This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
As the source shows, Aristotle was just there doing a literature survey, not stating his own views. The entry is thus misleading, since it seems to report Aristotle's views.Chjoaygame (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
OK then, it seems that Aristotle in the source ascribes this view to the unnamed first philosophers prior to Socrates. So perhaps we can say something like Aristotle quotes earlier Greek philosophers as saying that nothing is either generated or destroyed, since this sort of entity is always conserved.. Dirac66 (talk) 13:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I am a fan of Aristotle. He was perhaps one of the earliest systematic collectors and analyzers of natural specimens. He took trouble to collect a big museum. True, it was passive empiricism, not active empiricism: he did not engage, so far as I know, in controlled experiments. It took nearly 2000 years after him for that mighty invention; I don't think it fair to blame him for the delay. Within that limitation, he was a master scientist. So I like to see him given fair treatment.
I think if we want to cite an author of that antiquity, we should do it carefully. I don't see the point of a slap-dash statement. I haven't checked what conclusion Aristotle finally reached. I am just guessing that he would have analyzed and criticized the literature findings, and then made a fresh analysis of the problem. I think it fair that we should cite the actual authors of the views he recites, or find his conclusion if we want to cite him.Chjoaygame (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Looking it over, I see that the edit is just a half-baked semi-rehash of the statements that precede it in that section of the article. I was wrong to say "good edit". More accurately I should have just said "slipshod edit" and not asked for the exact reference; well, I am doing that now! Sorry, I didn't have a way of signing. Chjoaygame. Belated signature.Chjoaygame (talk) 02:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
In writing the above, I supposed that a responder would take into account the effect of trying the faulty links, to see the way in which they don't work. To see the problem, I suggest trying the faulty links. It isn't just a technical problem. The intended target of the link has, it seems, been deleted from its source.Chjoaygame (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I have undone this good-faith edit, for the following reasons.
I do not dispute the content of the edit. The reason for my undo is that the edit goes outside the scope of the article.
In Wikipedia, scientific articles confine themselves to a narrow approach to science, while edit was created from a wide approach, not the narrow one that belongs to this article.Chjoaygame (talk) 12:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)