Talk:History of optics

Untitled

 * Initial stub was created from another Wikipedia article titled Pre-experimental science in order to point the reader in the right direction from Gedankenexperiment. Cioxx 16:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The theory of refraction attributed here to Plato does not appear in his Timaeus, nor is it attributed to Plato in the mainstream literature on the history of optics. The account seems to fit the experiment described by Ptolemy in his optics, and most accounts see it as a case of typical Ptolemaic "data smoothing," in which measured data is smoothed in terms of Ptolemy's prior assumptions about the bending of light. This article (and the section on this topic in the article on Pre-experimental science) should be deleted -- or retitled as "Ptolemy's theory of refraction" and revised to reflect the historical literature on Ptolemy.--SteveMcCluskey 20:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to rename
OK, the AfD discussion resulted in no consensus (except that this article is about Ptolemy's theory, not Plato's) and we're back at what to do with it. The three viable options seem to be: As I see it, I think this historical discussion of refraction would form a good basis for a History of Optics discussion. Unless there's strong objection, I'm going to go ahead and rename it as History of Optics, and make this the core of the Ancient and Islamic section on that topic. I have some ideas for an outline for the medieval section as well, and can tack on a few significant references. --SteveMcCluskey 16:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Rename as History of optics and revise extensively (suggested by Beland, Maestlin, and SteveMcCluskey)
 * 2) Merge into Ptolemy (an earlier suggestion by Maestlin)
 * 3) Merge to Refraction (suggested by Ewlyahoocom)

AFD followup
The AFD discussion contains the following comments:


 * First, the judgemental tone criticizing early science for not measuring up to the expectations of modern science. Such judgemental attitudes violate the Neutral Point of View standards of of Wikipedia. Incidentally, such judgemental attitudes are also criticized by historians -- and especially historians of science -- as "Whig history" and by anthropologists as "ethnocentrism." Any rewrite will have to seriously address this judgemental tone.

I wonder if it was my writing that inspired this criticism. I certainly didn't intend to be judgmental, though in writing about "pre-experimental science" I was trying to highlight differences (not flaws, per se). If other readers find the text to sound like it's criticizing rather than describing, then it certainly needs to be improved. It's something of an open question whether pre-Scientific Revolution work should be considered "science". Settling that question seems largely like a matter of defining "science". In any case, I get the impression that most historians of science agree that there were qualitative differences in methodology before and after the Scientific Revolution (which is why it was such a big deal), not just new discoveries. -- Beland 04:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * ''Second, as Beland notes, he reproduced Ptolemy's experiment in an STS class at MIT. This suggests something is lacking in any discussion of it as an example of "pre-experimental science." I've already suggested on the History of Science Project that the "pre-experimental science" article be rewritten with a more neutral title -- perhaps something like "ancient science."--SteveMcCluskey 22:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Ptolemy actually performed the procedure he described. Even if he had, he probably wasn't thinking of it so much as testing his theory as demonstrating it, which is supposedly the essential difference between the modern (and you can see why you would want to call it this) and "pre-experimental" periods. By following his reported procedure and simulating the materials available at the time, the STS class was trying to show that if Ptolemy had really been testing his theory (and had been reasonably careful and honest) he should have discovered a discrepancy with reality.

The English term generally used to distinguish ancient from modern science is "natural philosophy". -- Beland 04:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Natural philosophy is a term that is both too limiting and too expansive.


 * It is too limiting since much of ancient science is practical knowledge, e.g, establishing calendars, finding herbs that cure disease, and would not fit the rigorous (Greek) definition of philosophy. Historically one finds that in the Middle Ages natural philosophy was considered to be separate from the practical studies such as a computus and medicine, and from the mathematical studies such as astronomy and optics.
 * It is too expansive since it includes much of modern science. As the article on natural philosophy points out, the term was used in place of science right through Isaac Newton's Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, and possibly later. --SteveMcCluskey 12:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Need for Expansion
This article lacks material from the Latin Middle Ages to Modern times. I plan to add material on al-Kindi, Roger Bacon, John Pecham, Robert Grosseteste, and Witelo as time allows. Additions of material on the development of optics from Kepler and Descartes to the present are most welcome. --SteveMcCluskey 15:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Other aspects of optics

 * Rereading Lindberg's Theories of Vision, I noted the discussions of physiological and psychological optics, which should also be treated here. There's also room to treat historical discussions of rainbows and other aspects of meteorological optics, which have a long history from Aristotle to Descartes and beyond, touching on the nature of colors in the rainbow and their relation to white sunlight.  --SteveMcCluskey 01:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

... the Islamic World
I just changed the title of a section from Optics in Persia and the Islamic World back to Optics in the Islamic World.

If we were to name every culturally distinct region in the Islamic World we would end with something like Optics in Spain, North Africa, Egypt, Persia, Afghanistan, Indonesia and the Islamic World (and we still might offend those that I've left out). To avoid such absurdity, I favor the shorter title. --SteveMcCluskey 17:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge History of Lensmaking
I see no reason not to merge History of lensmaking into History of optics. Since the History of lensmaking article is short it could probably be easily merged as a new section on "Lenses and Lensmaking" at the end of the current History of optics article.

In the long run, the lensmaking section will need to cite specific historical sources to support its details using the format. --SteveMcCluskey 17:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I tried to merge it in, but got frustrated, as the topics are so dissimilar. One is about making lenses, the other is about the science of optics.  Sure, they could both be done in one article, but who's willing to take it on? Dicklyon 05:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I just merged them by tacking Lenses and Lensmaking as a separate section. It seems to fit there logically as a separate aspect from the discussion of optical theory in the rest of the article.  --SteveMcCluskey 00:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Astronomical Instrument Makers
Added link to List of Astronomical Instrument Makers. Just started the list, needs to be filled out more. AppleRaven 20:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Lead
Shouldn't this article have a lead? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DigitalC (talk • contribs) 00:54, 1 August 2008

Orphaned references in History of optics
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of History of optics's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Gorini": From Science in the Middle Ages: Rosanna Gorini (2003). "Al-Haytham the Man of Experience. First Steps in the Science of Vision", International Society for the History of Islamic Medicine. Institute of Neurosciences, Laboratory of Psychobiology and Psychopharmacology, Rome, Italy: ""According to the majority of the historians al-Haytham was the pioneer of the modern scientific method. With his book he changed the meaning of the term optics and established experiments as the norm of proof in the field. His investigations are based not on abstract theories, but on experimental evidences and his experiments were systematic and repeatable.""  From Physics: Rosanna Gorini (2003). "Al-Haytham the Man of Experience. First Steps in the Science of Vision", International Society for the History of Islamic Medicine. Institute of Neurosciences, Laboratory of Psychobiology and Psychopharmacology, Rome, Italy: ""According to the majority of the historians al-Haytham was the pioneer of the modern scientific method. With his book he changed the meaning of the term optics and established experiments as the norm of proof in the field. His investigations are based not on abstract theories, but on experimental evidences and his experiments were systematic and repeatable.""  From Muslim world: Rosanna Gorini (2003), "Al-Haytham the Man of Experience: First Steps in the Science of Vision", International Society for the History of Islamic Medicine. Institute of Neurosciences, Laboratory of Psychobiology and Psychopharmacology, Rome, Italy: "According to the majority of the historians al-Haytham was the pioneer of the modern scientific method. With his book he changed the meaning of the term optics and established experiments as the norm of proof in the field. His investigations are based not on abstract theories, but on experimental evidences and his experiments were systematic and repeatable." From Physics in medieval Islam: Rosanna Gorini (2003). "Al-Haytham the Man of Experience. First Steps in the Science of Vision", International Society for the History of Islamic Medicine. Institute of Neurosciences, Laboratory of Psychobiology and Psychopharmacology, Rome, Italy. From Islamic Golden Age: Rosanna Gorini (2003). "Al-Haytham the Man of Experience. First Steps in the Science of Vision", Journal of the International Society for the History of Islamic Medicine, 2003 (2): 53-55 [55]. Institute of Neurosciences, Laboratory of Psychobiology and Psychopharmacology, Rome, Italy. From History of physics: : ""According to the majority of the historians al-Haytham was the pioneer of the modern scientific method. With his book he changed the meaning of the term optics and established experiments as the norm of proof in the field. His investigations are based not on abstract theories, but on experimental evidences and his experiments were systematic and repeatable.""  From Ibn al-Haytham:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Problem has been fixed.--Srleffler (talk) 03:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Gap in history
History of lensmaking is redirected here and there is a section devoted to it, but this article (like Glasses, noted there) has a 300 year gap in its history from 1300 to 1600. Its a period where the entire industry and technical means of producing lenses (for spectacles) was developed. It was the development of the lens as a practical device by experimentation since the people creating them were not theoreticians and the optical theory of that day was so incorrect as to be totally useless for practical applications. This was the means by which a wide range of spectacles, the microscope, and the telescope were invented. We can start with a ref like Renaissance vision from spectacles to telescopes By Vincent Ilardi to try to fill this gap. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Pritchard
I added a sentence or two about him and it was deleted. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography says:
 * His List of 2000 Microscopic Objects (1835) is very important in the history of microscopy... his History of the Infusoria (1841) was long a standard work, and the impetus it gave to the study of biological science cannot be overestimated.


 * Pritchard wrote several other books on aspects of natural history as seen through the microscope, on optical instruments, and on patents. He also wrote four papers on microscopical optics between 1827 and 1833 in the Quarterly Journal of Science, the Edinburgh Philosophical Magazine, and the Philosophical Magazine. He was elected fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh in 1873.

Is this trivia? Or does it give one example of how the field was pushed forward? BrainyBabe (talk) 20:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Trivia does not mean the subject in question is trivial, it means the addition does not make sense re:an encyclopedia. I deleted the Pritchard sentence because it made the paragraph read like: "Short history of the microscope-Lippershey, Janssen, and Zacharias invented it, Faber named it, and some guy in England 200 years latter made a whole bunch of slides". If Andrew Pritchard was important to the history of the optical microscope (and remember, that viewpoint has to be fairly representational of what has been published by reliable sources on the history of the microscope) then you may want to find those citations and add him to History of the optical microscope. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Salvino D'Armate
The sentence about Salvino D'Armate claims (with citation) that he invented the wearable eyeglasses. Clicking onto his wiki page, though, and you see a direct contradiction: this is apparently a hoax! I don't know which to believe, but it seems we should get our story straight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.82.36 (talk) 09:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Reference to Salvino D'Armate has been removed.TimeForLunch (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Buddhist
I have removed "similar to modern concept of photons" from the section which earlier looked like this.

Photon is based on rigorous scientific method. Mere similarity with a mystical/metaphysical concept is not enough to equate photons with what ancient people said. Even Indian atomism concept are not actual atom. The atom or fundamental particles in Indian atomism is often either mystical entity or something that is barely smaller than a speck of dust. ChandlerMinh (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)