Talk:List of people considered father or mother of a scientific field

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A Place for Euler[edit]

Leonhard Euler needs to be added to this page. My question is where, or rather in how many places? - Canglesea (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


Okay, can't this be changed to "Founders of scientific fields". The current title is pretty sexist. Famousdog (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Computer Science[edit]

I think there needs to be a catagory for modern computer science with Alan Turing being the obvious father Tubbablub (talk) 07:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


Needs to be divided as theres too many founders. Suggestion Electricity (fundamentals with Franklin and other early ones), Electromagnetics (Maxwell and Faraday), Modern Electrical Engineering (Tesla, Edison) (talk) 08:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


Since Georgius Agricola is described as the "Father of Mineralogy" in the Wiki article describing him, I think that he warrants a mention under Earth sciences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


Not a single person from China? This list couldn't be rather ethnocentric... could it? Saint91 (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Mass deletion of Jagged85's edits[edit]

There was a mass deletion of Jagged85's edits. The deleter, J8079s, gives little more than "failed verification" as an explanation.

Let me bring just two examples.

  • The user deleted Alhazen as a father of experimental physics.[1] the source in question says (emphasis added):

Schramm showed that already some six centuries before Galileo, experimental

physics was being cultivated in Iraq and Egypt: “Through a closer examination of Ibn al-Haytham’s

conceptions of mathematical models and of the role they play in his theory of sense perception, it becomes evident that he was the true founder of physics in the modern sense of the word; in fact he anticipated by six centuries the fertile ideas that were to mark the beginning of this new branch of science” (in Ibn al-Haythams Weg, Summary).
    • Now the source doesn't call him the "father" of experimental physics. But given that it does call him its "founder", that hardly qualifies as "failed verification".
  • The user also deleted Alhazen as father of optics. The source that allegedly "failed verification" is called "Al-Hazen: father of modern optics". Its existence can be confirmed here.
    • That is most certainly not "failed verification".

I have reverted the deletion of those two (though I will gladly accept the deletion of the first, if there is consensus that "founder" of something is not the same as "father" of the same thing). But the question arises, when J8079s accuse(s/d) jagged85's edit of "failing verification", did he/she really bother to check the source?

Bless sins (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Another flagrant example of J8079s false justification: the user deletes Jabir ibn Hayyan as the Father of chemistry, again with the same justification of "failed verification".
Jagged85 provides 4 sources. One of them ("War and the Cultural Heritage of Iraq: a sadly mismanaged affair"), which was printed in an academic journal (Third World Quarterly) says:

Jabir bin Hayyan, who lived in Kufa in the 8th century, was an alchemist whose rational mind led him to analytical understandings which have given him the title of the Father of Chemistry.

Bless sins (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
And here J8079s removes Ibn Khaldun.
Yet the source Arab civilization: challenges and responses, p.125says, "his unprecedented contributions to the field of economics should make him, Ibn Khaldun, the father of economics." The book is published by SUNY press, making it a reliable source.
Bless sins (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry for the misleading edit summary but I stand behind my deletions (more should be made) Pleas take time to read

Alhazen's work on "optics" is important but it is not "modern"Porter, Roy; Park, Katharine; Daston, Lorraine (2006). The Cambridge History of Science: Early modern science. Cambridge University Press. pp. 611–612. ISBN 9780521572446. Retrieved 4 October 2010.  sources agree that "modern optics" begin with Kepler. AlsoLindberg, David C. (1996-04-22). Theories of vision from al-Kindi to Kepler. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226482354. Retrieved 4 October 2010. 
Jabir ibn Hayyan was considered, by some, for a time, in a way, the "father of chemistry" but this is no longer the case. None of the sources provided are acceptable. the Geber/Jabir confusion still needs work See Talk:Jabir ibn Hayyan.J8079s (talk) 06:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Third World Quarterly, published by Routledge is not "acceptable"?Bless sins (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Ibn Khaldun best remembered for his work on history Yassine, Nadia (2006-01-01). Full Sails Ahead. Justice & Spirituality Publi. p. 265. ISBN 9780967579528. Retrieved 4 October 2010.  his work on economics is interesting as is his sociology but he has no successor or disiple Enan, Mohammad Abdullah (2007-06-20). Ibn Khaldūn: his life and works. The Other Press. p. 127. ISBN 9789839541533. Retrieved 4 October 2010.  while a number of works call him "founder" or "pioneer" his works were unknown (lost even in his own world) until the 19th century (for history/sociology) and sometime after 1953 for his works in economics.J8079s (talk) 06:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Your comment does not at all answer to whether or not a reliable source considers him the father of of economics. You are applying your own original research as to whether he is or not, where as a reliable source exists that calls hi as such.Bless sins (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

From wp:rs The appropriateness of any source depends on the context.

  • Ibn Khaldun. the source Arab civilization: challenges and responses, p.125says, "his unprecedented contributions to the field of economics should make him, Ibn Khaldun, the father of economics." There is a great deal of "mainstream" info see esp. [2] to make a halfassed claim is to make a negative impression on the reader. Owiss may not be alone in thinking that Khaldun should be considered "the father of economics" but no one says he is.
  • Jabir ibn Hayyan here the sources are totally out of line.
  • Alhazen I'll deal with this later/elswhere
All of this is moot since the intro says In some fields several people are considered the founders, while in others the title of being the "mother" or "father" is debatable. with that said anyone could be added however where there is debate it needs to be noted by the editor adding the info. If you want to you must do so "retale"

J8079s (talk) 05:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The two problems cited here: father of modern physics / optics - are the sort of stuff that caused this mess in the first place. They are problematic in that they are wrong, but supported, weakly, by not-quite-good-enough sources. This is peacockery, and is bad. BS: are you really going to repeat all of J's errors? William M. Connolley (talk) 07:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Modern psychiatry[edit]

This piece from the New York Times suggests Dr. Spitzer is the father of modern psychiatry. Perhaps worth mentioning in the article? --MZMcBride (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Father of Science[edit] Thales is considered the father of science.Bodo3 (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

According to our pages on Thales and Democritus, this isn't so clear and the latter might be more deserving of this title. It's a sweeping claim. -- Scray (talk) 11:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

John Nash[edit]

should Nash not be the father of game theory in mathematics? I'm not qualified to decide but was under the impression Vokesk (talk) 11:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of people considered father or mother of a scientific field. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Entries should meet WP:YESPOV, WP:CFORK, and WP:WTAF[edit]

Partially reverted these additions because they were against WP:YESPOV #1 - stating opinions as facts.... in Wikipedia's voice and #2 - seriously contested assertions as facts. Wikipedia does not support WP:CFORKing - claims on this list should appear at the linked article, should be relatively uncontested, and should already exist in a well referenced stable form. Cell biology - not supported by linked article, not supported by reference. Planetary science - not supported by linked article, source is anonymous opinion and contradicted. Econometrics - contradicted by linked article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)