Talk:History of science/Archive 6

Wikipedia is very anti-European
As one critic mentioned above already, it appears that Wikipedia cares more about making sure every group is equally represented instead of actually presenting the history of science as it really happened. The fact that so much space is devoted to Islamic, Indian and Chinese contributions (three cultures that did very little with science as we understand it as a subject in the modern sense), while hardly a paragraph is alloted to the Greeks, speaks volumes. We would all like to think that Indians invented Calculus and rocket ships, but the evidence simply isn't there. As far as Islam goes, it appears that Wikipedia far too often tries to find ways to give Islam credit for discoveries that were fully either Greek or post-1300 AD European. The Scientific Method came from Muslims? Sorry, try again. It is easy for a bunch of internet serfers to come on here and make up their own histories. The right thing to do, however, which isn't always easy, is to get your information from trustworthy sources. The trustworthy sources I read devote over 75% of their space to developments made by Greeks and then by Europeans after the Renaissance. Is this called Eurocentrism? No, it most certainly isn't. It is called portraying history as it really is.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cftiger (talk • contribs) 18:39, November 25, 2006


 * As of the Revision of 22:10, 8 January 2002 there was not much to this article. Over two years later, in 2005, this page became a Collaboration of the Week, and attracted collaborators who had previously worked on other pages. In particular, the History of physics had been previously augmented to specifically cite contributions from multiple countries, and that material was brought here when the collaboration occurred. That is one reason that the article reads as it does.
 * As you point out, the particular contributions of Classical Greece were unique. You may wish to contribute some citations and materials to the article. When we were working on the article, there was in fact so much that we had to product child articles which you see noted. You are also welcome to contribute to them.
 * Now step back; see yourself as someone who is not as fortunate, but rather as one who knows little of what one ought to know about their history or culture. If that one were to open this article, one would glimpse not only what happened, but also what could happen, if one had the chance to work on one's own culture, and build up one's own accomplishments, perhaps to become as notable as that of Classical Greece. For, what happened to them? By sheer luck, their own civilization was not overwhelmed by others, and their own history was not rewritten for them. Please add your contribution to the article. Citations are welcome. --Ancheta Wis 19:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I would be happy to add my own citations. Thanks for offering.  In response to your closing paragraph, I personally feel that we need to focus on presenting facts as they are instead of making sure people of other cultures feel good about their histories.  The facts show that Europeans (including Ancient Greece) are largely and mostly responsible for the state that science is in today.  Other cultures contributed, and we need to recognize that, but we certainly don't need to start writing false histories about other civilizations in order to equate them with Western Civilization and its accomplishments.  Facts are facts.--Cftiger 24:22, 25 November 2006

It is an unambiguous historical fact that Islamic scientists used and improved the scientific method and they directly influenced the progress of science in Europe (in astronomy, mathematics and medicine anyway). It is also a fact that science was marginalized by more powerful Islamic intellectuals, that they created no lasting scientific institutions and that scientific enquiry essentially died out completely by the 15th century. As with the Greeks, science flourished and improved for a time and then faded. Medieval Islamic science is a stepping stone to modern science, just as the Greeks were. If we must mention Alexandria, we must mention Damascus and Maragha as well. (Read The Rise of Early Modern Science by Toby Huff, Cambridge University Press)CharlesGillingham 08:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know where you are getting these "facts". You act as if most scholars agree that the Arabs contributed just as much as the Greeks and other Europeans.  I have yet to see a reliable source that claims this.  And the fact that you are claiming that the scientific method was around before and during the Arabs shows just how little you really DO understand about science.  The scientific method didn't come about until after the Renaissance.--Cftiger 11:38, 30 July 2007


 * I gave my reference right there at the end of paragraph, friend: The Rise of Early Modern Science Toby Huff. -CharlesGillingham 18:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC).


 * I would also recommend Wikipedia's excellent article on the Scientific Revolution. It gives a very well referenced and balanced account of the relationship between the Europeans of the 17th century, "Islamic" science and Helenistic science. It does a much better job than this article of presenting these issues in a neutral way. (I.e. it has more sentences like "some historians say x but others say y")---CharlesGillingham 23:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Science in India
The section on "Science in India" is a real shame, since it is the only thing bringing down the quality of this article. It really needs to cite sources, and I would be appreciative if editors could add references for its claims. Additionally, I have removed the following paragraph, not only due to lack of sources, but also because the start of the article reads "The history of mathematics… [is] covered in other articles. Mathematics is closely related to, but distinct from science."


 * ''From the 12th century, Bhaskara and various Keralese mathematicians first conceived differential calculus, mathematical analysis, trigonometric series, floating point numbers, and concepts foundational to the overall development of calculus. By the end of the Middle Ages, iron rockets were developed in the kingdom of Mysore in South India.

--Grimhelm 19:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. But, since Science and technology in ancient India does cite sources, we should be able to improve this section. I invite you to make a start. The current section is far too detailed, it should just give a short overview of scientific developments in India (which I think is very informative for all us Western Renaissance (wo)men) -- Cugel 08:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I had made a start with this, using some sources I found in somewhat unexpected places: . In regard to shortening it, I think that Aryabhata and Brahmagupta should be given more of an overview than their sizable paragraphs, especially based on the lack of sources. --Grimhelm 17:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Conceptual anthology
I have found a resource -- Professor Shmuel Sambursky ed., Physical Thought from the presocratics to the quantum physicists, Pica Press: New York, 1975 ISBN 0-87663-712-8 covering 2500 years. For example, the topic "cognition of nature" is discussed by 21 people ranging from Anaxagoras to Pauli. In particular, the sources for part II (Middle Ages) were selected and edited by Professor Shlomo Pines. They include translations of quotations from
 * Rhazes (Abu Bakr al-Razi) (865 - 925)
 * Al-Biruni (973 – 1048)
 * Alhazen (Ibn al-Haytham) (965–1040)
 * Avicenna (Ibn Sina) (980-1037)
 * Abu'l-Barakat al-Baghdadi (1200-1250)
 * Averroes (Ibn Rushd) (1126 – 1198)
 * Moses Maimonides (1135 or 1138–1204)
 * Robert Grosseteste (c.1168-1253)
 * Roger Bacon (c.1214 – 1294)
 * Nicole Oresme (1323-1382)
 * Nicolas Cusanus (1401-1464)

For example, on p. 136, Alhazen describes his experiments to demonstrate that light travels in straight lines.

If we were to also include some quotations from, say John Philoponus (490–c. 570) then we would be able to fill in some of the gaps in the article with material from the original thinkers. --Ancheta Wis 03:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Anachronism / Definition of Science
Is it not a misnomer to refer to natural philosophy prior to the Scientific "Revolution" as "science"? 131.111.195.8 16:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It depends on how you define science. In his Greek Science in Antiquity, Marshall Clagett defined science this way:
 * "Science comprises, first, the orderly and systematic comprehension, description and/or explanation of natural phenomena and, secondly, the [mathematical and logical] tools necessary for the undertaking."


 * Most historians of early science would accept an open-ended definition of that sort. --SteveMcCluskey 03:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The definition of science is problematic when we're trying figure out what to cover in the any time before 1600 in any civilization other than Europe. There is no consensus definition of "science"; no one agrees on what is "essential" to science and what is not. Other traditions (ancient, presocratic, Hellenistic, Indian, Chinese, Muslim, Scholastic and "nonwestern", to name a few) have many things in common with modern science, but the question is, do they have the essential thing(s) in common with modern science so that we can confidently label them science? Different definitions produce different sets of "scientists" for this article to report about.

I think the only approach for Wikipedia article is to remain agnostic about this debate. We need an appropriate neutral point of view. I think dividing the article, as some have suggested, into two sections, one which describes science before 1600 and one that describes it after would help with this. The article about science after 1600 doesn't need to waste any time grappling with this issue and can give an appropriately detailed history of things no one (except some devout contrarian) would deny is scientific. The article that deals with science before 1600 can use a much looser definition of what science is, so that practices similar to, but not as well developed as, modern science can be included. ("Science before 1600" sounds better than "Science before 1543", but of course that is what I mean: Copernicus, Vesalius, Brahe and Kepler should be in the later article.)

I would also say, kindly, that this article suffers from a lack of a clear definition of science, for example Chinese technology is included (following Needham's definition of science) but other technology is not (following the definition in the lead paragraph of the article).CharlesGillingham 05:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

(To give a few examples of how definitions of science include or exclude various traditions: You could say that science is the study of nature, as used by technology or in systems of knowledge. This would include everyone, since all cultures study nature and teach about nature, all cultures have technology and all cultures develop systems of knowledge. If you emphasize the importance of logical argument and proof, you eliminate the ancients, the Indians and the Chinese and leave us with the Greeks, the Muslims, the Scholastics. A definition that emphasized empiricism would eliminate many metaphysical Greeks and the Muslim theologians, but keep Archimedes and the Muslim astronomers and, again, the Scholastics. A definition that included "experiment" would eliminate the scholastics and all but a handful of Muslims and Greeks. If you emphasize naturalism you would find it difficult to draw a firm line anywhere: Thomas Kuhn would point out that all science includes metaphysics, even modern science. A sociological definition would emphasize the existence of lasting independent institutions dedicated to natural philosophy (like the University of Paris or the Royal Society): this would give you Alexandrian Greeks and Scholastics but lose the Muslims all together, along with everyone else. Some, following Merton, think it's important that the scientist have an "ethos of science" -- that he must consider scientific methods the only "right" way to find the truth. This definition rules out pretty much everyone except those practicing after the Reformation, but could be stretched to include the Scholastics. Other sociologists like Joseph Ben-David would emphasize the social role of the scientist, but this role has changed and continues to change today. If you follow Karl Popper you might have to eliminate String Theorists (kidding). Often casual histories of science use the implicit definition "it's science if it's right" (for example, Indian heliocentric theories or presocratic atomism) but of course they really mean "it's science if modern science agrees with it." This includes all sorts of accurate speculations by all sorts of prescient thinkers in all sorts of cultures, but should technically exclude work by great, but wrong, scientists of modern times. Finally, you might include only those who actually called what they were doing "science" and then you have only science since the 18th century.)CharlesGillingham 05:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Postmodern etc.
The third paragraph of the Theories and sociology of the history of science section seems a bit lacking. It currently reads "Since the publication of Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions'' in 1962, historians, sociologists, and philosophers of science have debated the meaning and objectivity of science. Often, but not always, a conflict over the "truth" of science has split along the lines of philosophers and natural scientists on the one hand and historians and social scientists on the other (see the "Science Wars")."

There are several things wrong here: Kuhn's publication did not start the discussion of the nature of truth in science; although perhaps it is a notable publication in regards to it. Many essays on this question predate it (eg Two Dogmas of Empiricism). This split is also not clearly related to the second sentence, on the science wars (which also predates Kuhn, see for example The Two Cultures). I started revising it but got bogged down in details; suggestions on how to improve it would be great, if anyone has an idea or two. I'll continue to think about it. --TeaDrinker 19:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right that Kuhn did not start this. Ludwik Fleck's 1935 book used the Wasserman test as his vehicle for demonstrating that a scientific fact has a history of development in itself, and that the community which elaborates the protocols for that fact is building up an infrastructure to demonstrate it. The totality is then retrospectively presented as fact, in Fleck's view. Fleck called the elaborating community the Denkkcollektiv (or thought collective). The other central term is Denkstil or thought style. This book was translated into English in 1976, but Kuhn had access to the German version. Hans Reichenbach in Experience and Prediction was forced to cite Fleck's title which has the English translation Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact) although Kuhn notes that Reichenbach did not think of facts as having a life cycle. Kuhn found Fleck via Reichenbach. Kuhn notes that in 1935 Fleck was ignored but Popper's coeval Logik der Forschung (Logic of Scientific Discovery) was immediately acclaimed by scholars.  Fleck is memorialized in the 4S annual prize. Thaddeus Trenn, a translator and editor of Fleck, notes that "thought style sociologically conditions cognition within the thought collective" (preface, p.vii)
 * --Ancheta Wis 09:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact ISBN 0-226-25325-2 deserves an article. --Ancheta Wis 09:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I would argue that the section on Kuhn and company is an unnecessary digression in this article. Appearing as it does in the first section, it suggests to the reader that the ideas of Kuhn, Popper and Feyerabend are necessary to understand the rest of the article. Is this true? Does this section actually effect how readers view the rest of the article?


 * At the very least, the third paragraph (that is in dispute here) should be cut, since it's neither well sourced, accurate (as you all have pointed out), or important to the rest of the article (as I'm pointing out). CharlesGillingham 18:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, you may be correct, it does seem out of place. There is an article on Theories and sociology of the history of science, which is a bit scattered.  What would people think of moving it there?  --TeaDrinker 21:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It may be productive to ask the opinions of user:Ragesoss,user:SteveMcCluskey, and user:Fastfission --Ancheta Wis 00:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)