Talk:Thales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.	Physics Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.
Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

This article is part of the Philosophy WikiProject, an attempt at creating a standardised, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use Philosophy resource. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles.

WikiProject Echo has identified Thales as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French language Wikipedia.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents 1 Help! 1.1 To the 66.29.114 Vandals 1.2 To the sincere 2 Natural and supernatural 3 Move to Thales of Miletus 4 thales' prediction of solar eclipses 5 Hotshot and Deduction 6 wierd words 7 anecdotes 8 Subtle vandalism on ethics 9 Quoting in Greek 10 Featured Article? 11 Astronomy story

[edit] Help!

This article is being totally blitzed by major vandalism. The material is being altered so that it now contains totally erroneous statements; for example, a quote by Nietsche is now attributed to Bertrand Russell. Not only that, but whoever is doing it is not leaving much of a trace. I'm going to have to revert this in a major way. If anyone can help out here I would appreciate that. I'll be back to this article after you have a chance to think about it. You system administrators, note that no good philosophy articles can be written on Wikipedia if this situation is going to prevail.

[edit] To the 66.29.114 Vandals

One or more persons working on three or four computers at 66.29.114 went through and blitzed much of the article. They then left a box around the statement that the Catholic Encyclopedia uses physiologist even though the word already has another meaning.

Am I supposed to conclude that if we say something you consider "wrong" you are going to terrorize us, much in the way the protection racketeers terrorize restaurants? If we are to take this at face value I think you better check with your priest. The church doesn't need the likes of you to "defend" it. The saints do a somewhat better job. St. Francis didn't go around smashing things if he didn't like something someone said. But, I think your box was a false trail. You're just a bunch of sick jerks trying to cast doubt on your purely evil motives. Let me ask you. Life is not all that long, you know? At the end of it, how are you going to account for your life/lives? That you were great terrorists and served evil really well? I don't think I'd like to be standing in your shoes.66.30.94.153 03:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC) Oh, here is my user name.Dave 03:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To the sincere

I had to revert sections of the article back a few months to get it to make any sense. If I inadvertently messed up your sincere correction I am sorry. I am going back through to check. Let me know, will you?Dave 04:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Natural and supernatural

Many philosophers followed his lead in searching for explanations in nature rather than in the supernatural, others returned to supernatural explanations, but couched in the language of philosophy, rather than myth or religion.

I think this sentence presupposes an enlightenment distinction between naturalistic explanations and supernaturalism, which was alien to the Greek thought of the time, and so I think it should be re-written, moved, or at least qualified. --Mark Christensen

There is a distinction to be made here between what is significant as we see it and what is significant as the ancient Greeks might have seen it. Thales is significant to us because he launched a tradition of thought that ultimately led to a scientific revolution, and the essential element of this tradition is the search for causes in nature rather than outside of nature (an extremely radical idea that apparently has never originated independently anywhere else). This is a point that should definitely be included in the article. It basically answers the question, Why should we care about Thales? The question, Why did ancient Greeks care about Thales? might be answered differently, but not by me, because I don't know. - TS

How would you feel about the following:

Thales attempt to explain natural phenomenon without reference to mythology was tremendously influential. All of the other pre-Socratic philosophers follow him in attempting to provide an explanation of ultimate substance, change, and the existence of the world -- without reference to mythology. Those philosophers were also influential, and eventually Thales rejection of mythological explanations became an essential idea for the scientific revolution.

It does not create a naturalism/supernaturalism distinction where it did not exist. But it provides a link to our time...

---

I don't think this is wrong or misleading but I don't know if it is better. You can change it if you have a strong opinion. I would accuse some of the pre-Socratics, notably Pythagoras, of introducing their own mythology to replace the old mythological explanations that the Ionians had rejected. - TS

---

Agreed, the Pythagorean cult could be considered to have created their own mythology. And that's exactly my point -- these philosophers did not make a clear distinction between naturalism and mythology, so their philosophy can, and is sometimes deprecated for not removing all supernaturalist explanations, and at the same time called by others "naturalistic."

---

I think the real distinction is not between naturalism/supernaturalism, or the rejection of mythology, but between cosmologies based on reason and those based on tradition. This is think highlights another flaw in this and some of the other articles on the pre-Socratics -- history of philosophy ought focus on the arguments advanced by these various people, and to a lesser or greater extent all of these articles seem to simply recount a succession of opinions. I'll try to fix that, add clear references to source material, and create an article on pre-Socratic thought which ties these people's ideas together a bit.

This may take some time, as I'll have to dig up my notes on these works, and the copies of the source materials which are buried in a box somewhere.

Also, I agree with your assessment that the prose of the previous example exhibits a vigor and clarity which my revision lacks -- even though I think the original version is incorrect and misleading. I'll fix this before I make any change. --Mark Christensen

No, the ancients made no distinction between natural and supernatural. I have no problem with our using it. We aren't taking the ancient point of view, we are characterizing their point of view for populations remote from them. They believed in both points of view. They defined nature and natural all right, but they also espoused what we would call the supernatural, and that is nowhere so clear as with Thales. We aren't going to espouse the gods, so what on earth can we say except to lead into it with our own concepts? But, we have to present their concepts as their concepts and ours as ours.

I'm happy with the lead in. Excellent presentation.

Sorry I preempted you, Mr. Christiansen. There is no date on your message. You seem to have forgotten about the article. But, should you now decide to do some rewriting, don't worry about me. Anyway, I'm concentrating on sources instead of interpretation, so unless Aristotle or someone said it, I won't care to get into it.Dave 02:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move to Thales of Miletus

Can we plz plz plz move this to Thales of Miletus Lir 12:06 Nov 21, 2002 (UTC)

Why? Adam Bishop 17:58, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I could see it if there was some kind of terrible ambiguity problem, but in practice I see/hear "Thales" by itself more often than with "of Miletus". Stan 18:39, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'm used to hearing him called "Thales of Miletus" and found it vaguely jarring to see the article titled otherwise. (On a side note, you know you're in a backwater article when it takes two years to have one short conversation...) Isomorphic 11:21, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

lol! - Ta bu shi da yu 11:58, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Herodotus calls him Thales of Miletus. Prior to the rise of Athens after 450 BC, Miletus was the richest and most acclaimed Greek city state. We may say Thales because we know of none other than Thales of Miletus. The ancients said Thales of Miletus because there were other minor Thaleses and Miletus gave Thales renown as much as Thales' fame redounded to the credit of his home city. User tdw1203, 3 Jan 2006

Unless there is an article on one of the other Thales mentioned by Diogenes Laertius, why complicate matters? Nobody knows them, everyone knows our Thales.Dave 01:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] thales' prediction of solar eclipses

It is consensus now that Thales did not have the technical wherewithal to predict solar eclipse events. Otto Neugebauer, The exact sciences in Antiquity (Princeton, 1952), 142-end, presents convincing negatory evidence.

Herodotus does not cite Thales as having predicted the solar eclipse of 585. Check out 1.74 where there is no mention of a date of any kind. Herodotus misunderstood eclipse phenomena. He mentions a total solar eclipse for 480 that he says affected Xerxes's march (7.37.1). No such solar eclipse occurred. A lunar eclipse, however, did occur near the supposed time. On the afternoon of 28 May of 585 BC an eclipse could have been observed from the banks of the Halys river; whether it was total or not, even modern astronomical calculation cannot predict with certainty. Herodotus's discussion of the Lydian-Median battle needs revisiting.User:Tdw1203 3 jan. 2006

There is no such consensus. A lot of writing has been done on this and other Thalesian topics. Wouldn't you know it, the points of view are 180 degrees apart. Herodotus is not a major source on Thales; he scarcely mentions him. The convention among historians worth their salt is, unless you have evidence that a source was altered, you need to keep it. What else do you have? All you have is the word of the sources and if that is to be dismissed you have nothing at all. The topic, in other words, is a lot bigger than Neugebauer and he doesn't represent a consensus. I don't think Wiki really has room to get into it. Sometimes the sources are contradictory and one has no choice but to accept it contradictions and all.Dave 01:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hotshot and Deduction

Hello Mr. hotshot, I removed the statement of yours from the intro that Thales introduced deduction to mathematics as vandalism, because I thought it was. It struck me however that you might not think it was. Just in case, I will give you my objection. How can there be any mathematics at all without deduction? How can the Rhind Papyrus have listed problems and solutions 1000 years earlier than Thales without deductive process? Perhaps you are thinking of formal deduction, being influenced by the article on Thales' Theorem. But that statement of it is totally unancient. It could have come out of any modern classroom of geometry. The author of the article did it that way, not because Thales did, but because he/she was trained to do it that way. We have no idea how Thales did it. He left no geometry behind. It's a nice modern article expanding on a statement made about Thales. Nobody says anywhere, yep, before Thales came along, we couldn't even deduce. I know it is very tempting at this end of the lifeline to see the ancients as the first moderns. We've made a big production out of deduction, too big, as far as I am concened (as you can't even deduce how to deduce any more), but all that is far later than Thales. Now, if you don't mean that, you can't possibly mean that human deduction started with Thales. The point is, we don't guess at these things, we have to look at the sources.

   Indeed. Cassirer makes the point that prediction (=deduction) is what mind is all about, well that and play which prepares for acts.- Wblakesx

[edit] wierd words

some things like closeblaareverywierdere don't appear on google. please delete this when done.

The page has suffered a large amount of vandalism and needs to be reverted back to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thales&action=edit&oldid=39030789 (I can't do this myself on this particular computer, the page is too large). Adam Bishop 04:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] anecdotes

Hey, where are some of the anecdotes regarding Thales? I was very surprised not to find the story of his solution to his mules finding out that they could loosen their load of sacks of salt by stubbornly dissolving the sacks in the streams they traversed. Thales solution was to add sponges to the bottom of the sacks! I'll have to find these anecdotes and add them to the page because I've always loved the anecdotes about Thales since I was very young and am *very* surprised that no one has added any?

By all means, put them in. I'm the 75% contributor but I didn't want to make the article too long. You sound pretty enthusiastic. Maybe you can add a dash of verve that will make people want to read about Thales.Dave 16:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subtle vandalism on ethics

Returning to this article months after making the most substantial contribution to it, I find that most of Thales' ethics has been removed. Trying to find the contributor who did it, I end up in a maze of removed discussion page, blockage and the remnants of contributions to Islamic articles. No, no , no, my friend, that is not how it works. We don't alter history to suit this or that religion. Maybe the writing on that section might be condensed or improved but the material is valid. Come forward, please, defend yourself. I'd leave you a message but I can't find your page. I don't think Wikiterror has a legitimate place. You did it very subtly without much trace, so it managed to escape reversion. I will be back to this article later to see what you say and if you have not said anything I intend to rewrite the material putting the ideas back in. I may do that anyway, raising an issue if I have to.Dave 16:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

That's the way things happen here, unfortunately. If it's just some anonymous IP, you'll never find out who did it, and they'll never fix it. You'll have to revert back to a version that makes sense. Adam Bishop 17:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Adam. I'm discovering the limitations of Wikipedia. Another answer would be to restrict access to the articles, but then it wouldn't be Wikipedia. If you have only designated experts working on it, why, then you are at the Encyclopedia Britannica. Maybe you need both. Wikipedia has whipped out a million articles in just a few years, many better than what Britannica does. It is sort of a paradigm of society, isn't it? Some of us keep trying to build while others cut an antic hay through it all destroying what they can for various reasons. Joseph Conrad's Secret Agent seems relevant.Dave 02:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I suppose so...I guess you're the expert here. Vandalism is easier to revert when it is more like "Thales is a poohead". Are you sure that what you're reverting is actually vandalism, and not just a different point of view than your own? (And your message to the vandals above is not very useful, by the way...if they are vandals they will neither see it nor care if they did.) Adam Bishop 04:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quoting in Greek

Is there a reason that the quotes in greek here are transliterated rarther than in original greek? If there are no objections im going to change them so that they are in greek script Fryd1e 18:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article?

I would affirm this article is worthy of becoming a candidate for featured status. Would anyone like to go through the process of getting it considered for such?

I believe there is far too much information on who said what about Thales, and far too much concern for the meanings and translations of his works. This needs to be cleaned up BADLY to provide information on the man, not the translations and who referenced him. --The reverend 04:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Astronomy story

the story regarding thales, the well, and plato (?) doesn't make any sense/is worded very poorly. this article has a long way to go before i would support its status as a featured article. Strawberryfire 13:45, 27 Sept. 2006 (UTC)