Talk:Science

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 March 2021 and 4 June 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shady2021 (article contribs).

Science in India is missing

In this article, there is absolutely no mention of scientific achievements in India. There is another article for scientific achievements of India- but this article should have at least the major scientific achievements of India in brief- to present a neutral view. I once added scientific achievements in India with sources but somebody deleted it and said that it was "fringe". Subhobrata Chakravorti (talk) 11:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

This article currently has no specific sections about any national achievements because it's topic is the current western science which is now globally "science". It is not meant to be a collection of achievements. The historical sections therefore tend to focus only on "achievements" in as far as they were leading towards that type of science which we all use today. This does raise concerns sometimes, but are there specific achievements you think were important in leading to science as it exists today? I am not sure it makes sense to just insert sentences saying "India is notable".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:03, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Well Aryabhatta is quite an important figure when it comes to astronomy. 223.184.77.204 (talk) 12:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC) Jain theory is also of great importance in the history of progress of mathematics in our country. Jains like Vedic scholars. The motivation to study mathematics did not come from performing religious rituals, as the Jains had a strong hatred of religious practices. His inspiration was a deep practice about the universe. The Jains made maps of the universe on a large scale where mathematics was closely related. In Jain philosophy also, in many cases, mathematical discussion is reflected. Particular attention was paid to early Jain studies (5th century BC to 2nd century AD) geometry of circles, arithmetic, permutations and a large number of 10, 978 pics classifications (infinite) 978 pics (infinite as understood by many). could have).

Like the customs formula in the middle of the first millennium BC, the Jains also realized that the ratio of circumference and diameter is not 3. In a work from the 4th century BCE, Suryapragyapati, the author of a Jain text, revised the traditional value of this ratio to 3 and proposed a square root of 10 as the new standard, which is much closer to the actual value. This value of the ratio of circumference to diameter has long been influential in India and was often referred to as the 'Jain standard'. This 'Jain value' has been in use for a long time even after Aryabhata introduced the famous value '3.1416' of this ratio. There are also some unique formulas in Jain texts, such as the formula for expressing a circular arc with its corresponding chord and its height over the chord, and finding the area of ​​a circle and its two chords. formula to do. Although the method of determining the exact value of the zodiac has been discovered at this time since the advent of calculus, how ancient Jaina scholars spoke of all these sutras that are very close to the next standard is still unknown. The subject of research.

There is a citation needed in history of optics#Early history; perhaps you might be able to provide one for light as one of the tanmatras of the Samkhya or Vaisheshika schools. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 10:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the challenge is to state (properly sourced) in what way important Indian contributions actually fed into what can be considered modern mainstream science. E.g., if zero entered mathematics through India, then all Indian maths that led to the discovery/invention of zero did in fact feed into modern mainstream science. Similarly, cases may be made for other things - and they should be made, I believe.--Nø (talk) 12:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Science

"Science is a system that organizes and orders knowledge through verifiable questions and a structured method that studies and interprets natural, social and artificial phenomena" or at least that is what wikipedia says in other languages, for example wikipedia in Spanish, I thought science was a universal concept, I would like it to be revised again Hastengeims (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The current lead is well-sourced and has been discussed extensively (see archive [1]). Also, we don't rely on other WP pages as references (see WP:UGC), regardless of the language. danielkueh (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I have a question, what is a systematic enterprise in this context? Hastengeims (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

An enterprise is a project, undertaking, or venture, usually a complicated or risky one.([2],[3]) danielkueh (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

oh I understand, I was confused because in my language enterprise is just a business (activity in order to have an economic benefit) but now I see that it is only a translation dilemma Hastengeims (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

obviously science does not seek economic benefit as the ultimate goal, and that is why it seemed strange to me before but now I see it from another perspective on the meaning in English Hastengeims (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Science no longer goes to philosophy?

if you were familiar with the phenomenon of the first link of every page going back to philosophy, it's broken now. Is science a self-referential subject, or is it based on philosophy? 88.252.199.156 (talk) 09:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The word philosophy appears 72 times in this article. I'm not sure why you think it's a 'self-referential subject', whatever that means. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Fringe science, pseudoscience, junk science

Are there significant differences between these? I've looked at the articles and clearly some of the words are different, but i can't see why there are 3. --142.163.194.149 (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)