Talk:History of optics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Physics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
Start This article has been rated as Start-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 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.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 1 May 2006. The result of the discussion was :
no consensus to delete.

The theory of refraction attributed here to Plato does not appear in his Timaeus, nor is it attributed to Plato in the mainstream literature on the history of optics. The account seems to fit the experiment described by Ptolemy in his optics, and most accounts see it as a case of typical Ptolemaic "data smoothing," in which measured data is smoothed in terms of Ptolemy's prior assumptions about the bending of light. This article (and the section on this topic in the article on Pre-experimental science) should be deleted -- or retitled as "Ptolemy's theory of refraction" and revised to reflect the historical literature on Ptolemy.--SteveMcCluskey 20:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Proposal to rename

OK, the AfD discussion resulted in no consensus (except that this article is about Ptolemy's theory, not Plato's) and we're back at what to do with it. The three viable options seem to be:

  1. Rename as History of optics and revise extensively (suggested by Beland, Maestlin, and SteveMcCluskey)
  2. Merge into Ptolemy (an earlier suggestion by Maestlin)
  3. Merge to Refraction (suggested by Ewlyahoocom)

As I see it, I think this historical discussion of refraction would form a good basis for a History of Optics discussion. Unless there's strong objection, I'm going to go ahead and rename it as History of Optics, and make this the core of the Ancient and Islamic section on that topic. I have some ideas for an outline for the medieval section as well, and can tack on a few significant references. --SteveMcCluskey 16:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFD followup

The AFD discussion contains the following comments:

First, the judgemental tone criticizing early science for not measuring up to the expectations of modern science. Such judgemental attitudes violate the Neutral Point of View standards of of Wikipedia. Incidentally, such judgemental attitudes are also criticized by historians -- and especially historians of science -- as "Whig history" and by anthropologists as "ethnocentrism." Any rewrite will have to seriously address this judgemental tone.

I wonder if it was my writing that inspired this criticism. I certainly didn't intend to be judgmental, though in writing about "pre-experimental science" I was trying to highlight differences (not flaws, per se). If other readers find the text to sound like it's criticizing rather than describing, then it certainly needs to be improved. It's something of an open question whether pre-Scientific Revolution work should be considered "science". Settling that question seems largely like a matter of defining "science". In any case, I get the impression that most historians of science agree that there were qualitative differences in methodology before and after the Scientific Revolution (which is why it was such a big deal), not just new discoveries. -- Beland 04:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Second, as Beland notes, he reproduced Ptolemy's experiment in an STS class at MIT. This suggests something is lacking in any discussion of it as an example of "pre-experimental science." I've already suggested on the History of Science Project that the "pre-experimental science" article be rewritten with a more neutral title -- perhaps something like "ancient science."--SteveMcCluskey 22:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that Ptolemy actually performed the procedure he described. Even if he had, he probably wasn't thinking of it so much as testing his theory as demonstrating it, which is supposedly the essential difference between the modern (and you can see why you would want to call it this) and "pre-experimental" periods. By following his reported procedure and simulating the materials available at the time, the STS class was trying to show that if Ptolemy had really been testing his theory (and had been reasonably careful and honest) he should have discovered a discrepancy with reality.

The English term generally used to distinguish ancient from modern science is "natural philosophy". -- Beland 04:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Natural philosophy is a term that is both too limiting and too expansive.
It is too limiting since much of ancient science is practical knowledge, e.g, establishing calendars, finding herbs that cure disease, and would not fit the rigorous (Greek) definition of philosophy. Historically one finds that in the Middle Ages natural philosophy was considered to be separate from the practical studies such as a computus and medicine, and from the mathematical studies such as astronomy and optics.
It is too expansive since it includes much of modern science. As the article on natural philosophy points out, the term was used in place of science right through Isaac Newton's Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, and possibly later. --SteveMcCluskey 12:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need for Expansion

This article lacks material from the Latin Middle Ages to Modern times. I plan to add material on al-Kindi, Roger Bacon, John Pecham, Robert Grosseteste, and Witelo as time allows. Additions of material on the development of optics from Kepler and Descartes to the present are most welcome. --SteveMcCluskey 15:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other aspects of optics

Rereading Lindberg's Theories of Vision, I noted the discussions of physiological and psychological optics, which should also be treated here. There's also room to treat historical discussions of rainbows and other aspects of meteorological optics, which have a long history from Aristotle to Descartes and beyond, touching on the nature of colors in the rainbow and their relation to white sunlight. --SteveMcCluskey 01:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ... the Islamic World

I just changed the title of a section from Optics in Persia and the Islamic World back to Optics in the Islamic World.

If we were to name every culturally distinct region in the Islamic World we would end with something like Optics in Spain, North Africa, Egypt, Persia, Afghanistan, Indonesia and the Islamic World (and we still might offend those that I've left out). To avoid such absurdity, I favor the shorter title. --SteveMcCluskey 17:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge History of Lensmaking

I see no reason not to merge History of lensmaking into History of optics. Since the History of lensmaking article is short it could probably be easily merged as a new section on "Lenses and Lensmaking" at the end of the current History of optics article.

In the long run, the lensmaking section will need to cite specific historical sources to support its details using the <ref> </ref> format. --SteveMcCluskey 17:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I tried to merge it in, but got frustrated, as the topics are so dissimilar. One is about making lenses, the other is about the science of optics. Sure, they could both be done in one article, but who's willing to take it on? Dicklyon 05:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
OK, I just merged them by tacking Lenses and Lensmaking as a separate section. It seems to fit there logically as a separate aspect from the discussion of optical theory in the rest of the article. --SteveMcCluskey 00:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Astronomical Instrument Makers

Added link to List of Astronomical Instrument Makers. Just started the list, needs to be filled out more. AppleRaven 20:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)