Talk:Phenomenology (physics)

Proposed merge
Since there are no comments, one could assume that Phenomenology(science) is not going to be merged here. As an entomologist using this approach, I would rather keep the more generic article rather than restrict the meaning to particle physics only. Against merging from the general topic to the restricted topic. Acuster 03:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I also oppose the merger, because there is no content in Phenomenology (science) that would be worth adding to this article. HEL 21:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

After looking over Phenomenology (science) more carefully, I still oppose the merger. It appears that the concept of phenomenology in science as a whole (what Nancy Cartwright (philosopher) has in mind) is different from particle physics phenomenology. Someone who knows more about the topic than me should expand the Phenomenology (science) article in that direction, and the references to particle physics phenomenology should be shortened and mainly just redirect to this page. I will copy this discussion onto the talk page at Phenomenology (science). If no one else comments, I can take a shot at rearranging the material in Phenomenology (science), but I am not at all an expert in the more philosophical realm. HEL 15:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Clearly, these article titles imply that the two articles should be very different. However, some/much of the content of Phenomenology (science) should be copied into this article. linas 00:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that there is much in Phenomenology (science) that would add value to this article. Even though that article starts out with "The term phenomenology in high energy physics...", most of the discussion doesn't really have much to do with what particle physics phenomenology actually is.  The way the word phenomenology is used in Phenomenology (science) is very different from what particle physics phenomenologists mean when we use it.  HEL 22:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like the consensus is that both of the articles should be kept (and not merged). Therefore I'm going to remove the merger tags. Thanks! HEL 16:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Page should define phenomenology as it applies to this topic
Or at least say that it is distinctly separate from the idea of Phenomenology (science). Physicsmichael (talk) 10:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Trade mystery
Not for the first time, physicists, in their need to symbolically designate or name a process, have taken possession of a word that already has a conventional meaning. Instead of inventing, through the use of technical terminology, a name for the concept of "...the application of theoretical physics to experimental data by making quantitative predictions based upon known theories...," they have made use of the existing word "phenomenology." This misappropriation results in puzzlement for people who are not privy to the hieratic code. Phenomenology is the study of appearance, in contrast to ontology, which is the study of that which appears. It has nothing to do with prediction, prolepsis, or anticipation. Phenomenology relates to intuitive perception; ontology relates to discursive concepts. It may be the case that the guild purposely encourages confusion, ambiguity, and paradox through the use of private language. 173.72.115.153 (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2018 (UTC)De Mikael Tibbetts


 * Maybe. But also, perhaps physicists, like mathematicians, tend to be a bit challenged, or philistine, when it comes to the English language. To call a new type of force, "the strong force" and another, "the weak force" seems a bit confusing. "Up" and "down" "spin" is a bit confusing and misleading, as it "color charge".
 * Something really confusing is the (for the last 70 years or so, I think) way the majority of particle physicists use the words "mass" and "massless". If I understand correctly, they really mean rest mass, and not mass. As a result, nearly everyone, including most physics graduates, think that a photon has no mass in any sense of the word, because it is "massless" particle. But in fact a bottle of photons does weigh more than an empty bottle. Point this out to physicists and they just say it is more convenient for them to do it their way. They seem not to care about the layman. Polar Apposite (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Isn't "phenomenology" just a particular application of the "scientific method"?
The page currently describes phenomenology as making predictions with experimental data, as opposed to the scientific method which performs experiments to test a theory.

But ... isn't that exactly the same thing? When you apply a theory to make some predictions, aren't you testing the underlying theory?

Wouldn't it be more accurate to describe phenomenology as a particular application of the scientific method?

If this is not the case then perhaps the page should explain more clearly the difference between the two.

79.168.216.158 (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree. Polar Apposite (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

What is being defined here?
I have some doubts that the noun phenomenology is used by physicists in the narrow and strange sense described here. Instead, they use the adjective phenomenological for so-called phenomenological models, and for (the values of) the parameters of such models. (Example of use: .) The back-formation of an imagined concept of phenomenology in physics as if it is a thing on its own seems misguided. --Lambiam 19:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree. Phenomenological model is adequate. IMO, this page should be changed to a redirect, with some relevant text moved there as examples. Evgeny (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)