Talk:Empedocles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Physics Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.
Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	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.)

This article is part of WikiProject Sicily, an attempt to build a comprehensive collection of articles on the history, geography, culture and political structures of Sicily, and related biographies on Sicilians. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article or visit the project page, where you can join the project and choose from a list of open tasks.

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the Philosophy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy and the history of ideas. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked

Doesn't he deserve credit for formulating the principle of empiricism, too? -- April

Though it can be disputed, most of modern sources credit Empedocles as the first to formulate the theory of four elements (Classical_element actually links here), which stayed the most popular (al)chemical theory for more than a thousand years. His fame as miracle worker and doctor was somewhat connected to the story of his successful action against the plague in Selinuntos, and an epidemic in Acragas (where he let a break be cut into the mountains, so that north winds could drive away unhealthy miasms from nearby marshes); he also established the Italian school of medicine, comparable to the schools of Kos and Knidos. As a note of minor interest, Empedocles theorized that the speed of light may be finite, though still too fast for us to notice the delay in its movement. He was exiled from Acragas after an aristocratic coup, and Diogenes Laertius relates two possible versions of his death: either he threw himself into Etna's crater (possibly to leave an impression of his ascent to heavens), or he died in Peloponnesos, as a refugee. (Diogenes Laertius's biography of Empedocles in Peitho's Web: [1]) -- Oop

[edit] Aristotle endorsed Empedocles?

The article states that "He maintained that all matter is made up of four Elements...water, earth, air and fire. In addition to these, he postulated something called Love (philia) to explain the attraction of different forms of matter, and of something called Strife (neikos) to account for their separation. This theory was endorsed and developed by Aristotle and remained in place until the Renaissance."

What is the basis for the claim that Aristotle endorsed this view? This seems patently false to me. In Metaphysics Book I (Chapter 4), Aristotle does give a sort-of compliment to Empedocles for having grasped (to an extent) two of the causes in nature: "matter and the source of movement" (i.e., the material and efficient causes). He also gives Empedocles credit for being the first to posit TWO (rather than just one) sources of movement. But he adds that Empedocles grasped these causes only "vaguely...and with no clearness," comparing him to a drunken brawler who goes about his fighting in an imprecise (unscientific) way. He says that Empedocles and "these thinkers do not seem to know what they say." This is not only because Empedocles has altogether failed to recognize the other causes in nature (i.e., the formal and the final causes), but also because even his use of the recognized causes is both insufficient and inconsistent.

The claim seems to be based on a gross misunderstanding of Aristotle, so I am removing it from the article.

--CHuRL

[edit] ^{[citation needed]} tags

It seems to me there are way too many ^{[citation needed]} tags here; are there really doubts about all these things? Why were they put there? Is someone pressing for any old source that backs them up (e.g. Internet Encyclopedia of Phil, which has several of these claims) or should we be looking for where these claims were first made? The latter could be an interesting and valuable project, but not central enough to Wikipedia's mission to justify all these ^{[citation needed]} tags. I'm not sure what is gained by simply including links to other internet encyclopedias to "verify" that Empedocles actually wore purple, was said to have invented rhetoric, or was said to have jumped into a volcano. As you can see from the google searches, those claims are ubiquitous enough that they are generally accurate (or at least represent long-repeated inaccurate information); what is really gained from a link to another encyclopedia making the same assertion? On the other hand, a link to whoever first said that Aristotle said that Empedocles invented rhetoric on perseus would be great, but I don't think it is "needed." It's my understanding that the ^{[citation needed]} tag should be used when a claim is suspect, or simply not that common. But not for every single fact that isn't linked to source material -- should I put a ^{[citation needed]} tag on this page because there is no source cited for the claim that the sun is the nearest star to earth? Now, if someone has a reason to suspect these claims are inaccurate, then by all means let's hear about it.--csloat 03:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources where these questions are thoroughly discussed. Jkelly 04:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This sort of situation is not addressed there, to my knowledge. I don't see anything requiring citations be provided in the text of an article for well known and widely accepted facts. I don't see the point of citing other encyclopedias to "prove" that Empedocles wore purple, for example, when every encyclopedia contains that information (and the claim may be equally verifiable or unverifiable). The pages you link to indicate that when questions of verifiability are raised, published sources should be brought to settle such disputes, but I don't see such questions raised here. The above google links take you to plenty of sources to verify these claims; can we now remove the ^{[citation needed]} tags? Or do you really insist that we cite other encyclopedias for every sentence here, most of which is easily verified in any such sources? And where do we draw the line - can you explain why there is no reason to put a ^{[citation needed]} tag next to a sentence like "The first scientific description of fish occurs in Aristotle, who mentions various facts about 118 species." on this page? While it would be great to have a link to Aristotle on perseus there, or even just a citation, would you advocate putting ^{[citation needed]} tags there, and would you want to see a link to another encyclopedia making the same claim?--csloat 06:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Some of your Google results are mirrors of Wikipedia. We do prefer to reference secondary sources over "tertiary" ones such as other encyclopedias. It would be nice to WP:CITE that Aristophanes reference, yes. The Template:fact tags are useful pointers to places where references would be appropriate. A reference to Perseus, as you suggested, would be an aid to both the reader and future editors. Why not simply add it? Jkelly 06:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If I had such links I would add them; and I definitely encourage anyone to do so. Perhaps it is from hanging around the current events pages, but to me the "fact" tags suggest that a given claim is doubted and should not be trusted until a cite is provided. I could easily add cites for other encyclopedias (true there are some wikipedia mirrors there but there are also other encyclopedia sources) but does that really improve Wikipedia in any measurable way? I'd rather see the claims cited with original (or secondary) sources than nothing, but I think I'd rather see nothing than a bunch of links to other encyclopedias that repeat information but don't really verify it.--csloat 07:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

We have come across a point of agreement. In our "wore purple" example, we might pay lip-service to WP:V by referencing some random university webpage that mentions the fact, but would fall far short of the improvement that actually tracking down where that bit of trivia originated and referencing that. "Empedoclephobos wrote that Empedocles was arrogant and wore purple clothes, whereas Empedoclephilos wrote that the philosopher was humble and had quite good fashion sense.", for instance. Jkelly 17:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

On the subject of "citation needed" tags, I was the one who originally put into the article that "there is some evidence that he actually died in Greece." I did so because that's what it said at the article on Mount Etna (though it no longer does, and I don't know who it was that put it there) and I thought the articles should be consistant. I don't know what evidence there is that he actually died in Greece. Should the statement even remain in the article?