 times as big as Science in popular culture. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Spiritual Science

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

How about Spiritual Science? Isn't it part of Science? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realphi (talk • contribs) 18:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Is Neuroscience of religion the sort of thing you have in mind? RockMagnetist(talk) 18:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I had Spiritual science in my mind which says that spiritual world can be researched in the right circumstances through direct experience, by persons practicing rigorous forms of ethical and cognitive self-discipline. Realphi (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Judging by the article you linked to, Anthrosophy, it seems to be more of a philosophy or religious belief. RockMagnetist(talk) 20:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I have modified the link with a stub. Please take a look now. Thanks.

" Spiritual science is the Science of realizing pure Spirit or Soul object as separate object from Body through self-help.

First precondition for realizing pure Spirit or Soul object is realizing that a single separate whole exists in the body, separate from Body. This belief is called Vitalism and was the mainstream model of Biology until 1930. Osteopathic Doctors in United States adhere to this model of Biology. "

Realphi (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you could add some citations to your stub to back it up? Without cites, the claims could be mistaken for your own opinions. I agree with RockMagnetist, it sounds more like a philosophy and probably belongs in its own article. PeaBrainC (talk) 22:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Realphi, direct experience alone would not suffice; N-rays are an example of a failed study; the criteria for a science needs to include the repeatability and intersubjective verifiability of the subject of study. For example, for a population of monks as subject of study, measurement of the monks' blood pressure, taken at regular, repeatable, observable intervals, would qualify. For example if the monks were to regularly experience a golden mountain that no other observers could verify, this experience would fail intersubjective verifiability. But if the monks could repeatably influence observations of other topics, made by others, without tampering, such as a kind of entanglement, this would rapidly become a subject of study by many groups, using well-known protocols, such as a double blind protocol, to rule out tampering.

Joseph Needham (2000) Science and Civilisation in China Volume 7, Part 2 General conclusions and reflections pp.31-33, has pointed out that the world's systems of medicine are not yet globalized. The systems of medicine remain to be reconciled with each other: "[in medicine] the fusion of the sciences, pure and applied, East and West, has not taken place even yet ...". --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 00:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I’ve taken the liberty of restoring the redirect to anthroposophy. Sources, please, before making it a stub about spiritual science again. See the history, and the talk page there. Just plain Bill (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Ancheta Wis, you are assuming here that Ostepathic Model is wrong and Mechanical Model of medicine is right. However, there is remote possibility that Osteopathic Model is right and Mechanical Model is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realphi (talk • contribs) 19:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

In the citation I just added, while comparing the sciences, Joseph Needham states that medicine has not yet fused the disparate systems of the world, on a global scale, and that even the terminology of the disparate systems of medicine in the world is not yet reconciled, to this day. This would leave room for the Osteopathic Model, as well as Chinese and other systems in the future. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 01:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Is any of this relevant to the article? RockMagnetist(talk) 03:52, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the Needham citation might lead to other material for the article. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 05:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Come to think of it, there is a criminal lack of coverage of Asian science - especially for the Ancient era, where in some respects they were millennia ahead of the West. For those of us who don't have time to read seven volumes of Needham, there is a very engaging summary with lots of pictures in The Genius of China: 3,000 Years of Science, Discovery, and Invention. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Looks like there are three models of biology: Mechanicalistic, Vitalist and Organicism

https://www.sheldrake.org/files/pdfs/papers/Theoria_I.PDF https://www.sheldrake.org/files/pdfs/papers/Theoria_II.PDF https://www.sheldrake.org/files/pdfs/papers/Theoria_III.PDF

This article assumes that first model of biology is true and second and third models of biology are false. Even if highly unlikely, there is a positive possibility that second or third model is true.

Realphi (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

That's probably the clearest possible example of ad ignorantiam one can make. It hasn't been proven false, i.e. therefore it might be true, therefore this fringe view deserves to be covered in the main topical article. As for Rupert Sheldrake, not a reliable source (far from being a mainstream scientist whose views are accepted in the academic community). 198.84.253.202 (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

So, somebody finally agrees that there is Euro-Anglo-American-centric bias in Wikipedia articles!!!!!!! Hence, to remove biases, to start with, we should include both "Western Science" and "Eastern Science" in Science Article ie both Mechanicalist and Vitalist Model of Biology should be included. Realphi (talk) 01:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

And this will necessarily introduce one additional science to current mix of sciences, "the spiritual science" as Vitalism introduces new independent entity : spirit. Realphi (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

That's not what I said. Again, to be clear: absolutely not what I said. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Not you, but @User:RockMagnetist did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realphi (talk • contribs) 01:44, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Your comment is still a biased interpretation: there's no support for "vitalism" in User:RockMagnetist comment's - only support for more coverage of Asian science (which is a different thing) 198.84.253.202 (talk) 01:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@User:RockMagnetist , @User:198.84.253.202 and @Ancheta Wis:

Vitalism is the root of Chinese medicine:

http://movement4life.co.uk/download/i/mark_dl/u/4013315798/4629099703/Qi%20Vitalism&Science.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realphi (talk • contribs) 02:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Quote from the article:

"Traditional Chinese medicine is unusual in that it is the only major medical system in the modern world that is, it is often claimed, based on vitalist concepts. Ayurveda retains its vitalistic roots and is practised in Indian communities worldwide" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realphi (talk • contribs) 02:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Cover the "Asian science". But, if it causes addition to new "top level category", deny that. The domain of creating top level categories of science exclusively belongs to "western scientists". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realphi (talk • contribs) 02:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

There's a difference between covering traditional Chinese medicine (which passes WP:N as having extended coverage in sources) and covering it's "vitalist" root (which, even if it's false, can be covered if there are sufficient sources about it). The problem is trying to cover "vitalism" (which is a fringe, rejected view) in the main article about science - which goes against WP:NPOV suggestions of balanced coverage. 198.84.253.202 (talk) 02:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Vitalism is fringe view in "Western Science", but mainstream view in "Eastern Science". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realphi (talk • contribs) 03:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Realphi: I don't think this is the right forum for discussing vitalism. This article covers a very broad subject, and the entire field of medicine is barely mentioned. If you want to give vitalism its due, a better place would be Medicine in China, where traditional Chinese medicine is barely mentioned; or Traditional Chinese medicine, where vitalism is not mentioned at all. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disciplines

A link to the article about scientific disciplines would be helpful. Eg the sentence starting with "Disciplines which use science like…" could instead read "Disciplines which use science like…" 141.163.105.30 (talk) 09:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 11:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Image question

Are there any better top page images out there, other than the current? -Inowen (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I restored the previous image as it is more reflective of the broader nature of this article, which encompasses not just physics, biology, and chemistry, but also the behavioral, social, and formal sciences as well. danielkueh (talk) 01:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

GhjtfSemi-protected edit request on 12 May 2018

186.149.227.196 (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. You have not made any request. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

natural vs. social sciences

The intro says: "Contemporary science is typically subdivided into the natural sciences which study the material world, the social sciences which study people and societies..." I do not see how this makes sense. People and societies are part of the material world as well, aren't they? Is it supposed to be "... natural sciences which study nature ..."? --rtc (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:Be bold. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 12:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

While people are often considered as material beings, or depending on your position on consciousness as material and/or conscious beings, the division of human scholarly effort separates the disciplines which deal with the physical world separable from conscious or social behaviour, and the material world which is conscious or social. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2018

2601:644:8300:11D1:163:2945:116F:C36F (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2018

Change Ancient Egyptions to Ancient Egyptians AbeWine (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Done: Good catch. Thanks! danielkueh (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Islamic world contributions to Medieval Europe

I edit the 3rd line in the 2nd paragraph to align with what we know today as true that (Muslims influenced the revival of natural philosophy in the West during the 13th century and was the precursor of natural science through the 19th century). But it was labeled as (An overstatement and somewhat counterfactual) by Danielkueh here. Did I missed something in my history of science class? @Danielkueh: you are invited to debate here. Thank you Karachiguy (talk) 05:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I can't comment on your history class and I'm not particularly interested in debating as much as discussing the merits of that edit, which was reverted because it IS an overstatement. No doubt, translations of Islamic science from Arabic sources in the 11th century was just one of the many factors that led to the revival of natural philosophy in Western Europe. And that translation came from Europeans (e.g., Gerbert) proactively making contact with the Islamic world and not passively receiving instructions to do so as your edit implies. Other factors include the rediscovery and translation of the original Greek and Latin sources, the establishment of universities, urbanization, and economic and social renewal. So to reduce all that to "Muslims influenced the revival of natural philosophy in the West during the 13th century.." is not only simplistic and has the wrong timeline, it is just wrong. danielkueh (talk) 05:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Danielkueh: We have to somehow connect previous line about Islamic Golden Age with the revival in the 13th century in the West. So how do you suggest we do that...english is not my mother tongue so maybe you can write it. Karachiguy (talk) 05:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

If we were to connect those two statements, then we would have to make a statement about the fall of the Western Roman Empire, etc. Such details might inadventently change the nature of this article from Science to History of Science. But if there's a strong consensus to take that approach, then at the most, I would say something like "The recovery and assimilation of Greek and Islamic science into Western Europe during the 10th to 12th century led to the revival of natural philosophy in the West." Anything more than that would be more than overkill and belongs in the main body of this article. danielkueh (talk) 05:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll make a modest attempt. But I will hold the line as I really think the history bit is starting to get too long (see WP:undue). danielkueh (talk) 06:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The add by Karachiguy looked pretty modest and short. I don't think talk page space is needed for this. Simple reword to something simple like "The revival of natural philosophy in the west partly involved the recovery of Greek sources and research from the Islamic world." would be fine with me. I think is is short and gets the gist of it. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 06:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Appreciate the 50 cents. The changes [[12]] have already been made. danielkueh (talk)

Changes looks good. Thank you Karachiguy (talk) 06:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: By 1021, Alhacen had used experimental reasoning to establish that outer space is more rarified than our atmosphere. Alhacen's experimental procedure to establish this fact is in Smith's translation of Book of Optics, but the world was unready for Alhacen. The progress of science took centuries, as evidenced, for example in Averroism#Averroism_and_scholasticism. For me, this leads to the question "why didn't the scientific revolution occur outside Europe?". The printing press was clearly one factor, but the funding of science in Europe must have been another factor, not to mention the Mongol Empire stopping short of western Europe (the Mongols had conquered all of China by 1279, reaching Europe by 1294; a Chinese scholar convinced them to accept the income from taxation, rather than razing the cities of China for pastureland). --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 08:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Fascinating. danielkueh (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Danielkueh and Ancheta Wis: Above editor (Karachiguy) is a sock of Eulalefty and has been blocked accordingly. I have reverted to the pre-Karachiguy version. Lorstaking (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. The latest version of the lead was actually a well sourced version that excluded the sockpuppet's edit. danielkueh (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Confused paragraph on loss and recovery of Greek “science” in the Middle Ages

The leading section has a confused paragraph about the loss and recovery of Greek “science” in the Middle Ages and after:

“After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, knowledge of Greek science deteriorated in Western Europe during the Middle Ages[5] but thrived in the Islamic Golden Age.[6] The recovery and assimilation of Greek and Islamic science into Western Europe during the 10th to 13th century[5][7] preceded the revival of natural philosophy in the West, which continued to develop as the precursor of natural science from the Renaissance through the 19th century.”

To begin clarifying the paragraph, I added “Early” to “Middle Ages”, (because it is agreed among historians that the loss of Greek knowledge in the Latin West occurred in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, afterwards there was a stagnation about Greek texts until the High Medieval translations) which @Danielkueh: reverted saying that “Recovery and assimilation is not the same as “revival,” which came later”, which is:

1. irrelevant, since we are talking about the knowledge of Greek science, which was mostly complete during the High Middle Ages, not a new scientific practice. The Renaissance translations were mostly of rhetorical and historical texts, not scientific texts;
2. false, since there wasn’t a “revival” of Greek science in the Early Modern period, but a new enterprise, which mostly discarded Greek conceptions, and that was as different from the Greek practice as from Medieval practice, and from today’s science;
3. incoherent, since how could the revival have occurred “later”, if the text says that “knowledge of Greek science thrived in the Islamic Golden Age” and this arabic knowledge had already been totally translated by the end of the 13th century?

Furthermore, the distinction made in the paragraph and User:Danielkueh between the “the recovery and assimilation of Greek and Islamic science [...] in the 10th to 13th centuries” which “preceded the revival of natural philosophy in the West”, is confusing and misleading, and even false, because natural philosophy was already being taught in the Universities in the Middle Ages (a letter written by the University of Paris in 1254 mentioned the faculties of "theology, jurisprudence, medicine, and rational, natural, and moral philosophy”; the statutes of the University of Paris were revised in 1255 to include the “libri naturales” of Aristotle), so there already was a consciousness of a “revival” of natural philosophy in the High Middle Ages. Moreover, the distinction between “assimilation” and “revival” is vague at best, since the former somehow presupposes a purely passive role, which is an idealization or abstraction not supported by reality. Josebarbosa (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The current lead along with its wording ("distinctions" if you prefer) are supported by verifiable and reputable secondary sources and is consistent with the history section of this article and the History of Science article. Your first two assertions (e.g., ...but a new enterprise, which mostly discarded Greek conceptions...), however, are not (see WP:V). And please familiarize yourself with WP policies (e.g., WP:V, WP:consensus, and WP:OR) rather than edit warring. I also recommend going over WP:BRD. Thanks danielkueh (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The current lead with its wording (“After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, knowledge of Greek science deteriorated in Western Europe during the Middle Ages[5] but thrived in the Islamic Golden Age.[6] The recovery and assimilation of Greek and Islamic science into Western Europe during the 10th to 13th century[5][7] preceded the revival of natural philosophy in the West),is not supported by the sources, since the source cited in its support contradicts it ("The revival of learning in the West". The beginnings of Western science: the European Scientific tradition in philosophical, religious, and institutional context (Second ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 193–224), explicitly distinguishing the “Early Middle Ages” from the rest of the period: “Chapter 9: The REVIVAL OF LEARNING IN THE WEST

It will be convenient to subdivide this period into the Early Middle Ages (500-1000), a transition period (1000-1200), and the High or Late Middle Ages (1200-1450) [...] we have observed (chap. 7) the declining fortunes of the Roman Empire... Certainly scholarship on scientific subjects declined...

NATURAL PHILOSOPHY IN TWELFTH-CENTURY SCHOOLS

[...]

If the mathematical sciences remained generally inconspicuous, ARISTOTELIAN NATURAL PHILOSOPHY BECAME CENTRAL TO THE CURRICULUM. From modest beginnings late in the twelfth century, Aristotle’s influence grew until, by the second half of the thirteenth century, his works on metaphysics, cosmology, physics, meteorology, psychology, and natural history became compulsory objects of study.” etc.

So we have clearly a case of improper synthesis or irrelevant citation, if the current wording is maintained. Josebarbosa (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I'm starting to see where you are coming from and I'm hoping we won't continue to discuss at cross-purposes. I'm not going to quibble about specific periods during the Middle Ages because I don't think that is the point of contention here. But for those who are interested in the entire context provided by above-mentioned source, the entire passage can be found here ([13]). I believe we're disagreeing about the word "revival." As I'm reading the mid-part of the sentence, "the revival of natural philosophy in the West," I am thinking of the *practice* of natural philosophy (the precursor of natural science) itself, which would involve the many new discoveries and profound transformations that occurred during the renaissance (p. 274 of [[14]]). However, if I understand you correctly, you're interpreting that sentence to include the period of *learning* from the translated texts (part of the recovery and assimilation process during 10th through 13th century). Is that right? If so, I see the confusion and I believe changing it to *Early Middle Ages* will not solve that issue. Instead, it may be better to change the term "revival" to something more specific, such as "transformation and development of ...," that better describes the major activities of the renaissance. I'm open to other concrete suggestions here. Thanks. danielkueh (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I changed "revival" to "transformation [[15]]" and added a specific timeline based on the following statement from the above source:

"There is no question that knowledge of Greek natural and mathematical science had fallen precipitously, and few original contributions to it appeared in Western Europe during the early centuries of the medieval period (roughly 400-1000). (p. 155 of Lindberg)."

Both wikilinks to Early Middle Ages and Middle AgesSpecific years (400-1000 AD) have been inserted, which I think would benefit readers. I did not include wikilinks to the Early Middle Ages as the timeline (500-1000) and period designations used by Lindberg are somewhat different from the WP article (5th or 6th to 10th century). Hopefully, this resolves the issue but if there are other concerns, please feel free to bring them up. Thanks danielkueh (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Atomism

The explanation of all natural phenomena using 'atom and void', or Atomism was well-developed by the time of the Pre-socratics, and not by the Ancient Greeks alone. The atomic theory endorsed by thinkers such as Epicurus was complete enough for him to be able to assert that 'the gods are indifferent to us and our fates': completely naturalistic, an atheistic philosophy, not from the Greeks alone (see the Atomism article). In fact, using Epicurus' method of thinking, the only place left for the gods to inhabit that Epicurus could envision was in the interstices (That was why we can't see the gods).

For more, see the Hellenists .

See:

• Elizabeth Asmis, Epicurus' Scientific Method
• Epicurus, Letter to Herodotus
• Lucretius, 'On the nature of things'

--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 08:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Interesting as always. :) danielkueh (talk) 08:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Interestingly, there are many similarities between early Greek and early Indian philosophy such as atomism. But any Hindu parallels seem excluded from the article. The credit to atomism is given only to the pre-Socratics in the article, which is not completely objective. According to Naturalistic Tradition in Indian Thought by Dale Maurice Riepe, the earliest authenticated instance of atomism is around the times of the Charvakas, Jains and Pakudha Kaccayana. There are many similarities between the views of Epicurus and Pakudha Kaccayana. Kaccayana had a similar naturalistic, atomistic and atheistic philosophy, and wrote: "There are these seven substances — unmade, irreducible, uncreated, without a creator". Some authors claim that atomism emerged in the 6th century BC in India and a century later in Greece. These authors refer to the earliest possible proponent of atomism, Kanada, who predates the possible time frame of Democritus. --Ramadut (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't the Atomism article be a better place for this discussion? Khirurg (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

And the thread above could be named 'First attempts at a materialist understanding of science' since Nature is a Greek idea? Several ideas are in play here:

1. The gods (the stars in Mesopotamian cosmogony)
2. The gods of Egypt (creation narratives)
3. The 4/5/7 primordial elements in a scientific narrative
4. Atom and void as explanatory idea - hence no need for narratives about the gods
5. Ancient India's narrative
6. On the Nature of Things - very similar ideas in both India and Greece, India seems to have preceded the Pre-socratics

etc

--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs)

I'm sorry, I don't follow. What is this list supposed to mean? "The gods"? What is the "The Nature of Thing"? Khirurg (talk) 22:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

It was an incomplete submittal. The basic idea is that 'the gods' are an explanatory narrative. OK? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 22:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

At the very least, this article needs India's contribution to the state of science/ philosophy. Especially Charvaka and the role of doubt in science. Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 22:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

An explanatory narrative? By whom? For what? What are you talking about? Second, as you may know, the chronology of ancient India is extremely problematic (e.g. Boyer pp. 206-208 [16]). Dates should be treated with caution and any claims of precedence even more so. Khirurg (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

And now we have JSTOR, so some digging is in order. The urge to clarify is strong here; thank you for asking. I have to state that Indian literature is fully as ancient as Greek or Chinese literature, and these cultures predate the West. Ask away. This ought to be enlightening. But I need your skeptical eyes. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 22:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

We've always had JSTOR, I don't understand what you mean. Regarding chronology, because there are no written records from India from antiquity, assigning dates is highly problematic. For example Kanada has been dated anywhere from the 7th to the 2nd century BC [17]. The problem of dating is longstanding and unlikely to be resolved soon. On the other hand, the chronology of Egypt, Mesopotamia and Greece is on a much firmer footing. This is why sources like Lindberg and Grant discuss Egypt, Mesopotamia and Greece at length, but scarcely mention India.Khirurg (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

For example this is from JSTOR— p.180 verifies that Aruni is Uddalaka: G. S. Ghurye Ascetic Origins Sociological Bulletin Vol. 1, No. 2 (1952), pp. 162-184 JSTOR login required; I assume you can verify this citation. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 22:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

#Atomism is an explanatory header (a sample narrative), which I was assuming enough context for you. Aruni could very well have predated the Presocratics, but he might have been a contemporary of Buddha. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Or, he may not have. The Buddha is variously dated from the 6th century BC to 400 BC [18]. Again, the problem is chronology. In the absence of written records, it is impossible to establish accurate chronology. Khirurg (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Fine, let's anchor to the Pali Canon, then. Now the problem is to find a citation that relates Aruni's time to Buddha's time. The Mahabharata 1.3 seems to locate Aruni's time, so then find a citation that anchors Mahabharata. Off to JSTOR ... 23:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC) I was forced to download Painted Grayware culture because JSTOR ... Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The dates of Painted Grayware pottery nowhere overlap with punchmarked coins, which are coeval with the Presocratics, or as young as Alexander the Great. Conclusion: Painted Grayware pottery is much older than the Presocratics. Now anchor Mahabharata. ... 23:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Mahabharata anchors to 950-900 BCE.

Thus Aruni predates the Presocratics' atomic theory. Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 00:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Your kidding right? The Mahabharata is myth. What does it have to do with Aruni? We are deep, deep in WP:OR] territory. Khirurg (talk) 00:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Btw, B.B. Lal is a well-known Hindu nationalist. Mahabharata? Pali Canon? Painted Grey Ware? we are all over the place. This is making less and less sense. Bottom line is, it is impossible to establish a proper date for Aruni (it is not even possible to do so for the Buddha), so any claims of precedence are moot. Khirurg (talk) 00:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Fine. I think we are on the same page about myth. Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 01:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

So, according to Khirurg "There are no written records from India from antiquity"? Not that there are no surviving written records, but even no written records. You simply dismissed an entire period of the Hindu Valley as simply illiterate with some extraordinary claims that are referenced to no source.

I am not here with a firm stance or an agenda, just trying to help with providing more sources. I am unbiased, so adequate doubt, discrediting and skepticism on my proposed points are always needed and very appreciated by me. These presented by Khirurg above were on one-side focus, who seems to have forgotten to imply that there is something to be warned of the ancient Egyptian, Babylonian and Greek chronology and writings. If we are to follow this path, there is a plenty of chance also to discredit ancient written records from other places. The uncertainty actually applies also to Western ancient writings. Many works on the atomistic theory in history are just a probability and unreliable, including this of Democritus. Check this out, Democritus' works "survived only in secondhand reports, sometimes unreliable or conflicting". But a reference of atomism to Democritus is stated as a fact in the Science article, because of an interpretation. I also provided a source claiming that by the time of Kaccayana, the "earliest authenticated instance of atomic conception" had emerged, at least in relation to India only. [19] It turns out that each of these two sources state, respectively, that the reference of atomism to Kaccayana is authenticated, while the writings of Democritus are secondhand and unreliable. Overall, Indian ancient writings on atomism do not seem much of a problem than these of Democritus, to say the least. Of course, as you see, in history virtually nothing is beyond doubt, I admit to doubting the authenticity of both persons and not having a firm stance, just providing some sources. Nothing new in historiography, virtually there are no facts, only different sources and conflicting claims. So, may we agree, that simply all claims in the article should be made in relation to their level of probability, according to conflicting sources provided? This is not the case with what is stated about naturalism and atomism in the article. There is a passage, stating that the first man, who used non-supernatural explanations, was Thales. As I do not have a firm stance, I am not going to argue on chronological and authentic precedences of Uddalaka over Thales as the "first" naturalist or anyone, although some sources do and along with the article read in such an immature tone. The research was incomplete, as there are some academic sources discrediting the writings of Thales: "Doubts have always existed about whether Thales wrote anything". --Ramadut (talk) 01:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I am always very suspicious of those who loudly proclaim "I am neutral". What is the "Hindu Valley"? And it's a fact that there are no writings from India from antiquity. Fact: The oldest surviving Sanskrit text from India are the Edicts of Asoka from ~250 BC. Can you provide a source that says otherwise? This is exactly why dating ancient Indian philosophers is so problematic. Buddha himself is dated to between the 6th century BC to the 4th century BC. Kanada between the 7th century BC to the 2nd century BC. And I did provide sources. In contrast, one of the sources you provided is "philosophybasics.com", and the other source you provided does not make the claim about Democritus that you claim it makes. It is also a fact that the chronology of the Greek philosophers, while not carved in stone, is on a much more solid footing than for the Indian philosophers. No one in their right mind calls into question that Thales lived around the 6th century BC, or Democritus in the 5th century BC. While the precise years may be in doubt, the general chronology is not. Do not try to establish a false equivalence. Khirurg (talk) 02:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, you are misusing the sources. For example, you use a source to claim Doubts have always existed about whether Thales wrote anything, but that does not mean "doubts have existed that Thales existed". In fact, the source you use also states Thales is the first person about whom we know to propose explanations of natural phenomena which were materialistic rather than mythological or theological. Oops. You will also note it gives dates for the life of Thales. Khirurg (talk) 02:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

First. Regarding your point of no writing in the Indus Region until 250 BC... You stated that the oldest Sanskrit writing is from 250 BC. I tried to research your claim that the Edicts of Asoka from 250 BC are the oldest Sanskrit texts, but I didn't found any such claims, so it seems there is no such a source. You are kidding or blatantly speculating. If you are not kidding I suggest a break, man, we all need some research and rethinking. Please, provide sources for the datings you mention, you have only provided for Kanada in the passages far above. Are you serious with these datings? Especially the ridiculous oldest datings. The Routledge Encyclopedia can make you the first example for the so called oldest text in Sanskrit, 1000 BC. Writing in Sanskrit is estimated also in the fourteenth century BC [20]. Your underestimated dating is inconsistent towards eastern and western issues.

Second, my point of the disputed survival of writings of Democritus and Thales... We can keep denying one another's point, but I am confident with the provided sources backing me. Here an academic source stating exactly the same claim about the writings of Demicritus, "The work of Democritus has survived only in secondhand reports, sometimes unreliable or conflicting". Academic sources acknowledge it is dubious that any works of Thales and Democritus survived. But the following definition of Thales seem like mentioning a rumor. Doesn't "Whom we know to propose" imply a doubt? It is different than "who proposed", in a factual meaning, the same source claims Doubts have always existed about whether Thales wrote anything. There are all kinds of authors, I even found Laurence Goldstein proposing that "Thales never existed". I am not disputing the existence of Thales, but never mind, there are enough reasons for him to be part of the history of science, whether true or not. --Ramadut (talk) 04:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Careful there. "I have been to Hind and Sind" was an ancient claim to being well travelled; so ancient that the Indus Valley Civilisation was alive then; today India is the heir of Hind and Pakistan is the heir of Sind, and the river valley dried up so long ago that we don't know where the river coursed. I would be cautious in proclaiming the non-existence of that river. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 02:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

This is really weird. Where do I deny the "existence of that river"? I just wanted to know what is this "Hindu Valley" (his words, not mine), because I've never heard of the "Hindu Valley". I was accused of You simply dismissed an entire period of the Hindu Valley as simply illiterate, but I am lost here. Khirurg (talk) 03:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the rhetoric got overheated with the claims. The terminology of śruti and smṛti may be useful tools here; these are technical terms of oral knowledge. The important point is that the knowledge was preserved in the culture in an unbroken thread. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 03:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

What is clear is there was communication between the civilizations, as well as migration, and trade. Certainly in the Americas, this was true.

For China, the communication was undeniable: Buddhism was eagerly sought from the Indian civilization. And Alexander sought to conquer it.

To recap, Atomism was an explanatory narrative for the Epicureans, at least; an Indian analog existed for it, which existed, if not as śruti, then as smṛti in India, recorded in the six systems of Indian philosophy. Lest you scoff because there was no śruti, consider that the oral traditions of China were confirmed in the graves of important people, where there were in fact records written in Classical Chinese on bamboo staves (see Art of War), discovered in the past 50 years. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 03:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

References