Talk:Science/Archive 8

hi,

i have an issue with the sources provided for al hazen. is it possible to provide a non-muslim citations that predate 1970 (any time prior to the saudis and americans' engagement aka 'petrodollar').

also: what makes these scholars' words more important than others? surely there have been more reputable (non muslim) authors who have contributed greatly to the scientific method.

i find the overemphasis on alhazen offensive and unacceptable. the khalili cult needs to seriously re-evaluate its life goals.

thanks. 174.3.155.181 (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

It was recognized by nineteenth-century German Orientalists, and in the middle ages from 1260 onward. See Alhazen quotation from Treatise on Light (رسالة في الضوء):

"How does light travel through transparent bodies? Light travels through transparent bodies in straight lines only.... We have explained this exhaustively in our Book of Optics. But let us now mention something to prove this convincingly: the fact that light travels in straight lines is clearly observed in the lights which enter into dark rooms through holes.... [T]he entering light will be clearly observable in the dust which fills the air." – Alhazen , translated into English from German by M. Schwarz, from "Abhandlung über das Licht", J. Baarmann (ed. 1882) Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft Vol 36 as quoted by Shmuel Sambursky ed.(1974) From the Pre-Socratics to the Quantum Physicists p.136 .

The A.Mark Smith (2001) translation of Alhazen's De Aspectibus characterizes Alhacen's approach as 'essentially hypothetico-deductive'.

--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 00:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

174.92.68.146, It may help for us to be cautious about the claim 'the first person ever ...'; there are many 'firsts' in any discovery or invention. Charles Sanders Peirce characterized the process as "It begins passively enough with ... impression ... . But impression soon passes into attentive observation, observation into musing, musing into a lively give-and-take of communion between self and self. If one's observations and reflections are allowed to specialise themselves too much, the Play will be converted into scientific study;" --Peirce, "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God".

John von Neumann (1956) noted that even after Aristotle's musings, "natural science took 1000 years to get anywhere" Collected Works von Neumann 6 p.101, as cited on Rashid (Jul.,2007) p518 via JSTOR. Thus it might help us to be charitable and sympathetic with the previous scientists, about how long it took other scientists to get past the errors of their predecessors. In the scientific revolution, Johannes Kepler himself detected errors in the Perspectivist theory behind the imaging chain which Alhacen built so laboriously. We credit their work in our encyclopedia for the part they played, of course.

Thus the part that Alhacen played in the 'invention and discovery' of science was

1. to read deeply in the writings of previous scientists like Aristotle, Euclid, Ptolemy, Galen, and the whole set of other scientists who came before him,
2. to use the discipline of mathematical proof in order to judge the truth of a statement,
3. to make mathematical models of the phenomena he was studying,
4. to build repeatable experiments for investigating the phenomena in order to understand the phenomena for himself as well as to convince others,
5. to criticize the findings of the scientists who came before him, and
6. to write about his practices in one grand synthesis, as A.Mark Smith and other historians have put it.

It is pretty clear that Alhazen regarded his work as a search for truth. That singlemindedness likely was his motive, like Newton's habit of 'continually thinking about' his problem until Newton was satisfied with his solution.

Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 19:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

In the documentary Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey by Neil deGrasse Tyson where in the 5th episode or Hiding in the Light from 13:30s to 13:50s Mr. Tyson says, "Alhazen discovered how images formed by light but that was far from his greatest achievement. Ibn al-Haytham was the first person ever to set down the rules of science. He created a error correcting mechanism, a systematic and relentless way to sift out misconceptions."

Video can be found on Daily Motion: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2idg47

This show was originally broadcasted simultaneously in the United States across ten 21st Century Fox networks. Also in Canada, the show was broadcast simultaneously on Global, National Geographic Channel and Nat Geo Wild.

Here is the list of some of the well known historians of sciences and scientists who agrees with the idea that Ibn al-Haytham was the first person ever to set down the rules of science are Neil deGrasse Tyson^[1][2], Kenan Malik^[3] and Jim Al-Khalili^[4]. 174.92.68.146 (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

hi, i do not who posted above me (between the indented reply and this line is another reply), but i specifically said: BEFORE 1970, from a NON-MUSLIM SCHOLAR because of the PETRODOLLAR alliance that was formed around that time.

to user:Ancheta Wis thank you for your thoughtful response. i do understand what you're saying, i just feel that the sources provided for the claim aren't sufficient. they should be non-muslim sources and they should be prior to 1970. i do not know how you can expect the sources to be impartial.

hindus do it as much as muslims: they defend their "own" vigorously and often go to great lengths at distorting history to do so.

a good example is the rash of edits on pages like History of Mathematics where hindus often exaggerate the findings of their 'ancestors' to earlier dates, in order to reinforce their perception that "indians are superior at math because they discovered things about it first".

as you said though, user:Ancheta Wis (and i won't dispute it), that natural science needed 1000 years after Aristotle to advance. while i don't dispute alhazen is deserving of *some* mention for setting up the laborious apparatus (that was wrong), i don't feel the sources & claim he was instrumental to the scientific method was fair.

also to further that point: there's a quote from kepler where he briefly mentioned the laborious nature of what was a simple, but demanding, calculation. many of our heros in the past were inundated with limitations of their era, whether that be the lack of a calculation machine (kepler) or instruments and tools to allay imperfections in scientific apparatus (alhazen). in the case of kepler versus alhazen (not even close, kepler wins), kepler didn't get it wrong. alhazen did. is designing an apparatus harder than a laborious calculation without a calculator? possibly, but i think the answer depends on the person.

still looking for pre 1970, non muslim sources that describe alhazen's contributions to the scientific method in the same manner as the cited muslims are claiming. again. old sources. if i had access to my university account i'd be doing searches on my own, but there'd be too many paywalls for the type of journals i'd need to peruse.

great chat so far guys. thanks 174.3.155.181 (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

@174.3.155.181, Again, here is Baarmann's 1882 translation of Alhacen, Treatise on Light (رسالة في الضوء): : J. Baarmann (ed. 1882) "Abhandlung über das Licht", Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft Vol 36 pp208-209, as far as I can read with my rusty German. M. Schwarz is the English translator (translation already given above) of Baarmann's 1882 German. Baarman provides Alhazen's 11th century Arabic below his German translation. Alhazen's work reads like modern science. That is to say, Alhazen makes no claim of absolute certainty, only his admission of fallibility. Alhazen displays careful, exhaustively precise writing to make his case by minimizing the sources of error to the best of his ability. The Latin translation dates to about 1260. I hope you can read Baarmann (1882). You will need to navigate the German pages by clicking the navigation arrows past page 195 to pages 208 and 209. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 01:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

hi user:Ancheta Wis, thank you for providing some important documentation. do you think we could rework how alhazen is mentioned using the source you've provided? i feel the source you've provided is much better than the three current ones combined. thank you for doing this.

is it feasible that the aforementioned passage could be faithfully translated while introducing the word 'skepticism'? the passage definitely shows his influence on descartes. just not sure it shows he's the father of the scientific method.

i would argue that archimedes' Method of Mechanical Theorems is more representative of an actual scientific method. i do understand that his work is old and much of it is lost, but the Method was central to Archimedes' findings. specifically, Archimedes' method required intuition in order for its results to be fruitful. when applied properly, we saw that the numbers the Method produced were extremely useful and worthy of further investigation.

of course, in the time of Archimedes, further scrutiny of the numbers produced by the Method would have been difficult. the method did, however, and will, produce fruit that will keep scientists busy for many years to come.

i feel if anyone deserves to be given credit for 'the [scientific] method', it should be archimedes. the scientific method is much more than just extreme skepticism, which of course is no small part!

i think i'm paying alhazen quite a compliment when i say that his influence on descartes is quite clear (thanks to your translation). maybe we can move alhazen further down in the article? i think archimedes should be in the lead, and alhazen anywhere after. thank you again for translating whatever you could. that source is much better. 174.3.155.181 (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@174.3.155.181 See Alhazen#Doubts_Concerning_Ptolemy --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Totally disagree. 174.92.68.146 (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

user:Ancheta Wis, the source provided for alhazen "questioning" ptolemy is the same source that says he's the key guy behind the scientific method. i would like an assortment of sources if you think we should seriously consider him better than archimedes. i find the concept laughable. pi lives with us to this day for a reason. also, the muslim who replied above me is clearly biased. he only enjoys editing muslim articles, suggesting he's predisposed to bias. why are all these large claims supported by citations from sabra? in the ptolemy section i saw multiple citations to sabra, and only one from a guy named langerman. i would like more sources, like the one provided from 1800s. unlike archimedes, alhazen has no famous constant that can embody his legacy and body of work. pi is more than just a number, as we all know. 174.3.155.181 (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@174.3.155.181, It is important to avoid expressing any ad hominems in the encyclopedia. 1911 Britannica was particularly cringeworthy about this. You might find Samuel Sambursky, (1965) Das Physikalische Weltbild der Antike, or (1956) The Physical World of the Greeks to your liking. Perhaps there is a quotation in them to support your view of Archimedes.

Francisco Sanches History_of_scientific_method#Skepticism_as_a_basis_for_understanding wrote one generation before Descartes.

We assume good faith --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

It may be useful to examine the Optics works of Euclid and Ptolemy: they assumed the rectilinear propagation of light (p. 12, Lindberg 1973 Theories of Vision from Al-kindi to Kepler). Alhacen proved it experimentally. See Baarmann 1882, discussed above. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@174.92.68.146, A.Mark Smith (2001, 2006, 2008, 2010) translated De Aspectibus, the Latin manuscript of Book of Optics, and A. I. Sabra translated Books 1 thru 5 of the Arabic manuscript before his death. Arabic Book 1's first three chapters are methodology (I learned this in a review from JSTOR). But Smith's 2001 translation of Latin Book I starts with Chapter 4, because the Latin manuscript skipped the 1st three Arabic chapters, so Latin Book I is half the size of the other books (Smith 2001 xxiii). It would be helpful to learn more about the content of Sabra's translation of the 1st three chapters of Arabic Book 1. I do not have access. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

See the article for the URLs of Smith, Sabra, etc. I learned another title for the list of Alhazen's works:

• Alhacen, Treatise on Optics According to Ptolemy's Method (Smith 2001 p.xvii)

--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 02:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Review on JSTOR, GJ Toomer's 1964 review of Matthias Schramm (1963) Ibn Al-Haythams Weg Zur Physik Toomer p.464: "Schramm sums up [Ibn Al-Haytham's] achievement in the development of scientific method." --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

JSTOR-- Saleh Omar (1979) p.70 Ibn Al-Haytham's methodology: direct, empirical observation to establish scientific conclusions

p.71 Omar (1979) cites Manuscript Fatih 3212 Folio 4, and quotes from the introduction to

Al-Haytham's Book of Optics: "...recommencing the inquiry into its principles and premises, beginning the investigation with an induction of the existing things, a review of the conditions of the visual objects, and a discernment of the particulars. We will pick out by induction what pertains to the eye in the condition of visual perception, and what is permanent and unchanging, and obvious and certain in the manner of sensation. (Then) we will ascend in the inquiry and reasonings, gradually and in order, criticizing premises and taking care not to err, our aim in all that we induct and inspect being the application of truthfullness and not the pursuit of whims ... "

Omar notes that Aristotle's 'induction (epagoge)' gets re-instituted by Alhacen's book into its modern usage, into the sense in which we use it today. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I propose Larry Laudan's view as a suitable counterbalance for Feyerabend's 'anything goes' view of science. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 08:09, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

As the article stands this sentence: "The formal sciences are often excluded as they do not depend on empirical observations" receives this citation: "Editorial Staff (March 7, 2008). "The Branches of Science". South Carolina State University. Retrieved October 28, 2014."

When you click that link through, first of all, it's a nice little article but I'm not sure who wrote it.

More importantly, the author does not say anything about "excluding" formal sciences. The author says:

Formal Science is the branch of science dealing with abstract concepts. It includes the sub-branches of logic and mathematics. For most scientists, these branches serve as tools to better understand their own fields of study. For example, a physicist may use algebra and geometry to help them understand the path of an arrow through the air. Much of the mathematics and logic that we commonly use have been understood for centuries. We must remember, however, that at some point in history someone had to discover that the sum of the angles in a triangle equals 180 degrees. Mathematicians are still working to understand the complex relationships involved in large numbers, the geometry of curved surfaces, and prime numbers. The new discoveries are being used as tools for things like encryption for computer security.

I think a citation needed ref is appropriate as such: "The formal sciences are often excluded as they do not depend on empirical observations"[3]^{[irrelevant citation]}

Cheers CircularReason (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Science. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/49/45/24236156.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.  Paine  ^u/c 12:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to Science has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add "Forensic Science' in the inter-disciplinary section of this page. Jatinsharma9311 (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done: Since there is no such section in the article content titled "Interdisciplinary", it was assumed that you meant that section of the Science template at the TOP of the article, so I added [[Forensic science|Forensics]] to the Interdisciplinary section of the template.  Paine  ^u/c 12:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to Science has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

can i edit please Robberandthetheif (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. - Mlpearc (open channel) 19:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

This talk topic is to resolve a dispute about the default size for the image at the top of the article that maps the scale of the universe to branches of science. I would like the graphic to be 550px wide, Mlpearc wants it to be sized to 350px wide. I tried to compromise at 450px but Mlpearc is insisting on the 350px size as an absolute limit.

The reason I'm pressing this point is that at 350px wide the content of the image is mostly illegible. The default size is how the vast majority of users will see graphics, so we should be making the default size a good size to view the graphic at. For many placements a wider size would not work as it would disrupt article flow, but this graphic is situated next to the table of contents so it does not disrupt flow.

For review:

• The article is currently showing 350 pixels wide.
• Article with image sized to 450 pixels wide
• Article with image sized to 550 pixels wide

Hopefully others will weigh in on the issue so we can get this resolved. Thanks, --Efbrazil (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

My edit summaries convy my concerns here, here and here. - Mlpearc (open channel) 17:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Many philosophers agree on the hierarchy of sciences. One can not do physics without mathematics or do psychology by ignoring the biological principles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorua3 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to Science has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Another definition for science is that based on material evidence collected from the physical world, logical theories developed by man in order for understanding the truth and finding solutions to the problems and issues; and the very solutions so so discovered. Here it is important to depart from the spiritual theories advanced by various religions without being based on "material evidence from the physical world". Not only areas like biology, medicine, astronomy or chemistry but also subjects or terms like "legal science" or "political science" can well be described using this definition. For example; legal science is the subject in which, effects of rules and policies made by man himself are tested and measured by using the logical theories made based on the evidence (statistical or other) collected from various parts of the society. (source: Inoka Bandaranayake (2016) Defining Scientific Evidence) Inokabandaranayake (talk) 03:15, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Please see the policies of the encyclopedia on conflicts of interest and no original research in wikipedia --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 09:00, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Is it possible to add the scientific application fields in the picture which illustrates the relationship between the sciences and the universe ?

To be synthetic :

  Formal sciences : computer science
  Physical sciences : enginneering
  Life sciences : medicine
  Social sciences : management

This is just a suggestion. It can be more completing.

Oh....I slightly get it but its okay im slighty smart of science Jillianne Mae (talk) 11:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Science. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061010084037/http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/nature/index.shtml to http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/nature/index.shtml

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

The science is derived from latin word scientia which means knowledge. The knowledge gained through observation and experiment is known as science. Hamza Ahmad Kalyar (talk) 03:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Renaissance and early modern science: Footnote i How Kepler observed the eclipse of 1600: You should observe a solar eclipse indirectly. Using Kepler and Tycho Brahe's method is safer for your eyes. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 15:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

This edit request to Science has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

{{subst:trim| Id like to change:

is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.

to

is a systematic pursuit of knowledge that yields reliable explanations and predictions about the universe.^[a] Zarathustra sch (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Done SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 22:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I reverted the above good faith edit request on the lead sentence of this article as I believe it deserves further discussion. Aside from deviating from the E.O. Wilson reference, I find the new edit to be ambiguous and misleading. It states that there is this knowledge that is being pursued but makes no effort to define said knowledge, which somehow yields testable explanations and predictions, i.e., undefined knowledge —> testable explanation and predictions. The previous version, however, at least makes it clear that the knowledge that is being built and organized are the testable explanations and predictions themselves, i.e., organized knowledge = testable explanations and predictions. Moreover, the new edit appears to give the impression that this undefined knowledge already exists and like happiness, we just need to pursue it. That's not how science works. danielkueh (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Undone: This request has been undone. Undone per danielkueh SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 01:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

There are subjects of study which directly influence the development of science which need to be mentioned in the article. Joseph Needham sought the answer in his study of "What happened to science in China? " (Needham's grand question). What comes to mind are the subjects which were banned upon the advice given by Li Si to the first emperor of the Qin dynasty, namely history, poetry and philosophy, which were destroyed during the burning of books and burying of scholars. This resulted in the destruction of the hundred schools of thought, such as mohism and the school of names in favor of legalism. Needham's evaluation of this historical event was "a catastrophe". Where might these philosophical influences (especially the loss of the writings in the study of logic) be mentioned in the article?

A related question is the relation between stabilization of teaching, such the teaching of the classical Chinese writing system during the warring states period, and the teaching in other polities. In China, the scholars could make a living teaching children (just as Alhazen did in Cairo, and Aristotle did in Athens). One result was that Needham could read documents dating from two thousand years ago. He could compare and contrast Greek and Chinese thought from the same period. Often he was struck by their parallel, but independent work. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 15:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

No source is provided for the following addition: Please remove it as original research.2A01:7C8:AAAE:11:0:0:0:1 (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

It's at least partially from the sources… the third reference in the closest cluster of footnotes mentions pre-Socratic theories that should support the claim. Pinging Khirurg, who might like to comment on this accusation. – Rhinopias (talk) 01:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. The antiquity section needs a total overhaul as it is totally lacking in modern secondary sources. I plan to take care of it in the coming weeks. That should take care of any sourcing issues. Khirurg (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Answered SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 20:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Naturalism (philosophy) is the "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world." The Wikipedia article claims that the view first arose in the Indian school Charvaka.

The sentence in the lead "Non-supernatural explanations for natural phenomena appear in the 6th century BC in the works of Thales and the pre-Socratics." is controversial. Please add the atheist Charvaka school that rejects such explanations. The Charvaka were group of philosophers who lived in the 7th century BCE and rejected supernaturalism, source-. Naturalism as a philosophy originated with Magi philosophers in Babylon who rejected the intervention of deities and claimed that everything is governed by Natural Laws, while Thales himself went to Mesopotamia to study Naturalism- source.2A01:7C8:AAAE:11:0:0:0:1 (talk) 08:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Charvaka (7th c. BCE) is already in the lede of the History of scientific method article as well as in body of the scientific method article. The philosophical emphasis on Thales's water (6th c. BCE), and its practical application, hydraulic engineering (7th c. BCE, before the philosophy) in China is already in the history of this article. What purpose will your request give to the direction of this article? How might this addition improve the body of the science article? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 09:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps what you are getting at is the existence of the Greek myths as hindrance to the development of science? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 10:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

This is POV-pushing nonsense. The source on Charvaka merely says that they were atheists, nothing more. Atheism is not science. To connect Charvaka to science is more than a stretch. The second source is patent nonsense, for example making the whacky claim that Buddha "was a famous religious leader, who became Emperor in Babylon, only to be overthrown (522 BCE) in a murderous plot orchestrated by a religious competitor, Zoroaster, and the Persian King of Kings, Darius the Great. He was born west of today's India, not in Nepal, as some have suggested." . It's also published by BookBaby, a self-publishing outlet. Not a reliable source by any stretch. Khirurg (talk) 16:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The suggested sources are not significant mentions and have been challenged above. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if these links helps the original argument.

• https://books.google.ca/books?id=59eygxzQTWQC&pg=PA97&lpg=PA97&dq=Carvaka+and+science&source=bl&ots=s1S1oiok1_&sig=rs-7uzwwmGfw3iJFBstk4gRVRog&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2k53I6IfXAhVM2oMKHZtiBoIQ6AEIWTAJ#v=onepage&q=Carvaka%20and%20science&f=false
• https://books.google.ca/books?id=J_BCUdSRHLAC&pg=PA162&lpg=PA162&dq=Carvaka+and+science&source=bl&ots=Wly8gLl035&sig=wZvWnhlLVaI6NI95UEqq5EXGi5s&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2k53I6IfXAhVM2oMKHZtiBoIQ6AEIVjAI#v=onepage&q=Carvaka%20and%20science&f=false
• https://books.google.ca/books?id=D3yFSOH6B-YC&pg=PA162&lpg=PA162&dq=Carvaka+and+science&source=bl&ots=zNCau1GWmT&sig=7ZsEWsCcyTk8-9DtNiChAOLlfFs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiR95-i7IfXAhWk3YMKHROCDvQ4FBDoAQgqMAE#v=onepage&q=Carvaka%20and%20science&f=false
• https://books.google.ca/books?id=zcBcCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=Carvaka+and+science&source=bl&ots=w-_rXaMus_&sig=48QhxvS7cdgh_zM6kQbGL687XLY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj1mbvX64fXAhUoyoMKHSc4Cnw4ChDoAQgnMAA#v=onepage&q=Carvaka%20and%20science&f=false
• https://www.britannica.com/topic/Charvaka
• http://www.iep.utm.edu/indmat/#SH2a Shumam (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

No they don't. They either do not back the claim being made or are not reliable. Such pointed searches ("Carvaka and science") are very poor form anyway. Khirurg (talk) 04:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

These sources say the Charvaka rejected any form of supernaturalism:2A01:7C8:AAAE:11:0:0:0:1 (talk) 11:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

https://books.google.com/books?id=ojFBAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT35 (Charvaka livend in the 7th century BC) https://books.google.com/books?id=nVN2AwAAQBAJ&pg=RA3-PA55 https://books.google.com/books?id=1gtxVmUr1ygC&pg=PA188 https://books.google.com/books?id=6YxpAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA52

That's not science. There is not a single instance of the Carvakas trying to explain a natural phenomenon, unlike the pre-socratics. Atheism is not science. Irreligion is not science. Epicureanism is not science. Khirurg (talk) 16:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Khirurg I am looking forward to your citations. I agree that the school of Epicurus failed to advance his canonical formulation. But see On the nature of things for his thinking, which clearly shows others understood his work. In fact, they qualify as physics, some of which holds to this day. If you follow the links I replied with, maybe you can find some support for your summaries (but please cite your summaries; otherwise they come across as a POV, without authority). --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 16:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Pre-Scoratics explained Atomism as a phenomenon for example, but there are no shown citations or examples of Thales. At the same period Atomism was explained in Carvaka and other schools in India, please see this written at the lead of Atomism. So there are instances.2A01:7C8:AAAE:11:0:0:0:1 (talk) 17:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

There are parallel threads to the contrast between an orthodoxy and its contenders: I refer you to Epicurus (the analog of Carvaka). The Stoics, Pre-socratics, Aristotle, etc., have another contender for the foundations of science. The similarities include: a materialist viewpoint, emphasis on enjoyment of the world (Epicurus innovated the birthday party) etc. The point is that Epicurus' Canon is embedded in the viewpoint that underlies science.

Carvaka, of course, by insisting on evidence, as trumping inference, also is requisite for the viewpoint that underlies science. As evidence of this strength (or alternatively the weakness of relying only on inference), I refer you to the eidolon, which can mean both image and substance. This confusion is embedded in Aristotle's theory of forms. It was not until Alhazen started delving into the mechanics of vision, when he tried to justify an Aristotelian form as fundamental for vision, that the problem in this Aristotelian explanation manifested itself. (A. Mark Smith has documented this during his 40 year career in medieval history of science. See the Alhazen article for the citations.) Of course, Kepler solved the puzzle. Witness the time that it took to get to the bottom of the puzzle, from 4th c. BCE to 1604 CE: 2000 years.

There are other examples of the contention for orthodoxy, in China, from the hundred schools of thought during the warring states period to the Legalism that supported the Qin dynasty (see Needham, Science and Civilisation in China).

So we see at least 3 civilizations where this kind of process took place. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not exactly sure why the lead version of the article was modified to present some of the very focused, irrelevant and disputed point of views. It probably happened this and last year when the lead was ruined by a sock who edit warred over it. The version of the lead I have restored is pre-sock and it was not just a long term version but also NPOV. Lorstaking (talk) 01:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

You need to a consensus first before you remove all that sourced material. Shumam (talk) 04:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

At least the changes made with bold edits and without discussion should be reverted. There had been no discussion since August. Any controversial addition needs a consensus before being added. A lack of consensus for adding or modifying content results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit, WP:NOCONSENSUS. Please gain a consensus to add the incorrect sentence in question, which was debunked at the edit reuqests above, you need to have consensus to add it and you added it with bold edits without discussing it on the talk page.2A01:7C8:AAAE:11:0:0:0:1 (talk) 11:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

You did not "debunk" anything. You're just pushing the usual revisionist POV using sources that are either unreliable or do not back your claim. Khirurg (talk) 16:01, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

You have not provided a single reference backing your sentence in this specifc way and pushed it. The sources I provided and the article about the Charvaka are clear, these philosophers assumed non-supernatural explanations for natural phenomena. It is stated in clear context. This is just the way things were. 2A01:7C8:AAAE:11:0:0:0:1 (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Really? You're going to go with that? How about . I could go on, but you get the idea. Now compare these sources, that explicitly mention science and scientific explanations, to the ones you have provided, which do not. Yes, indeed, this is how things were. Khirurg (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Note Shumam has been blocked as a confirmed sock of Eulalefty.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@User:Narssarssuaq, perhaps we might discuss the recent tags? What is the criterion we might seek? What I can offer is a list of pages where Alhacen has discussed experiment in the Latin manuscript. I recall there are dozens of pages, at least.

Or if this is not the issue, might we clarify what they are. I will wait for a reply (in a day, in a week? Please respond with an time of expected reply); if appropriate, perhaps we might open this discussion up to other editors. They are always welcome. Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 20:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

11:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC): If you have a better source on Aristotle's propagation of forms than A.Mark Smith 1981, I would be very interested. Smith 1981 (as cited in the article as you have tagged it) p.569 lays out the theory of abstraction of the perspectivists, involving its conceptual basis, its psychological basis, and its causal basis. Smith shows how this framework is Aristotelian in nature.

11:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC): The next tag is more understandable, in my view. Over a period of 14 years until its publication in 2001, Smith translated Books I, II, and III of De Aspectibus, the Latin translation of the seven-book Book of Optics from the 22 existing manuscripts in the libraries of Europe. He also used Risner 1572, the printed version, Risner being the man who renamed Alhacen to Alhazen, which is the form we all used to use until it became clear than Alhacen is Ibn al-Haytham. But in Smith's findings, Risner introduced errors. Smith, having the advantages of computers, tabulated the differences between the manuscripts, rectified the text, and translated De Aspectibus. Smith has given us a complete English translation, a critical edition with Notes and Commentary, from the medieval Latin translation of Ibn al-Haytham's Kitab al-Manazir (See Smith 2001, 2006, 2008, 2010 in the Book of Optics article). This was a big step:

In 1964 G. J. Toomer reviewed Matthias Schramm's Habilitationsschrift 1963 Ibn al-Haytham's Weg Zur Physik and found he could not accept Schramm's assessment of Ibn al-Haytham's place in modern physics, accepting only that "Schramm has demonstrated .. beyond any dispute that Ibn al-Haytham is a major figure in the Islamic scientific tradition, particularly in the creation of experimental techniques."

That's how I used to think of Galileo myself, until I read Samuel Sambursky's anthology on Physical thought from the Pre-socratics to the quantum physicists (1974) and learned about Alhazen, p.136. This anthology included an excerpt, Schwarz's English translation of Baarman's translation of Treatise on Light from Arabic to German which showed clearly that Alhazen was a thoroughly modern experimenter, 600 years before Galileo's refinement of the applications for the telescope, namely to astronomy.

And if one doesn't think Alhacen didn't have skill in experiment and atmospheric physics (before our own time), consider that Alhacen deduced from here on Earth, that outer space was not filled with air, but was more rarified than air, 1000 years before us. What was his equipment? The naked eye, an armillary sphere, an astrolabe, and a place both high enough to observe your favorite fixed star, and the horizon. ("the body of the heavens is rarer than the body of air": Book of Optics Book VII [4.28-4.29]).^{[1]: Section 2, p.270}

What I remember from reading Smith's critical edition is that I saw dozens of citable passages on experiment in Alhacen's theory of vision (Books I, II, and III). Alhacen shows clearly that he thought of experiment as a resource. Got a question? Just run the experiment. ... Anyway, Toomer 1964 stated that the historians needed the translations. Toomer 1964 stated that there aren't many historians like Schramm, (who could read Arabic, Greek, Latin, Chinese, Spanish etc, as well as mathematics articles)^[2]. In 2010, thanks to Smith, we then had the data for historians to verify Schramm's claim that Ibn al-Haytham is the true founder of modern physics.^[2] I look forward to your reply. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 11:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Smith 2001 does trace influences on the Aristotelian theory of visual perception, from Euclid and Ptolemy to Galen, and the Islamic natural philosophers, physicians and anatomists, and mathematicians. But at 814 pages in Smith 2001, might I suggest that Smith 1981 is a more accessible source? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough resonse to my contribution. I think Smith's translation of the original text of Alhazen proves the strong claim about Alhazen in the article when it comes to the use of experiments. The article should link to this publication, Smith (2010), http://www.jstor.org/stable/20787651, from which this should be relatively obvious, provided that I am not missing something crucial. It is also common knowledge that structured experimentation was not in fashion in Catholic Europe in this period. I think "by emphasizing experiments" is better than "by emphasizing experimental data", as "data" is only a specific kind of knowledge to be gained from experiments. There is another claim in the article that Alhazen "furthered the Aristotelian viewpoint". This is a far too general sentence. You mention in the above that you are referring to Aristotle's theory of propagation of forms. I know Aristotle's theory of forms, but I have not heard about his theory of propagation of forms, and a Google search does not reveal much about it. Maybe this point is, nevertheless, more about the philosophy of science. There are many things that can be said about the philosophy of science in the article, but in that case I think we need to do it properly and not only mention it all of a sudden in this passage. My recommendation is therefore that Alhazen is relevant to the article, but that the mention of Aristotle is removed.Narssarssuaq (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

And thank you for your response. Aristotle is important to the story because as part of Alhacen's theoretical framework, Aristotle helped to imprison our understanding for 20 centuries including countless school children in not just Europe, but also the Mideast, leaving Kepler to decipher the puzzle. See the article, it's in the Renaissance section. We have centuries of scientists to thank for the process, (notably Francis Bacon, who had the courage to leave the university over this) not just Alhacen, but finally, Kepler 1604. I will try to unify the narrative about this. I would appreciate your feedback as we work through this.

Perhaps I might mention the eidolon of Ancient Greece, which has an explanation in the process of image formation in optics. In a nutshell, Aristotle left the door wide open on the phantasm as an allowed form (it's the cognate of idol). Alhacen's descendants, the Perspectivists imagined that these forms entered the eyes to reside in the ventricles of the brain, where the common sense could engage with them, perhaps in the soul. The theory led us astray. But we have to be careful in the article about assigning the blame. It's irrelevant after all. A red herring. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 19:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

OK, I changed it. As for the Renaissance section, as it stands it uses too much space in the start discussing medieval figures. It is also somewhat difficult to follow. Could you rewrite this so the reader gets a clear understanding of why optics had such a central role and what the key difference between Alhazen and Kepler is, and how this development was a revolution of sorts? I think you are onto a key explanation here, if you manage to make the text more concise and clear. Narssarssuaq (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

By the way, from the philosophical point of view I think a parallel to the narrative of optical theories is the narrative of the problem of universals, but optics seems to be a more original and less convoluted way of approaching this matter. I am looking forward to your edits. Narssarssuaq (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Narssarssuaq, Smith's view is that Alhacen set the stage by preparing Europe for the revolution, and that others ignited that revolution, such as Kepler. As your edits currently stand, there is a nice transition away from Aristotle to Epicurus, as the article section shows more and more that A's teleological reasoning is falling away, just as you express it. I will attempt to reword Smith's explanations using the Perspectivists as the vehicle. It's in Smith 2001's Notes section, and in Smith 1981 p.569, as outline. Epicurus' Canon (rules 1 and 2) has been my guide (But Epicurus is not essential to your request. The ruler (Canon) comes from Elizabeth Asmis (1984), Epicurus' Scientific Method. More on this later, perhaps.). Can we work together on this: 'Apperception' comes from Smith 2001 p.lxiii, according to the article. I looked it up, apperception of the individual and universal forms is on p.lxiii. Smith has more on this as I recall, I have to look it up some more. 'Pivots' is from Smith 1981. As I recall he doesn't need all 4 forms / causes, just 3. Edits to come. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 22:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Narssarssuaq, I have simplified the 'pivot' statement, depicting the causal chain with only three of the four causes. The revolution is complete when we realize that no prime mover is required, by Newton's first law. Granted, we can shape the universe, but it takes resources (efficient cause). I'm pretty sure you will make more edits. The 1240 date comes from Smith 2001.--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 07:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The prime mover comes back, though, with the Second law of thermodynamics in the 19th century and the rejection of the Steady State theory in the 20th century. Arguably this idea never left the field of chemistry. Narssarssuaq (talk) 08:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I've made some changes, and removed a little of your text - we should avoid placing undue weight on Alhazen and Smith. I still think your sentences could be easier to understand for regular people. Kepler's most famous contribution was within cosmology, but that in turn was linked to optics and to the shift in ontology that you are trying to describe. You mention "This theory utilizes only three of Aristotle's four causes: formal, material, and final" and I would add ", and the implication of this is"............ what is the implication? Do you know? Narssarssuaq (talk) 10:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Narssarssuaq The biggest one is the fall of certainty in science.

A causal chain of four nested levels is broken. One needs only one cause, to have cause and effect.

Teleology becomes unnecessary if one need not ask "why", but teleology provided a comfort level for those who are willing to delegate their individual responsibility for their own lives. Aristotle was a biologist, but one can have biology without teleology. The formalism fell by the wayside as an unwieldy artifact. I admit this realization took centuries.

"Separation of concerns" is exemplified by Kepler's refusal to examine the optical chain beyond the back of the sphere of the eyeball. Others solved the problem of the optical chain after Kepler turned back to the orbit of Mars.

The disappearance of the eidolon is one result. No more monsters in the night to terrify children.

Although this didn't become completely clear until the 20th c. the shift from laws to models might be mentioned. Thus a model is a resource without the baggage of a 'law'.

It is still possible to have an ethics, ala Epicurus and atomism, even as an Aristotelian ethics fell. But Chinese ethics, for example, has held for thousands of years. These issues will be addressed by others, in time. (As in ethical responsibility, in the sense of a common sense? I don't have any citations.)

We just need for us to get the history section in shape to address the expectations of the encyclopedia. After you are satisfied, I suspect you might want to turn to the philosophy section, but later please.

How about dropping a few 'clarify' tags in the places where we need them, right now? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the history section has been upgraded by our edits. It's perhaps too long compared to the rest of the article, but I will not condense it now. Narssarssuaq (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to this article. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The formal sciences are often excluded as they do not depend on empirical observations.[4] Q: EXCLUDED: FROM WHAT and BY WHO? CLARIFICATION NEEDED!

- From what? Obviously: from the definition of *science*.

  Citation needed --- "[4]" is a dead link, and for what is worth, may have never contained the above statement.

- By who? By an insignificant number of people who raise such questions on the Internet.

  The above statement sounds false as-is, and even "sometimes excluded" would be rather undue. For example, in all non-English versions of the science Wikipedia-article, formal sciences are first-class members of science.

The statement should be removed.

UPDATE: Someone found the missing link, but it turns out, that that source actually treats formal sciences as first-class members of science!

There are now two references and the statement has been changed. No distinctions are made with respect to 1st or 2nd class. Regards, danielkueh (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion: As the formal sciences can be said to be the TEHORETICAL foundation for all other sciences, any proposition about the formal sciences are outmost important. I tend towards saying that this statement (as quoted above) is biased and unsubstantiated in its present form with its present reference.

I am doing a meta-anlysis on the matter, and hope to be able to contribute further to the matter with substantial information.

In the meantime it seems totally paradoxical to have the quoted sentence and still keep formal science at the top of the box to the right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:c1a0:488a:d400:e5a0:ee9c:6d:b2d2 (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2017‎

When discussing the formal sciences like mathematics, it is not mentioned as part of the natural or social sciences. Indeed there are differences between how mathematicians is studied and how the natural and social sciences operate.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 02:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Please see Imre Lakatos, Proofs and Refutations for one method used in mathematics which is analogous to experiment in science in the physical or social world, namely a conjecture's role as a touchstone, and then awaiting its refutation by other mathematicians. This cycle of conjecture and refutation is analogous to the cycle of hypothesis and experiment. It appears that one kind of mathematics is to build theories as towers of abstraction e.g. ordinal analysis, which other mathematicians might spurn, or attempt to scale from their own towers, perhaps via proof assistants, as in Vladimir Voevodsky's efforts -- see his motivic cohomology. His motivation was to solve the following: "Mathematical research currently relies on a complex system of mutual trust based on reputations. —Voevodsky", which is also a problem in the encyclopedia, and not just in mathematics or science. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 17:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I think formal sciences are included too often in this article and by WP:WEIGHT their prominence should be very much reduced. A quick google search "is mathematics part of science?" will quickly indicate this. Since it is a question that is raised and they are called formal sciences they should be included but that part then pointed at formal science. That isn't a wonderful article currently but it is where the main discussion about formal science should be put. Dmcq (talk) 17:19, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The infinitudes of the number of possible forms can occupy mathematicians; perhaps others will work on that page. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 17:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Why did you write that? Dmcq (talk) 22:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I can't understand why this event is not part of the gravitational wave astronomy article. What am I missing? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 20:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Well I'm pretty certain it shouldn't be here. It would be better to get a list of things to put here from one of the innumerable such lists like instead. Why didn't you put that in the gravitational wave astronomy article instead? Dmcq (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't think of the possibility that the article was short-handed. I will do the work. Thanks for motivating me to count the number of co-authors: it's at least 3380, conservatively speaking. 952 institutions. 30 teams collaborated. I saw 1 Nobel Laureate for sure. So granting that the Higgs discovery is important enough to mention in this article, the direct observation of a formerly theoretical event ought to be reckoned by the scientific community as in the same league as the Higgs boson, just based on the attention accorded by the co-authors. Other important ramifications are the direct observation of the creation of metals heavier than iron, in a matter of seconds from the neutron star merger, and an explanation of one source of 1/f noise. Corroboration of Einstein's prediction that gravitational waves travel at the speed of light. There must be a dozen results from this one science event. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 01:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The point is that is WP:OR, we should be using outside sources that say something like it is amongst the 50 most important scientific discoveries. Dmcq (talk) 09:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The project is among the select few listed (and funded), requesting funding in the yearly requests of the sponsoring scientific agencies -- such as NSF (See the map of gravitational-wave observatories on the NSF web page).

The number of names in a published paper in a reliable source is a verifiable fact. Counting is a routine calculation. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 11:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Because "chance favors the prepared mind"; it being the direct observation of a chance condition, a hoped-for but unexpected occurrence. Notice how a chance discovery by the systems of the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope was heavily dependent on luck. Literally thousands of scientists avoided the risks in confirmation bias, and minimized their need for inference of an imagined condition, because the automated detection software posted information about an appropriate quadrant of the sky in a timely way, which cut down their search volume in both space and time.

It could just as well have been a null result, and the systems could still have been out there searching until their funding or other resources had run out (It was a confidence booster for the post-docs as well. There are articles on LIGO which documents how their projects were removed after a few successful runs which demonstrated the science. Not to mention the predictions by theoreticians from the the 1990s, only now confirming that a gamma-ray burst from a neutron star merger lasts less than two seconds, or that kilonovas are confirmed to explain the origin of elements heavier than iron, which had been an open question even before George Gamow attempted his explanation. ).

LIGO was on the verge of shutdown for upgrade before the direct observation. Without the direct observation, it was a theoretical form only, accessible only to those imaginations capable of producing it, and selecting it from the infinitude of forms. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 11:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

This is still your original research. Have a look at where it isn't even listed as one of the ones for 2017. I think it is important but we should be working from external sources for assessments like this. There needs to some basis for saying it is a better candidate for inclusion than other things as in that list and just describing the thing itself as you have above does not do that. Dmcq (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

That statement of OR is a judgement by an individual, in fact, which does not make it so. That methodology indeed holds for individuals, but not for teams working in concert on a shared goal.

I like how your survey suggestion includes the putative to-do list as of August 2017, followed by an escape clause ',(so far)' in the title, when the chance event we are referring to, was actually observed that month, 10 days before the suggested to-do list for us, was posted to the web 2017 August 18 for consumption by the public, 10 days later than the chance observation.

The observed event, now identified for us as GW170817 bespeaks a whole methodology behind the process that the scientific team utilized.

Might we, as the editors profitably apply a similar method to this article? That we build a like system for item selection?

As the article stands, the citation displays the team's methodology (it's in the IOP article), namely that they built their system (which embodies the hypotheses (theories, in the jargon)) over a number of years, they started the science (jargon for the observation process), find candidates (meaning let the system detect events), evaluate the candidates (meaning let the scientists compare their expectations/hopes and communicate them informally in the teams), and post the successful ones which embody the mooted theory, to the larger community and to us, the public).

Note this methodology, which has been successfully practiced for centuries, if not a thousand years, is becoming more formal over the centuries, as the science is devolving from solitary inquiry to communications of ever more formal results among a team of teams. Note that the individual contributors still seem to be able to recite the Big picture.

We can't predict the chance events, which makes the methodology in the citation so useful to them, and to the encyclopedia as well. It gives us respect for the scientists who are putting their futures on the line, as well as for the funding sources such as NSF. The 30 Collaborations listed in parentheses behind the names of the Principal investigators listed in the IOP article are payback to their funding sources, not to mention the payback to the 952 institutions listed in the affiliations of the 3380+ coauthors, by the fact of publication of this reliable source. 15:16, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Sample surveys like that do not prove your attempted point: Intel's surveys failed to predict the personal computer when in fact they were in a position to profit for decades from their first product semiconductor memory, or their hallmark microprocessor. I suggested a source: the National Science Foundation's annual reports, above (I put 2015 because 2016 already was able to report Nobel-quality success). That is in the article already under science policy. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 12:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't have to prove that we should not do original research. It is a Wikipedia policy WP:OR. Wikipedia should follow, not lead. That also follows from WP:N, we should remain neutral, and following what reliable sources say is the way to achieve that. As to predicting things see WP:CRYSTALBALL. Perhaps next year's lists of outstanding scientific achievements of this century will list it - but they don't do so at the moment. Dmcq (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The guideline that you appear to have internalized in your interactions in the encyclopedia is Wikipedia:Use of tertiary sources. It is an essay, not a policy. To me, you appear to have taken the essay as your interpretation of WP:NOR as policy; in fact you conspicuously do not use the term Tertiary. The essay blesses Secondary sources as well as Tertiary, which I have demonstrated that I adhere to.

But the Science article is so broad and general that attempts to turn it into a Good Article foundered 6 years ago for lack of decent Tertiary sources (this is the summary of the findings from 6 years ago: "Tertiary sources were needed" -- Fifelfoo's conclusion.) A review article qualifies as Secondary, according to the essay. This situation holds to this day. When you attempted to convey your interpretation of OR to me with well-meant examples (the lists of top 50, etc., which are Tertiary sources), your own suggestions similarly floundered, as shown in the interactions above, precisely because of the dearth of acceptable Tertiary sources (e.g., when I pointed out the bugs in the sources).

Now my contribution, above, used a Secondary source (the Science citation), but you will have noticed that I do not hesitate to use Primary sources (e.g., the IOP citation), because the difference is that use of Primary sources requires skill. That our interaction has demonstrated that you would in fact accept a decent Tertiary source, were it to appear in the future, regardless whether you term it that or not, shows that we could have a meeting of the minds in the future. I can wait. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 22:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dbachmann: A sentence by an author of children's books is getting mis-cited using a reference item which in fact cites the place of Alhacen in the development of scientific method, and ideas for which Gaileo is reknowned, six centuries after Alhacen. The appropriate sentence would have better acknowledged the place of Alhacen in the development of scientific method (as agreed by at least Toomer and Schramm in the 1960s), and also that Alhacen was "the true founder of modern physics" as stated by Schramm 1964. This claim was received skeptically in Toomer's 1964 review of Schramm's Habilitationsschrift 1963.

Schramm was able to read Greek, Latin, Chinese, Arabic, ... but now that Alhacen's Optics has been fully translated into English, it will be possible for other historians to address Toomer's point. I can create that sentence if you don't want to.

The article history shows the cut-and-paste operations which apparently created this situation. Apparently the Steffens sentence has been remedied, but we need the Toomer/Schramm sentence to be added in to repair the situation.

Since it is possible to trace these developments over the centuries, we might add them as well. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 16:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The picture is quite misleading, from an epistemological point of view it makes no sense to map science branches with size: - Physics is part of all sizes, not only on the atomic size. - Brains are not at the size of 1 mm. - Mathematics are on everything too.

Depending on epistemological axioms, physics can be seen as the most original science. Chemistry is an emergence of that (the combination/simplification of physcial rules for a large quantity of physical objects (atoms,...)). Biology as an emergence of Chemistry and so on. But this view is controversally discussed in epistemology, maybe it's worth a separate discussion.

In each way I suggest to delete the picture as it is wrong.

188.193.150.100 (talk) 09:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

See chapter 3 of The Feynman Lectures on Physics it refers to which is about the relation of physics to the other sciences. It seems to me to be a fairly reasonable illustration for what is there. I think you'd need to propose some better illustration rather than just saying you think that is wrong. Dmcq (talk) 10:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The section Modern Science, added in the past few months, makes a lot of broad statements unsupported by any citations. It also seems out of place; if any of the material is worth keeping, it belongs in Philosophy of science and Scientific practice. I propose deleting it. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Support

1. Support deletion per WP:BRD --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 18:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
2. Pablum ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
3. Weasel wording in the first sentence, reads like an essay, prescriptive generalities, out of place. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
4. Support per reasons given above. danielkueh (talk) 20:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Oppose

Discuss

O.k., I think the consensus is pretty clear. RockMagnetist(talk) 03:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Should science in popular culture have its own section or "see also" link, or is it too "nonscientific" and broad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperTurboChampionshipEdition (talk • contribs) 15:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I have added a "see also" link. Science in popular culture has made an intriguing start, but a lot more could be done, and I think it merits its own section in this article. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The category Science in popular culture has several items in it, and I'm amused to see that Electromagnetic pulse in popular culture is 20 times as big as Science in popular culture. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Science has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

A link to the article about scientific disciplines would be helpful. Eg the sentence starting with "Disciplines which use science like…" could instead read "Disciplines which use science like…" 141.163.105.30 (talk) 09:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 11:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Are there any better top page images out there, other than the current? -Inowen (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I restored the previous image as it is more reflective of the broader nature of this article, which encompasses not just physics, biology, and chemistry, but also the behavioral, social, and formal sciences as well. danielkueh (talk) 01:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Science has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

186.149.227.196 (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. You have not made any request. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The intro says: "Contemporary science is typically subdivided into the natural sciences which study the material world, the social sciences which study people and societies..." I do not see how this makes sense. People and societies are part of the material world as well, aren't they? Is it supposed to be "... natural sciences which study nature ..."? --rtc (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:Be bold. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 12:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

While people are often considered as material beings, or depending on your position on consciousness as material and/or conscious beings, the division of human scholarly effort separates the disciplines which deal with the physical world separable from conscious or social behaviour, and the material world which is conscious or social. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Science has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

2601:644:8300:11D1:163:2945:116F:C36F (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Science has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change Ancient Egyptions to Ancient Egyptians AbeWine (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Done: Good catch. Thanks! danielkueh (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I edit the 3rd line in the 2nd paragraph to align with what we know today as true that (Muslims influenced the revival of natural philosophy in the West during the 13th century and was the precursor of natural science through the 19th century). But it was labeled as (An overstatement and somewhat counterfactual) by Danielkueh here. Did I missed something in my history of science class? @Danielkueh: you are invited to debate here. Thank you Karachiguy (talk) 05:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I can't comment on your history class and I'm not particularly interested in debating as much as discussing the merits of that edit, which was reverted because it IS an overstatement. No doubt, translations of Islamic science from Arabic sources in the 11th century was just one of the many factors that led to the revival of natural philosophy in Western Europe. And that translation came from Europeans (e.g., Gerbert) proactively making contact with the Islamic world and not passively receiving instructions to do so as your edit implies. Other factors include the rediscovery and translation of the original Greek and Latin sources, the establishment of universities, urbanization, and economic and social renewal. So to reduce all that to "Muslims influenced the revival of natural philosophy in the West during the 13th century.." is not only simplistic and has the wrong timeline, it is just wrong. danielkueh (talk) 05:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

@Danielkueh: We have to somehow connect previous line about Islamic Golden Age with the revival in the 13th century in the West. So how do you suggest we do that...english is not my mother tongue so maybe you can write it. Karachiguy (talk) 05:41, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

If we were to connect those two statements, then we would have to make a statement about the fall of the Western Roman Empire, etc. Such details might inadventently change the nature of this article from Science to History of Science. But if there's a strong consensus to take that approach, then at the most, I would say something like "The recovery and assimilation of Greek and Islamic science into Western Europe during the 10th to 12th century led to the revival of natural philosophy in the West." Anything more than that would be more than overkill and belongs in the main body of this article. danielkueh (talk) 05:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

I'll make a modest attempt. But I will hold the line as I really think the history bit is starting to get too long (see WP:undue). danielkueh (talk) 06:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The add by Karachiguy looked pretty modest and short. I don't think talk page space is needed for this. Simple reword to something simple like "The revival of natural philosophy in the west partly involved the recovery of Greek sources and research from the Islamic world." would be fine with me. I think is is short and gets the gist of it. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 06:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Appreciate the 50 cents. The changes [] have already been made. danielkueh (talk)

Changes looks good. Thank you Karachiguy (talk) 06:43, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Note: By 1021, Alhacen had used experimental reasoning to establish that outer space is more rarified than our atmosphere. Alhacen's experimental procedure to establish this fact is in Smith's translation of Book of Optics, but the world was unready for Alhacen. The progress of science took centuries, as evidenced, for example in Averroism#Averroism_and_scholasticism. For me, this leads to the question "why didn't the scientific revolution occur outside Europe?". The printing press was clearly one factor, but the funding of science in Europe must have been another factor, not to mention the Mongol Empire stopping short of western Europe (the Mongols had conquered all of China by 1279, reaching Europe by 1294; a Chinese scholar convinced them to accept the income from taxation, rather than razing the cities of China for pastureland). --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 08:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Fascinating. danielkueh (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

• @Danielkueh and Ancheta Wis: Above editor (Karachiguy) is a sock of Eulalefty and has been blocked accordingly. I have reverted to the pre-Karachiguy version. Lorstaking (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. The latest version of the lead was actually a well sourced version that excluded the sockpuppet's edit. danielkueh (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

The leading section has a confused paragraph about the loss and recovery of Greek “science” in the Middle Ages and after:

“After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, knowledge of Greek science deteriorated in Western Europe during the Middle Ages[5] but thrived in the Islamic Golden Age.[6] The recovery and assimilation of Greek and Islamic science into Western Europe during the 10th to 13th century[5][7] preceded the revival of natural philosophy in the West, which continued to develop as the precursor of natural science from the Renaissance through the 19th century.”

To begin clarifying the paragraph, I added “Early” to “Middle Ages”, (because it is agreed among historians that the loss of Greek knowledge in the Latin West occurred in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, afterwards there was a stagnation about Greek texts until the High Medieval translations) which @Danielkueh: reverted saying that “Recovery and assimilation is not the same as “revival,” which came later”, which is:

1. irrelevant, since we are talking about the knowledge of Greek science, which was mostly complete during the High Middle Ages, not a new scientific practice. The Renaissance translations were mostly of rhetorical and historical texts, not scientific texts;
2. false, since there wasn’t a “revival” of Greek science in the Early Modern period, but a new enterprise, which mostly discarded Greek conceptions, and that was as different from the Greek practice as from Medieval practice, and from today’s science;
3. incoherent, since how could the revival have occurred “later”, if the text says that “knowledge of Greek science thrived in the Islamic Golden Age” and this arabic knowledge had already been totally translated by the end of the 13th century?

Furthermore, the distinction made in the paragraph and User:Danielkueh between the “the recovery and assimilation of Greek and Islamic science [...] in the 10th to 13th centuries” which “preceded the revival of natural philosophy in the West”, is confusing and misleading, and even false, because natural philosophy was already being taught in the Universities in the Middle Ages (a letter written by the University of Paris in 1254 mentioned the faculties of "theology, jurisprudence, medicine, and rational, natural, and moral philosophy”; the statutes of the University of Paris were revised in 1255 to include the “libri naturales” of Aristotle), so there already was a consciousness of a “revival” of natural philosophy in the High Middle Ages. Moreover, the distinction between “assimilation” and “revival” is vague at best, since the former somehow presupposes a purely passive role, which is an idealization or abstraction not supported by reality. Josebarbosa (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The current lead along with its wording ("distinctions" if you prefer) are supported by verifiable and reputable secondary sources and is consistent with the history section of this article and the History of Science article. Your first two assertions (e.g., ...but a new enterprise, which mostly discarded Greek conceptions...), however, are not (see WP:V). And please familiarize yourself with WP policies (e.g., WP:V, WP:consensus, and WP:OR) rather than edit warring. I also recommend going over WP:BRD. Thanks danielkueh (talk) 21:43, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The current lead with its wording (“After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, knowledge of Greek science deteriorated in Western Europe during the Middle Ages[5] but thrived in the Islamic Golden Age.[6] The recovery and assimilation of Greek and Islamic science into Western Europe during the 10th to 13th century[5][7] preceded the revival of natural philosophy in the West),is not supported by the sources, since the source cited in its support contradicts it ("The revival of learning in the West". The beginnings of Western science: the European Scientific tradition in philosophical, religious, and institutional context (Second ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 193–224), explicitly distinguishing the “Early Middle Ages” from the rest of the period: “Chapter 9: The REVIVAL OF LEARNING IN THE WEST

It will be convenient to subdivide this period into the Early Middle Ages (500-1000), a transition period (1000-1200), and the High or Late Middle Ages (1200-1450) [...] we have observed (chap. 7) the declining fortunes of the Roman Empire... Certainly scholarship on scientific subjects declined...

NATURAL PHILOSOPHY IN TWELFTH-CENTURY SCHOOLS

[...]

If the mathematical sciences remained generally inconspicuous, ARISTOTELIAN NATURAL PHILOSOPHY BECAME CENTRAL TO THE CURRICULUM. From modest beginnings late in the twelfth century, Aristotle’s influence grew until, by the second half of the thirteenth century, his works on metaphysics, cosmology, physics, meteorology, psychology, and natural history became compulsory objects of study.” etc.

So we have clearly a case of improper synthesis or irrelevant citation, if the current wording is maintained. Josebarbosa (talk) 23:02, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I'm starting to see where you are coming from and I'm hoping we won't continue to discuss at cross-purposes. I'm not going to quibble about specific periods during the Middle Ages because I don't think that is the point of contention here. But for those who are interested in the entire context provided by above-mentioned source, the entire passage can be found here (). I believe we're disagreeing about the word "revival." As I'm reading the mid-part of the sentence, "the revival of natural philosophy in the West," I am thinking of the *practice* of natural philosophy (the precursor of natural science) itself, which would involve the many new discoveries and profound transformations that occurred during the renaissance (p. 274 of []). However, if I understand you correctly, you're interpreting that sentence to include the period of *learning* from the translated texts (part of the recovery and assimilation process during 10th through 13th century). Is that right? If so, I see the confusion and I believe changing it to *Early Middle Ages* will not solve that issue. Instead, it may be better to change the term "revival" to something more specific, such as "transformation and development of ...," that better describes the major activities of the renaissance. I'm open to other concrete suggestions here. Thanks. danielkueh (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

I changed "revival" to "transformation []" and added a specific timeline based on the following statement from the above source:

"There is no question that knowledge of Greek natural and mathematical science had fallen precipitously, and few original contributions to it appeared in Western Europe during the early centuries of the medieval period (roughly 400-1000). (p. 155 of Lindberg)."

Both wikilinks to Early Middle Ages and Middle AgesSpecific years (400-1000 AD) have been inserted, which I think would benefit readers. I did not include wikilinks to the Early Middle Ages as the timeline (500-1000) and period designations used by Lindberg are somewhat different from the WP article (5th or 6th to 10th century). Hopefully, this resolves the issue but if there are other concerns, please feel free to bring them up. Thanks danielkueh (talk) 03:23, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The explanation of all natural phenomena using 'atom and void', or Atomism was well-developed by the time of the Pre-socratics, and not by the Ancient Greeks alone. The atomic theory endorsed by thinkers such as Epicurus was complete enough for him to be able to assert that 'the gods are indifferent to us and our fates': completely naturalistic, an atheistic philosophy, not from the Greeks alone (see the Atomism article). In fact, using Epicurus' method of thinking, the only place left for the gods to inhabit that Epicurus could envision was in the interstices (That was why we can't see the gods).

For more, see the Hellenists .

See:

• Elizabeth Asmis, Epicurus' Scientific Method
• Epicurus, Letter to Herodotus
• Lucretius, 'On the nature of things'

--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 08:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Interesting as always. :) danielkueh (talk) 08:11, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Interestingly, there are many similarities between early Greek and early Indian philosophy such as atomism. But any Hindu parallels seem excluded from the article. The credit to atomism is given only to the pre-Socratics in the article, which is not completely objective. According to Naturalistic Tradition in Indian Thought by Dale Maurice Riepe, the earliest authenticated instance of atomism is around the times of the Charvakas, Jains and Pakudha Kaccayana. There are many similarities between the views of Epicurus and Pakudha Kaccayana. Kaccayana had a similar naturalistic, atomistic and atheistic philosophy, and wrote: "There are these seven substances — unmade, irreducible, uncreated, without a creator". Some authors claim that atomism emerged in the 6th century BC in India and a century later in Greece. These authors refer to the earliest possible proponent of atomism, Kanada, who predates the possible time frame of Democritus. --Ramadut (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Wouldn't the Atomism article be a better place for this discussion? Khirurg (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

And the thread above could be named 'First attempts at a materialist understanding of science' since Nature is a Greek idea? Several ideas are in play here:

1. The gods (the stars in Mesopotamian cosmogony)
2. The gods of Egypt (creation narratives)
3. The 4/5/7 primordial elements in a scientific narrative
4. Atom and void as explanatory idea - hence no need for narratives about the gods
5. Ancient India's narrative
6. On the Nature of Things - very similar ideas in both India and Greece, India seems to have preceded the Pre-socratics

etc

--Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs)

I'm sorry, I don't follow. What is this list supposed to mean? "The gods"? What is the "The Nature of Thing"? Khirurg (talk) 22:07, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

It was an incomplete submittal. The basic idea is that 'the gods' are an explanatory narrative. OK? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 22:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

At the very least, this article needs India's contribution to the state of science/ philosophy. Especially Charvaka and the role of doubt in science. Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 22:21, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

An explanatory narrative? By whom? For what? What are you talking about? Second, as you may know, the chronology of ancient India is extremely problematic (e.g. Boyer pp. 206-208 ). Dates should be treated with caution and any claims of precedence even more so. Khirurg (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

And now we have JSTOR, so some digging is in order. The urge to clarify is strong here; thank you for asking. I have to state that Indian literature is fully as ancient as Greek or Chinese literature, and these cultures predate the West. Ask away. This ought to be enlightening. But I need your skeptical eyes. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 22:30, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

We've always had JSTOR, I don't understand what you mean. Regarding chronology, because there are no written records from India from antiquity, assigning dates is highly problematic. For example Kanada has been dated anywhere from the 7th to the 2nd century BC . The problem of dating is longstanding and unlikely to be resolved soon. On the other hand, the chronology of Egypt, Mesopotamia and Greece is on a much firmer footing. This is why sources like Lindberg and Grant discuss Egypt, Mesopotamia and Greece at length, but scarcely mention India.Khirurg (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

For example this is from JSTOR— p.180 verifies that Aruni is Uddalaka: G. S. Ghurye Ascetic Origins Sociological Bulletin Vol. 1, No. 2 (1952), pp. 162-184 JSTOR login required; I assume you can verify this citation. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 22:47, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

#Atomism is an explanatory header (a sample narrative), which I was assuming enough context for you. Aruni could very well have predated the Presocratics, but he might have been a contemporary of Buddha. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Or, he may not have. The Buddha is variously dated from the 6th century BC to 400 BC . Again, the problem is chronology. In the absence of written records, it is impossible to establish accurate chronology. Khirurg (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Fine, let's anchor to the Pali Canon, then. Now the problem is to find a citation that relates Aruni's time to Buddha's time. The Mahabharata 1.3 seems to locate Aruni's time, so then find a citation that anchors Mahabharata. Off to JSTOR ... 23:26, 1 September 2018 (UTC) I was forced to download Painted Grayware culture because JSTOR ... Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:43, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

The dates of Painted Grayware pottery nowhere overlap with punchmarked coins, which are coeval with the Presocratics, or as young as Alexander the Great. Conclusion: Painted Grayware pottery is much older than the Presocratics.^[1] Now anchor Mahabharata. ... 23:58, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Mahabharata anchors to 950-900 BCE.^[2]

Thus Aruni predates the Presocratics' atomic theory. Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 00:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Your kidding right? The Mahabharata is myth. What does it have to do with Aruni? We are deep, deep in WP:OR] territory. Khirurg (talk) 00:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Btw, B.B. Lal is a well-known Hindu nationalist. Mahabharata? Pali Canon? Painted Grey Ware? we are all over the place. This is making less and less sense. Bottom line is, it is impossible to establish a proper date for Aruni (it is not even possible to do so for the Buddha), so any claims of precedence are moot. Khirurg (talk) 00:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Fine. I think we are on the same page about myth. Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 01:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

So, according to Khirurg "There are no written records from India from antiquity"? Not that there are no surviving written records, but even no written records. You simply dismissed an entire period of the Hindu Valley as simply illiterate with some extraordinary claims that are referenced to no source.

I am not here with a firm stance or an agenda, just trying to help with providing more sources. I am unbiased, so adequate doubt, discrediting and skepticism on my proposed points are always needed and very appreciated by me. These presented by Khirurg above were on one-side focus, who seems to have forgotten to imply that there is something to be warned of the ancient Egyptian, Babylonian and Greek chronology and writings. If we are to follow this path, there is a plenty of chance also to discredit ancient written records from other places. The uncertainty actually applies also to Western ancient writings. Many works on the atomistic theory in history are just a probability and unreliable, including this of Democritus. Check this out, Democritus' works "survived only in secondhand reports, sometimes unreliable or conflicting". But a reference of atomism to Democritus is stated as a fact in the Science article, because of an interpretation. I also provided a source claiming that by the time of Kaccayana, the "earliest authenticated instance of atomic conception" had emerged, at least in relation to India only. It turns out that each of these two sources state, respectively, that the reference of atomism to Kaccayana is authenticated, while the writings of Democritus are secondhand and unreliable. Overall, Indian ancient writings on atomism do not seem much of a problem than these of Democritus, to say the least. Of course, as you see, in history virtually nothing is beyond doubt, I admit to doubting the authenticity of both persons and not having a firm stance, just providing some sources. Nothing new in historiography, virtually there are no facts, only different sources and conflicting claims. So, may we agree, that simply all claims in the article should be made in relation to their level of probability, according to conflicting sources provided? This is not the case with what is stated about naturalism and atomism in the article. There is a passage, stating that the first man, who used non-supernatural explanations, was Thales. As I do not have a firm stance, I am not going to argue on chronological and authentic precedences of Uddalaka over Thales as the "first" naturalist or anyone, although some sources do and along with the article read in such an immature tone. The research was incomplete, as there are some academic sources discrediting the writings of Thales: "Doubts have always existed about whether Thales wrote anything". --Ramadut (talk) 01:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I am always very suspicious of those who loudly proclaim "I am neutral". What is the "Hindu Valley"? And it's a fact that there are no writings from India from antiquity. Fact: The oldest surviving Sanskrit text from India are the Edicts of Asoka from ~250 BC. Can you provide a source that says otherwise? This is exactly why dating ancient Indian philosophers is so problematic. Buddha himself is dated to between the 6th century BC to the 4th century BC. Kanada between the 7th century BC to the 2nd century BC. And I did provide sources. In contrast, one of the sources you provided is "philosophybasics.com", and the other source you provided does not make the claim about Democritus that you claim it makes. It is also a fact that the chronology of the Greek philosophers, while not carved in stone, is on a much more solid footing than for the Indian philosophers. No one in their right mind calls into question that Thales lived around the 6th century BC, or Democritus in the 5th century BC. While the precise years may be in doubt, the general chronology is not. Do not try to establish a false equivalence. Khirurg (talk) 02:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, you are misusing the sources. For example, you use a source to claim Doubts have always existed about whether Thales wrote anything, but that does not mean "doubts have existed that Thales existed". In fact, the source you use also states Thales is the first person about whom we know to propose explanations of natural phenomena which were materialistic rather than mythological or theological. Oops. You will also note it gives dates for the life of Thales. Khirurg (talk) 02:15, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

First. Regarding your point of no writing in the Indus Region until 250 BC... You stated that the oldest Sanskrit writing is from 250 BC. I tried to research your claim that the Edicts of Asoka from 250 BC are the oldest Sanskrit texts, but I didn't found any such claims, so it seems there is no such a source. You are kidding or blatantly speculating. If you are not kidding I suggest a break, man, we all need some research and rethinking. Please, provide sources for the datings you mention, you have only provided for Kanada in the passages far above. Are you serious with these datings? Especially the ridiculous oldest datings. The Routledge Encyclopedia can make you the first example for the so called oldest text in Sanskrit, 1000 BC. Writing in Sanskrit is estimated also in the fourteenth century BC . Your underestimated dating is inconsistent towards eastern and western issues.

Second, my point of the disputed survival of writings of Democritus and Thales... We can keep denying one another's point, but I am confident with the provided sources backing me. Here an academic source stating exactly the same claim about the writings of Demicritus, "The work of Democritus has survived only in secondhand reports, sometimes unreliable or conflicting". Academic sources acknowledge it is dubious that any works of Thales and Democritus survived. But the following definition of Thales seem like mentioning a rumor. Doesn't "Whom we know to propose" imply a doubt? It is different than "who proposed", in a factual meaning, the same source claims Doubts have always existed about whether Thales wrote anything. There are all kinds of authors, I even found Laurence Goldstein proposing that "Thales never existed". I am not disputing the existence of Thales, but never mind, there are enough reasons for him to be part of the history of science, whether true or not. --Ramadut (talk) 04:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Careful there. "I have been to Hind and Sind" was an ancient claim to being well travelled; so ancient that the Indus Valley Civilisation was alive then; today India is the heir of Hind and Pakistan is the heir of Sind, and the river valley dried up so long ago that we don't know where the river coursed. I would be cautious in proclaiming the non-existence of that river. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 02:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

This is really weird. Where do I deny the "existence of that river"? I just wanted to know what is this "Hindu Valley" (his words, not mine), because I've never heard of the "Hindu Valley". I was accused of You simply dismissed an entire period of the Hindu Valley as simply illiterate, but I am lost here. Khirurg (talk) 03:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the rhetoric got overheated with the claims. The terminology of śruti and smṛti may be useful tools here; these are technical terms of oral knowledge. The important point is that the knowledge was preserved in the culture in an unbroken thread. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 03:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

What is clear is there was communication between the civilizations, as well as migration, and trade. Certainly in the Americas, this was true.

For China, the communication was undeniable: Buddhism was eagerly sought from the Indian civilization. And Alexander sought to conquer it.

To recap, Atomism was an explanatory narrative for the Epicureans, at least; an Indian analog existed for it, which existed, if not as śruti, then as smṛti in India, recorded in the six systems of Indian philosophy. Lest you scoff because there was no śruti, consider that the oral traditions of China were confirmed in the graves of important people, where there were in fact records written in Classical Chinese on bamboo staves (see Art of War), discovered in the past 50 years. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 03:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)