Jump to content

Talk:Science

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Angelababy00 (talk | contribs) at 03:21, 9 February 2015 (→‎Scientific knowledge as explanation and prediction). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 8, 2006WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
Article Collaboration and Improvement DriveThis article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of May 29, 2024.

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

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.

History of optics and its position in the development of science

Right now there are a slew of references which are intended to back up statements in the lede. The fifth sentence has eight references; the first sentence has four. I propose to use the model illustrated in Buffalo_Soldier#Notes to lessen the visual impact of this information, while retaining the existing citations. There are citations from the history of optics and vision which could be added in the Notes of the article this way. Right now I am awaiting access to JSTOR, but would this change be acceptable to the editors of this article? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Moorrests (talk) 19:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. In fact, I would say that most of the references in the lede could be removed. LadyLeodia (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added those five important reference in the article so they can be removed from lead. Moorrests (talk) 19:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

During the transition, I will be adding in the JSTOR information and citation, and then consolidating. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 21:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Moorrests (talk) 20:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I am finally in a position to include the JSTOR work, which includes a nuanced perspective from A. Mark Smith pp.xcviii-civ, and was chagrined to read his critique of our Wikipedia pages, which call Alhazen 'revolutionary', when A. Mark Smith calls him 'pivotal'. Mark Smith points out that Lindberg has never once called Alhazen 'revolutionary' (Smith studied history of science with Lindberg). Based on this, I propose to 'walk back' the emphasis on Steffes' viewpoint (it is a children's book, after all). Smith has completed a new book, From Sight to Light, and 2015 is 'the international year of Light', so this is all quite appropriate. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Smith finds that Alhacen (965-1040 CE) was firmly grounded in the latest thinking for his time, ranging from those of the natural philosophers (Aristotle 384–322 BCE), physiologists and physicians (Galen 129-216 CE), mathematicians (Euclid fl. 300 BCE and Ptolemy 90 – c. 168 CE), to hands-on practical experimenters (Alhacen and his assistants). Alhacen synthesized these views into a work on optics of his own, which was carried forward centuries later by al-Farisi (1276-1319 CE), and the Perspectivists: Roger Bacon (1214-1292), Witelo (1230-c.1300), and John Pecham (1230-1292), each of whom were influenced by his work on optics. (Bacon freely cited Alhacen.)

Alhacen (11th c.), Smith, A. Mark, ed. and trans. De Aspectibus. Critical editions of 7 books, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society New Series, Vols 91, 95, 98, and 100. via JSTOR:

Books 1-3 are Alhacen's Visual perception; books 4-6 are on Reflection from mirrors, plane, curved, and at the edges of mirrors. Book 7 on Refraction is the most surprising; upon reading book 7 like a story, Alhacen moves from table-top physics to inferences about the stars, to the Moon illusion. I was personally surprised that Alhacen did not include Ibn Sahl's formulation of refraction (which was covered by Claudius Ptolemy), only giving the experimental setup to measure refraction.

The next chapter in the history of optics was Kepler (1604), who, in Smith's estimation, pivoted off of Alhacen's work to reformulate Visual perception, in the Scientific revolution. The chief reason is that light from a scene, when passing through an aperture (as in Alhacen's camera obscura) is inverted. Yet we do not see scenes inverted. Kepler closely examined our visual system and could find no second aperture. He concluded that the light from the scene ends on the retina only, and does not pass little forms through tubes to our brain's ventricles. This is in direct contradiction to Aristotle, on down to Alhacen, and the ontology of the Middle ages.

Finally, of course, in Newton's Opticks (1704), light can be diffracted into colors, which contradicts the ontology of the Middle ages. Thus Alhacen is rightly honored for his exhaustive examination of optics, which still can be used for personal study, to this day. OK, but what about his ontology? I suggest that we not throw rocks too freely if we critically examine our own unfounded assumptions of today. Optics gives us instructive analogs for points ( the blur circle, lines (Ray (optics)), and waves (electromagnetic waves). Optics is used in computing, lasers, and materials science.

A. Mark Smith is Curator's Professor of History, University of Missouri, Columbia. His field is Medieval History and History of Science. His newest book is coming out in 2015. Smith (2015) From Sight to Light Chicago

A. Mark Smith's view on Alhacen's use of a hypothetico-deductive method can be found in 91,vol.1,p.cxv and in 100,vol.1,p.c.

Now back to the article edits. To all editors: you are welcome to contribute to the article. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 16:07, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To all editors: I have added the Alhacen citations to De Aspectibus, and could use some advice: Alhacen was welcomed in the West by 1200-1250, after his Latin translation. The Perspectivists recast his work on vision into Aristotle's categories, ala the Four causes, On the Soul etc. I quote Smith 1988, "Getting the Big Picture in Medieval Optics": "The perspectivist theory is remarkably reasonable economical and coherent". BUT after Kepler demolished Alhacen's theory of vision, this Aristotelean view went into steep decline. We don't even think about these things anymore. So why should we even mention this? Because maybe the current scientific theories are just as vulnerable? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 02:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is science?

History of Science and this article leave out formal sciences and humanities. Formal sciences are not natural science at all, but a third kind. The lede refers to a elder meaning of "science", the body of knowledge hedged and produced at mainstream universities and reasearch institutes. This elder meaning is as well the current one, it is in line the mainstream of studies in actual STS, science sociology and history of science papers and with "Wissenschaft", the current German interwiki. The article tries to purport a part of science as the only one, it is based on a popular interpretation of 19th century positivism, confined to "hard" natural sciences. It doesnt get the difference between natural history and the important differenes between e.g. physics or live or earth sciences. The claim of islam being the foundation of science as of today is based on a BBC article, sorry thats a no-go. I strongly doubt it, better read the source. Islam helped to conserve a variety of ancient writings, which were of use in the Renaissance, but never had the chance to develope the academic freedom needed for science. Ibn al-Haytham lived in the wrong world, so he couldnt contribute anything to modern physics. Try the Merton thesis instead or check Humboldtian science for the actual background of science. Serten II (talk) 12:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Serten II, see the notes above; Smith points out that Alhacen's synthesis was pivotal for the scientific revolution rather than revolutionary, and that Kepler is rightly credited for his revolutionary role. Of course, Alhacen's disproof of Ptolemy's theory of visual perception is part of the story, but Alhacen went beyond the ancients.
You are welcome to contribute to the article by walking back the 'first scientist' claims about Alhazen, to something more measured. Quotationd with citations are appreciated. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 18:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you for the valuable links. The BBC article clams claiming Alhacen was father of optics and so forth. Thats 19th century Great Man theory, oldfashioned rubbish, science is not just based on ideas, it needs a society asking for them and accepting them. Alhacen (who had not been dealt with very friendly by the Islamnic authorities), fathered nothing in his times. Via translations of Alhacen, e.g. his book of optics and other Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe, scholasticism and the early medieveal universities were a more fruitful ground for his ideas. But the main start of scientific use of his writings was centuries later. Alhacen was valuable for Roger Bacon style science. The Renaissance camera obscura has invented an "epistemic machine" (using, among others Alhacens ideas) for a new perspective on personality, to to produce works of arts (main goal) and further knowledge (as a side product). Alhacen saw some apples falling, but Newton came later ;) Sources:
  • An Anthropological Trompe L'Oeil for a Common World: An Essay on the Economy of Knowledge, Alberto Corsin Jimenez, Berghahn Books, 15.06.2013
  • Don Ihde Art Precedes Science: or Did the Camera Obscura Invent Modern Science? In Instruments in Art and Science: On the Architectonics of Cultural Boundaries in the 17th Century Helmar Schramm, Ludger Schwarte, Jan Lazardzig, Walter de Gruyter, 2008

Domn Ihde is quite interesting as he does no accept the Diltheyan divide between science and humanities, but sees them as being part of the same way of thinking. That sounds like a sort of 21th century perspective, science is a part of philosophy and works of art. The current lede is parroting 19th century posititivism. Serten II (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Serten II, It appears that our edits will not be colliding, as I am adding Alhacen material. But if you encounter a conflict, please write it down on this talk page. Thus I believe we can continue to work in parallel, on our own schedules, and at our own speeds. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Serten II, one additional citation in support of the unity of the creative act, in both science and art (i.e., the acts of creativity are of the same type), is chapter one of Jacob Bronowski Science and Human Values ISBN 978-0571241903. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 20:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Albrecht Dürer self portrait
I did some work on the lede, the first attempt was way to long for an intro, so I divided the intro. The lede is now including the modern approach of science as a means to produce knowledge and provides some hints about the different approches to Wissernschaften and science. I tried to be not too harsh on Alhacen - his works could have been used much earlier for much more, but Modern western science was a different thing. The funny aspect is that Alhacen was great in pure science, he found basic laws of the refraction of light, but he was less into producing pictures. To invent photography and perspective and science in the modern meaning you needed more than tekkie ideas about optics - the rather western idea of an individual, both as artist and as person worth an image, was crucial. Latour has written about Laboratory Life, another "epistemic machinery", "The foreign observer describes the laboratory as "strange tribe" of "compulsive and manic writers ... who spend the greatest part of their day coding, marking, altering, correcting, reading, and writing"". Sounds like Wikipedia ;) I may have orphaned one source of you, Ancheta Wis, and I ask you to please correct it, as I am not experienced with the formatting of sources on your level. Serten II (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dürer's use of optics
We can just work through items, as we can. Dürer has a picture which shows Alhacen's influence. His influence is the use of taut strings to show the path of a light ray. To illustrate that it is one civilization, Alhacen got this from Euclid's Optics. I plan to put this in the article. Alhacen merely thought of a way to trace a straight line in a very concrete way: use a taut string.The citation is already in the article: look for the "How does light travel in transparent bodies?". --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:38, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep thats as well in the Belting Book. Dürer is quite an important role model, generations of scholars have written Biographies about him - and used them to describe their own self view. Biographies of Roger Bacon and Galileo Galilei have had a similar role in the natural sciences, the current use of Alhacen or the various references to female scientists beyound Marie Curie is trying to enlarge the recruitement pool ;) allow me some mockery, but I appreciate the basic idea. Serten II (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The additions at the lead have no real counterpart in the article body. The lead and any overview should reflect what is in the body. The additions seemed to be promoting some particular ideas about the philosophy of science and perhaps something could be put that section but it would probably be best to start in the article philosophy of science as that deals with this sort of thing in a much more balanced fashion. Dmcq (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You could have added something about science practices, science ethos, women in science, the DWEM controversies, which have not been mentioned in neither version. We have had nothing so far inn the lede baout the interaction of science policy, public knowledge and politization of science. In so far your point refers as well to the previous version. Non reason for a revert. The improved version deals better with the interaction between the Islamic Renaissance and the western science, which is described en detail in the main text. Latour and the others are about very practical aspects of science, the differences between the German and the anglo approach was crucial for actual science. As said, if you want to contribute, do so, I still wait to see the first single constructive edit from your side in any article I have met you. Btw, have you written any article so far? Scientific misconduct and the scientific ethos have been left out completely, I have added it to the lede, but the article should have a specific section. Science ethos is a very humanity based issue important as well for the tekkie stuff. Are you able to add a section? Serten II (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a top-level article, which means that it should be a general introduction to the topic. The subtopics you mentioned are far too specific for a top-level article, per WP:WEIGHT. Furthermore, we would need top-quality sources to back up any material we add. A lot of the stuff you mentioned is tainted by fringe conspiracy theories. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now you start calling names. I started here after I registered a BBC source used for the lede, not my idea of a top-quality source. Are you calling Humboldt, Hans Belting, Diltey or Merton fringe? Serten II (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In what way should that be considered Fringe? Can't notice how and in what way. Hafspajen (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This review [1] gives a quick background to the sort of stuff being proposed as opposed to as it puts it the widely accepted or orthodox view. Dmcq (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its an review, yes and shows the importance of the science wars. It does not at all support your POV, its critical just about Sandra Harding , which is not mentioned in the proposal. It does not deal at all with the main aspects of the proposal but supports the basic outline - science is a part of society and supports the crucial and groundbreaking role of e.g. Thomas Kuhn in describing that role. How about something constructive? Serten II (talk) 14:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand, was the above suggested to be added to the article? Where? Hafspajen (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal by Serten II is just below. Compare just the lead for example with the current lead and come to your own conclusion about the weight and NPOV. Dmcq (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Changes

The current version uses e.g. a BBC source for sorta dubious claims. Neither the lede nor the main text treats various crucial topics, namely

That said, the current version is far from being complete. I would refer to improve the article instead of defending the status quo. If you have an issue with my sources, comment them under the reference entry. Serten II (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about nature and the universe.[nb 1] In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied. A practitioner of science is known as a scientist.

In modern usage, "science" may refer as well to a way of pursuing or producing knowledge, not only the knowledge itself.[2] Especially in the anglophone world "science" is often restricted to those branches of study that seek to explain the phenomena of the material universe.[3] The German approach of "Wissenschaften" in the tradition of Humboldtian science and Humboldtian education ideal is more generic and includes all sort of scholarly endeavours with philosophy still as a common denominator. The The Two Cultures[4] the German Positivism dispute and the US science wars refer to ongoing controversies about the role of natural sciences and the humanities. The controversies refered as well to the longstanding dominance of male White Anglo-Saxon Protestant scholars in e.g. US universities and the use of "Dead white European men" as role models. It has lead to various attempts, as in gender studies to involve e.g. female or minority perspectives in science and as well a backslash defending the important role of the classics.[5][6] Science practices include a scientific ethos - and the breach of it, scientific misconduct, has lead to various scandals. Modern Science has lead to the developement of various scientific institutions and large scale scientific research programs and various interaction of private and state funded research. The use of large scale teams has lead to a new field describing the mechanisms of Science of team science as part of Science, technology and society studies. While some traditional fields of research have been deemed Pseudo or fringe science in the meanwhile, e.g. Physiognomy or parts of Eugenics. Science is undergoing fashions and trends as for Chaos theory, or Nanotechnology studies. Former popular fringe science topics as Animal magnetism have contributed to actual science, as it forced scholarly medicine to accept the Anesthesia methods.[7]

The scale of the universe mapped to the branches of science and the hierarchy of science.[8]
Further information: Outline of science


Overview

Classical antiquity saw science as a type of knowledge closely linked to philosophy, the approach was mirrored in the 19th century Humboldtian university, which used philosophy as connecting link of all sorts science, including the humnanities. The Islamic Golden Age[9] has provided important impulses for the foundation of the scientific method. Alhazen (or Al-Haytham; 965–1039 C.E.) has been described as (Bradley Steffens 2006) "first scientist" senso stricto.[nb 2] During the Islamic Renaissance (7th–13th centuries), Alhazen made significant contributions to anatomy, astronomy, engineering, mathematics, medicine, ophthalmology, philosophy, physics, psychology, and visual perception. He emphasized experimental data and reproducibility of its results. While the Islamic Renaissance did not continue after the Siege of Baghdad (1258), translations of Alhacen and other Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe found a continued interest in scholasticism and the early Western medieval universities at Paris and Oxford. Important Scholars include William of Auvergne, Henry of Ghent, Albert Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, John Duns Scotus, and William of Ockham.[10]

In the West during the early modern period the words "science" and "philosophy of nature" were sometimes used interchangeably.[11]: p.3  Until the 17th century natural philosophy (which is today called "natural science") was considered a separate branch of philosophy in the West.[12] The emancipation of natural history as a separate topic is closely connected to Humboldtian science, the work and writings of German naturalist and explorer Alexander von Humboldt who combined scientific field work with the age of Romanticism sensitivity and aestetic ideals [13] and made Romanticism in science rather popular.[14][15]

The Merton Thesis sees a close link between early experimental science and Christian theology, especially Protestant pietism, similar to Max Weber's famous claim on the link between Protestant ethic and the capitalist economy. [16]. Merton's 1936 doctoral dissertation Science, Technology and Society in 17th-Century England raised important issues on the connections between religion and the rise of modern science and is still significant in sociology of science.[17]

In the 17th and 18th centuries scientists increasingly sought to formulate knowledge in terms of laws of nature such as Newton's laws of motion. Over the course of the 19th century, the word "science" became increasingly associated with the scientific method itself, as a disciplined way to study the natural world, including physics, chemistry, geology and biology. It is in the 19th century also that the term scientist began to be applied to those who sought knowledge and understanding of nature.[18] However, "science" has also continued to be used in a broad sense to denote reliable and teachable knowledge about a topic, as reflected in modern terms like library science or computer science. This is also reflected in the names of some areas of academic study such as "social science" or "political science".

German philosopher Wilhelm Dilthey (1833 – 1911) strongly rejected the exclusive role of natural sciences (Naturwissenschaften), and asked to develope a separate model for the human sciences (Geisteswissenschaften). His argument centered around the idea that in the natural sciences we seek to explain phenomena in terms of cause and effect, or the general and the particular; in contrast, in the human sciences, we seek to understand in terms of the relations of the part and the whole. C.P Snow's The Two Cultures and the US Science Wars and the German Positivism dispute show a continued interest in the divide. There have been various attempts to bridge the gap. E.g. Bruno Latour suggest that modernity (and modern science) is based by producing new hybrids between nature and culture (translation) and by dividing them (purification).[2] The Camera obscura is a powerful example for such an epistemic machinery: While Alhazen developed a useable theory of the refraction of light, he was not at all interested (or even hostile, compare Aniconism in Islam) to producing images with it.[19] The Western use of the Arab knowledge however allowed a mass production of perspectival images and contributed to subjectivity and personality of artists and the persons depicted.[2] The use of perspective in paintings, maps, theatre setups and architectural and later photographic images and movies provided a major leap with important side effects for science.[19] Don Ihde goes so far to claim that "Art Precedes Science" and the Camera Obscura was crucial for the invention of Modern Science. [2][20]

Perhaps I might offer a note in support of Max Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism on the link between Protestant ethic and the capitalist economy. If you were to come to Los Angeles, you will observe the healthy effect of certain Protestant immigrant groups on its economy. They are quite visible, as they are not ethnically Europeans, but they have boosted the economy (investments, businesses, cars, houses, clothes, support for tutoring of their children, etc.). not only in LA, but also, e.g., New York City, Vancouver BC. You are welcome to ask me on my talk page for details. Or, perhaps via e-mail. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 10:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "science". Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved 2014-09-20.
  2. ^ a b c d Don Ihde Art Precedes Science: or Did the Camera Obscura Invent Modern Science? In Instruments in Art and Science: On the Architectonics of Cultural Boundaries in the 17th Century Helmar Schramm, Ludger Schwarte, Jan Lazardzig, Walter de Gruyter, 2008
  3. ^ Oxford English Dictionary
  4. ^ Snow, Charles Percy (2001) [1959]. The Two Cultures. London: Cambridge University Press. p. 3. ISBN 0-521-45730-0.
  5. ^ Bernard Knox, The Oldest Dead White European Males and Other Reflections on the Classics (1993) (reprint, W. W. Norton & Company, 1994), ISBN 978-0-393-31233-1.
  6. ^ Christopher Lehman-Haupt, "Books of The Times; Putting In a Word for Homer, Herodotus, Plato, Etc.", The New York Times, April 29, 1993.
  7. ^ Zuviel Angst vor heterodoxen Schulen, kann medizinische Innovation verhindern, M. Hänggi, Artikel in Schweizerische Ärztezeitung / Bulletin des médecins suisses / Bollettino dei medici svizzeri •2005;86: Nr 32/33
  8. ^ Feynman, Lectures in Physics, Vol.1, Chap.1.
  9. ^ Jim Al-Khalili (4 January 2009). "The 'first true scientist'". BBC News.
  10. ^ Hugh G. Gauch (2003). Scientific method in practice. Cambridge University Press. p. 51. ISBN 978-0-521-01708-4.
  11. ^ David C. Lindberg (2007), The beginnings of Western science: the European Scientific tradition in philosophical, religious, and institutional context, Second ed. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press ISBN 978-0-226-48205-7
  12. ^ Isaac Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (1687), for example, is translated "Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy", and reflects the then-current use of the words "natural philosophy", akin to "systematic study of nature"
  13. ^ Böhme, Hartmut: Ästhetische Wissenschaft, in: Matices, Nr. 23, 1999, S. 37-41
  14. ^ Cannon, Susan Faye: Science in Culture: The Early Victorian Period, New York 1978
  15. ^ Dettelbach, Michael: Humboldtian Science, in: Jardine, N./Secord, J./Sparry, E. C.(ed): Cultures of Natural History, Cambridge 1996
  16. ^ Sztompka, 2003
  17. ^ Merton Awarded Nation's Highest Science Honor
  18. ^ The Oxford English Dictionary dates the origin of the word "scientist" to 1834.
  19. ^ a b Contesting Visibility: Photographic Practices on the East African Coast Heike Behrend transcript Verlag, 2014, Hans Belting Das echte Bild. Bildfragen als Glaubensfragen. München 2005, ISBN 3-406-53460-0. is quoted on page 16
  20. ^ An Anthropological Trompe L'Oeil for a Common World: An Essay on the Economy of Knowledge, Alberto Corsin Jimenez, Berghahn Books, 15.06.2013, quoting Bruno Latour We Have Never Been Modern on page 20 and 73

Comments

  • Reject completely The proposed changes seem to be practically all about the science wars where some social scientists analyze science and think that everything should be treated as culturally based. This is minor factor in modern science and should be treated under the philosophy section with a short summary in the lead. The coverage in this proposal is totally against weight in the overall article topic as is easily verified by looking for books entitled science and seeing if they talk about any of this, and is not neutral even in what it is covering as it excludes many other opinions as can be checked by looking at some of the recent summaries by theses social scientists themselves. The article Philosophy of science is probably the best place to stick all this. Dmcq (talk) 13:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you continue with this sort of stuff? What those social scientists who have been commenting on the scientific method are engaged in is more rightly part of the humanities rather than science. The theories are debating points thought up over breakfast and are not in the least falsifiable, their idea of a peer review is whether something sounds original or makes good reading. There are social scientists who do actual science but just aping the form like a cargo cult is not science. I'm happy even so for them to be stuck somewhere suitable as Wikipedia is about covering what's out there but it just does not have the weight you think of in this top level article about science. Dmcq (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt you read the proposal, which is far from dealing just with the science wars. Have you any example of those "books" entitled "science" you claim? Have you ever read one or used it in WP? Neither Humboldt nor Dilthey nor Merton are even close to that discussion. If you have an issue with scholalry studies about science, better come up with actual sources supporting your claim instead of coming upt with spite and hatred against anything you dislike and ignore. Science is a part of modernity and our common history - an article ignoring those studies and lacking basic links to the role of science in society is far from being complete. Serten II (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As to spite and hatred I would point out that it is you who keeps on referring to scientists as tekkies and in your proposed you remove most of the description of what science has done and its various fields and instead stuck in a long paragraph criticizing science and ending by saying how pseudoscience has been helpful. Dmcq (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject completely As I said above, this material is far too peripheral to be in a top level article, and gives undue weight to relatively insignificant trivial fringe theories of dubious encyclopedic value. WP is not a WP:SOAPBOX for fringe proponents, conspiracy theorists, or "oppressed minorities", not a place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. As for the romanticism stuff, it might deserve some mention in a history or philosophy of science article, but definitely not in a top-level article like this. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK; I got that now. Maybe it can be added in a section? Hafspajen (talk) 20:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They even deleted the stuff directly about Alhazen in that entry, seem they have secret information about Bruno Latour, which is quoted explicitely in the studies about Alhazens relevance and limitations for the developement modern science. I log out for a while, I am getting to angry about that behavior. Serten II (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe what you put in about him was all twisted and undue in the lead. However if Hafspajen wants to put that bit back in then I'll respect their opinion as being a seconder to form a consensus with you. I would point out though that Serten II has just gone out their way to edit the article on Alhazen to stick in a big section about the camera obscura, something he explained rather than invented he did a lot more important other work, which is mainly devoted to yet again pushing that science is all a social construct and quoting sociologists on that. Plus some more in the lead and at the end of the article in the same vein. Basically just hijacking any topic which is mentioned in any of those works as an excuse to push a point of view and arguing ad nauseum that only sociologists are qualified to have any opinion or be quote din Wikipedia on anything to do with how science is done and scientists are tekkies and unqualified. Dmcq (talk) 22:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Btw. Latour is quite outspoken about science having a sound base independent from our mindset. The problem is as old as the Allegory of the Cave btw., any Neanderthaler had the technical ability to build a dark room with a hole in it, but the use of the "camera obscura" as a metaphor for the individual and his mind contributed to the scientific revolution. Do you really think expanding WP based on scholalry studies is a bad thing? Serten II (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is VERY rude to put words in another editor's mouth. Don't ever do that again or you will be reported at ANI. Sneaky rhetorical tricks like that will earn you a bad reputation very fast. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you put so much faith in science, why do you use abusive comments on actual scholars? I appreciate any constructive comment, but I am not OK with disruptive blocking of the expansion of wikipedia. Serten II (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that your expansion makes the articles worse. Here Male monkeys prefer boys toys is an example of actual real science. That shows that even for things which at first might seem very difficult to test it can be possible to bring them into the realm of science. The people you quote however never attempt to try to check their ideas even though with a bit of ingenuity it might be possible to test some. Even so their studies are welcome on Wikipedia. Their ideas are however of quite low weight in this article. They are just some selection you thought would support your point of view with no evidence of any weight in this context. There are appropriate articles for the content and they include other points of view as well. Dmcq (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For a start, try Laboratory Life. Latour and Steve Woolgar (L&W) started to study the lab work of a Noble prize winner in the same manner as ethnologists research the customes of a tribe in the amazonas. L&W developed a sort of measurement tool for the evaluation of scientific statements, from "taken for granted" (type 1) till "unqualified speculations" (type 5). L&W checked their method and left Ethnomethodology to describe en detail how the Thyrotropin-releasing hormone and its fonction in the human brain was established as a scientific fact, will say how lab work and various speculations were converted in a groundbreaking paper. L&W developed actor-network theory to explain their findings. That said, you state a lot of prejudice, but Latour and Woolgar studied the scientific process en detail and checked and adapted their findings and hypothesis very similar to the process a biologist may or should apply during testing mice (or monkeys). Serten II (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to describe science is not the same as doing science. There was no checking like that video. Dmcq (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You claim a lot. You actually may use the same scientific method describing chimapanzees in a cage, or eggheads in a lab. Latour et al studied science in action, and of cause there was a lot of checking. Serten II (talk) 08:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't see it, I would class it at best as a pre-science like botany before Linnaeus. And how about Reiner Grundmann who you keep on dragging into climate change articles, when did he ever consider alternative reasons why climate change action has been widely resisted compared to action on the ozone hole besides shoring up his pet theories about social interaction? I never noticed him accounting for what might be far more important factors, for instance that people like the freedom of driving cars around and don't like to think of that as destructive - and they certainly don't like the idea of fuel price rises and regulations. Dmcq (talk) 09:31, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway my opinion of their studies is pretty much irrelevant. The real point is that the proposal violates weight badly as far as this topic is concerned. It is even badly unbalanced in the depiction of the area it talks about. It should go into the philosophy of science article. Dmcq (talk) 12:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no, no. I am not going to put anything back in the lead. I think that this - sorry Serten - should not be included exactly in the lead. Long standing leads should not be modified without a real broad consensus. It is difficult to go ahead and modify a lead. However I was asking if you could find a compromise to put that material in a section. Not in the lead but find an acceptable way of adding it in a section. And one more thing - actually the wording foundation for the scientific method might be misleading.[2] Further development or conservation maybe. Because the actual foundation is probably the ancient Greek still, however close they were to philosophy. Still it was rater revolutionary and was the base for may ideas developed further. Even our own articles contradict each other .... see History of scientific method. I simply think that this should be posted at sciences noticeboard or an Rfc. We are to few here, a broader consensus with more editors with scientific background should be involved, that would be good, because I think you all have a point. Hafspajen (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still miss a constructive feedback dealing with the wide array of links relevant for this topic that have not been mentioned at all so far. I fear less about my text, as WP always allows to find articles - and coauthors - (Bruno Latours actor-network theory applies as well to WP) that welcome expansion based on scholarly sources. I have a more brutish top down approach than Hafspajen, e.g. i put my first edits in the David Hume lede, after discussion the most part went in the main text but some traces still exist in the lede. Thats as well my goal here. Will you ask at the noticeboard Hafspajen? Serten II (talk) 13:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actor-network theory? You mean you've observed that people put words into articles and have lots of discussions and think that's it so you think you are productive by sticking in lots of words and going on an on in the discussions? That way of thinking is cargo cult science. Expanding a cake by sticking in lots of chalk and wood shavings and taking out the flour does not improve it. You've had constructive discussion - you've been told where the stuff could go and that it is inappropriate where you're trying to put it. It just doesn't agree with what you want to do. Your 'brutish approach' is disruptive and you have taken up the time of too many other editors. Try putting the stuff where it belongs in the first place. And stop trying to use every article you come across as a coatrack for your hangups about science. Dmcq (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever written an article? Hafspajen and I have done so, since I started to disrupt him at the The Fog Warning. Youre lost in your fog of war, you keep talking talking talking and you describe you own disruptive behavior. I pity you. Serten II (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AARR, guys, guys....that Fog warning was a simple thing. I give up, maybe you should try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/DRN. Hafspajen (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History Section (introduction)

Regarding the following text:

"Science in a broad sense existed before the modern era, and in many historical civilizations,[9] but modern science is so distinct in its approach and successful in its results that it now defines what science is in the strictest sense of the term.[10] Much earlier than the modern era, another important turning point was the development of classical natural philosophy in the ancient Greek-speaking world."

1. I'm finding first sentence the following short paragraph to be very hard to read. 2. I'm puzzled by the second sentence, which might just be deleted. 3. Maybe all of this paragraph can just be deleted.

Sincerely, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an update with different punctuation. Better? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 00:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Science in a broad sense existed before the modern era, and in many historical civilizations.[1] Modern science is distinct in its approach and successful in its results: 'modern science' now defines what science is in the strictest sense of the term.[2] Much earlier than the modern era, another important turning point was the development of classical natural philosophy in the ancient Greek-speaking world.
  1. ^ "The historian ... requires a very broad definition of "science" — one that ... will help us to understand the modern scientific enterprise. We need to be broad and inclusive, rather than narrow and exclusive ... and we should expect that the farther back we go [in time] the broader we will need to be." — David Pingree (1992), "Hellenophilia versus the History of Science" Isis 83 554–63, as cited on p.3, David C. Lindberg (2007), The beginnings of Western science: the European Scientific tradition in philosophical, religious, and institutional context, Second ed. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press ISBN 978-0-226-48205-7
  2. ^ Heilbron, 2003 & p.vii
Yes, the first sentence is better. I am now wondering if the content of the paragraph might be re-arranged so that it is in historical order. It is presently in this order (1) before modern era, (2) modern, (3) classical Greek. I won't belabor this, but I would think ordering the content so that it is closer to time order might help. Otherwise, if no-one cares, I have other things to do as well! I'm just getting my legs here at Wiki. Cheers, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That specific order came from an awareness that our conception of modern science is global in scope, but that the classical Greek conception is only one of several traditions which are still with us, and which compete with it, to this day. Otherwise there would be an underlying current of 'how else could it be?', and 'why didn't these other traditions see this?'. @User:Andrew Lancaster's sentences 'set the stage', to coin a phrase, which hopefully convey an arc of development, and hopefully provoke the reader to read further. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 01:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. Please install the new first two sentences (used to be one). Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done
By the way, over-all Science is a very nice article! Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you for your participation. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 02:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sea urchin

Hey, why is there no table of contents in this talk section? It would be helpful.

Now, onto the matter of the sea urchin photograph. I find this kind of distracting. I mean, this is an article about the very broad subject of "science". And, yes, the study of sea urchins in interesting. I even find them lovely. But I also find the presence and placement of this photograph to be distracting. Can we either delete it or move it down into the deep interior of the article? Thanks, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Isambard Kingdom, There is a skip to TOC link at the top ('skip to table of contents'). When I clicked it, I got to the TOC.
When this article was developing, there was a conscious effort to globalize the article. Thus the simultaneous scientific discovery of the sea urchin's nature, 2300 years ago from both ends of, and across Eurasia (Joseph Needham, Science and Civilisation in China). We are always looking for ways to improve the article, so details and ideas are appreciated and welcome. Previous efforts to improve the article have identified the need for citations to tertiary sources (descriptions at a higher level than secondary sources), because this article is exceptionally broad. So somehow we have to strike a balance between details such as the sea urchin and the higher things? or perhaps the larger picture?
If you are looking for specific principles of science, as a way to read top-down, perhaps you might list your hopes / expectations? ala history of science? Or a dichotomy sapientia v. scientia? Or Leon Chwistek's Limits of Science ... --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 22:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. This is one of the most interesting articles I've seen at WP. Really. I've learned lots here. Let me give some thought on the visual representation of things. A challenge, given the purely conceptual nature of the article. Maybe others can comment as well. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, I gave this a (small) amount of thought. As for images that summarize the article, I'd like to suggest that we have images that show (as we already do) some famous contributors to what science is. I'd also like to suggest that we have characteristic images for some of the main sciences. I've already introduced on for Earth Science. We might also have an image for Life Science, Physics, Chemistry, Math, Astronomy. It would be good, however, to keep this under control, so not too many images. Then, I'd like to suggest that a few of the present images be removed, since they don't seem particularly representative. My thoughts, Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then how about some initial proposals:
  1. Life sciences: maize, first domesticated 9000 years ago, in Mexico
  2. Chemistry: flame, for Michael Faraday's Chemical History of a Candle
  3. Physics and astronomy: solar system and elliptical orbits for the planets
  4. Mathematics: Descartes and analytic geometry, or maybe a Julian calendar
  5. Social science: Large Hadron Collider for international cooperation on a peaceful project
--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 04:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm cool with all those suggestions. I've put some images in, but I'm not married to them. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 04:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 07:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I guess I have some opinions. Too much astronomy. There are already lots of astronomy images, and astronomers, on the existing page. Here we have two images that are astronomical, and while the elliptical orbit might be interpreted as mathematics, well, maybe something else mathematical. There is already an image on the page depicting a Higgs event from Cern. I put it there yesterday, and I think it looks better than an map of the Cern footprint. If that image is about an organization, there are other candidates, such as for IPCC, that might be put in. Otherwise, I like the maize, that seems important, I like the candle and the connection with Faraday. And, we might think of the scientists that should have pictures. I vote for Darwin. Anyway, this discussion is fun! Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/basics/factorysmoke.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isambard Kingdom (talk • contribs) 14:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, more thoughts: A nod towards mathematics might be made by showing a picture of Newton. I vote for him too. I also vote for deleting the pictures of Popper and Ibn al-Haytham. Then, I think something that represents medicine could be appropriately added as well. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. For physics and mathematics, I propose a picture of an ocean beach, for The Sand Reckoner, in which Archimedes estimates the number of grains of sand needed to fill a sphere the size of his universe (the Earth).
  2. For Social science, I propose a picture of an agreement between people, perhaps a depiction of a scientific community (there are already some in the article), or perhaps a social network.
  3. For medicine, I propose the picture at Resting state fMRI, because it is a fundamental discovery for how our brains cycle between activities. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 15:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Ancheta Wis, here is a possible (compromise) list of images to keep, followed by images to delete.

Outline of science picture: (already being used). Beach picture: for physics and math, Sand Reckoner and, also, oceanography! Galileo: Astronomy, scientific method (already being used) Darwin: Natural history, evolution. Candle: Chemical reactions, Faraday. Maize: Agricultural science, food, genetics. Social science picture. Brain picture: for medicine and biology. Plate tectonic picture: (already being used). DNA picture: (already being used). Newton: Gravity, mathematics. CERN Higgs Boson event: (already being used). Smoke stack: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/images/basics/factorysmoke.jpg which touches on environment, global climate, social relevance, etc.

Images I'm in favor of deleting:

Pretty picture of bottles. Popper. Ibn al-Haytham. Astronomical sextant (or what ever that thing is) Lab book (low information content). Distinguished men of science. Johannes Hevelius and wife. Vera Rubin. Bill Clinton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isambard Kingdom (talk • contribs) 15:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised you didn't include the Louis XIV picture.
Vera Rubin needs to stay in the Women in Science section; it's a sensitive topic. @User:Sbharris, comment?
Distinguished men of science? I cannot find the user who inserted this picture, which names the scientists when you hover over it.
The astronomical sextant was improved equipment which allowed much more accurate naked-eye observation, which allowed Kepler to discover his laws of motion of Mars, which is now a consequence of Newton's law of gravitation. It's more than a detail, it's like the improved colliders at CERN.
Hevelius was basically a hobbyist who could afford to do science, I agree with the selection, but at the time, scientists were not funded on a systematic basis. Not until Caroline Herschel and afterward. These were policy decisions. I agree there doesn't need to be a picture in the policy section. Both Einstein and Feynman have commented on the dangers of being paid to do research as your primary job.
No opinion on Popper or Ibn al-Haytham. They can go. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 17:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, please make changes. Or I can. Up to you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Sbharris, comment?
Fine with me. I put Rubin's picture in, in the first place. The Palomar bathroom story doesn't even occur in the Women in Science article, so here's a nice place for it. SBHarris 21:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Isambard Kingdom, I take it that you are willing to make the replacements and layout changes. For the selected items, excepting Vera Rubin's picture, & Tycho Brahe's instrument, Be bold. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 19:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm working with you, so will make those changes as you indicate and as we discussed. Will do later tonight. FYI, I'm interested in the visual depiction of science, in general, so this little assignment amuses me. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've done most of the work, removing some images, inserting others that we agreed would be appropriate, but one exception: Ancheta Wis suggested an image of fMRI. I did some looking around for a good image, but most that I found just didn't seem that good. The main image at Functional magnetic resonance imaging just don't look that great, some have too much information, "correlation" numbers, labels that are more complicated than necessary. If Ancheta Wis wants to use one of those, or something else he/she think is good, then he/she is welcome to insert it. More generally, I think we still need something "medical". IMO this doesn't need to be a brain image (though that would certainly be acceptable), but could be one of many other images: virus (vaccination is very important), a heart, an anatomy diagram, etc. Anyway, this is taking time, and I want to go to bed. I hope this has helped. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Isambard Kingdom, thank you for refreshing the article. I hope that you will continue to contribute here. I added an image which leads to fMRI, as a potential continuation point for this collaboration. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, Ancheta. I might still want to tweak the visual presentation, but for now, this little exercise should cause us to reflect on the balance of the article. Does it fairly represent the breadth of "science"? Perhaps we might salt a few links to Science into other articles, thus promoting visits to the page and, also, promoting editor involvement from fields different from our own. Again, just might thoughts. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific practice

I find the introductory section to "Scientific practice" confusing. For reference, I cut and past it here:

"If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end in doubts; but if he will be content to begin with doubts, he shall end in certainties." —Francis Bacon (1605) The Advancement of Learning, Book 1, v, 8
A skeptical point of view, demanding a method of proof, was the practical position taken as early as 1000 years ago, with Alhazen, Doubts Concerning Ptolemy, through Bacon (1605), and C. S. Peirce (1839–1914), who note that a community will then spring up to address these points of uncertainty. The methods of inquiry into a problem have been known for thousands of years,[48] and extend beyond theory to practice. The use of measurements, for example, is a practical approach to settle disputes in the community.
John Ziman points out that intersubjective pattern recognition is fundamental to the creation of all scientific knowledge.[49]:p44 Ziman shows how scientists can identify patterns to each other across centuries: Needham 1954 (illustration facing page 164) shows how today's trained Western botanist can identify Artemisia alba from images taken from a 16th-century Chinese pharmacopeia,[50]:p46-47 and Ziman refers to this ability as 'perceptual consensibility'.[50]:p46 Ziman then makes consensibility, leading to consensus, the touchstone of reliable knowledge.[50]:p104

1. First, do we need this quote by Bacon? Maybe something has gotten lost in translation through time, but to my reading it is kind of silly. If you begin with doubt, you end with certainty? Really? One might think that one could start with doubt and still end up with doubt.

2. Then, the first paragraph: First sentence is hard to understand: "A skeptical point of view, demanding a method of proof, was the practical position taken ...". I'm not sure what that means. Also who is demanding "proof"? What is so "practical" about this? My confusion with what is written extends all the way to the last sentence: "The use of measurements, for example, is a practical approach to settle disputes in the community." Who is to say anybody would be satisified using measurement to settle a dispute? Maybe I'm missing something here, is all of this text some sort of quote from a famous text, one where the context has been spelled out, or maybe a translation from some other language?

3. Next paragraph, first sentence: "Ziman points out that intersubjective pattern recognition is fundamental to the creation of all scientific knowledge." Maybe I have to go read about " intersubjective pattern recognition" to understand this. Then, there is a reference to Needham 1954, where the reader is actually pointed to an illustration on a page facing 164. It seems to me to ask a lot for a reader of Wiki to actually track that down and have a look.

For discussion, here, I suggest that all of this material in the introductory section be removed. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The Bacon quote is about confirmation bias. It is a basic principle of logic: affirming the consequent is a fallacy.
  2. The Skeptics hold a special place because of their historical opposition to fables, which appear to be true, but which fail to drill down to the root cause. Pliny's encyclopedia was especially bad about fantastic creatures which did not exist; the issue was 'how do you really know?' ('what proof do you have?').
  3. There was an illustration of artemisia on the facing page to 164 (from a Chinese botanical book), but which was recognizable to trained botanists from Europe. I think I can restore it. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 01:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow, I almost feel like I still disagree, even though I don't understand what you are talking about! Is it reasonable to ask that this material could be presented so that the uninitiated reader could understand, also so an old scientist (like me) could understand? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Supernova 1987A is a classic example for confirmation bias. Leon Lederman, for teaching physics first, illustrates how to avoid confirmation bias: Ian Shelton, in Chile, was initially skeptical that supernova 1987a was real, but possibly an artifact of instrumentation (null hypothesis), so he went outside and disproved his null hypothesis by observing SN 1987a with the naked eye. The Kamiokande experiment, in Japan, independently observed neutrinos from SN 1987a at the same time. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 02:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but this supposes that there is an observation to make (a subject not mentioned in Bacon's quote), and it assumes that there is no hypothesis alternative to both the supernova and the null hypothesis. One might see the remnants of something in the sky, and reject the null hypothesis of instrument artifact, but the hypothesis of a supernova can still remain unproven (my problem with Bacon's statement). Okay, I might think more about this, but those were the thoughts in my typing fingers. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get too caught up in the supernovae example (which has multiple lines of evidence), but, in general rejection of a null hypothesis (assuming one has good data) does not amount to acceptance of the hypothesis of interest. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 02:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First, let me express my appreciation for your reaction. Only good can come out of this.
You are absolutely right that doubt can still lead to more doubt. ('Most people would rather die than think') It takes a special devotion to get to the answer. As Alhacen said: Truth is sought for its own sake. And those who are interested in anything for its own sake are not interested in other things. The road to truth is rough ... One must examine things for error ruthlessly, even oneself ...
Galileo characterized such a search as wandering fruitlessly in a dark labyrinth. He also identifies the language of mathematics as a way out.
Max Born was confronted with the difficulties behind naive realism as a student and finally identified an approach after 40-50 years (see Born (1964), Natural Philosophy of Cause and Chance). His solution was to use an optical comparator to get two different observers to agree on the color of an object. (Intersubjective pattern recognition).
Operational measurement is another method for determining an intersubjective issue, as a dramatic example: “Show me the manner in which a nation cares for its dead and I will measure with mathematical exactness the tender mercies of its people, their respect for the laws of the land and their loyalty to high ideals.” – Sir William Gladstone
--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 02:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ancheta, I think I can accept the ideas we (you and I) are discussing, but the material in the intro to "Scientific practice" is, to me, very confusing. It seems that the Bacon quote might have a context, which, if one is aware of it, allows the quote to be fairly interpreted. At least, that is an extrapolation I suspect might be true (assuming, yes, that Bacon was pretty smart). But a Wiki reader will not likely know that context, and, so, the quote that is given, here, in isolation, either won't make sense to him/her, or it might even cause confusion. Continuing to the remaining text in the intro, that by Skeptics and Ziman, you seem to be aware of the context of those paragraphs, hence your explanations, but I don't know their context, and, indeed, the context is not explained in the very same intro to scientific practice. Maybe all of this can be fixed, but I do think the section needs to be fixed. I don't have the background or knowledge to fix it. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also think the introduction to that section needs a complete revamp starting with the quote from Francis Bacon. For starters it is wrong - when people start with certainties normally they just get more entrenched if people start doubting them. And you don't end up with certainties if you start with doubt - you end up by advancing knowledge and getting more light on the subject. The first statement doesn't really explain what skeptical means in the context of science, and we don't get proof, we get confirmation or disproof - and we should be trying to disprove rather than trying to find a proof. The rest is a bit too out of the way and a more common example should be used if any for instance the circulation of the blood or from voltaic piles or the orbit of the moon from the fall of apples - or some famous example like the luminiferous aether theory being shown wrong. Dmcq (talk) 11:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the missing Artemisia file with a more accessible experiment which can be performed by parents with their newborn child. The practical message here is "talk with your baby!" (or else they will fail to thrive). --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 08:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think quotes (if used) should be clearly interpretable in isolation. Examples should be in the body of the section itself, not so much in the introduction of the section. And then the examples should be chosen for balance across fields and illustrative utility. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 12:39, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Faraday: the italized part of the following quote is emblazoned on a rafter of one of my schools: "Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature; and in such things as these experiment is the best test of such consistency.

Laboratory journal entry #10,040 (19 March 1849)" When the group of us were building this article 10 years ago, our hope was we might attract others, that we might work alongside them, and (speaking as one of the group, because this was all unvoiced) that Faraday's practices could still work. I have no problem with rewrite. Let's do this. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, Ancheta, that is a wonderful quote! It can be understood as it is, and so possibly useful here, but I do also like the context of "laboratory journal entry". He must have been enjoying some personal moment of reflection. I also like the context of it being emblazoned on a rafter of your school. When I was young, I found such lofty quotes to be exhilarating. Still do. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ancheta, can I suggest that we get comments on this section from a larger community of editors. I've never before put in an RFC, but maybe that would be worthwhile. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has been my experience that WP processes take on a life of their own. Generally RFCs get personal, which is quite unfortunate for the encyclopedia. Ten years ago, the encyclopedia was more freewheeling; Jimbo Wales started a quality movement which grew to the point that the rapid increase in articles and editors slowed down. Andrew Lih has found that a community of 20 editors is the level needed to keep an article vibrant.
Or perhaps there is now a WP process which keeps RFCs at a high level. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 15:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I understand. Maybe we can just encourage people here to comment. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a new thread to house the comments? The issue of 'doubt versus certainty' is fundamental of course and directly affected the historical acceptance of science in Western Europe, post 1250. But we do not act on the basis of doubt; we act on what we believe. This was a fundamental finding of The Metaphysical Club in Boston, post American Civil War, which gave rise to pragmatism (do what works). That is, 'doubt gives rise to thought', but 'belief gives rise to action'. You can see that C.S. Peirce figures in the argument. It wasn't until I read about The Metaphysical Club that I understood Peirce's statement "logic is rooted in the social principle". Perhaps a new thread to house 'doubt versus certainty'?
There is more: the translators of Alhacen emphasized his promise of certainty; Smith 2001 vol 2, p.573 (via JSTOR), paragraph [2.25] "Moreover, everything we have discussed can be tested by experiment so we will attain certainty about it." Alhacen was enthusiastically taken up in Christendom 200 years after Book of Optics appeared. Of course Kepler 1604 blew this all up with his Ad Vitellionem Paralipomena, or 'Emendations to Witelo'. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 18:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A new "thread" or, really, a new subsection heading in the article, might help to focus things. You see, I don't find the material in the *introduction section* of the *practice* section to be a real introduction to practice. The text you are working on (and the quote by Bacon) are about the specific issues you are now highlighting, doubt, belief, etc. That is fine, but it does not, itself, constitute an intro to a much broader set of issues. [Also, just FYI, the picture is of a monkey, not a baby. I find the picture distracting, but I know that is my opinion.] Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The experiment works on a newborn human baby just as well as on a macaque baby. It's 'intersubjective' for both humans and macaques. This demonstrated facility passes fairly quickly because the baby learns more as the parents talk to it. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 19:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I think we need input from other editors. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After waiting patiently for all these years for people like you, I think I will clear the text to see what you will write. Now? Or you can just write. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ancheta, I confess to finding this kind of scary. I mean, this is an important article, and I am trying to be realistic about who I am. Still, I think about the issues in the article, and I would like to contribute, not be the only contributor. You agree to work with this as well, right? Maybe Dmcq can be prompted to look in as well? One thing I'd like to discuss is the organization of the existing material. This, might prompt some interesting discussion. Perhaps we can put the existing content into a draft? Do you know how to do this? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I see is that parts of the present article are kind of organized to be mini-versions of other full-fledged articles: History of Science, Philosophy of Science, Scientific Method. Is it possible to organize the material so that is, for example, like that seen in the first figure: The scale of science, Scientific disciplines, Scientific hierarchy? If so, perhaps we can develop an outline. The Outline of science is very nice. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have copied the current snapshot to Draft:science page, which existed already. I propose that we continue the discussion of the draft page, here, for simplicity, but that we all (including also @Dmcq and other interested editors) work on it, and that upon consensus, we simply copy that draft directly over the current science article. That keeps the article history from 2001 forward, intact. I'd rather not experiment with any idiosyncrasies of the move tool, etc. .
Note to all of us: As part of the rules of engagement, might we all work toward the goal of improving the draft article, and might we keep interpersonal issues (meaning unfortunate misunderstandings from past interactions) out of the draft space? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 18:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that outline of science could be placed at Draft talk:science page as a template/scaffold for the outline of the draft page. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 18:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, @User: Isambard Kingdom, I can still remove the text under Draft: Science page#Science practice to remove distracting elements. OK?

As you like, Ancheta. I'm thinking about making a wholesale rearrangement of paragraphs. It might/probably will fail. At that point I might not know what to do with that section, since I still don't understand it. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft

In that vein, I think/believe any item in draft space is fair game for change. OK? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 19:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in my experiences, I'm usually most happy with my writing projects when I write things as first author -- where I have co-authors who actually contribute. Then, when I'm second or third author, I'm usually less happy with what ends up being written. Either way, however, complete satisfaction is always, always elusive. On this sort of project, here at Wiki, I'm prepared to see my own text taken apart and, even, deleted. What I hope to gain, personally, is learning about science and learning about writing about science. So, I guess, process. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 00:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. In response to the original question, I would paraphrase the passage (with a few adjustments of my own) as follows:
The requirement for a method to correctly resolve uncertain claims was recognized as early as 1000 years ago. Alhazen (Doubts Concerning Ptolemy), Bacon (1605), and C.S. Peirce (1839-1914) said that a scientific community will then be able to investigate these claims. The methods used have been known for thousands of years,[48] and include both theoretical and practical considerations. For example, the use of measurements is a practical method for resolving disputes.
John Ziman states that the communication of pattern recognition between scientists is fundamental to all scientific discoveries.[49]:p44 One example is the idenfification of Artemisia alba by a modern botanist from images taken from a 16th-century Chinese pharmacopeia.[50]:p46-47 Ziman called this ability 'perceptual consensibility'[50]:p46 and considered it to be the basic standard for reliable knowledge.[50]:p104
(This is just a cursory analysis, so e.g. I haven't checked whether it's still following the sources.) Sunrise (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Compare this article with Nature

Those of you interested in this page might also check out the Nature page. If you ask me, that page is a challenge, and I'm not convinced that it is properly balanced for content, but it should be somehow complementary to this page on Science. Can this be discussed here (and/or there)? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to answer from memory, but I made a quick check of the Nature page to verify that it still has an underlying theme of 'us, here on Earth, of which we are part', whereas this page has a more detached feel (i.e. 'not necessarily on Earth'). --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 15:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ancheta, yes, that is true. The Nature page is kind of divided between outdoors, landscape stuff, including some experiential stuff (us in nature), but it also attempts (not successfully, in my opinion) to summarize things in more scientific terms. The Nature page has almost no philosophy, other than a brief mention in the lead, whereas the Science page does (appropriately). The two pages, Nature and Science, are presently incompatible in significant ways. Maybe it is hoping for too much to think they should fit together. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a famous quote 'history without philosophy is blind, and philosophy without history is hollow' (I just paraphrased Norwood Russell Hanson, who was referring to history of science, and philosophy of science). Yet the Nature page is not blind, I 'know' (speaking for myself) that it's a good thing. I'm afraid the implicit ethical directive in the Nature page is absent on the Science page. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 15:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is this "ethical directive" related to romanticism (something I'm learning about)? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately I don't know. But good writing, like good history needs an arc of development. Who is to say that good science can't also have an arc? In support of an earlier section (history of optics) on this talk page, I read Alhacen's Book 7, from his Book of Optics. He goes from the refraction of light to the transparency of the space containing the stars, from which either he (or an intellectual descendant -- the publisher jammed multiple scientists together) figured out the height of the atmosphere. That kind of writing is just as exciting (for me at least). --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 15:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I feel that the Nature page is (or should be) trying to get at some of the ideas of the Romantic period, and, likewise, there might be some room in the Science page for brief discussion of Romanticism in science. All stuff I'm learning about. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can offer you yet another slice of the puzzle: Alhacen offers support for the idea that there are implicit faculties in our visual perception and cognition (such as love of beauty, Romanticism, etc.). These Aristotelian faculties are inherent in our thinking, which Alhacen notes remain unspoken until things are obvious. For example we do not verbalize these previously unspoken, implicit things until we encounter an obvious difficulty (such as loss of Nature). This specific difficulty about the loss of our natural environment became perfectly obvious by the time of the industrial revolution in England. Alhacen noted that "there is no doubt that the child does not know what deduction is and does not perceive whether he is deducing or not when he does. Moreover, if one were to try to teach him what deduction is, he would not understand. Yet since the child does deduce yet has no idea what a deduction is, it follows that the human soul is inherently apt to engage in deduction without difficulty or effort." — Alhacen Optics Books 1-3 English translation p.437, via JSTOR (In this case 'human soul' is Aristotle's anima. Smith's translation, see his Latin glossary, his English index, his topical TOCs and his commentary. JSTOR specifically displays thumbnails of every page to allow you to navigate Alhacen's huge Book of Optics) --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 18:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, our ability to perceive, understand, and deduce is amazing, if, in fact, "perceiving", "understanding" and "deducing" have actual "meaning". Now I'm reminded of a question posed by Bertrand Russell: "What is the meaning of meaning?" I think he was, actually, a practical man, and I sometimes find it interesting that most scientists are as well. They are usually busy fixing their sensor, making their observations, putting together theories and models, usually without thinking too much about whether or not there is actual meaning. Some of this is, already, encompassed in the article. I'm afraid my thoughts on all of this might seem simple. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And we are back to @Andrew Lancaster's citation: ("... [A] man knows a thing scientifically when he possesses a conviction arrived at in a certain way, and when the first principles on which that conviction rests are known to him with certainty—for unless he is more certain of his first principles than of the conclusion drawn from them he will only possess the knowledge in question accidentally." — Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 6 (H. Rackham, ed.) Aristot. Nic. Eth. 1139b ) Casting Aristotle into the well-known bumper-sticker slogan
  1. Tell them what you are going to tell them.
  2. Tell it.
  3. Tell them that you told it.
In Alhacen's case, he calls 'first principles' First Discourse (1 above). His Book of Optics uses variations of 1 with his experimental setups. For 2, which a reader performs for oneself, Alhacen gives tips and caveats for the reader, what to be cautious about. For 3, Alhacen usually tells the reader how to evaluate 2 (such as whether the predicate 2 is true or false, or whether the result was certain or not), and for which Ptolemy gave data, in his refraction experiment, but which Alhacen omitted for his exposition on refraction. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 15:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly relevant to this discussion is that some years ago the Nature article was split, and the material considered too philosophical was moved to Nature (philosophy).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Lancaster, thank you for this important piece of information. So, I guess the philosophical material that presently exists in the Science article has been developed since then? Interesting how these things drift. @Ancheta Wis, were you aware of this? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Lancaster, what I noticed from your Nature (philosophy) article was the pervasive Aristotelian forms, which Alhacen used as his metaphor for optical images and a theory of cognition. This directly influenced Roger Bacon, Witelo, and John Peckham, the Perspectivists. The Renaissance artists were the direct beneficiaries. In translations, Greece -> Egypt -> Spain -> Sicily -> Italy -> England -> Northern Europe -> etc. A direct relation between science and art. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 15:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just write what comes to mind in case it is helpful. I think it is not controversial to say that the concept "nature" (as something with its own consistent order, that can, or even should, be studied methodically and meaningfully by human reason and experience) was not obvious and actually has a starting point which if not Greek, at least first appears clearly in Greek sources BEFORE Aristotle. Aristotle is an important author of course, partly because of how much of human knowledge he tried to cover, and also because of how much of his work survived. But more generally he is one thinker in a bigger tradition, and not the first. In many ways the Middle Ages was a victory for his teleological branch of science, the methodical study of nature. As Francis Bacon later complained, it meant non-teleological science such as that of Democritus, was ignored. Teleological science was, according to Bacon and modern science, a succumbing to a fundamental human bias which will always tend to mislead. Francis Bacon's method is all about keeping our natural biases in mind and trying to avoid them. This does not of course mean science before him was not methodical and did not also try to avoid bias. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Lancaster, yes, 'nature' is in Homer of course, and your characterization of 'nature, as something with its own consistent order' brought to mind David Bohm's implicate order. @Isambard Kingdom, we could, all of us, discuss this on the emerging outline at the draft:science page? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fortuitously, The Lagoon: How Aristotle Invented Science (Viking), by Armand Marie Leroi, accessdate=2015-01-26 has just appeared. Armand Marie Leroi, an evolutionary biologist, notes how "... Aristotle reached a turning point on the road to the scientific method by basing his ideas on direct observation and careful classification", as reported by David Luhrssen. Further, Leroi declares that Aristotle's search for the cause of life's own consistent order has now been found in our time: the genetic code of DNA. Leroi finds the lagoon on the island of Lesbos remains much the same as when Aristotle studied its life 2300 years ago. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 18:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. But we should be a bit careful about making Wikipedia represent specific opinions from specific works. I believe saying that DNA is what Aristotle was looking for is questionable to say the least. Again, an important theme in all Socratic science is teleology, but teleological methodology is not widely accepted as good scientific methodology since Francis Bacon. Aristotle was very clear in saying he was NOT going to accept a theory where small particles bumping into each other unintelligently would explain things. There had to be a human like intention and intelligence behind nature according his approach. This did not stop him and many before and after him from methodically discovering many things, but it did lead them up many paths today considered very wrong. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Modern "science"

Think it's important to mention they were wrong. That said Aristotle is the name that matters from his day down to modern science. It is his theories and methods that inspire others and this is reported by every source on the subject. Ptolemy was also a giant in pre modern science his system was the ruling one down to Copernicus. Galen (and Hippocrates via Galen) was also a major player.J8079s (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is another aspect to this. Alhacen used the models from Euclid, Aristotle, Galen, Hippocrates, Ptolemy, etc., because that is all that he had; 'he was firmly rooted in Greek optics', but he went further. This includes experiment, which he repeated from Ptolemy and reported in Book of Optics, in far greater depth than Ptolemy's work. You can read him in English translation from the Latin; the links are given earlier on this talk page. Al-Kindi, who lived 150 years before Alhacen, was a major figure who introduced Aristotle, Galen, Hippocrates, Ptolemy, etc., in translation to the House of wisdom, and who defended the Greek heritage. Ibn Sahl, who lived one generation (their lives overlap from 965-1000) before Alhacen, measured the lengths of the hypotenuses of refracted light in water and air, and found the equivalent of Snell's law (this was only discovered in 1993 by Roshdi Rashed). Alhacen recorded his Critique of Ptolemy and conclusively disproved Ptolemy's extramission theory of vision in Book of Optics (Books I-III, Alhacen's theory of vision)
(the citation is: Smith (2001) via JSTOR p373-4 [6.56] footnote 87 (use the thumbnails to navigate). '[6.58] ... Since there is no need to suppose that something else transmits anything from the visible object to the eye, the opinion of the proponents of the visual rays is pointless. Hence the claim that visual rays exist is nullified.')

There is more, of course, in exhaustive detail which was extremely convincing to Christendom. In fact, by the 1400s Alhacen was preached from the pulpits.

When I read further, I was astounded how well he reasoned from his questionable (from our perspective) models. But Alhacen was enthusiastically received by the Perspectivists, starting with Roger Bacon. And you can still learn optics from him. Kepler certainly did. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 00:04, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alhacen established the convention for measuring the angle of incidence for both reflection and refraction (Neuenschwander (2014) " Light, the nexus in physics" Radiations Fall 2014 ). Smith faults Alhacen's experimental model for refraction. Alhacen posted no data for refraction, giving only his experimental design, whereas Ptolemy's data for refraction was smoothed using the method of constant second differences pioneered by the Chaldean/ Mesopotamian astronomers (Neugebauer, The exact sciences in antiquity). Thus no sine law, and Alhacen did not publish Ibn Sahl's data, even though he actually transcribed at least some of Ibn Sahl's manuscripts.
Alhacen's work was about visual perception (compare Smith 2015 From sight to light) and this hampered Alhacen's experimental setup for refraction, using quarter-spheres of glass (because he was trying to model refraction through the eye?). His intellectual descendant Kamāl al-Dīn al-Fārisī who successfully explained the rainbow by diffraction (two bounces through a water-filled glass sphere, which was al-Fārisī's model for a raindrop), did not have to manufacture quarter-spheres. Smith actually revisited Alhacen's experimental setup for refraction to prove how difficult the experiment would have been. Hence Smith's doubts about Book 7 (refraction) as a feasible experimental setup which would have been extremely difficult to execute, especially as Alhacen was trying to explain sight, rather than the light-based optics we learn today.
Alhacen's work on mirrors (Books 4, 5 and 6) was more successful. Alhazen's problem is how to solve "Given a light source and a spherical mirror, find the point on the mirror where the light will be reflected to the eye of an observer." Again this problem is sight-based.
The worst criticism was that light passing through an aperture (the entrance pupil) is imaged inverted. An imaged scene is inverted. Alhacen knew this, but justified his theory by working backward from the fact that we see images upright. Kepler didn't buy the handwaving and searched the human optical system in vain for a second aperture. He gave up, and published Emendations to Witelo, lamenting that if Alhacen or Witelo had truly solved this issue, he would have saved himself a lot of trouble. Thus the retina of the eye is the screen for an optical image. This was 600 years after Alhacen and 1400 years after Ptolemy. It's hard not to admire this. But that means that there was undeniable progress from the Hellenic civilization forward, and Alhacen was 'pivotal', to use Smith's description. It didn't happen by occult means, it happened scientifically. Alhacen and company played their part. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 02:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In His theory light, color, and form enter the eye separately. The lens is the receptor. The optic nerve is hollow and carries the form to the brain where its felt in the folds. That said Be Bold most of the work that needs to be done is at The book of optics and at Alhacen J8079s (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]
While trying to find a home for this material, I read history of optics, & was relieved to see that it covered much of what I have mentioned here, in a little less detail about the experiments. The influence of Alhacen, for example on Dürer, could go in a science and art article.
But a balanced view of Alhacen could use A. Mark Smith's assessment ( citation —
  • Smith 2001, pp.cxii-cxviii : '7. Ibn al-Haytham: a tentative reappraisal' via JSTOR 'iconic status', p.cxii. 'his approach was essentially hypothetico-deductive', p.cxv
  • Smith 2010, pp.xcvii-civ : '5. Putting Alhacen in his proper place'. via JSTOR actually mentioned Wikipedia and the overreaction in the adulatory coverage of Alhazen!.)

I guess I ought to poll for backup while redressing the imbalance. I will use, as general theme

  • 'Alhacen's synthesis of Greek & Muslim science was pivotal for optics. His Book of Optics, written in Cairo in the eleventh century, found a ready audience in the thirteenth century, in Baghdad and in Europe; his empirical, experiment-based approach to science served as example for the revolutionary changes in optics, and to the rest of natural science, in the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century.'

Would anyone else care to watch over my fixes to Alhazen? We might need backup there. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 17:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spiral 2

If we were to count previous sections as Spiral 0: #History of optics and its position in the development of science, Spiral 1:#Pre-Modern "science", and this section as Spiral 2 (where I use a constructivist methodology), then I propose that this article 'walk back' some claims, using the guidance of A. Mark Smith's citations (e.g., Smith 2001):

  • Smith, A. Mark, ed. and trans. (2001) Alhacen's Theory of visual perception : a critical edition, with English translation and commentary, of the first three books of Alhacen's De aspectibus, [the medieval latin version of Ibn al-Haytham's Kitāb al-Manāẓir], Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 2 vols: 91(#4 — Vol 1 Commentary and Latin text); 91(#5 — Vol 2 English translation). (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society), 2001. Books I-III (2001) Vol 1 Commentary and Latin text via JSTOR; Vol 2 English translation, Book I:TOCp339-341, Book II:TOCp415-6, Book III:TOCp559-560, Notes 681ff, Bibl. via JSTOR Use the thumbnails to get to a specific page.
  • more to come. I invite you to read along. Among some fascinating details: The first Latin translators from 800-900 years ago skipped the methodology chapters in the Arabic, so that the Latin translation starts Primus tractatus, Capitulum I (First Book, Chapter one) at paragraph [4.1]; I think that Sabra's critical edition of Arabic Books I-III were Smith's guide to the numbering. Smith's critical edition translates the Latin text of De Aspectibus which appeared 800 years ago. The translator is unknown. Smith notes that there were at least two translators, one so unskilled that he did not know the meaning of an Arabic word, and could only transcribe it as 'aluerach'. But the word means 'firefly'. Smith projects that translator 1 stopped his work abruptly (perhaps at illness or death), and that translator 2 did a test translation, which got included in the manuscript anyway! So there is duplication; Smith had to clean up, of course. Smith's critical editions (2001, 2006, 2008, and 2010) have Latin glossaries with page numbers of the occurrence of the word in Alhacen's text, along with an English index. There are also topical synopses of each chapter of Alhacen. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 20:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ancheta, I appreciate your interest in the history of science. Would this attention also be well-directed at the page on the History of science? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our (Wikipedia's) problem is that the text of this page needs to be 'walked back'. Smith 2010 specifically calls out some overenthusiastic claims on this page which can be cleaned up in few sentences and their citations. There is a strong set of editors on History of Science who have already cleaned up that page. So that means once the Medieval Science section is done, I can move the bulldozer (Wink ;-) to the more logical venues. But there might be snipers there (Wink ;-), so I was thinking at least get this page straight first. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 21:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I was just curious. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problems pointed out by Smith:

  1. Father of optics -- Smith points out it's only one author
  2. First [modern] scientist
    1. Hypothetico-deductive method (method was successful for diplopia, and for reflection); he only described an experimental setup for refraction; method was not sucessfully applied to refraction because he published no data for refraction; Smith could not repeat the refraction experiment.
    2. Sine law for refraction -- this problem is fixed, the misstatement is not in current versions of this page
    3. Revolutionary status -- Smith calls Alhacen's work a synthesis of previous work, rather than a writeup from the ground up, ala Kuhn

Proposed updates to fix

  1. (Smith 2001) points out it's only one author, so at least name the author, rather than implying a large consensus
  2. (Smith 2001) List the Medieval ontology he buttressed (or put this in context at Scientific revolution to show what Kepler/ Snell/ Descartes/ Newton overturned?)
    1. At least mention the diplopia setup to show the connections to Galen and Ptolemy, as exemplar for his enthusiastic reception in Medieval Europe by the Perspectivists
    2. Done
    3. Alhacen's synthesis of Greek & Muslim science was pivotal for optics. His Book of Optics, written in Cairo in the eleventh century, found a ready audience in the thirteenth century, in Baghdad and in Europe as Alhacen demonstrated the use of Aristotelian ontology; his empirical, experiment-based approach to science was used against this ontology, in turn, to overthrow it in optics, and in the rest of natural science, in the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century. (Smith 2001) Put the problems with refraction in the Book of Optics page.

Citations

  1. Smith 2001 (visual perception) (Smith 2001 Alhacen's Theory, pp.573-578, how to replicate the double vision experiment (diplopia), right down to the notch in the board for your nose)
  2. maybe Smith 2006 Reflection (But not Distortion Smith 2008)
  3. his more critical comments in Smith 2010 (refraction) (Smith 2010 pararaph [3.33] p.259, footnote 67. Note 67 is on p.361. [3.33] is the summary of how to measure the sizes of the angle of refraction for air to water, air to glass, glass to air, glass to water, for plane, concave, and convex surfaces)


As Spiral 3, I propose to instantiate these changes in the Medieval science section, where they might well be moved to child pages upon consensus. OK? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 00:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Should we add this line to the lead?

In the Middle East during the medieval period foundations for scientific method were laid.[1][2][3][4] Moorrests (talk) 03:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ El-Bizri, Nader, "A Philosophical Perspective on Ibn al-Haytham's Optics", Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 15 (2005-08-05), 189–218
  2. ^ Malik, Kenan (2010-10-22). "Pathfinders: The Golden Age of Arabic Science, By Jim Al-Khalili". The Independent. Retrieved 2014-10-22.
  3. ^ Haq, Syed (2009). "Science in Islam". Oxford Dictionary of the Middle Ages. ISSN 1703-7603. Retrieved 2014-10-22.
  4. ^ Sabra, A. I. (1989). The Optics of Ibn al-Haytham. Books I–II–III: On Direct Vision. London: The Warburg Institute, University of London. pp. 25–29. ISBN 0-85481-072-2.
No I don't think so. It is to easy for people to say that a specific thing like the developments that are mentioned in those is somehow the start when there are so many starts. As to the optics of Ibn al-Haytham if you look at his stuff about vision it is clear he didn't employ anything like a scientific method whatever he said about doubting. If that sort of thing is stuck in a lot of other stuff would have to be put in making the lead have too much weight on the history. I think the article lead is better off being quite short on the history and a longer bit can be put into the lead of the history section - it could have one or two sentences to summarize each of the subsections.Dmcq (talk) 11:54, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. In the entire panorama of all that is "science", that does not belong in the lead. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Isambard Kingdom, @Dmcq, @Moorrests perhaps we might craft a transitional sentence for context beween medieval science and the scientific revolution sections, instead. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 21:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a good sentence; putting it in a subsection would work. Probably the citations should be grouped together; see also Smith (2001) Alhacen's Theory of Visual Perception, a critical edition with English translation and commentary of the first three books of Alhacen's De Aspectibus. Trans. Amer. Philos. Soc. 91(4) Vol 1 Commentary and Latin text.
Here is Smith's 2001 summary of the impact of Alhacen's methodology: pp.cxv-cxvi via JSTOR (use the thumbnails to navigate).
Briefly, Smith shows that Alhacen's synthesis of past scientific thought, up to his own time, made its method attractive to the West. He obviously played a role in showing how hands-on experiment can deepen our understanding. But that same method led to the overthrow of that past thought in the scientific revolution, including his own ontology. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 12:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I think could also be done is have the history section be not quite so chronological and turn the medieval section into a section on Islamic science. Dmcq (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Islamic science could be one thread, but the medieval science thread, everything, was conclusively overthrown by Kepler, Descartes, Newton, in the scientific revolution. (Smith 2001) --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 12:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Moorrests, I had to walk-back the 'father-of' caption. Just so you know, Smith 2001's commentary does say that Alhacen enjoys 'iconic status in history of science'. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Something was niggling me about the references and I just figured out what it is. This is a general point not just about those. They were all concentrated on Islamic science. If one wants to say something in a wider context the source should be in that wider context. Books on a topic always say their particular topic is very important. Dmcq (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lindberg and Smith are Medieval historians, specializing in history of science. For Lindberg, the wider context is science, and not only Islamic science. For Smith, the wider context is the Aristotelians. For myself, I find his explanation of Aristotelian cognition to be quite compelling, and the fact that such a 'reasonable, economical, and coherent' theory got overturned in the scientific revolution, to be humbling. So for me, the red flag for the paucity of some explanation is 'driving a stake into the ground', whether it be point masses, point charges, strings, etc. or some other object-oriented ontology or epistemology. There will be a limit to the reason, to the validity of that ontology. Then it all goes out the window. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 18:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alhacen and refraction is a perfect example to his limits of reason. His diplopia experiment made sense to him because the eyes fuse their sensory output at the optic chiasma, which Galen's teleology explained well. His mirror (reflection) solution worked for him because he had a closed form solution for visual perception and the center of a spherical mirror. But no closed form solution for refraction. Why? Ibn Sahl had a handle on it, and Alhacen lived after Ibn Sahl. Ptolemy published his refraction data... OK, why didn't Alhacen publish his data for refraction? By 2010 Smith was uncovering other issues. Smith points out that the sun directly overhead was part of his experimental setup, which was only true in the tropics, like at Syene (24 degrees N. lat.), south of Cairo (30 degrees N. lat.) So Alhacen was experimenting with only a short time window for illumination of his refracting materials (air, glass, water) and his surface geometries (plane, concave, convex). Smith lists other factors against the success of the refraction experiment as well.
I found the following synopses to be quite helpful:
  1. Smith, A. Mark (1981), "Getting the Big Picture in Perspectivist Optics" Isis 72(4) (Dec., 1981). via JSTOR, pp. 568-589 Alhazen -> Roger Bacon -> Witelo -> John Pecham -> Kepler -> revolution
  2. Smith, A. Mark (1990), "Knowing Things Inside Out: The Scientific Revolution from a Medieval Perspective" The American Historical Review 95(3) (Jun., 1990). via JSTOR pp. 726-744
  3. A. Mark Smith (2004) "What is the history of Medieval Optics Really About?" via JSTOR
--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 18:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand isn't Ibn al-Haytham the first person to conduct reproducible experiments and gather data from them as far as the historical records goes that have survived. This is the first step toward scientific method and it is ~200 years before Roger Bacon. I have provided five historians of science who back this fact. They all have advance degrees in history of science. Moorrests (talk) 03:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the concepts of "experiments" and "data" can be very broad. If we go back as far as we can, the invention of agriculture would have involved both, even though there was no systematic method in place at the time. Perhaps you mean he was the first to describe reproducible experiments as a concept? That would be important, but I don't think it's true. Sunrise (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot to mentioned that it is also the earliest record that has survived of the use of reproducible experiments and its data. Do you know of any before Ibn al-Haytham? I have provided 5 advanced sources or references. Moorrests (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alhacen's Diplopia (double vision) experiment was inspired by Ptolemy's Optics book. Start with Alhacen's Book 3, p.573 paragraph 2.25 onward: "moreover everything we can discussed can be tested by experiment so we can obtain certainty about it." Then keep reading the succeeding paragraphs, such as the picture of the plaque with a notch in it for your nose (p.574), and pegs made of wax, for you to move around on the plaque to test your double vision. Here is Ptolemy's binocular vision experiment, Smith 1999 Ptolemy's Optics, p.70 and also Smith 1996 Ptolemy's Theory of Visual perception, p.26, and pp.83-89 --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 05:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So did Ptolemy conducted any reproducible experiments and collected its data. Do you have any historical records of those experiments and their analysis? No original research will be accepted. Moorrests (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Smith notes that the Latin translations of Ptolemy's experiments came from Medieval times, and his English translation follows an earlier scholar's work, Le Jeune. you can use the citations above to follow. Use the thumbnails to navigate. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 05:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In your sources Mark A. Smith talks about the field of optics and says nothing about scientific method. You need to provide a source where he specifically mentions scientific method. Moorrests (talk) 06:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

y 2015 (UTC)

Smith's commentary p.cxv does say Alhacen's approach is essentially hypothetico-deductive, and says he does a lot more experimentation, but Ptolemy does do experimentation.
Ptolemy's analysis of his experiments is Smith 1996 Ptolemy's Theory of Visual perception, pp90-99, where he is most concerned with visual perception. I see where you are going about data though: Ptolemy's measurements of the angle of refraction give actual data, p43-44, where Alhacen gets stuck in experimental setup with no data.
One thing that struck me about Alhacen's words, which Ptolemy barely gets to (he does it, though), is that Alhacen deliberately uses experiment to understand something better.

Alhacen's Theory of Visual Perception: A Critical Edition, with ..., Book I 91 Volume 1

Alhacen book I, II, III

  • I p355 5.39 eye anatomy shown in books on anatomy
  • I p356 6.6 this is the accepted opinion of natural philosophers on how vision occurs
  • I p360 6.18 footnote 60 experiment thus empirically ascertained
  • I p363 6.24 explanation of focus on one item from an infinity of items
  • I p366 6.36 explanation of focus by agreement with experiment
  • I p367 6.38 "and all of these points become clear with experimentation"
  • I p373 6.56 footnote 87 falsification of extromission theory of vision
  • I p379 6.85 camera obscura
  • I p379 6.86 And this can be tried anytime.
  • pp376-7 6.69 footnote 99 (p410) image fusion in optic chiasm (Galen citation cxxxvi, intro -- Margaret Tallmadge May, 1968,trans. Galen's De Usu Partium Corporis Humani )
  • I p377 6.69 diplopia -> image fusion
  • transmission of forms to optic chiasm see book II 2.23-2.24 pp426-7
  • II p423 2.30 from this experiment it will therefore be clear that ...
  • II p443 3.53 from this experiment
  • II p443 3.56 from these experiments, it is eminently clear that ...
  • II p453 3.80 experiment in a darkened room which [subject] has not seen before
  • fusion in chiasm book III 2.17, pp569-70
  • III p573 2.25 Moreover everything we have discussed can be tested so that we will attain certainty over it.
    • p574 figure 3.8: experimental setup (described in p573 2.26 cites comments which are in footnote 23, p633) to show diplopia down to the notch in the plaque for your nose to fit in. (builds up the geometrical setup in Ptolemy, Optics III,43 per Smith 1996, Ptolemy's Theory p147)
  • III p578 2.50 thus, the reason that ... has been shown through deduction and experiment.
  • III p585 2.74 ...He will see the situation was the same as the one where the experiment was carried out when ...

But Ptolemy's comments are briefer with not as much 'this means that' ... as Alhacen. This might be due to Admiral Eugene's lack of facility with Latin. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 06:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems as far as I understand to me you seems at least neutral about the subject in this section. Moorrests (talk) 06:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes, after all, it is Smith who is doing all the work here. And Lindberg etc. Before JSTOR we couldn't get to the good citations. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 06:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So essentially it comes down to 5 historian of science vs 1 historian of science. So, what should be done in this case? Moorrests (talk) 07:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence for Ptolemy's experiments will be in these sources. It's going to have to be each historian, one by one, in turn: I found one of them, for example in HENDRIX, John, and Charles H. CARMAN. (Eds.) Renaissance Theories of Vision. (x + 245 pp.; ill.; bibl.; index.) Farnham, Surrey, England; Burlington,

VT: Ashgate, 2010. ISBN: 9781409400240. Contents: John S. HENDRIX and Charles H. CARMAN, “Introduction,” 1–10; Nader EL-BIZRI, “Classical Optics and the Perspectivae Traditions Leading to the Renaissance,” 11–30 [ref. 909];

Hendrix and Carman might be OK for a review sentence of El-Bizri's contribution.

But JSTOR has a moving wall protecting the more recent publications, like this one. Someone is going to have to get to a library with access to it. Then post the relevant passage in a quote, to allow discoverability for the global user, to be able to use it in an article. See all the Smith citations; you can actually read content by using the links. Use the thumbnails to get to each relevant page to read it. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 12:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just remembered: in Fred Hoyle (1955) Frontiers of Astronomy there is a large photograph showing grass-skirted tribesmen in Borneo using a native version of a gnomon to determine whether it was the right day of year to plant their crops. That is a citation which documents a reproducible experimental procedure which is clearly thousands of years old. And there are Egyptian sundials which are 3500 years old. (Caution: to get the time of day, you have to know your latitude, a detail which was forgotten when a Chinese observatory was moved during the Ming dynasty, rendering the astronomical instruments useless. (Joseph Needham, Science and Civilisation in China) ) --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what I get about Ptolemy is that he is known by historian of science as theoretician, mathematician and astrologer but not as a first scientist. I don't want to do original research into scientific method which would be against Wikipedia's policy. On the other-hand Ibn al-Haytham is backed as first scientist by Nader El-Bizri, Kenan Malik, Nomanul Haq, A. I. Sabra who are all well known historians of science with advanced degrees in the field which is why each of them have biographical Wikipedia article. Moorrests (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Saying they are historians of science, isn't they whole story. They are historians of Islamic science in the medieval period. That is what I was saying above about their contributions not being suitable for the context of a lead. It is like a biographer of J F Kennedy and no other presidents saying he was the greatest president ever of America. Dmcq (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All four have PHD in history of science. I think that would make them historian of science. Not to mention each is well known and notable enough to have a separate article in Wikipedia. Moorrests (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me split this in 2 parts. In an article of this scope any thing in the lede about Alhacen would be WP:Undue Weight. In the body, foundations of "the scientific method" need to come from a source about the history of the scientific method The sources have a place in wikipedia but we cannot put claims of first scientist in the voice of wikipedia. J8079s (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A citation for the foundations of the scientific method has just appeared. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 18:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. There are lots of people who have had that said about them. A major plank of the scientific method involves trying to see if there is any evidence against ones ideas. The bit about Alhacen can have the bit said about him as in the appropriate section as 'many authors say that'. Not that it is actually true and nobody else has had that said about them in the lead. Dmcq (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What we are looking for is historian of science not a biologist. Moorrests (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The line I am trying to add summaries the paragraph from History_of_science#Islamic_world which states that

History_of_science#Islamic_world: —

Muslim scientists placed far greater emphasis on experiment than had the Greeks.[1] This led to an early scientific method being developed in the Muslim world, where significant progress in methodology was made, beginning with the experiments of Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) on optics from c. 1000, in his Book of Optics. The law of refraction of light was known to the Persians.[2] The most important development of the scientific method was the use of experiments to distinguish between competing scientific theories set within a generally empirical orientation, which began among Muslim scientists. Ibn al-Haytham is also regarded as the father of optics, especially for his empirical proof of the intromission theory of light. Some have also described Ibn al-Haytham as the "first scientist" for his development of the modern scientific method.[3]

Moorrests (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia. Also see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view J8079s (talk) 19:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Robert Briffault (1928). The Making of Humanity, p. 190-202. G. Allen & Unwin Ltd.
  2. ^ Sameen Ahmed Khan, Arab Origins of the Discovery of the Refraction of Light; Roshdi Hifni Rashed (Picture) Awarded the 2007 King Faisal International Prize, Optics & Photonics News (OPN, Logo), Vol. 18, No. 10, pp. 22-23 (October 2007).
  3. ^ Bradley Steffens (2006), Ibn al-Haytham: First Scientist, Morgan Reynolds Publishing, ISBN 1-59935-024-6.

Misleading sentence in Renaissance section.

There is a misleading sentence in the Renaissance section: "All aspects of scholasticism were criticized in the 15th and 16th centuries; one author who was notoriously persecuted was Galileo, who made innovative use of experiment and mathematics. " I wouldn't call Galileo a scholastic. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 01:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the sentence is just unclearly written? It should be broken into two sentences to make it more clear. We do not need to say Galileo was a scholastic or not. He was persecuted. We should be careful to distinguish the criticism of scholastics, and the persecution of non scholastics (and some scholastics). --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I also added an optics section as lead-in to Renaissance and Revolution. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 15:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Modeling science

Hi There,

There is a paper about developing a process model of science (or scientific study) by Luk, R.W.P.[1]. Perhaps, it is worth citing this paper and mentioning that science can be modeled in the Wiki Science Page!

[1] Luk, R.W.P. (2010) Understanding scientific study via process modeling. Foundations of Science 15(1): 49-78.

Angelababy00 (talk) 04:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alhacen & the Aristotelian viewpoint

First, I appreciate that other editors are using the JSTOR citations. This note is further explanation of a statement which is disputed, namely that Alhacen had an Aristotelian viewpoint, which was orthodoxy for his time. I quote from Smith, A. Mark (1981), "Getting the Big Picture in Perspectivist Optics" Isis 72(4) (Dec., 1981). via JSTOR: p.580  (Use the thumbnails to navigate)

"... the perspectivists had it both ways. They could exploit Aristotle's causal analysis. ... Yet by reducing that analysis to microscopic scale, they were able to exploit the ray model."

The Perspectivists got their optics from Alhacen. Alhacen was the authoritative Latin text for optics from c.1220-1230. It was cited in Bartolomeo Anglicus' De proprietatibus rerum (On the Property of Things) to 1604 (when Kepler overturned its model of vision). Alhacen's sources were 'the philosophers' (Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates), 'the mathematicians' (Ptolemy & Euclid), and 'the healers' (Galen). Alhacen lived 200 years before the Perspectivists. But he fit right into their views: His Book III p573 2.25 "Moreover everything we have discussed can be tested so that we will attain certainty over it."

In other words, Alhacen used Aristotle's empirical, inductive method and also Ptolemy & Euclid's deductive, logical method to learn. Galen's discovery of the optic chiasm directly affected an experiment of both Ptolemy & Alhacen. Alhacen used what he learned to disprove Ptolemy's theory of vision. He used Aristotle's forms to model the optical image, and to justify the fact that we see things right-side up, which Kepler disproved. That was the end of Aristotle's forms.

I think this suffices to show that Alhacen furthered the Aristotelian viewpoint, at least til 1604. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a citation to remind us that Alhacen was a true advocate for experimental method:

Optics book 7, chapter 2, para [2.2]: p.220 via JSTOR says to round off a bronze register plate with a lathe, and to grind it down.

Note the technology that he had 1000 years ago, near, or at, Cairo's Al Azhar university, Smith says, all in support of the optics of refraction: mechanism, glass-blowing, metalwork. [All the technical details that Aristotle preferred not to mention as below the class of a man of leisure, Alhacen forthrightly mentions. An Italian contributor to this page, from over 5 years ago, notes, in the same way, a visit to the museums of Rome will reveal plumbing parts in the displays that look like 'modern' items, except that they are thousands of years old, and made of plumbum (lead).]

And the Europeans were listening; witness Durer's man with a Lute, using taut strings to model optical raytracing, Vesalius' accurate engraving of a brain (far more detailed anatomy than even Alhacen's diagrams of the optic chiasm from 500 years before), perhaps most importantly, there were dozens of scholars (Smith counts 23 manuscripts), using a common language and heritage, studying his work, so a critical mass was in place. The diagrams differed in the manuscripts, and Smith was able to pick from an array of diagrams for his critical edition. That is one of the difficulties for the Arabic-to-English critical edition, not enough texts survive to choose from, in order to produce Books 4, 5, 6, 7. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 15:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of capitalization of universe

There is a request for comment about capitalization of the word universe at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization of universe - request for comment. Please participate. SchreiberBike talk 00:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is formal science a science?

According to the Science wikipedia web page, the first sentence defines science as the enterprise that builds or organizes knowledge ... about nature and the universe. Formal science may not be concerned with nature and the universe, so how does it fit to be a science according to the Science wikipedia web page? Why don't we just call it mathematics or logic? Why does it have to be some kind of science? Fundamentally, this goes back to the heading: do you know what is science?

Scientific knowledge as explanation and prediction

I think the previous definition of science in the wiki page is inaccurate to say that science is an enterprise that organizes and build knowledge in the form of explanations and predictions. I think the knowledge is in the form of theories and models rather than the outcomes like explanation and prediction. A (scientific) theory cannot be an explanation because it does not have the context to specify the explanation. For example, Newton's second law: F = ma, what is the explanation? There is no context for F=ma. One has to create an experiment to specify the context of F=ma, then it can explain things. I think the general statement is more like a property that people can use to build mechanical models. When we apply the theory to specify the model, then some statements in the theory may be able to explain the situation. Therefore, a (scientific) theory cannot be an explanation. Also, how can science be about prediction knowledge? A prediction is only applicable after the situation is known, so you would need to build or specify a model in order to arrive at a prediction that you can test in the experiment.

Angelababy00 (talk) 08:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing your thoughts to this talk page.
Please see scientific theory.
When Wikipedia began, Larry Sanger tried to help out by writing an unwikified wikt:wall of text, at that time, referred to as 'Larry's text'. The editors tried to clean it up, but 'Larry's text' is now gone, unmourned.
One way to improve the 'wiki-action', or the active cooperation of multiple minds all working on the same goal, is to bring your proposal here, and talk about it. It used to be true that a meeting of the minds would then come about, in a truly marvelous demonstration of the power of the wiki, where one thought would appear, and then another, in cascade. Perhaps it will again. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 10:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is not good to use "scientific" in science, so I put "scientific" in brackets. I have seen the scientific theory webpage, and I am puzzled by its claim that a scientific theory is a substantiated explanation. As I mentioned, I don't think a theory is an explanation because an explanation requires a context but the theory just have general statements without contexts. This is done deliberately to generalize the models. Ok, I will not change the Science wiki page, but discuss in the talk page first and let someone to undo it if (s)he wants. 223.18.108.48 (talk) 13:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that many of the things you added are important to include. I did a quick attempt at rewriting the information - the main points I tried to address were:
  • Not all scientific knowledge is a theory or model, except in the trivial sense that every statement technically invokes some forms of models (e.g. how do you classify "the fossil is measured to be 10 centimeters long"?) Adding facts should, at least arguably, cover the rest of the cases.
Is science concerned with facts or the general knowledge? By that I mean, if the facts are not related to some underlying models or theories, would science be concerned with the fact? Why would scientists want to know that the fossil is measured 10cm long? Angelababy00 (talk) 03:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Referring to scientific theories as sets of general statements is not very informative. It's an expression used in philosophy to distinguish them from the reality that they describe, but it's not a defining characteristic because the vast majority of sets of statements are not theories.
Sets of general statements do not mean that any general statement belongs to the theory. That is the things in the theories are general statements and there are general statements outside the theories. The general statement in a theory needs to be able to be applied to build/specify the models or explain the phenomena. Angelababy00 (talk) 03:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The description was less straightforward (more grammatically complex and including more terminology), which is an important consideration when defining a topic in an encyclopedia (we want to preserve accessibility to educate the most people). I restored the original first sentence and put the rest of the information in the second. No thoughts on the use of "scientific" yet, but the parentheses contributed to the complexity so I removed them.
On your comments above, I think you'll need specify how you're defining context and explanation. Any explanation can be questioned along the lines of "Why?" or "What does that explanation mean?" but that doesn't make them less valuable. Those questions can also be answered by further explanations, which for F=ma involves the physical interactions between atoms and their components. After enough recursions we reach a point where nobody knows (or fully knows) how to answer yet, and then we've reached one of the frontiers of science. Sunrise (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia, explanation is defined in terms of clarifying the cause and consequences in some context. So, to be able to define an explanation, we need the context to define an explanation. Apply this to scientific theories, the context should be the situation that we are trying to model. So, this happens when we apply the theory to build or specify the model. If the explanations are left by themselves (like F=ma) in the theory, these statements don't have any context, so they should not be called explanations. In your example, you applied the context of physical interactions between atoms and their components to "explain" the use of F=ma to explain the interaction. But, in a theory, the Newton's second law: F=ma does not mention anything about physical interactions. So, I cann't see why Newton's second law is an explanation. If you object to the term "general statements", please consider something else rather than explanation, for example universal statements or (general) propositions.Angelababy00 (talk) 03:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is applied science a kind of science?

It seems that this Science wiki page does not say anything about applied science. Is applied science a science? If so, we may need to change the "builds and organizes knowledge in the form of explanations and predictions" to "builds, organizes and applies knowledge in the form of explanations? and predictions?". I think it sounds odd to apply explanations and apply predictions. I think it is better to apply theories and models to produce explanations, predictions and solves problems etc 223.18.108.48 (talk) 13:07, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond seeking knowledge purely for its own sake, what can you do with explanations and predictions that does not involve applying them in some way? :-) Sunrise (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is very strange to say we apply the explanation/prediction to solve some technical problems. If you explain something in science, you explain it to understand the phenomena not to understand technical problems which are the objective of applied science to solve. Also, when you have an explanation/prediction, you have a specific application context (the physical situation). This context may not be the same context as the technical problem. So, the explanation/prediction may not fit to the technical problems in applied science.Angelababy00 (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is strange to consider applying predictions to solve technical problems. You have to belief that the prediction will come true, then it can solve the technical problem. If the prediction says it is 40% plus or minus 10% and you cann't solve the problem if the outcome is less than 40%, then how can the prediction solve the technical problem if the outcome turned out to be 38%? In terms of understanding how the problem is solved, it is very strange to use prediction or forecast to solve problems. Here, I am assuming that applied science is about solving technical problems by applying the theories and models in science. Angelababy00 (talk) 03:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is engineering a science

If we use the older definition of science, would engineering be classified as a science? One of the well known philosopher of science, Dr Chalmer, wrote a book called "what is this thing called science?" I guess even the expert has some difficulties here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelababy00 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref group=nb> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=nb}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Science&oldid=646286563"