Talk:History of science/Archive 2

FAC objections
Although it is not clear to me just why we need the added sections, I added them to address the objections. Some of the added sections are not commonly considered sciences, especially in light of the introductory paragraphs, which explicitly exclude mathematics, for example. Ancheta Wis 18:27, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * One way to address many of the listed items is to group them together under an Emerging disciplines header. This approach should be able to group together ecology and communications.   This would also allow for fields such as Material sciences to also be covered.--Allen3 19:46, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought ecology was a subdiscipline of biology. At least it ought to be under the Natural sciences, shouldn't it? --Heida Maria 19:55, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your note. Moved below Biology and Medicine. Ancheta Wis 20:01, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Allen3, since we are the only two who appear to be working on the article right now, you should know that mav has a fundamental objection to the length. We need to step back. I have a proposal at Talk:History of science/Summary style. Ancheta Wis 22:08, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I just saw the second objection. Makes for a nice dilema on how to include more information, reduce the article length, and still maintain the level of completeness required for a Featured Article.  It is probably best to discuss plans for addressing these issues in this talk page as FAC nominator, Dmcdevit, should also be helping with this problem.  --Allen3 01:06, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, hello, nominator here! Sorry, I've been busy with schoolwork, and I'm not an expert on the subject by any stretch of the imagination (FAC is open to anyone, editors on the article or not). Here's my take: that comment about length surprises me, as I certainly considered it when I nominated the article. However, I am under the impression that the old 32K rule is out the window, archaic and obsolete, due to our higher (and still getting higher) FA standards. I especially thought this was true due to the recently anointed FA, History of Russia, which I think is even longer than this one. We should probably bring this discrepancy up, as this article can go nowhere if it needs to be so drastically shortened (at least I don't see how). True?--Dmcdevit 01:51, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I put in a link to a proposed approach to this problem. One possibility is to somehow reformat things to use the Wikisummary format; this means a basic rethinking and redesign of the content. If we can somehow interest more people in approaching the topic, refactoring the content, etc., then we can re-use the material which exists already. Since the topic is huge, it seems that it would be appropriate to use technology to attack the problem. I have no problem rethinking the article. We just need to know the rules of the game before we approach this again. Otherwise we just waste more time. It seems to me that we could enlist mav's help in creating an appropriate format for this type of monster summary page. Early, mav was instrumental in the series of pages on the Period Table. Perhaps he would be interested in helping us out on a Wikisummary. Ancheta Wis 02:05, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I came across this article on FAC. I'm reading through the article for the first time. Some notes
 * Patterns in the history of science
 * This section is out of place. I don't see the connection with the following sections.


 * Pre-experimental "science"
 * Could the following sentence be clarified:
 * He made countless observations of nature, especially the habits and attributes of plants and animals in the world around him, which he devote considerable attention to categorizing.
 * What was categorized here, the habits and attributes or the plants and animals?
 * --Might it be better to phrase as "especially the habits of animals and attributes of plants in the world around him"? Ancheta Wis 01:51, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. I have difficultly mostly with the ... which he devote ... part: I don't understand it, is there an error? I'm a non-native English speaker so that could be the problem. Jan van Male 09:59, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Is it necessary to show and explain the "errors" of pre-experimental science in this section? After all, the section is not titled Later found flaws in pre-experimental science.
 * --Might you be suggesting it would be better to contrast Aristotle's assertion with the corrected knowledge immediately afterward ? Ancheta Wis 01:51, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I'm suggesting to delete or move paragraphs 6,7,8 and maybe the second half of the last paragraph since these do not deal with pre-experimental science. Jan van Male 09:59, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Science as a social enterprise
 * Delete the first sentence
 * --Because it appears to unsubstantiated in its position in the article? Ancheta Wis 01:51, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. Also because the second sentence is a better introduction to the section. Jan van Male 09:59, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Why is there a link to a main article which is shorter than this section?
 * --Might you be suggesting it would be better to move detail to the main article instead? Ancheta Wis 01:51, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe yes but I'm afraid I'm merely signalling that this section and the main article it refers to are not fleshed out well, which in itself is not very helpfull. Let me try. Science studies is an umbrella for a multitude of subjects, one of which is the history of science. Here, science studies is presented as a (implicitly small) part of the history of science. This is a contradiction. Jan van Male 09:59, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * the second paragraph does not deal with history and therefore seems redundant here
 * the last sentence of the third paragraph is not well phrased (other countries have countless variations on these names) and redundant.
 * As it stands, this section deals with the history of communication in science and some dates regarding scientific societies. The title of the section therefore seems inappropriate.
 * --Societies communicate among themselves, as do scientists; the section delineates some history of the evolution of the type of communication. Ancheta Wis 01:51, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * History: prehistoric times
 * I was quite surprised by the reference to the tsunami. What is the purpose of this illustration? Would the section be lacking if this second paragraph was deleted?.
 * --The Andaman Islanders still live in their prehistory. (No writing), yet they have oral traditions that allowed them to survive the earthquake and tsunami, more effectively than the literate peoples around them. Thus the Andaman Islanders are living examples of prehistoric peoples, showing that their oral tradition can be an effective means of passing knowledge vital to survival, and their posterity. Ancheta Wis 01:51, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The first sentence of the fourth paragraph Thus, human beings have sought knowledge ... does not follow from the preceeding paragraphs.
 * --See response above. Ancheta Wis 01:51, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The last sentence between brackets can be deleted.


 * History: Prehistoric times: Mesopotamia
 * ... to whatever extent control allowed ... I don't understand this part.
 *  (of which none exist) What is meant here? No surviving laws are known? Or are we sure none was ever formulated?


 * Kidinnu was a Chaldean... I don't see the connection between this sentence and the rest of the section.
 * --Chaldeans are residents of Mesopotamia (dating back millennia, like the Assyrians, as are the Chaldeans. Chaldean is more precise than to name Kidinnu as a Mesopotamian, Mesopotamian is a more general name bestowed upon them by the Greeks and Europeans, not a their own name for themselves.). Ancheta Wis 01:51, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your explanation. Now I understand why this sentence is there at all. Still, it should be integrated with the rest or deleted. Jan van Male 09:59, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A general remark:
 * The introduction states that mathematics will not be considered. Yet, several examples from mathematics are used throughout the text.

Jan van Male 01:06, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Jan, Thank you for your reading and comments. I attempted to respond to items with my response interspersed with your comments, where I could, as marked by "--". Other editors will have to reply to the other items.

Science studies
Jan, above, suggested that the content for Science studies be mainly moved to the main article. Would that be acceptable to everyone, including the original contributor of the section? Mav was suggesting that could be a direction of development for this article. Ancheta Wis 11:17, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(This is being discussed in following sections.)

What have we accomplished?
Congratulations to everyone; we have created a good article which reads well, a good-faith effort we can be proud of.

But

The COTW effort and its aftershocks have produced an article which is too long, in mav's estimation. His direction of development recommends that we pay attention to those with ADD (attention deficit disorder), for example. In other words, we have arrived at the stage where page counts and word counts matter.

But since there is no 32K limit anymore, what would keep sections from growing due to an enthusiastic editor, anyway? This is suggesting that Wikipedia develop more editorial guidelines, somehow, as the FAC effort is proving.

One of the benefits, for me personally, of the peer review, was the recommendation of the inclusion of more of the social sciences. This had the effect of making me notice just who the scientists were writing for: Archimedes was writing for King Gelon; Galileo for the Inquisitors, Newton for the Royal Society. In other words, there is a political component to the scientific communities, as well as a social aspect; they were writing for each other, the community of scholars.

This is suggesting that the editorial guidelines under which we were implicitly writing, be made more explicit, so that we know more of the guidelines.

The Summary style of development recommends the development of a framework, which we have produced. The framework HTML would tend to be bulky, but mav and others seem to suggest that the overhead due to the framework markup HTML be ignored in a length count. In broad outline, we have built a terrific set of lead paragraphs, and seem to have divided the History of science into 5-6 proposed bullets: Items of the Framework: please change as you see fit - see as well as
 * General overview
 * Science studies
 * Kuhn's insight
 * Natural history and natural philosophy (Aristotle etc)
 * Incubation in the various nations and cultures
 * Scientific revolution appears in one culture
 * Contemporary science
 * Natural science
 * Social science

Aristotle's Natural history is still accurate, but his Physics and Cosmology are wrong. The list of accomplishments in natural history and philosophy for the various nations are valid still. The question is: "What should be placed in this article, and what should be placed in other main articles?". Kuhn belongs under Science studies, in my opinion. He is already mentioned in Philosophy of science etc.

Jan is suggesting that the Science studies portion exceeds its main article, and could be sent to improve its parent. If I understand the guidelines under which we should be writing, I personally would have no problem moving sections with which I was involved to their respective parents, as long as the contributors for this article and the parent main articles have no objection.

Would that be an acceptable direction of development for everyone? Ancheta Wis 12:10, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have no objections with moving the Pre-experimental "science" and Science as a social enterprise sections to a seperate article and replacing them with a summary. I am dropping a note to Beland, the original author of the sections in question, to see if he has any comments. --Allen3 17:05, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * I will be asking the editors of the History of physics etc. article for permissions to insert new content in the main articles. If that is acceptable here. Ancheta Wis 18:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Requests are in at history of physics, history of chemistry, history of biology, history of geology. history of Medicine was clearly the source for the current information on this page, so didn't ask.

I don't get it, really. If you want to insert new info into already existing articles, you have to ask people for permission? I thought everybody is permitted to insert anything as long as it is relevant, factual, neutral and not original research. --Eleassar777 21:10, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * In history of physics User:Dandrake, for example, and User:Fastfission as well, in my opinion, deserve to be asked. I value their opinions. I wait a decent period, if they do not respond, because they have other things to do, then I act, but I try not to act unilaterally. I had no such compunction on a COTW because all barriers are down and anyone can jump in. But these users have a history of interest in history of physics. For example User:Fastfission was the originator of Big Science.
 * Note that I do not ask them on their talk page, because some people find it upsetting to get a message on their private space, as it might mean a cleanup notice or a Vfd or Rfc or other disaster. I put out my messages to them on the article talk pages, in the open, to acknowledge their status in front of the rest of Wikipedia, and wait. That way, if they choose not to respond, their privacy is maintained, and they can edit in peace on their favorite articles (which no one probably knows about anyway). Ancheta Wis 22:18, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I learned this the hard way, of course.


 * Eleassar777, it is not necessary to construe my personal protocols as prescriptive behavior for anyone else; I was simply telegraphing my intentions and actions to other editors on this page because my actions indirectly affect their own contributions. You, and everyone else are of course free to act according to your own personal concepts; I wouldn't have it any other way, personally. When we were co-editing items during the COTW, I personally found it quite gratifying that we were acting in synchrony, all the time, without ever having to say anything to each other. That is perfect communication, in my book. But there are major disconnects occurring at the FAC level, which other contributors have chosen to take on. I find it quite convenient that others have chosen to have taken on the FAC burden, while we can simply edit and contribute to the article itself; it works for me. Regards, Ancheta Wis 00:06, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But getting back to the framework. If everyone concurs, we can start building up the HTML for something like an infobox on History of science. I propose starting with the bullets listed above, unless other contributors have alternative suggestions. Please feel free to revert, etc., until we have something that is acceptable to everyone. If you like, we could build it on a talk page or sub page, etc until the HTML works for everybody.

Another direction of work is on the text, which we have a terrific start on already; we just need to winnow it a tad. But since the original prose will continue to live on in the parent pages, my guess is that contributors will find it acceptable to have their work live on, just not necessarily on the COTW page which we see before us. I choose, for myself, to let others make those decisions, as there may be some discomfort involved to others.

Another direction of work is on the selection of main points. That probably comes last in the development, even though a reader will consume those first. In my estimation, the selection of the main points will fluctuate quite a bit until consensus is attained. Ancheta Wis 00:06, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Ancheta -- excellent proposal, I concur. This is a difficult article, but I think we're getting there. -- Cugel 10:30, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)


 * I want to point out that what you call protoscience (in the box) is just another name for emerging disciplines, see list of protosciences. --Heida Maria 15:28, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ancheta and others, your ideas are great - you really are an inspiration to me. As a novice, I have learned so much attending development of this article.

I have some proposals as to the infobox:
 * inclusion of historiography as a social science.
 * formation of the category of "holistic science", which would include sciences with elements of both natural and social sciences. These would be for example ecology, agricultural science, cognitive science, information science and health sciences. Perhaps also cybernetics and systemics.
 * health sciences would include medicine, veterinary medicine and conservation medicine, which is a new emerging interdisciplinary field combining the elements of both.
 * use of "Earth sciences" instead of "geology", as this is a wider term. Under this name different sublinks could be listed.
 * abolishment of the category of emerging sciences. Communication studies would belong to the category of holistic science, materials science to the category of natural sciences and computer science to the category of natural or holistic science.

As I am no expert, these changes have to be discussed. When and if they are implemented, also the article content (including headings) should be changed accordingly.

Another difficult job would be making the classification of sciences consistent and as accurate as possible between this article and the article science, and eventually, throughout Wikipedia. --Eleassar777 15:51, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * While I agree on the addition of holistic sciences (I was about to add cognitive science to the box) I would not call them holistic. Maybe the term generic or interdisciplinary sciences better fits the bill. Also, cognitive science is an interdisciplinary approach that has grown from psychology, cybernetics, information science, etcetera, and I think that sort of information should be covered by its own entry (yes, there is a lot of work to be done on science in Wikipedia...) -- Cugel 07:41, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Several ways to slice it
Thanks for the note...I do indeed have some comments.

I see several different approaches to the topic taking form in this article so far:
 * A listing of important discoveries, by field
 * A listing of important contributions, by civilization
 * A discussion of theories of the history of science
 * Discussion of broad periods (such as "pre-experimental science" and "the Scientific Revolution")

There is also still some material here that needs to be pushed out to history of mathematics and history of technology.

I'm pretty sure there's not room here for all four types of historical treatment.

I like the idea of splitting the article up into several topical sub-articles, held together by a navbox. Some very large topics (like the History of China) are broken up this way, and I have found it pleasant to read and easy to navigate.

I think all of the "contributions to science by civilization X" should be moved into one or more sub-articles of this type. Right now, it looks like we only have enough material for one such sub-article, but there is tremendous room for growth here.

The material on "theories of the history of science" can likewise be spun off into a separate sub-article. I don't think Science studies should be a "main article", really, and I don't think this material should move there. The entirety of "history of science" is really a subfield of the interdisciplinary "science studies", and there is a lot in the latter that is not in the former. Science studies should certainly reference History of science, though, especially the sub-article which will draw heavily from theories of science studies theorists and historians of science. (Ug, the Science studies article makes me want to cry. It will probably take a year or two to upgrade Wikipedia's coverage of this area to adequate levels...but that's OK.  Maybe this is an excellent excuse to start pulling together material I wish had been included in the non-existent Science, Technology, and Society textbook for undergraduates.)

I think most or all of the "in X year, Y discovered Z" material should be moved out to "History of Foo" articles. Our coverage of these types of events is very spotty; if we were to expand it to be more comprehensive at this level of detail, we would have enough material for ten articles. We could push things out to Timeline of scientific discoveries and Timeline of scientific experiments, but mixing too many disciplines in the same timeline just makes for a jumble. And I do like the interstitial prose, which can help lend context and link to a variety of related articles. Putting this material in the "History of Foo" articles would enable us to keep the prose style, would greatly improve those articles, and would divide the material up into more manageable chunks and coherent threads.

So what's left for this article? I think that a "guided tour" of the history of science, with very broad summaries will easily fill 32-100k. Take a look at the list, Basic theories of science. The comings and goings of theories of this level of importance, in each of the subfields of interest, (and historical antecedents, of course) should be covered. The specific discoveries and people involved in the process, except for the truly landmark thinkers, like Aristotle and Plato and Newton and Einstein, should be pushed out into per-topic histories. The main articles on the medieval period and the Scientific Revolution, could probably use some expansion, but we do have good fodder for broad overview sections here. The pre-medieval period does need some sort of broad overview for the reader whose eyes will completely glaze over after three paragraphs of ancient history. I would discuss here how knowledge flowed (or did not flow) among various civilizations. Some small discussion of the unfamiliar techniques of the pre-experimental period (as contrasted with the very familiar techniques of modern science) is also necessary, I think, to orient readers properly and to paint an accurate picture. Discussion of specific theories should be postponed until per-topic summaries. It's important in this summary article not to present everything twice - once in the per-civilization section, where we won't be able to construct coherent threads, and again in the per-field section. The detailed articles on the contributions of various civilizations should of course mention all related material, and cross-reference appropriately with the per-field histories and specific theory and person articles, etc.

-- Beland 05:05, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * See also Obsolete scientific theory. -- Beland 05:29, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the link; it is suggesting that we could classify the knowledge as follows (1st attempt, the exact names are immaterial, please improve the list)

Ancheta Wis 11:43, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Useful
 * Phenomenology (descriptive Natural History, much of Social Science)
 * Partial theories (classical mechanics, general relativity, quantum mechanics ), by Einstein's own admission
 * Standard theories (Electromagnetism, Kinematics, Optics )
 * Applied sciences (Hydraulics, Celestial Mechanics, Laser physics, nanophysics etc) -- anything usable, including classical mechanics
 * Useless
 * Pseudoscience ( magical thinking, pre-scientific method )
 * Obsolete scientific theory (much of Aristotle, but his Natural History ranks as current and usable)
 * Discredited theory (end of the world, other FUD etc.)
 * Undetermined
 * Ignored by others (like Felix Ehrenhaft, Ludwig Boltzmann, in his lifetime)
 * Protoscience (string theory, quantum entanglement) anything awaiting validation
 * Disputed theories (many, well-known)
 * Politicized theories (Galileo, etc)


 * Please don't take the topics in the summary style box literally, I am prototyping Beland's concepts. Everyone, please jump in. Ancheta Wis 12:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What about adopting/adapting the Universal Decimal Classification? --Eleassar777 15:55, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The summary box was actually already pretty close to what I was imagining. I edited it a bit to improve the names of things and to change the sorting of types of scientific fields.  Honestly, I don't know what sorting system would be best, though rather than adapt someone else's, I think it might be best to just create our own.  The best place to start might actually be to fix Category:Science.
 * I didn't mean to say that we should use Obsolete scientific theory to sort things into sections; merely that the theories that are mentioned there are good candidates for being important enough to mention on this overview page. For example, the history of physics should describe the progression of laws of motion and gravity (Aristotelian, Newtonian, relativity, Grand Unification); theories of electricity, magnetism, and light (ancient, Newtonian, Maxwell, relativity, quantum mechanics); atomic theory (ancient debates over continuum vs. discrete particles, Platonic solids, the discovery of modern elements - see also chemistry, the discovery of protons and neutrons and electrons, the discovery of other subatomic particles, quantum mechanics); and thermodynamics (classic notions, caloric theory, Brownian motion and introduction of atomic theory, laws of thermodynamics).  To end it all, there should also be mention of attempts at Grand Unification.
 * I think we can probably cover the history of pseudoscience and whatnot in a single article, and I've added that to the summary box. -- Beland 01:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The order of the various fields
I suggest we alphabetize the order of the various fields of the natural sciences, social sciences and the emerging disciplines. The order in which they are now seems to suggest that some fields are more important than others, and Wikipedia is to be as neutral as it can be. Also I want to thank the user who expanded the psychology text ;-) --Heida Maria 22:37, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that alphabetization is a very poor and arbitrary form of organization (Bio, Chem, Ecology, Geology, Physics? It is a nonsensical ordering). I think some attempt at chronology should be attempted, based on when the fields first began to define themselves along professional lines (i.e. when "chemistry" emerged as a discipline as different from the tinkering of alchemists, when "biology" was not just the writings of Victorian naturalists to one another, etc.). --Fastfission 22:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * All right, that sounds even better. So please, go ahead :-) --Heida Maria 01:40, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think we should really try to focus on the beginnings of our "modern" understandings of these disciplines rather than attempt to trace them back to the Vedics and Aristotle and the like. These sorts of "rediscovered pre-histories" are not chronologically sensible for a number of reasons. "Modern physics" as a specific discipline of study doesn't really come into being until Newton, I would argue, and "biology" begins around the time of Lamarck and Buffon. I don't know enough about the history of chemistry to date it very well though generally Lavoisier is considered to be undoubtably a chemist in a way which Boyle is still often considered to be not too different from an alchemist. Astronomy is probably the oldest of the natural sciences in terms of its establishments, likely because of its very tangible benefits to agriculture and religion (marking time and dates). I'm not sure when medicine becomes an organized study and application of various understandings of disease and the body but I'm betting it is a lot closer to the present than Imhotep. I'll see if I have time to look up what some more knowledgeable scholars say about these topics. I'm wary of anything modern in science which purports to be ancient in origin; generally this is somewhat of a dodge and an attempt to make it seem that their activities are structured and timeless when they were really fairly incoherent until the last two hundred years or so. --Fastfission 02:18, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It is traditional to say that modern psychology begins in 1879 (first psych lab). Sociology as a scientific discipline emerged in the early 19th century. Modern economics was developed by Adam Smith in his An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776). The history of political science article says: "The advent of political science as a university discipline is evidenced by the naming of university departments and chairs with the title of political science arising in the 1860s." The history of linguistics text reads: "Efforts to describe and explain the human language faculty have been undertaken throughout recorded history. Contemporary linguistics is the outcome of a continuous European intellectual tradition originating in Ancient Greece." History of anthropology: "Anthropology grew increasingly distinct from natural history and by the end of the nineteenth century the discipline began to crystallize into its modern form". Therefore, the order is roughly:
 * Linguistics
 * Economics
 * Sociology
 * Psychology
 * Anthropology

--Heida Maria 03:20, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)