Talk:History of astronomy

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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified History of astronomy as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the German or Italian language Wikipedias.
This article is part of the Astrology WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the astrological 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Astronomy This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to astronomy.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

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.

What about the equipment in use - astrolabes etc?

Contents

[edit] Mesopotamian Astronomy

I can write an overview of Mesopotamian astronomy (note that it is an empty section at the moment), but I think that the current subheadings look arbitrary (i.e., "Sumerian," etc.). They do not reflect any periodization or organizational scheme in any work on the subject I have read (admittedly a short reading list, though).

Given its importance to the history of astronomy, I think this subject deserves its own page. If nobody objects, I will remove the subheadings and write a short overview without the subheadings and start a new page where it can receive the attention it merits. Something like "Mesopotamian Astronomy and Astrology." If there is such a page, I have not found it.Maestlin 00:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like the sub-headings, go ahead and change them. One of the principles of Wikipedia is WP:Be bold.--ragesoss 02:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. It is long but not any longer than the section on Indian astronomy. I also added more references and, in a separate edit, moved around the sections so that all the east asia material goes together. Maestlin 22:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link Removed

I removed the link to the Astronomical Code of the Rigveda since it is about a fairly narrow topic. I added a link to it in the article on Hindu astronomy where it is more relevant. Maestlin 01:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indian Astronomy - Balance

The writings of western historians provide a quite different outlook than appears in the current section on Indian astronomy. There are two issues at hand:

  • The dating of the Vedic texts and their astronomical interpretation.
  • The claim for the discovery of calculus.

An essay by the late historian of Indian science, David Pingree, frames the issue well. He regretted that "many non-Westerners ... are deluded into believing that the greatest glory an Indian, a Chinese, an Arab, or an African scientist can have acquired is that gained by having anticipated a Greek or a modern westerner." Turning to the claim that Madhava discoverd calculus, he noted that "now [that] we have the Sanskrit texts properly edited,... we understand the clever way that Madhava derived the series without calculus.... In this case the elegance and brilliance of Madhava's mathematics are being distorted as they are buried under the current mathematical solution." Isis, 83(1992):554-563.

I am not an expert on Indian science, but I hope someone who is familiar with the literature will be able to add a few balancing citations. --SteveMcCluskey 21:19, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Steve, I flagged the section on astrology in the RgVeda (in History of Astrology) for the same reason. (perhaps some material on Indian astronomy should be excised until further notice). With the recent loss of Pingree and the scattering of the dept. at Brown, we can only hope that some qualified researchers take up this challenge soon. I do not have plans to learn Sanskrit and get involved in this research, but I'm always on the lookout for works correcting this problem - have yet to find any in a book form of the History of Indian astronomy/astrology. I recall hearing that the development of the Nakshatras occurs in the latest of the Vedas - Atharva Veda. While there is a good chance that the mythology of earlier Vedas has some (perhaps significant) starlore intertwined, interpreting the presence of astronomical observations is a more difficult claim to make. If the dating of the Atharva can be worked out, then astronomical observations of the moon cycle through the 27 (or 28) mansions would support the Nakshatra ritualistic astrology. Zeusnoos 16:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Articles about the history of science in India and in Islamic regions tend to bring out strong feelings on Wikipedia. I won't cut or alter existing material on these subjects, in most cases, until I have all my ducks lined up, so to speak--and there are better uses of my time. Two subjects that I would particularly like to see addressed are the alleged heliocentrism of Aryabhata and the rather peculiar article on Ibn al-Shatir, which seems to be trying to make him into a precursor of Copernicus. Maestlin 22:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Slightly off topic. Since I just spent a day on Ibn al-Shatir last semester, I revised that entry adding references and tempering the claims of influence on Copernicus. --SteveMcCluskey 13:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The article mentions a vernal equinox in Orion. I don't think that is possible: precession of the earth's axis of rotation (precession of the equinoxes) puts the sun in different constellations in different eras, but the sun is still limited to the constellations of the zodiac. Am I confused?Evelyn Kinzel 23:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] alineations

alineations? What is it? --darklilac 19:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Structures lacking straight lines? I suspect alignments is the word someone wanted. Zeusnoos 20:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] astronomy in Asia

As I have mentioned in other discussions, I think we need to be careful about how much space we devote to Asian science. It seems that in every science article in Wikipedia, there is always an extra long section on India (as well as China and Islam) while many times Greece isn't given as much attention as it should be given. Wikipedia is the first online encyclopedia I have seen that devotes more space to Asian civilizations (when discussing the history of any science) than it does Greece. Can we really say that what these Asian civilizations did was really science? The other (more respectable) encyclopedias I read give me enough solid facts (not speculations) to believe otherwise. Modern science, as we now understand it as a subject, like it or not, was largely a Western creation. Cftiger 22:33 27 November 2006.

Well, color me shocked. I never expected to find such a narrow-minded perspective on the world from a Wikipedian. Most of those "respected encyclopedias" you mention are written in English by people in America or England. Every culture colors its history to make itself seem like the most important. While the Western Scientific Method is a Western invention, that doesn't mean that the work in other countries is irrelevant to the history of, in this case, Astronomy. Just like the work done in the west before the invention of the modern Scientific Method is not suddenly invalid. Korval 05:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Much of the history of Western astronomy doesn't really qualify as science either. To exclude the history of other cultures just because they aren't part of the traditional picture of the Western march of progress towards modern science is to ignore their actual accomplishments. — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
You two are criticizing my original comment, which is fine, but can you really present any facts that prove that science wasn't mostly developed in the West? It is easy to say that Westerners have been Eurocentric, but most of the sources I read clearly aren't, in that they give plenty of credit to other cultures. The only difference between them and Wikipedia is that they acknowledge that at least 80% of science in the form that we now understand it was developed in the West. When you examine the facts, you really can't say otherwise. Why didn't the Eastern cultures create the modern world first? And how can you say that what the Greeks were working with wasn't science? Just because you would like for something to be true, doesn't mean it is. Cftiger 14:19 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the amount of the work represents the amount of the participation of the people to some degree. There is no rule to quata the space for each culture. In fact, Korea and Japan have their own history of astronomy which is a bit different from that of China, but, none of them were described until now. Jtm71 02:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Indian Astronomy -- Sources

I requested some citation of sources in the section on Indian Astronomy on the talk page almost a year ago (on 13 May 2006). A request for sources template has been displayed on the Indian Astronomy section since February.

Recently User:202.179.64.9 has twice removed that template without providing any sources. I am restoring the template and, once again, requesting that some knowledgable editors document the claims in this section or it will become liable for removal. --SteveMcCluskey 22:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree, that section is a complete incoherent mess. --Etacar11 22:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] common misconceptions

In the course of editing various articles on the history of astronomy, I have come across a number of claims that various non-western astronomers had anticipated certain modern discoveries.

I have presented the sources of these claims, followed by critical material that can be used to evaluate them. I would welcome additional quotations of any sources on either side of these issues.

Since this section has become very long, I have moved it to its own page Talk:History of astronomy/Common misconceptions to allow for further expansion. --SteveMcCluskey 13:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "This..."

In the paragraph, "The Copernican Revolution", the sentence "This..." is ungrammatical. There is no main verb. (unknown author)

Fixed - I believe that text captures the proper intent. Michael Daly 19:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Edit

Propose the current 'Uniting Astronomy and Physics' section's text

"Although the motions of celestial bodies had been qualitatively explained in physical terms since Aristotle introduced celestial movers in his Metaphysics and a fifth element in his On the Heavens, Johannes Kepler was the first to attempt to derive mathematical predictions of celestial motions from assumed physical causes.[21] Combining his physical insights with the unprecedentedly accurate naked-eye observations made by Tycho Brahe,[22] Kepler discovered the three laws of planetary motion that now carry his name."

be changed to something like

'Although the motions of celestial bodies such as the stars and planets had been quantitatively explained in physical terms at least since Eudoxus introduced uniformly rotating celestial spheres in which they were embedded, Johannes Kepler was the first to attempt to derive mathematical predictions of celestial motions from anything other than such spheres and their movers, namely from the rotating Sun and its mover. This led Kepler to proclaim three laws of elliptical planetary orbits focussed on the Sun, allegedly justified by Tycho Brahe's astronomical observations, but never actually demonstrated by Kepler in any publication.'

--Logicus (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This change gives Eudoxus credit for Aristotle's achievement of interpreting the mathematical astronomy of the astronomers Eudoxus and Calippus into an astronomy of physical spheres and movers causing their rotation. It also gives Eudoxus's astronomy more credit for being quantitatively predictive than most historians of astronomy would grant.
At the other end of the discussion, it misses the point that Kepler reversed the relation between physics and astronomy. Where Aristotle had devised a celestial physics that accounted for the uniform rotations postulated by the astronomers, Kepler postulated a motive force whose strength varied with distance from the source of that motive power; the resulting motion varied because of physical causes.
I'm going to revert this section to the previous version for now. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Different

In the main article, under the heading, "Modern Astronomy", there are several remarks about the suffixes "-er" and "-or". Note that they are in different languages. The Latin suffix "-or" was often applied to human beings. There were few machines in ancient Rome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.11.103 (talk) 14:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC) There were few machines in ancient Teutonic areas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.11.103 (talk) 12:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Not so

In the main article, Maria Mitchell is said to have been the first to have discovered a comet with a telescope. The article on Maria says the opposite. See Caroline Herschel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 09:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First star catalogue

I've noticed the text refers the MUL.APIN babylonian tablets, which date from around 1370 BC, and contains star catalogues. Then, in the chinese astronomy section, it states the world's first star catalogue dates from 4th century BC. Is there some criteria for star catalogues that MUL.APIN doesn't meet or is the date wrong? 85.240.106.56 (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)DF