Talk:Science

GAN

I've just nominated this article at GAN, I'm open to discuss any edits that other disagree on - - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@Kevo327 Some societies act as professional bodies, regulating the activities of their members in the public interest or the collective interest of the membership. is missing its sourcing. Etrius ( Us) 23:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Etriusus: do you think it needs (WP:GACR#2/WP:MINREF) a citation? If so, please tag it with citation needed so that this is made obvious. For what it's worth, the paragraph was added in 2018 by Danielkueh who copied it from from Learned society where it was added in 2003 by Seglea without a source. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, I'll hold my hand up to the lack of a source (but it was in 2003). What I had in mind was the society I have had most to do with, the British Psychological Society, which is a fairly typical learned society at least as far as the United Kingdom goes. You could extract evidence for the assertions I made from its Charter and Statutes (all readily found at https://www.bps.org.uk, but I don't know how useful that would be, because it would only be a source for the activities of that particular society. What we really need is someone who has surveyed a variety of societies, comparing and contrasting what they get up to. This might be a useful reference, at least as a starting point, though it is country-specific: Hewitt, M., Dingwall, R., & Turkmendag, I. (2017). More than research intermediaries: A descriptive study of the impact and value of learned societies in the uk social sciences. Science and Public Policy, 44, 775-788. doi:10.1093/scipol/scx013 . However, I don't have time to dig into this further now. seglea (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Tagged. I get that it's just a list of generalizations but WP:V is hard to get around (and rightly so!!!). Just to be devils advocate, how do we know Most scientific societies are non-profit organizations is true without a citation to back it up? They could be bankrolled by the cabal for all we know!!!! 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 19:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Etriusus: I tagged the same in Learned society and a source was added. What it strictly verifies is the following:

Most scientific societies are non-profit organizations and many are professional associations. Their activities typically include holding regular conferences for the presentation and discussion of new research results and publishing or sponsoring academic journals in their discipline. Some societies act as professional bodies, regulating the activities of their members in the public interest or the collective interest of the membership.

Does this source satisfy you or do you think more are needed? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 11:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems CactiStaccingCrane was looking at getting this to GA standard not long ago. Would be interested in their views. Aircorn (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Aircorn This article is not ready yet for GA, as it hasn't adequately addressed the core issue of "what is science?" and perhaps more importantly, "why science is useful?" There should be a long section of how science is performed and a small section explaining science's benefits to humanity (note that this is different to technology's or engineering's benefits to humanity). CactiStaccingCrane 15:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Aircorn I have a better idea: why not collaborate to make this article a GA then? We can invite a lot of editors from various WikiProjects to come here and make this article much better than what it is right now. CactiStaccingCrane 15:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Kevo327: There has been a consensus to ban drive-by nominations, which this probably falls into. You started a talk page discussion so I would lean towards you being committed to follow through on the review. This is the main issue. Science is a massive topic and even for seasoned editors it proposes a lot of work. It will also be a massive job for a reviewer and there is nothing worse than writing a review and getting no response for it. From your edits it would appear you have not done a lot to the article so I have a few questions to see how familiar you are with it.

• Have you read through the article properly to the point that you will understand where and what it means if a reviewer queries a section or sentence?
• Are you familiar enough with the sources that if you were asked you could confirm information?
• Have you checked at least some of the sources already in that they are correct, up-to-date and accessible?
• Are you able to access the sources, or equivalent ones, if required (i.e do you have access to scholarly sources not found just by googling)?
• Will you be available to respond to questions from a reviewer? This process could take weeks, if not months.

I would actually consider reviewing this, mainly because it was on my list of articles that I wanted to get to GA status at some point. But if you are not committed then I would suggest you remove the GAN nomination as it would probably save us both some time. Aircorn (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Journal des sçavans by Philosophical Transactions

The first scientific journal, Journal des sçavans by Philosophical Transactions, began publication in 1665. Journal des sçavans by Philosophical Transactions are two unrelated journals, so the usage of "by" here is incorrect. According to the respective articles, Journal des sçavans is the first academic journal, while Philosophical Transactions is the first journal dedicated exclusively to science. I think Journal des sçavans should be removed, while Philosophical Transactions is kept here. I can't access the source, so I' not sure about this. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 10:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

@Hanif Al Husaini, thanks for noticing this. It is supposed to read "first scientific journals" and "followed by" instead of "by", but someone changed it. I've fixed this. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Vague fringy sentence in lead

Science may be as old as the human species, and some of the earliest archeological evidence for scientific reasoning is tens of thousands of years old.

Why is cybertracker.org a reliable source? And the next sentence is about ancient Egypt, that is not "as old as human species".

The sentence looks fringy and meaningless, what are this "archeological evidence for scientific reasoning is tens of thousands of years old"?

I removed it, but was reverted. Let's see what others think. Artem.G (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

What makes you say that the information is "fringy"? Sure it's self-published and could probably replaced by a different source, but the author is a published expert in the field and it's been endorsed by established academics. The "tens of thousands of years old" is backed up in the body and doesn't need to be cited in the lead. The next sentence is about written records, which are not as old as scientific reasoning.      — Freoh 14:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

The only place in text that is about prehistoric origins is this sentence with reference by the same author Some of the earliest evidence for scientific reasoning is tens of thousands of years old,

What makes it vague and fringe is that it is, well, too vague. "Some ... evidence ... is tens of thousands of years old" - but what are these evidences? Being a known expert doesn't make all your views a mainstream view on the subject. In my view, this sentence should also be removed, or should be backed by better source, and, of course, should include some actual example of these "evidences". Artem.G (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

It's vague because the true "origin" of science wasn't a specific event; it was a gradual process, and evidence degrades over time. The best understanding of the earliest science is somewhat vague, and I think that a historical introduction that makes this clear is useful. Without it, it sounds like science was invented by "civilized" people in Egypt and Mesopotamia.      — Freoh 18:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, no, there is nothing that tells that science was invented by civilized people in Egypt, only that Direct evidence for scientific processes becomes clearer with the advent of writing systems. Let's wait for some more comments; I still think that if somebody says about "ancient evidence of prehistoric science" (not a direct quote), that person should provide at least some evidence, not a vague idea that science is ancient and people did it before written history. Artem.G (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

And also what makes the author an "expert"? His affiliation is stated as "Louis Liebenberg CyberTracker Conservation, South Africa", and the article is just an essay, though peer-reviewed. Artem.G (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

"though peer-reviewed", I'm going to put a big fat on that. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Freoh strong statements in Wikipedia voice need very strong sources, such as would demonstrate a high degree of consensus among all published experts. A second point which is important in this case is that the meaning should be clear. Your comments above seem to show that you are arguing this on the basis of the variable meaning of the word "science".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

This is vague wishy wishy at best, and utter nonsense at worse, and the source is terrible. This does not belong in Wikipedia. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Headbomb, Andrew Lancaster, and Artem.G: given that all of you have now challenged the reliability of this peer-reviewed journal, I've posted at WP:RS/N § Citizen Science: Theory and Practice to ask for more input.      — Freoh 20:28, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

That is not a good way to define the concern though. Reliability is not "black or white". The concerns are also about appropriate balance and wording.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Hey, Freoh, at least three other editors (including me) said that these sources are not reliable to use, and you silently place them back. Can you find better sources for this claim? Editors in WP:RS/N § Citizen Science: Theory and Practice also think that the source is bad, why use it? Artem.G (talk) 16:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you place source reliability remarks on the RSN discussion, in order to keep everything together. OTOH I honestly think this is a different type of problem. As I remarked there as well, this is a strong simple statement being placed at the top of the second sentence in the article for "Science". It is saying that "Science may be as old as the human species". I believe the concern of some editors is that this implies that what we now call science, modern science, is really just something humans always had. So either this is a potentially controversial statement about a very big topic, or else the meaning of "science" is being used in a fuzzy way and the statement is not interesting. I think this is bad editing. The idea that modern science evolved from earlier forms of science such as medieval science is important of course. The idea that these evolved from much earlier natural behaviour is not necessarily all that interesting, but it could perhaps also be discussed in the body of the article. OTOH the way the statement is written, and the prime place that it is given in our article, implies that what most people call science now, is just the same thing that humans have always had. It implies that we should deny the big differences between modern science and earlier forms of investigation and knowledge. The sourcing reliability is not the only problem, but also questions of due balance, and clear explanation. For one thing I do not think this should be in the lead.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

This was a shot at compromise. It seemed like there were two main problems with the original version: it's a big statement to be backed by a single source written by a non-PhD, and it references archeological evidence without mentioning what the evidence is. I was hoping that this solved the problems, using one of the sources that DIYeditor recommended I use at WP:RS/N § Citizen Science: Theory and Practice. Is the current wording better, Andrew Lancaster? I'm not sure that ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia are any more deserving of the lead.      — Freoh 19:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

@Freoh: you have a point, and probably we need to all be thinking about how to make our lead (and article) more clear about the differences between different kinds of "science". I also have some doubts, to be honest, about the whole second paragraph and particularly this opening sentence: Scientific techniques evolved gradually over tens of thousands of years. Honestly I think it is not controversial to say that science as we now know it was not the result of a gradual "evolution". There were quantum leaps. Can't we bend a bit to that idea? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, I guess that text could be interpreted as contradicting the whole notion of paradigm shifts. How's this?      — Freoh 21:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that change helps. First you had no quantum leaps. Now you have no change at all. Science was the same 10,000 years ago?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC) I think it is important to keep in mind that in modern English science is a word we use in order to distinguish a new thing from the older everyday things. Science might have originally just meant wisdom, but the term today, and what this article is about, is perceived to be something different and new.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it implies that science was the same 10,000 years ago, but I'm open to rewording. My usage of the word science is backed up by reliable sources. Who perceives science to be something different and new?      — Freoh 09:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The term system may be less loaded than science. This forces the context of a finding to be scrutinized as much as the content of that finding. -- 21:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC) I took a look at Liebenberg and the Lotka-Volterra equations which model predator-prey populations immediately came to mind. Has anyone applied them to the humans who hunt? In this case, the human populations may belong to a culture. The decline of the megafauna currently might serve as data. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 21:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

This is the Science article, so I think we should be talking about science, not systematic reasoning. Your edit seems to me less clear and not as well-supported by the cited sources.      — Freoh 23:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Science is about systematic reasoning, the first sentence. If the mapping to predator-prey is not what you refer to, then why cite Liebenberg? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 00:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The term science refers to several things. It is a type of knowledge. It is an approach to investigating things. And so on. Being systematic is indeed probably one of the common elements to most meanings, but OTOH I guess not every systematic type of knowledge or investigation is science. (Think of laws and religions.) But in any case we need to make it clear which meanings we are writing about in which places.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

We definitely need to call out the separation of magic from science, which happened only 500 years ago. This contradicts the claim of 10 millennia for an age for scientific reasoning, as opposed to magical reasoning. -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 06:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Which source contradicts the claim of 10 millennia for an age of scientific reasoning?      — Freoh 09:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

See the separation from magic, which occurred only recently. But see Ludwik Fleck (1935) Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact in German, 1935 and English 1979, showing that in science, practitioners of a repeatable, identifiable process communicate results within a population. A success then grows beyond it. Thus a critical mass of ideas and practitioners (a system) arises and propagates in a repeatable way. This creates an institution which can be communicated, scrutinized, used, and accepted by others (or not, as in the case of magic). Thus a successful practice thrives even in the presence of sceptics over time. -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Could you point me to a page number in a recent source?      — Freoh 14:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I am going to go out on a limb and say that this is not a difficult thing to source. If you seriously have never heard of such opinions then please say so, but really? Secondly, the "definition of science" is not a fast moving field like population genetics. Expert sources still cite books from 50 or more years ago in some fields. Age matters, but who decides how much it matters? Us, the Wikipedians. You have to make your case here with us.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I have heard of such opinions, but the sources I've seen have been significantly less reliable than the ones I've cited here. Archeological evidence today is very different than it was fifty years ago, and my sources are based in part on these developments.      — Freoh 17:08, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

See Giambattista della Porta (1558) Natural Magick. Giambattista della Porta espoused the water-filled glass spheres that Kepler (1604) used to solve the problem of the optical chain needed for astronomical observations. So della Porta still contributed to science in spite of his muddled view on magic. --

Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 18:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Just to vary the process, and to illustrate an institution, here is a citation to a correction to Aristotle, citing a section to a 1000-year-old manuscript: "Twenty-three hundred years ago, Aristotle proposed that a vacuum did not exist in nature; thirteen hundred years later, Alhazen disproved Aristotle's hypothesis, using experiments on refraction, thus deducing the existence of outer space. In 1079 Ibn Mu'adh's Treatise On Twilight was able to infer that Earth's atmosphere was 50 miles thick, based on atmospheric refraction of the sun's rays. The Sun's rays are still visible at twilight in the morning and evening due to atmospheric refraction even when the depression angle of the sun is 18° below the horizon." illustrating a thousand-year-old process that spanned authors who spanned centuries between their contributions. -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 17:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to illustrate here. How is eleventh century astronomy relevant to modern-day archeological findings of prehistoric science?      — Freoh 18:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

It illustrates an institution that has held up for 1000 years. That should give you a benchmark to hold your field up to. Does it meet the standard? -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

So, I said before, these statements and sources are too vague and fringe, and are very far from current mainstream position held by scientific community. The only sources to prove this "old as human species science" are not reliable, so let's just remove them and move on. Artem.G (talk) 07:15, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. The sources are weak and the claims they back up are uselessly vague. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 07:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

What makes you say that this is very far from current mainstream position held by scientific community? It's backed up by three academic sources, so if this isn't reliable, then neither is most of this article.      — Freoh 09:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

At least one of the sources is questioned by everyone in this discussion except for you; I didn't check other sources, but I agree with Andrew Lancaster that the wording is problematic. And what makes you think that something published by CyberTracker is reliable to be included? The argument that it's peer-reviewed is not convincing, you can publish any garbage outputted by neural net if you're persistent enough. Artem.G (talk) 09:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Let's keep discussion of the reliability of that source at WP:RS/N § Citizen Science: Theory and Practice.      — Freoh 10:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes we can keep the detailed discussion there, but as an editing discussion we can say that anything controversial or needing detailed explanation is probably not something for the lead. OTOH I think that the first problem is trying to work out what these words are supposed to be saying.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Is this wording better? And if you want to argue that this information is controversial, could you provide a contradicting source?      — Freoh 14:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Freoh: according to WP norms it is relevant if a certain edit can not gain easy consensus among other editors. That is what I primarily meant by controversial.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I have provided several reliable sources that support this change, but Headbomb has reverted it again. I've asked a couple of times now for reliable sources that contradict this information, but I haven't seen any. Could someone explain why you oppose this content in a way that is grounded in Wikipedia's guidelines?      — Freoh 17:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Despite your claims of otherwise, Liebenberg is not a reliable source and should not be used in this article to source anything. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

That source is one of three. If you're going to continue to argue that that peer-reviewed article is unreliable, then could you answer my questions at WP:RS/N § Citizen Science: Theory and Practice?      — Freoh 19:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

The phrasing The earliest roots of scientific reasoning are tens of thousands of years old is hopelessly vague. What are the earliest roots? Wouldn't that include the basic cognitive processes involved in tool use, proto-language, and taming fire? That would push the earliest roots back to Homo erectus days. Moreover, the superficiality with which the main text treats this time period argues against including statements about it prominently in the lede. XOR'easter (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by the superficiality with which the main text treats this time period? These facts are mentioned multiple times in the cited sources.      — Freoh 20:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I mean that the part of the "Earliest roots" subsection that goes back "tens of thousands of years" is a single, short paragraph of four sentences. That's less than what the same subsection spends on Ancient Mesopotamia alone. The article as a whole has more to say about the etymology of the word "science" than it does about prehistoric roots. Spending more words on those roots than the article does now goes against our style guideline for writing introductions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Freoh: one question is the strength/reliability of the sources, but on the other hand just because we can source something does not mean we must use it. Your wording proposals are all strong in the sense that they for example imply a consensus among all experts. They are written in WP voice. The implication of the various wordings is that something to do with science has existed since the stone age. Maybe, but what do you mean? For example, given that science is a human endeavour, why do we need to even say that it is something consistent with older human tendencies? It does not say that there are various opinions about this, but simply states it as a fact. It seems to be written in a deliberately simplistic way?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I'll ask the same question I've asked several times now: if there are various opinions about this, then could you provide a reliable source with a contradictory opinion?      — Freoh 09:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Opinion piece in a journal is not an established fact. Encyclopedia shouldn't cover all opinions that were published, it's not the purpose and couldn't be done anyway. And as you can see, you're the only one who think that this claim brings any value, with many editors being against it. Opinion piece can be published by anybody, it can be interesting and appealing, but it doesn't establish any new facts, and doesn't warrants its inclusion into a broad encyclopedia article. If you want better source, check some reputable book on it, like The Oxford Illustrated History of Science or A Companion to the History of Science (just two books I googled right now), and compare what are there on the roots of science. Artem.G (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Cunningham and Williams argue that claiming the scientific enterprise to be a fundamental part of human nature or the expression of an innate human curiosity, a general and universal desire to understand the world anachronistically projects modern values back into the past. Dear says that trying to draw a line between the ancient activities that ought to be called "science" and those that shouldn't is just really hard. Disagreement remains rife, however, about whether the general term 'science' may legitimately be used for earlier periods [than the 19th century] or, indeed, for other cultural regions than the European. It can at first brush seem simpler to focus on the history of specific sciences, like physics or astronomy, but this too risks imposing a systematic distortion on the categories of the past by heedlessly understanding historical activities as having been carried out under the categories of the present. Lloyd's Ancient Worlds, Modern Reflections (Oxford UP, 2004) says that treating what people did in antiquity as the same as modern science is anachronistic, but saying it has no continuity with modern science is also wrong. One might try to define science as involving the ambition to arrive at some understanding of the phenomena of the external, non-social world; but this runs into the problem that In most ancient civilizations the microcosm of human society forms a seamless whole with the microcosm of the human body and the macrocosm of the heavens. All three were believed to be part of a single dispensation, all three indeed exhibiting the same essential structure or exemplifying the same principles. So the gap that we recognize between the study of human social relations and the phenomena of the external world does not necessarily correspond to one marked by the investigators we are studying. Lewis Wolpert, in The Unnatural Nature of Science (1992), argued that science is generally in contradiction with "common sense", and that scientific thinking differs from everyday thinking not only in the concepts used but in what constitutes a satisfactory explanation. He contended that the idea of innate curiosity is a partial myth: man's curiosity extends only to what affects his conduct. Designating certain human activities as "the roots of science" rather than the roots of anything else is, in brief, a choice. It depends on how broadly one wishes to define "science" and how one wishes to contextualize antiquity in relation to modern times. XOR'easter (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks XOR'easter, that's helpful. I guess my biggest problem with the recent changes is that they seem to draw a line at the "civilized" people of Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. I'd be up for rewording my proposal with an attribution if the other pre-modern science is given similar treatment.      — Freoh 14:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The line is drawn there because that's what the earliest written evidence for it is. It's also not very surprising, giving Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia are the oldest civilisations with a written record. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Why do you value the written evidence from ancient civilisations more than archeological evidence from paleolithic Africa?      — Freoh 19:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Because a) written evidence is clear, b) archeological evidence at best hints at and c) no actual expert in the history of science has conclusively linked archeological evidence from paleolithic Africa to an understanding of science/natural philosophy. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Don't the quotes from XOR'easter show that written evidence of ancient science is not clear?      — Freoh 19:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

See Otto Neugebauer (1957), Exact Sciences in Antiquity for Egyptian and Babylonian science. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 19:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Ancheta Wis, are you saying that XOR'easter's sources are unreliable?      — Freoh 19:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

No, the quotes show that "ancient science", i.e. protoscience, is clearly an attempt at science. What is "unclear" is when exactly protoscience becomes science exactly, because that depends on what you're willing to accept as 'true science'. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The heliacal rising of Sirius (Sopdet) marked the yearly flooding of the Nile (that's how the precession of Earth's orbit was discovered -- so we are at some fraction of 26,000 years for the age of measurement of the precession -- meaning we could eventually estimate the error bars in a 10,000 year guess for systematic observation, for the foodgathering society of Egypt). --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 20:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Exactly. None of the sources I quoted dispute that the ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians (Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonians...) did things that are contiguous with modern science, like astronomy-based calendar-keeping. What they do call into question is whether the label "science" should be applied.

I am not convinced that "protoscience" is always intended to be or regarded as a disparaging term, the way the article currently presents it (based on a single source). I'm more familiar with the literature on "early modern" developments, but there, "protoscience" generally has the vibe of being a more dignified and respectful term than the alternatives. One might call alchemy in the 1600's "protoscientific" to recognize that it was systematic, somewhat quantitative and empirical, etc. See the Dear item quoted above, or Smith (2009), or Ball (2015). Or, looking at a different place and time, Light (1995): in the 1100's, the proto-science implicit in Taoist alchemy, medicine, and divination had become so permanent a part of Chinese thinking that any comprehensive worldview had to deal with [it] in one way or another. The term protoscience is less disparaging than pseudoscience, mysticism, etc. Its downside is not that it is an insult, but that as Dear writes, it bears a cast oriented towards the present. The cited source makes the assertion in a brief statement with no analysis of whether different terms actually have different connotations (e.g., traditional versus primitive). This isn't the place to argue that the source is wrong, of course, but by relying only upon that one source, we're giving only one POV. XOR'easter (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, here's the sense that I'm getting:

• Some draw a distinction between "science" and "protoscience", but others have criticized making this distinction.
• For those who do make the distinction, there's no consensus on where the line is drawn, and some draw it as late as a few hundred years ago.
• Some sources put the origins of science tens of thousands of years ago. The sources that disagree would probably describe this as "protoscience".

Given all of this, I don't think that it makes sense to follow Headbomb's preference for the current version of the lead, which attributes the first "science" to ancient writing-based civilizations.      — Freoh 15:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

There is another narrative based on predator-prey populations.

• Humans engaged in predation, based on tracking of prey, largely exhausted the megafauna of multiple regions extending from Africa, Asia, Oceania, to the Americas.
• The resulting crisis in food availability produced the Neolithic revolution which occurred about 11,000 BP, shifted from hunting and produced sedentary populations which engaged in domestication of animals, invented writing, and agriculture.
• The populations that still engage in hunting concentrate on prey populations which can regrow based on controlled hunting. This is explained by the Lotka-Volterra equations that describe predator-prey populations.

The implication is that controlled hunting, such as that practiced in a Department of Natural Resources (DNR) can preserve a prey population (such as deer or elephant) indefinitely. This can be construed not as science, but animal husbandry (a food production process). -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 16:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

My only preference for the lead is to not have a date that is only supported by an opinion piece of non-experts on entirely unrelated subjects. Or to have that opinion piece cited at all. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

The information is not only supported by an opinion piece of non-experts. As I've now explained to you several times at WP:RS/N § Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, there are three published academic sources written by reputable experts on relevant subjects.      — Freoh 22:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

You have provided zero additional sources beyond the essay at RSN. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:54, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The text you deleted was backed by two other sources:

• Carruthers, Peter (2002). Carruthers, Peter; Stich, Stephen; Siegal, Michael (eds.). The roots of scientific reasoning: infancy, modularity and the art of tracking. Cambridge University Press. pp. 73–96. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511613517.005. ISBN 978-0-521-81229-0. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
• Lombard, Marlize; Gärdenfors, Peter (2017). "Tracking the Evolution of Causal Cognition in Humans". Journal of Anthropological Sciences. 95 (95): 219–234. doi:10.4436/JASS.95006. ISSN 1827-4765. PMID 28489015.      — Freoh 02:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

These are still there and aren't used to back up the claim that "the earliest roots of scientific reasoning are tens of thousands of years old". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Surely the "earliest roots" of every human activity "are tens of thousands of years old". So such a statement about science seems vacuous to me. Paul August ☎ 02:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes. H. erectus might have been cooking 780,000 years ago, for example. One could use that to argue that we have been doing science for longer than we have been human. But that is lofty rhetoric, not an encyclopedic statement. XOR'easter (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Would you say that it is also lofty rhetoric to include Ancient Greece in the history of science?      — Freoh 17:57, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Freoh, I think this discussion is stuck in a loop because your position is unclear and you keep sliding changing the topic. What is it you are arguing actually? What is your latest proposal? Please try to defend one single clear proposal.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Ancient Greek had subtle grammar that easily covered science.

• See Shmuel Sambursky, ed. (1975) Physical thought from the Presocratics to the quantum physicists : an anthology for a review of Greek science.
• See also Lindberg, David C. (2007). "Science before the Greeks". The beginnings of Western science: the European Scientific tradition in philosophical, religious, and institutional context (Second ed.). Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-48205-7 --

Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 18:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Going by the sum total of references I have seen, that is at least more defensible. An advocate of a maximalist definition of "science" would include Greek natural philosophy, while a minimalist would exclude it; our job here is not to endorse either POV, but to make as clear as possible what those POVs are and why one might hold them. As a matter of writing organization, I think it is fair to include some topics that a minimalist would exclude from "science" in an article on history of science, just like a textbook on United States history has reason to include Jamestown, Plymouth, the American theatre of the Seven Years' War, etc. Or, a history of the French language would begin at least with Latin. The symphony article discusses predecessors of the classical art form going back to the 1500s. In short, setting context is important. XOR'easter (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Your recent wording change fixes my main problem with the lead: drawing the line between "science" and "protoscience" at the line between "civilization" and "uncivilized". I'll keep working on improving the lead. I think that the first sentence could be expanded a bit into a paragraph that makes it clearer that there's no one definition of science, and the two history of science paragraphs could be consolidated into one that doesn't need to mention Greece three times.      — Freoh 11:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

FWIW I have the impression that most of us with any interest in this topic are sympathetic with the idea of trying to avoid anything which oversimplifies the question of qualitative differences between science and science-like thinking. Indeed this is one of those "permanent" philosophical questions - but not everyone cares about philosophical questions. I think the concern is that we might replace one over-simplification with another. From a practical stand-point we also need to make sure that our article has a clear meaning for normal readers. In a sense, the article's title presumes there is a qualitative difference between science and magical or religious thinking. We CAN mention that this difference is not something everyone would agree on, but the main discussion of this is better handled in philosophical and history-of-ideas articles. (The roping off of "real science" from explanations that are attractive but unobservable is a defining switch that came with modernism. Machiavelli and Bacon are most often credited with this turning point. For many of our readers this is the only approach to the term science they will ever have been exposed to.) In practice, most English speakers are going to call roughly the same things "science" (or "not science"), and our article should reflect that reality.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll try to find a way to mention that there's not one clear universally-agreed-upon definition without giving too much undue weight to the philosophy of science.      — Freoh 14:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you can give too much weight to the philosophy of science. It is absolutely critical here. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it seems the question Freoh is concerned about is one where the experts we would need to cite would be historians of ideas, and philosophers of science.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Headbomb, why did you remove the weight I gave to the philosophy of science?      — Freoh 23:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Because you said, in the lead no less, that science is a wishy washy thing that doesn't have a clear definition and it does. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The demarcation problem is a fundamental part of the philosophy of science, and it doesn't have a single universally agreed-upon answer.      — Freoh 23:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The boundary of where science starts may be fuzzy, but what it is isn't. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:43, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

The demarcation problem is about what it is.      — Freoh 23:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Recent edit warring by Headbomb has reintroduced the neutrality issues by removing Ancheta Wis's content about early roots of systemic reasoning. Why are we mentioning Greece three times in the lead but nothing about origins of science?      — Freoh 23:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

We are covering the origin of science. The statement that systematic reasoning dates back to thousands of years ago is a contextless factoid dropped out of nowhere. It doesn't belong in the lead, but it's perfectly situated in section 2.1.

As for why Ancient Greece is so often mentioned in the early development of science, it's because it is that important to its history. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

It's like listening to music; science was invented by men and women of leisure. One question which immediately pops into mind is why these new concepts or actions arose. If agriculture or some other original thought (such as domestication of animals) just popped up, was it necessity, or free time? Or do I have it backward? What made Kepler spend 20 years calculating the orbit of Mars? He must have believed in it? (The Sleepwalkers ) -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 02:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Neutral origins in lead

Andrew Lancaster told me elsewhere that I was not being clear enough about the neutrality issues in the lead, so I'll try to be clearer here. The issue is one of systemic bias. The history of science is complex and global, and not everyone agrees on what's science and what's not. Scientific techniques have been developed and refined over the course of tens of thousands of years, and there is no clear line that can be drawn for the origin of science. It was a messy process, and only after the scientific revolution is universal agreement that the work being done was definitively science.

Recent edits by Headbomb have repeatedly oversimplified this narrative to draw the line for history worth including in the lead at the line between civilization and non-civilization. There is no reason for us to prioritize written records over archeological evidence when discussing the origins of science. The lead also gives Western culture too much undue weight, mentioning Greece three times, even though similar things happened all over the world.      — Freoh 12:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

The lead in no way gives "Western culture" any undue weight, nor do your edits do anything to 'reduce' any such putative undue weight. So far, extremely little of your positions have gain any traction, let alone consensus. Consider that you are the minority view here.

Also the lead is to summary the body of the article. Not everything needs to be mentioned there, especially half-developed ideas that don't contribute anything to the broader picture. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

But @Freoh: just raising doubts is not really an editing proposal or a clear accusation of bias, and I really don't think this is about written evidence versus archaeology. Am I not right in saying that what the template is really about is the text which everyone already rejected as being more problematic than the current one? If not, then what? Here are the first sentences of your proposal then, compared to the one everyone else seems to think better.

PROPOSAL. Science is a system of knowledge based on observation and experimentation. Scientists use scientific methods to understand the universe through explanations and predictions. While there is no generally agreed-upon definition of science, it usually involves paradigmatic models, falsifiable hypotheses, and adaptable theories.[1][2][3] Systematic reasoning is tens of thousands of years old.[4][5] The earliest written records of identifiable predecessors to modern science come from Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia from around 3000 to 1200 BCE.

EXISTING. Science is a systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[1][2] The earliest written records of identifiable predecessors to modern science come from Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia from around 3000 to 1200 BCE.

Problematic changes:

• You have switched science from being an endeavour, to being only the knowledge itself which is produced. This article is clearly not only about a type of knowledge.
• Instead of emphasizing that science is a systematic activity, you say it is a single system of knowledge. So having a systematic approach to building knowledge is no longer a part of the definition, even though it already was for Aristotle. I think this is confused and incorrect. I have no idea how you would justify this.
• Instead of needing to be built up in a systematic way, science is now defined as being any knowledge based on observation and experimentation. That covers both too much (it covers less systematic, more casual types of knowledge) and too little (it does not cover what scientists do when they use their imagination to think things through, theorize).
• The use of "scientific methods" is probably trying to narrow down the types of knowledge which are called science. It is however in a second sentence and is not part of the definition, just something scientists typically do. Furthermore in past discussions on this article I seem to recall that we felt that the idea that there are specific scientific methods used in all scientific activity is something one sees in basic courses, but it is not as simple or uncontroversial as it looks. It is something for the body.
• By the same reasoning, but even more so, the next sentence is trying to be far too specific while at the same time throwing terms around which are not clear in their intended meaning.
• The third sentence adds no useful information if you look at the (older) sentence which comes after it.

I do not see anything in the proposal which reduces bias. In fact, the general trend of the edits is that they imply (in an unclear way) that you would like a far too narrow definition of science. Ironically, at the same time, the vague wordings you use also weaken the distinction between science and other types of knowledge. Whether or not your ideas are mainstream or fringe seems open to doubt, but I put that aside because for the time being it is not even really clear what you are trying to do, or why. The wordings are too vague and poorly thought out. In any case I see no way to connect anything to the template you have now added!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. I've removed the template as lacking foundation. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm referring to the bias that favors writing-based societies over non-writing-based societies. Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Greece didn't invent science, and I see no reason to start the history of science there.      — Freoh 01:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

First we don't write that Ancient Egypt/Greek/Mesopotamia invented science. We say it's earliest documented roots can be traced to these civilizations. You have no sources establishing otherwise. Stop pushing your fringe views on the article. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:11, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

How are you defining documented? I've given several sources that say that science is older than those civilizations. Why are you opposed to starting the history earlier?      — Freoh 11:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Documented: Involving a document of sorts. Based on something written down/recorded. I.e. not supposition nor speculation. As for my opposition, it's because the sources don't support a meaningful earlier start. One could argue that science dates back to the origins of the Solar System because without Earth you cannot have life on Earth, without life on Earth you cannot you cannot have sentient life, and without sentient life you cannot have organized thought, and without organized thought you cannot have language, and without language and organized thought you cannot have science. And the first tangible thing that we know of that resembles something that looks like science dates to the first civilisations (Mesopotamia, Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece). Going back further makes no sense, because you can always go further back. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Freoh the main changes you made affected the definition of science in the first sentences. I've not seen any justification of those changes. Concerning the following sentences about the history of science before modern science I'd be open to the idea of removing such sentences from the lead entirely, or making them more minimal in some way. OTOH, in terms of the history of science there are a couple of important historical turning points. One is the modernist argument against metaphysical explanations (Francis Bacon etc), which guides the way most people understand science today. An earlier turning point (and precondition) according to at least some scholars is the development of the concept of a stable "nature" or "natures" which is generally seen as something first found in Greek philosophy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

The main change I'm addressing in this section is in the second paragraph, where Headbomb removed [1] the content that Ancheta Wis added about the pre-writing origins of science but left in references to ancient civilizations, especially Ancient Greece. Andrew Lancaster, I agree that the second and third paragraphs should be condensed into one significantly shorter paragraph. Headbomb, the sources do support a meaningful earlier start. Could you try to follow Wikipedia's edit warring policy and stop removing the maintenance tags until this dispute is resolved?      — Freoh 13:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

An essay by amateurs about how citizen science isn't woke enough is not a reliable source on the history of science. This was covered at WP:RSN. Also, the statement that systematic reasoning dates back to thousands of years ago is a contextless factoid dropped out of nowhere. It doesn't belong in the lead, but it's perfectly situated in section 2.1. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Freoh, Please be patient. In the meantime, there are many other articles to work on. This thread requires more development, but it does not yet belong in the lead. Embodied cognition/situated cognition is not developed enough yet for the needed institutions to seep into the community. For example 10,000 years is about 320 generations of human families. (Questions immediately arise: ? Who would be the players? For example Socrates Plato Aristotle Alexander III of Macedon? .. Hopefully we can learn from this; the descendants of Confucius (only 2500 years ago) are at least in their 77th generation. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 16:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Ancheta Wis, the undue focus on Ancient Greeks is exactly the kind of Eurocentrism and systemic bias that I'm trying to avoid. Headbomb, I don't understand why you view the origins of science as a contextless factoid, but you don't view the fact that the earliest written records of identifiable predecessors to modern science come from Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia from around 3000 to 1200 BCE as a contextless factoid. Could you explain?      — Freoh 11:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

The Socrates,Plato,Aristotle,Alexander application led to murder during Alexander's succession. That shows the Socrates,Plato,Aristotle system has something wrong with it (The defect is probably in Plato's Republic. But the Romans considered themselves Hellenes; Julius Caesar,Augustus,etc spoke Greek to each other). --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. No one cares that you have a personal problem with the Ancient Greeks being particularly influential on early natural philosophy/science. This is what reliable sources back (and keep in mind we don't give exclusive credit to the Greeks, earlier civilization, like the Egyptians and Mesopotamia, also have a claim to early science). And the origins of science isn't contextless factoid, the origins of systematic reasoning is. You can argue that systematic reasoning is necessary for science, but that's by far not the only requirement, and if you want to go back to something as vague as systematic reasoning, you can go back to many many other things (the origin of language, cognition, ...), and that makes it irrelevant for the lead. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I feel like I have asked several times now why you think that Egyptians and Mesopotamians have a claim to early science, but prehistoric Africans do not. I have not really gotten an answer aside from your own personal problem with being more inclusive. I am trying to create a more neutral point of view and address this article's systemic bias, not "right great wrongs".      — Freoh 01:23, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Egypt is part of Africa last I heard. As for why I think that, the reason is simple: We have documents and artefacts showing this is the case. Unlike for "prehistoric Africans sans the Egyptians". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm talking about prehistory, before ancient Egyptian civilization. And as I've tried to explain before, we do have artifacts showing evidence of scientific reasoning from prehistoric Africa.      — Freoh 13:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)