Talk:History of science in the Renaissance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. |
Just curious: who calls Copernicus and F. Bacon early Enlightenment figures? Maestlin 00:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, Maestlin. I created this stub (today) based on information from other pages on Wikipedia. The text saying that Copernicus, Francis Bacon, and Descartes were often described as early Enlightenment thinkers was based on the information I found here: Italian Renaissance#Science and philosophy. Maybe an editor of the original article can tell you more. --Leinad ¬
pois não? 02:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Timeline
As it stands, the timeline is contradicted by the text, which includes Puerbach and Regiomontanus. I suspect the discrepancy will get worse as the renaissance anatomists are added. --SteveMcCluskey 17:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- True, it's better to move it here, at least for now. The initial sketch of this article (made by me, mainly by collecting info from other articles) was influenced by this essay: "[The Renaissance Myth]". My early views and edits in History of science in the Middle Ages were also influenced by it (this timeline was one of the first things I edited in the wiki-en, and was originally intended for the Middle Ages article). Being new to both wikipedia and history of science, I was persuaded at the time by the arguments presented. With further study of the topic, however, I noticed that the Renaissance-Myth essay may have been dismissive in regard to disciplines such as medicine and botany, that apparently were well developed during the Renaissance period. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 18:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
The timeline below shows relevant western scientists from the High Middle Ages to 1600. The red vertical lines show the huge hiatus between the Black Death and the publication date of the next relevant scientific work: Copernicus' heliocentric model. Almost 200 years lies between the two events.
BTW, a version of the timeline is in the Portuguese wikipedia article pt:Ciência medieval – but that is an modified version, and was added by me with a heading that can be translated to something like: "Demographic data in Europe and the presence of innovators in the fields of physics and scientific methodologies." I'm interested in knowing if the timeline at Wiki-PT can be considered accurate in the presentation of the scientific innovators (the names were also changed in accordance with the mentioned heading). --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 18:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Alchemy
This may be nitpicky/wrong but from my knowledge of the history of Alchemy they were not only trying to turn led into gold but any base metal. Also there some practices of Alchemy that were focused on eternal life, the type of Alchemy alledgedly practiced by Daoists. This however may not fit into the timeline. Also, because I am actually reading this article for a class on Faust, I think it might be worth mentioning him in the Alchemy section, of course he was more early enlightenment and not so much Renaissance.Fmandog85 19:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
