Talk:List of people considered father or mother of a scientific field

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Science (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject History (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Anthroponymy (Rated List-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthroponymy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anthroponymy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

A Place for Euler[edit]

Leonhard Euler needs to be added to this page. My question is where, or rather in how many places? - Canglesea (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Title[edit]

Okay, can't this be changed to "Founders of scientific fields". The current title is pretty sexist. Famousdog (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Computer Science[edit]

I think there needs to be a catagory for modern computer science with Alan Turing being the obvious father Tubbablub (talk) 07:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Electricity[edit]

Needs to be divided as theres too many founders. Suggestion Electricity (fundamentals with Franklin and other early ones), Electromagnetics (Maxwell and Faraday), Modern Electrical Engineering (Tesla, Edison) 69.90.52.195 (talk) 08:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Mineralogy[edit]

Since Georgius Agricola is described as the "Father of Mineralogy" in the Wiki article describing him, I think that he warrants a mention under Earth sciences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.209.73.77 (talk) 10:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ethnocentrism[edit]

Not a single person from China? This list couldn't be rather ethnocentric... could it? Saint91 (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Mass deletion of Jagged85's edits[edit]

There was a mass deletion of Jagged85's edits. The deleter, J8079s, gives little more than "failed verification" as an explanation.

Let me bring just two examples.

  • The user deleted Alhazen as a father of experimental physics.[1] the source in question says (emphasis added):

Schramm showed that already some six centuries before Galileo, experimental

physics was being cultivated in Iraq and Egypt: “Through a closer examination of Ibn al-Haytham’s

conceptions of mathematical models and of the role they play in his theory of sense perception, it becomes evident that he was the true founder of physics in the modern sense of the word; in fact he anticipated by six centuries the fertile ideas that were to mark the beginning of this new branch of science” (in Ibn al-Haythams Weg, Summary).
    • Now the source doesn't call him the "father" of experimental physics. But given that it does call him its "founder", that hardly qualifies as "failed verification".
  • The user also deleted Alhazen as father of optics. The source that allegedly "failed verification" is called "Al-Hazen: father of modern optics". Its existence can be confirmed here.
    • That is most certainly not "failed verification".

I have reverted the deletion of those two (though I will gladly accept the deletion of the first, if there is consensus that "founder" of something is not the same as "father" of the same thing). But the question arises, when J8079s accuse(s/d) jagged85's edit of "failing verification", did he/she really bother to check the source?

Bless sins (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Another flagrant example of J8079s false justification: the user deletes Jabir ibn Hayyan as the Father of chemistry, again with the same justification of "failed verification".
Jagged85 provides 4 sources. One of them ("War and the Cultural Heritage of Iraq: a sadly mismanaged affair"), which was printed in an academic journal (Third World Quarterly) says:

Jabir bin Hayyan, who lived in Kufa in the 8th century, was an alchemist whose rational mind led him to analytical understandings which have given him the title of the Father of Chemistry.

Bless sins (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
And here J8079s removes Ibn Khaldun.
Yet the source Arab civilization: challenges and responses, p.125says, "his unprecedented contributions to the field of economics should make him, Ibn Khaldun, the father of economics." The book is published by SUNY press, making it a reliable source.
Bless sins (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry for the misleading edit summary but I stand behind my deletions (more should be made) Pleas take time to read

Alhazen's work on "optics" is important but it is not "modern"Porter, Roy; Park, Katharine; Daston, Lorraine (2006). The Cambridge History of Science: Early modern science. Cambridge University Press. pp. 611–612. ISBN 9780521572446. Retrieved 4 October 2010.  sources agree that "modern optics" begin with Kepler. AlsoLindberg, David C. (1996-04-22). Theories of vision from al-Kindi to Kepler. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226482354. Retrieved 4 October 2010. 
Jabir ibn Hayyan was considered, by some, for a time, in a way, the "father of chemistry" but this is no longer the case. None of the sources provided are acceptable. the Geber/Jabir confusion still needs work See Talk:Jabir ibn Hayyan.J8079s (talk) 06:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Third World Quarterly, published by Routledge is not "acceptable"?Bless sins (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Ibn Khaldun best remembered for his work on history Yassine, Nadia (2006-01-01). Full Sails Ahead. Justice & Spirituality Publi. p. 265. ISBN 9780967579528. Retrieved 4 October 2010.  his work on economics is interesting as is his sociology but he has no successor or disiple Enan, Mohammad Abdullah (2007-06-20). Ibn Khaldūn: his life and works. The Other Press. p. 127. ISBN 9789839541533. Retrieved 4 October 2010.  while a number of works call him "founder" or "pioneer" his works were unknown (lost even in his own world) until the 19th century (for history/sociology) and sometime after 1953 for his works in economics.J8079s (talk) 06:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Your comment does not at all answer to whether or not a reliable source considers him the father of of economics. You are applying your own original research as to whether he is or not, where as a reliable source exists that calls hi as such.Bless sins (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

From wp:rs The appropriateness of any source depends on the context.

  • Ibn Khaldun. the source Arab civilization: challenges and responses, p.125says, "his unprecedented contributions to the field of economics should make him, Ibn Khaldun, the father of economics." There is a great deal of "mainstream" info see esp. [2] to make a halfassed claim is to make a negative impression on the reader. Owiss may not be alone in thinking that Khaldun should be considered "the father of economics" but no one says he is.
  • Jabir ibn Hayyan here the sources are totally out of line.
  • Alhazen I'll deal with this later/elswhere
All of this is moot since the intro says In some fields several people are considered the founders, while in others the title of being the "mother" or "father" is debatable. with that said anyone could be added however where there is debate it needs to be noted by the editor adding the info. If you want to you must do so "retale"

J8079s (talk) 05:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The two problems cited here: father of modern physics / optics - are the sort of stuff that caused this mess in the first place. They are problematic in that they are wrong, but supported, weakly, by not-quite-good-enough sources. This is peacockery, and is bad. BS: are you really going to repeat all of J's errors? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Modern psychiatry[edit]

This piece from the New York Times suggests Dr. Spitzer is the father of modern psychiatry. Perhaps worth mentioning in the article? --MZMcBride (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Father of Science[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Origins_and_history Thales is considered the father of science.Bodo3 (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

According to our pages on Thales and Democritus, this isn't so clear and the latter might be more deserving of this title. It's a sweeping claim. -- Scray (talk) 11:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)