Talk:Science

List of academic disciplines

Hello,

i would like to request to place a link or list of academic disciplines into the Head of the article. Academic disciplines are essential for the meaning of science and an oversight for them is missing in the article. I would suggest to place a link inside an infobox at the start of the article or a placement where it is easy to recognize. The infobox that is already placed does not give a good overwiev related to a structured list. It should also be placed above the picture. Thank you.

Collage Image

The person depicted on the top left of the image is Archidamus III King of Sparta and not Archimedes the engineer, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archidamus_III . I am not sure how to edit the picture to correct it, nor I have an image of Archimedes. 132.206.126.18 (talk) 20:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Below are some pictures of Archimedes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ആർക്കിമിഡീസ്‌.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Archimedes1.jpg

Tobby72 (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The collage depicts only western scientists.Glurpingfrog (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Glurpingfrog, your edit was camouflaged by the blank lines you introduced in a previous section but you may wish to suggest several names for the collage. History of science is replete with names you may wish to highlight. I hope you can discover some suitable images for the collage. Some names are so early in the history it would be quite remarkable if an image of the scientist has survived. Perhaps you might find an image of Shen Kuo, for example, or to name a 9000 year-old example, the domesticator of maize, or even the first person to inscribe the first accurate calendar. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 03:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

MartinPoulter, thank you for restoring Glurpingfrog's edit. I found another suggestion: Carlo Rovelli & Marion Lignana Rosenberg, The First Scientist: Anaximander and his Legacy ISBN 978-1-59416-131-5. Admittedly, Anaximander is an Ancient Greek. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 20:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

And can't we come up with some more women? Only one is pretty pathetic.Shoreranger (talk) 21:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there are two. But I agree, more would be better. I think adding Rosalind Franklin and Nancy Wexler would be a nice touch. danielkueh (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Some others that could be added: Rosalind Franklin (2nd the above comment), Henrietta Leavitt, Annie Jump Cannon, Jane Goodall. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Another list that includes Rosalind Franklin, but which includes Emmy Noether and 81 others can be found here--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 15:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI: Jane Goodall and Marie Curie are already on the collage. danielkueh (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Section on measurement

While I agree that measurement and SI units are very important, especially to natural scientists and engineers, the section on measurement seems to be a little overkill for an article that attempts to provide broad overview of science. Except for textbooks on physics, chemistry, engineering, and to a lesser extent, biology, you won't find an exhaustive discussion of measurements and SI units in many other areas of science (e.g., psychology, economics, philosophy of science). It just seems to be a little out of proportion here. I would like to suggest condensing this section down to one paragraph or less and moving the rest to the Natural Sciencemeasurement article instead where it fits better. Thoughts? danielkueh (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I hope that the concept of the unit of measure can be introduced somewhere. Measures are examples of operational markers, a more general concept, used for example, by Antonio Damasio,in his somatic markers. There need to be markers which we (in a community) can agree upon in order to make progress in communication (in that community). One example is the use of Green fluorescent protein for use as Selectable markers. Otherwise we get the spectacle of parties agreeing to steps, policies, and results which are incommensurable, as in our current social systems. Markers, signs, symbols, definitions, etc. are fundamental points that get ignored all too easily. It is not just a philosophical point, but a practical point. C.S. Peirce wrote about this ("How to make our ideas clear"), but he was by no means the first to bring this up. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 05:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not disputing that measurements are important. But the section is very specific and highly relevant to physics, chemistry, and engineering, and to a lesser extent, biology. If there has a description, it need not be so detailed and exhaustive but should provide a general overview of why measurements are in important in science for the very reasons that you brought up. danielkueh (talk) 05:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, I think the best place to introduce a short description of why measurement is important would be in the section on Mathematics and formal sciences. Introducing measurements in the first paragraph (2-3 sentences max) would allow readers to understand that it is possible to quantify science and as a result, explain why mathematics and statistics are indispensable to science. danielkueh (talk) 05:24, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It can't be just math. There have to be operational elements to tie back to the science. Otherwise formalism takes on a life of its own. Surely there can be an independent place in the article for things like lab technique. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 05:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Another potential location would be the section on Certainty and Science. I am open to suggestions but I would caution that this is an article on science, and not natural science and engineering. If there is to be a description of measurements and its importance to science in general (including the social sciences), it should be broad and conceptual and not bogged down with all the details on SI units, etc. danielkueh (talk) 05:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't understand why a section on Certainty would be a good location either, as scientific results are definitely not certain; it would be better to state that a scientific result has an error, up front; measurement and error are intimately tied together, along with the unit of measure. Now if there were a section on Uncertainty and error, I would agree that some general sentences on measurement could live there. Otherwise a casual reader would get the idea that Certainty and Science go together. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 06:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Stating that scientific results are either uncertain or certain would be an overstatement either way. Putting it in a section on certainty is not to suggest that scientific results are always certain. It is just finding an appropriate location in this article that has sufficient context to introduce the topic and describe it. Rather than quibble over locations, how about you tell me what it is about measurements that you would like to see described in this article. Once we settle on content (what to put in), then we can settle on context (where to put it). danielkueh (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Vitruvian man as an example of proportion, with the head as the unit of measure

I think I figured out an accessible approach to 'unit of measure'. My example illustration is Leonardo da Vinci's Vitruvian man. His rule applies to the proportions of grown people. In the drawing, the head of the average adult human being is the unit of measure, the body being roughly 6 heads high, with the navel at the center of the body. For infants, the body is smaller, say 4 heads high. For heroic figures, the body is even larger, say 7 or 8 heads high. This style of drawing is taught in classes for sketching. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 19:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but it won't work. It is too esoteric and its relevance to specific units of measure is tenuous. It is not the units of measure that is of great importance here. It is the rules and conventions that are shared among scientist that are important. We cannot have a whole section dedicated to just measurements. Especially not in an article on science in general. We can however, have a section on "shared conventions, rules, values, tools, etc" and that specific agreed-upon measurements (e.g., IS units) are examples of these shared conventions. That is be the big picture that we should be getting across. At the moment, I don't have any secondary sources handy. If you do, that would be the best place to start. danielkueh (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

A picture of a well-known subject is accessible to all, and is hardly esoteric. It appears that when you refer to rules and values, you are talking about the shared interests of a specific community. The shared interests drive the values, etc. The problems are what draw the community together. Otherwise they wouldn't bother to share. In Leonardo's example, he analyzes just what it is that makes a human figure believable. That is a problem shared by fellow sketchers. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 20:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Galileo measured the period of a swinging lamp with his pulse; he measured the elapsed time of a falling body with the weight of flowing water as the analog of the flow of time. I think it is clear that Galileo's creativity in measuring previously unknown quantities broke open his subjects of strudy. Afterward, things were codified (SI etc.), but the science lies in the creativity of the researchers, to coin a phrase. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 20:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You're asking readers to make an inference about the use of specific units of measure among scientists based on a picture. Think this through. That is not a trivial point to make and is a lot to take in. The picture itself is accessible but the larger point that you're trying to make is not. At least not like this. So it is not picture, but the way you are presenting a point that is esoteric.

I think you are drifting off to different topics about problems and who sets rules, etc. What I am getting at is "what is the point of discussing units of measure?" It can't be just to have a list of interesting units just for show? Instead, units of measure should be used to illustrate some of the rules and conventions shared among scientists. Just as there is a consensus among scientists about the use of specific units of measure, there is also consensus about the use of the same type of instruments, the same set of assumptions, etc. Isn't that why we are here? danielkueh (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Fortunately we can see category:human-based units of measurement for more articles about the subject. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 21:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I really don't know where you're going with that. danielkueh (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

That means a link to a suitable article in the category can save labor. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 22:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Save labor for what end? How about we get back to your original rationale above on using standard measurements. As you say, "Otherwise we get the spectacle of parties agreeing to steps, policies, and results which are incommensurable, as in our current social systems." I think that is a very reasonable starting point for discussion as it is mainstream and has ample secondary sources to draw from. danielkueh (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

A Topic of Consideration

Keeping in mind the human being's natural tendency to bias, whether or not he or she wishes to avoid, learn from, and correct his or her mistakes, I would like to bring our attention to the theme of "European Scientists" in this article. The History of Science, as written here, appears to elaborate on the theme of European Scientists to the point where the article itself appears to be no more than an explanation of the various European ideas which have influenced Science as a whole. There appears to be a touch of Arabian influence in the entry, at most. Aside from retitling this page "A History of European Science", one may consider summarizing the history of Science in each respective category: race, civilization, continent, and time period (any or every one). Regrettably, on many timelines the dates arrogantly leap from the Ancient Chinese and Greek/Roman Scientists to the Early European (Renaissance and beyond) Scientists, often minimizing or otherwise entirely leaving out thousands of years of significant contributions from Africans to American Indians to Muslims to Hindus to Australians. Sadly enough, the Scientific discussion and coverage in this article appears centered in the European scientific contribution to the Great Conversation of Ideas which has spanned the history of mankind. I hope this article, and many others like it, will expand their range of historical, racial, and religious figures, ideas, and inventions to not only European scientists but people of all civilizations, cultures, races, religions who have and have not contributed to European scientific authority.

Your thoughts are greatly appreciated,

Abdullah H. Mirza (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Greetings Abdullah H. Mirza, any intercultural contributions you may want to add are most welcome! I encourage you to contribute in the history of science section in this article because here it would not hurt to note contributions by Middle easterners or Asians or other cultures which have contributed to the enterprise of the sciences through time. It would also be ok to create regional "subheadings" in sections to note important contributions for different regions or cultures, if you like. There are great sources for Middle eastern and Chinese contributions that I have read, for instance. Their inclusion would not be a problem here. I say go for it. --Ramos1990 (talk) 03:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your welcoming response. I will do my best to contribute to this article. 69.181.191.228 (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)