User talk:Ancheta Wis

--Ancheta Wis (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC) scratch page[reply]

Mark A. Smith

Can you please stop infusing Smith in to every article related to Science or Scientific method. Seems like self promotion to me. For example: Science, Scientific method and Ibn al-Haytham. Moorrests (talk) 15:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I am not A. Mark Smith. Nor do I have any kind of relationship with him whatsoever; I came upon him through Shmuel Sambursky, whom I cite in Scientific method. And I have not cited Smith in Scientific method. Smith has spent some 40 years on medieval science. He dominates right now because David C. Lindberg died this year. It took Smith real strength of purpose to devote so much of his life to something of historical interest only. His work has not gone unnoticed: he is now a Curators' Professor at University of Missouri — Columbia. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 12:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What I have notice is the Mr. Smith is a critic of every single Islamic or Muslim scientist especially Ibn al-Haytham. He seems to have refuted achievements of all the Muslim scientists. This alone should exclude all the references from Mr. Smith. Moorrests (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To describe Smith as a critic of Ibn al-Haytham totally misunderstands Smith's academic career. After studying with Lindberg, he produced the first critical edition of the Latin version of Alhacen's principal optical work, translated it into English, and also wrote many works spelling out Alhacen's influence on the development of optics in medieval Europe. Smith knows Alhacen's work far better than some of the overenthusiastic popularizers. He is one of the most highly qualified sources on Ibn al-Haytham. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Moorrests, It's the other way around.

Aristotle defined science. His ontology of four causes defined how we ought to think. (But it has taken 1000 years to show a better way. Scientific method)
Ptolemy and Euclid: Ptolemy had the experimental method. Euclid had deduction.
Ibn al-Haytham started with Ptolemy and Euclid.
Ibn Sahl was one generation older than Ibn al-Haytham, but for some reason Ibn al-Haytham didn't reproduce Ibn Sahl's experimental law of refraction. Ibn al-Haytham just gave the experimental setup without results. Why? Was he too old? Did he not believe Ibn Sahl? Ptolemy gave experimental data on refraction. So Ibn Sahl had refraction right, 600 years before Descartes. I was really worried that Smith didn't seem to have any mention of Ibn Sahl. But I think that Smith 2015 mentions him.
Smith 2001 gives Ibn al-Haytham credit for hypothetico-deductive method, especially for checking your work, or filling-in gaps in understanding.
Smith 2015 p.180: "The geometrical analysis of sight and light had reached a level of sophistication beyond that of the Greek sources, especially Euclid", p.181ff: Chapter 5 Alhacen and the Grand Synthesis. I think it's pretty clear that Smith is fair.

I am interested in what Smith will have to say about Aristotle. Will he be critical?

--Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 16:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recursive definition of science?

I think my edit of the Science wiki page puts "scientific" inside the brackets to avoid overemphasizing "scientific". If you search for the word "scientific" in the Science wiki page, the word "scientific" is all over the Science wiki page. Would you undo all the edits that have "scientific" in the Science wiki page, like scientific theory or scientific method in the Science wiki page?

Angelababy00 (talk) 13:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]