Talk:History of science/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

History of Sociology

I have been told that Ibn Khaldoun(1332-1406) is the founder of Sociology. According to the wikipedia article about Ibn Khaldoun ([1]), he has some major work in sociology. I was surprised I couldn't find any mention of Ibn Khaldoun or his work in this article.

History of Psychology

I removed this part:

There are several new major avenues of psychology undergoing current development. Within psychotherapy, the "fourth wave" (the first three being psychoanalysis, behaviorism, and the humanistic psychology of Carl Rogers) is Transpersonal psychology which concerns the transcendent or spiritual dimensions of humanity. On the scientific front, two promising areas of study are evolutionary psychology, which seeks to understand psychology as a function of natural selection, and positive psychology, the main proponent being Martin Seligman, that emphasizes the nature of healthy and and positive psychological states, such as happiness, "flow", and subjective well-being.

The main reason is that this is supposed to be an article about history, not current development. Also, transpersonal psychology is anything but mainstream. This is partly true about positive psychology as well. --Heida Maria 22:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with removing this part. Maybe there is room for a new article (which we can refer to in this one) about the 'current state of affairs' in psychology. There topics such as evolutionary psychology and positive psychology (which is getting more and more attention) could be discussed. This goes for other disciplines as well. -- Cugel 11:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Misleading text

I think i will add the "POV" warning to this article. (If I was a native English speaker I would change this myself).

  • There's no mention in the text to the Renaissance of the 12th century. Worse: many good things that came trough this medieval renaissance are displayed as if it was from the "traditional" Italian Renaissance (Which, by the way, was mainly an artistic movement with relatively little scientific production. The true Renaissance in terms of scientific knowledge was the one that occurred in the 12th century.)
  • "Because of this regression in knowledge, the long period that followed is also known as the Dark Ages." <-- This is no longer true among historians or medievalists.

--201.50.114.212 14:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the info. It would be better if you could use a {{disputed}} header and point out just where we could get updated information to improve the article. --Ancheta Wis 22:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I have just followed the link you provided. Some information in this link, such as the map of medieval universities, was already in the article so it appears that you are primarily objecting to the sentence you are disputing, such as the reference to the Dark Ages. Is the Dark Ages concept inappropriate after the 12th c.? If this was a long period of incubation, do you believe there was actual progress, or what? If you are referring to Roger Bacon and his peers, can you identify a scientific community to which he and his peers belonged? How many might have there been? How did they communicate? What results might they have communicated? Or was it statements of principle which needed elaboration? Thank you again, --Ancheta Wis 00:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Now I have followed the Roger Bacon link. If Maimonides and other Egyptian influences made it all the way into Europe, what was the vehicle? Was it trade, was it conquest, were there books or codices? If this was all under the radar, then what was it that caused the information to be saved away for the future generations? Was it the rise of the Hindu numeral system in Europe? Who were the truth bearers? --Ancheta Wis 01:07, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Following the Petrus Peregrinus link, the experimentalist and crusader whom Roger Bacon admired so much, I see the makings of a scientific community in the 13th c, not the 12th. Thus I believe that you are going to have to justify the 12th c. statement if you believe that this early Renaissance fomented a scientific revolution which occurred as early as the 12th c. Likewise, we may need to establish that the empirical method had backers (per Peregrinus and Bacon) as early as the 12th c. The next question is whether Peregrinus learned the empirical method during the crusades. I look forward to your references. --Ancheta Wis 01:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
In the critic's defense, I have also read about a (small) Renaissance period in the 12th century. Admittedly, it was in a text on the history of psychology. The main 'renaissance' was that in that period, some important inventions were made (I seem to recollect wind mills, but it may be a different type of mill). -- Cugel 09:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Cugel, I found this reference: c. 1200 for Windmills in Holland. The diagrams are clearly for 15th c and later, which is consistent with centuries of development, but what I am reminded of from those diagrams are the temples of Kyoto or Nara (lots of wood, thatched roofs, etc.), which also date back 1000 years ago, and older. So the question remains, just what makes these 'scientific'? Technology is not the same as science; if we are talking about Simon Stevin's sail-driven carriage (which is 16th c.), we should also be talking about the community which foments the knowledge. In Stevinus' era, then we seem to be on firmer ground, where the vehicle for scientific progress was the printed book. But 12th c.? What was the truth bearer? Was it the transmission of manuscripts? Was it working models? Was it a travelling savant? Was it trade of merchandise? Please note that I am simply asking for more evidence, such as a title we can refer to in a citation. --Ancheta Wis 17:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

It's hard to communicate in English for me, but ill try.

When I say "The true Renaissance in terms of scientific knowledge was the one that occurred in the 12th century.", the main factor is that the Renaissance of the 12th century provided the foundation for the future development of scientific ideas in Europe. This foundation came with the birth of the medieval university, with the strong process of translation of Arab and Greek texts, with the scientific work of Franciscans and Dominicans, (especially the Franciscan school of Oxford - with men like Robert Grosseteste and Roger Bacon - but also with the intellectual work of such man as: Albertus Magnus, Duns Scotus, William of Ockham and Jean Buridan.) One should also note the development of empiricist methodology by them.

These fact are not explained anywhere. Moreover, the present text makes one believe that the process of rediscovery of the ancient scientific texts was only an aspect of the art-oriented Italian Renaissance - simply not true.

Google gave me this link that may be useful: [2] See also: medieval technology, and [3].

There is also this [[4]] text, with the bold claim that "the 'Renaissance' was a period when thought declined significantly, bring ing to an end a period of advance in the late Middle Ages". (!?)

I hope it helps. --201.50.114.33 19:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

201, Thank you for your information. It being Thanksgiving Day, I was looking forward to a relaxing time reading the history of New Mexico, but your data is forcing me to do some work! OK, if we can work this out on the talk page before going to the Article page, I would appreciate it. Wikipedians, please feel free to join in the fun!

It appears that the theses of Petrarch and Gibbon, who witnessed shepherds grazing their flocks among the ruins of Rome is under attack. Thus a Roman-centered view of the development of western civilization is POV. Fine. The counter-argument appears to be that the medieval universities were the truth-bearers. They started the infrastructure which we need for scientific communities; these universities produced thinkers like Robert Grosseteste, Roger Bacon Albertus Magnus, Duns Scotus, William of Ockham and Jean Buridan. Thus the disputed sentence might be replaced with

The regression in knowledge began to abate as early as the twelfth century. By this time, the universities of Europe aided materially in the propagation, translation and preservation of the texts of the ancients, including Archimedes, Eratosthenes, Hipparchus, Aristarchus, and Euclid. By the thirteenth century, these texts began to be extended by the Scholastics such as Robert Grosseteste, Roger Bacon, Albertus Magnus, Duns Scotus, William of Ockham and Jean Buridan. In particular, the empirical approach admired by Roger Bacon was exemplified by Petrus Peregrinus. These advances occurred in the same time as those in Jewish philosophy by Maimonides and in Islamic philosophy by Averroes.

201, how is this? By the way, if you get a user name, it will mean that you can track any changes to an article with your watch list. Please feel free to add your changes or completely rework what I have tried to put down. For example, the thinkers had not started to specialize as they do now. It may well be possible to add a sentence apiece for each of the links. One problem with this article is the length. At one time, it was twice as big as it is now, and we are trying to hold down the size. --Ancheta Wis 20:09, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

- - - -

Hi, Ancheta Wis. Some historians may argue that the regression in knowledge began to abate as early as the Carolingian Renaissance of the 9th century. But I generally like the paragraph, thank you for your help trying to "translate" my claims. Sorry, but I won't be able to continue this discussion today. I intend to be back tomorrow. I will also read more carefully this text, (the last link I gave earlier). --201.50.114.33 20:52, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


Ancheta: looks good! 201 was clearly refering to the Scholastics, and you seem to have nicely covered them. The 12th century (around that time) marks the first division between faith and ratio - William of Ockham was instrumental in this process. After reading the earlier comments, I'm not sure we can put the article up for FA anytime soon. What are your thoughts on this? -- Cugel 21:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Cugel, I inserted your information. I don't think about FA anymore; if it happens, it happens, but there were so many of us working on it for so long, that I believe it's not going to make it anytime soon. --Ancheta Wis 00:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I came up with this - not yet finished - complete rework of the topic "The Middle Ages: Western World" I am aware that it may be too big right now (or not :-)

Early Middle Ages

'See also: Medieval medicine, Medieval philosophy

With the loss of the Western Roman Empire, much of Europe lost contact with the knowledge of the past. While the Byzantine Empire still held learning centers such as Alexandria and Constantinople, Western Europe's knowledge was concentrated in monasteries. Philosophical and scientific teaching of the period was based upon few copies and commentaries of ancient Greek texts that remained in Western Europe.

In part because of this regression in knowledge, the period from about A.D. 476 to about 1000 came to be known in popular culture as the Dark Ages. Most modern historians dismiss the use of the term, tough; by pointing out that the label of this era as "dark" was mostly based on previous ignorance about the period combined with popular stereotypes.

High Middle Ages

Image:Map of Medieval Universities.JPG
Map of Medieval Universities

See Also: Renaissance of the 12th century

This scenario starts to change with the birth of medieval universities in the twelfth century, when the rediscovery of the works of ancient philosophers through contact with the Arabs after the Reconquista and during the Crusades started an intellectual revitalization of Europe.

The contact with the Islamic world in Sicily and Spain allowed Europeans access to preserved copies of Greek and Roman works along with the works of Islamic philosophers. The universities of Europe aided materially in the translation, preservation and propagation of the texts of the ancients, including Archimedes, Eratosthenes, Hipparchus, Aristarchus, and Euclid.

By the thirteenth century, these texts began to be extended by the Scholastics such as Robert Grosseteste, Roger Bacon, Albertus Magnus, Duns Scotus, William of Ockham, Jean Buridan and Nicole Oresme. In particular, the empirical approach admired by Roger Bacon was exemplified by Petrus Peregrinus. These advances occurred in the same time as those in Jewish philosophy by Maimonides and in Islamic philosophy by Averroes.

Late Middle Ages

Leonardo da Vinci's Vitruvian Man, an example of the blend of art and science during the Renaissance
Leonardo da Vinci's Vitruvian Man, an example of the blend of art and science during the Renaissance

See also: Renaissance

In spite a halt caused by events like the Black Death, the 14th century was a time of great progress, especially within the arts, but also with the sciences. The process of rediscovery of ancient texts was enhanced, now with the translation from original Greek works brought to the west when many Byzantine scholars, fleeing from the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, had to seek refuge in the West, particularly Italy.

Translations and commentaries of Aristotle by the Islamic scholar Averroës were influential in much of Europe. The published works of Marco Polo along with the Crusades helped spark interest in geography. Most importantly, the development of the printing press in the 1450s allowed for new ideas to be rapidly copied to multiple people. All that paved the way to the Scientific Revolution.


What do you think? --201.(the same person of yesterday) 15:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

201, it looks good to me. Shall we go to Prime Time? I will wait for other responses, but you have at least one Support response. -- Ancheta Wis 16:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Support. But the sentence 'events like the Black Death' looks too informal to me. Maybe you can just sum up the two or three most important events that held back further developments. (so you'd get something like: 'Events such as the Black Death and (other event)...'). -- still, nice to see improvements done to this article again, so go ahead. Cugel 15:15, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

About: "The Middle Ages: Western World"

Hi, everybody. I am/was 201. (that annoying fellow complaining about the article :-). I made yet another rework of the topic "The Middle Ages: Western World" and aplied the new version to the article "History of science in the Middle Ages". The idea is to discuss there how to improve the text and work out possible disagreements. After the text is more refined, we can transfer the important content to the general "History of science" article. --Leinad-Z 01:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


Here it is. This new version includes more data and much timeline tweaking. It's larger than the previous version, but it has only important facts - I believe.

  • Update: If the text is too big (I hope not)... i just marked (like this: kjkjkjkjkj) some parts we could cut out. --Leinad-Z 21:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


Early Middle Ages

See also: Medieval medicine, Medieval philosophy

With the loss of the Western Roman Empire, much of Europe lost contact with the knowledge of the past. While the Byzantine Empire still held learning centers such as Alexandria and Constantinople, Western Europe's knowledge was concentrated in monasteries. Philosophical and scientific teaching of the period was based upon few copies and commentaries of ancient Greek texts that remained in Western Europe. In part because of this regression in knowledge, the period from about A.D. 476 to about 1000 came to be known in popular culture as the "Dark Ages". Most modern historians dismiss the use of the term, tough; by pointing out that the label of this era as "dark" was mostly based on previous ignorance about the period combined with popular stereotypes.

High Middle Ages

Image:Map of Medieval Universities.JPG
Map of Medieval Universities

See Also: Renaissance of the 12th century, Medieval technology

This scenario starts to change with the birth of medieval universities in the 12th century, when the rediscovery of the works of ancient philosophers through contact with the Arabs after the Reconquista and during the Crusades started an intellectual revitalization of Europe. The interactions with the Islamic world in Sicily and Spain allowed Europeans access to preserved copies of Greek and Roman works (in Arab language) along with the works of Islamic philosophers. The European universities aided materially in the translation, preservation and propagation of these texts and started a new infrastructure which was needed for scientific communities.

On the beginning of the 13th century there were reasonably accurate Latin translations of the main works of Aristotle, Plato, Euclid, Ptolemy, Archimedes and Galen, that is, of all the intellectually crucial ancient authors except Thucydides. By then, the natural philosophy contained in these texts began to be extended by the Scholastics such as Robert Grosseteste, Roger Bacon, Albertus Magnus and Duns Scotus. Precursors of the modern scientific method can be seen already on Grosseteste's emphasis on mathematics as a way to understand nature and on the empirical approach admired by Roger Bacon. The published works of Marco Polo along with the Crusades helped spark interest in geography. These advances occurred roughly in the same time as those in Jewish philosophy by Maimonides and in Islamic philosophy by Averroes.

Late Middle Ages

Leonardo da Vinci's Vitruvian Man, an example of the blend of art and science during the Renaissance
Leonardo da Vinci's Vitruvian Man, an example of the blend of art and science during the Renaissance

See also: Renaissance

The first half of the 14th century saw the scientific work of great thinkers like William of Ockham, Jean Buridan and Nicole Oresme. Some scholars, such as Buridan, started to question the received wisdom of Aristotle's mechanics: he developed the theory of impetus which was the first step towards the modern concept of inertia. William of Ockham introduced the principle of parsimony: philosophy should only concern itself with subjects on whom it could achieve real knowledge, this should lead to a decline in fruitless debates and move natural philosophy toward science.

Then came the Black Death of 1348, that sealed a sudden end to the previous period of massive change. The plague killed a third of the people in Europe. Recurrences of the plague and other disasters caused a continuing decline of population for a century. In spite this halt, the 15th century saw the artistic flourishing of the Renaissance. The rediscovery of ancient texts was improved after the fall of Constantinople in 1453, when many Byzantine scholars had to seek refuge in the West, particularly Italy. Meanwhile, the invention of printing was to have great effect on European society. The facilitated dissemination of the printed word democratized learning and allowed a faster propagation of new ideas. All that paved the way to the Scientific Revolution, which may also be understood as a resume of the process of scientific development halted around the middle of the 14th century.



It's probably my last version. Please, tell me what you guys think. I suppose the writing stile, orthography, etc. shold be improved, since I'm not a native English speaker (the best written parts possibly came trough copy and paste from other Wikipedia articles :-) --Leinad-Z 19:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, I was looking forward to change the main article. So I squeezed the above text and also removed most of the marked text. I hope you like the result as it is in the article right now. --Leinad-Z 14:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
We currently need a picture of the base of the brain, for some articles. There is one in Andreas Vesalius' De Humani Corporis Fabrica (1543) which I could use in an article right away. --Ancheta Wis 09:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Ancheta: that picture looks useful. Let's see if we can incorporate it here. (I did so, feel free to move it to a better position). I think the Einstein pic is a little out of place, but I don't know a better position for it. -- Cugel 14:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

One suggestion

I don't mind all of the middle ages/ancient text, but now it greatly, greatly overshadows the scientific revolution. Perhaps we can shrink some of the middle ages sections into summaries of larger articles, and expand the scientific revolution a bit? At the moment the 15th-17th centuries have been reduced to a list of names, which is somewhat silly given how many rather world-changing things happened at that point. --Fastfission 04:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, we need to shorten it a little. Feel free to expand the 17th century part a little (this is a difficult exercise, but the whole article has been very complex to keep succinct/short/informative). -- Cugel 14:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Most courses on history of science treat separately: the history of science from antiquity to 17th century and the history of Modern Science. This article tries to handle both subjects simultaneously - it’s very hard to do so while keeping the size down.
I may try to shorten the medieval section even more, but important information will be deleted in the process.
It may be wiser to split this article in the same fashion of the academic courses, allowing the subtopics some space to breathe. Was this alternative ever considered? --Leinad-Z 16:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think that particular option was considered. You may want to (re)read the comments from the earlier peer review though, since some suggestions for major structural changes were made then. I have to say that most of the advice was followed. I do think a generic 'history of science' article is useful, but it could be shortened, with the main stuff being in two articles 'History of (ancient?) science' and 'History of contemporary science'. -- Cugel 18:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Only two articles makes for an artificial split. Granted, the Scientific revolution was a watershed, but two articles (pre-science, modern science) makes the difference between 'before' and 'after' too dramatic. In only a few decades, the 'after' article will seem quaint. It is valuable to show the march of ideas in one article, somehow. Isn't the medieval science article reflecting the added content? What about 3+ articles on this topic? You know -- a 'main' article with the huge sweep of ideas, and child articles, but on science in general, not just specialized, because we have the specialized ones already. --Ancheta Wis 18:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Anything which is a survey of this magnitude has to cut a lot of corners, of course, but that's what sub-articles are for. I think there is certainly enough material to have separate articles on History of Ancient science, History of Islamic science, History of medieval science, History of early modern science, and History of modern science, which are the usual divisions I have seen. History of science in the twentieth century could be a long, long article, too. --Fastfission 20:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
So if I understand, you mean something like (please modify as you see fit): --Ancheta Wis 22:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • History of science: overview article on science in general
    • History of Ancient science: Astronomy, mathematics, timekeeping, recordkeeping
      • History of Indian science: Astronomy, Medicine ...
      • History of Chinese science/technology ...
      • History of Islamic science: Astronomy, scientific method ...
      • History of medieval science: Renaissance (12th c.-16th c.), rise of scientific communities, mathematical notation
    • History of early modern science: 1600, Scientific Revolution
    • History of modern science: 1700-1900 -- specialization
    • History of science in the twentieth century: QM, GR, Big Science, DNA, Computing, Statistics, Logic ...
    • Open/interconnected history of science (today)

Pretty much, with some small hierarchical changes:

  • Ancient
    • Indian
    • Chinese
    • Greek (I don't know what order the last three should go in -- not an area I know much about)
  • Medieval
    • Islamic
    • European (not much to say)
  • Early modern
    • Renaissance
    • Scientific Revolution
  • Modern
    • 20th century

Now the question of whether the Renaissance was the end of the Medieval or the beginning of the Early Modern is of course up for some dispute, but I think it sits more elegantly with the Early Modern myself, though it could go either way. Now I'm not sure if the article should be oriented in this way — it would be pretty different from our current article if it was, unless we jetisoned much of the current modern science into its own article. But that's how I have understood the general chronology to be, with the exception of the Ancient period which I know much less about. --Fastfission 23:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The History of Science template lists a red link, History of science in the Renaissance, which according Leinad-Z's work on the current History of science article, has to do with the recovery of Europe from the depopulation from the Black Death. Leinad-Z, Fastfission, am I misstating this? The non-monolithic character of the States of Europe then led to just enough freedom of scientific inquiry to allow publication of the works by Vesalius and Copernicus in 1543. Of course, Vesalius was chased from Padua and had to take refuge in Spain, and Copernicus published from his deathbed. Concurrently, the first scientific societies were getting traction, such as Giambattista della Porta's society, before it was shut down. Then we get the Lincean Academy and Galileo, and the flame of Scientific Revolution flares up again, so far unextinguished to this day. But who knows, everything could get suppressed again, unless you view the printing press and internet as instruments of freedom in communication of scientific thought. This would imply that Science was here to stay with these inventions. --Ancheta Wis 11:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

About the 15th century Renaissance

Ancheta Wis, in response to you first question I will quote: Italian Renaissance#Science and philosophy.

While concern for philosophy, art and literature all increased greatly in the Renaissance the period is usually seen as one of scientific backwardness. The reverence for classical sources further enshrined the Aristotelian and Ptolemaic views of the universe. Humanism stressed that nature came to be viewed as an animate spiritual creation that was not governed by laws or mathematics. At the same time philosophy lost much of its rigour as the rules of logic and deduction were seen as secondary to intuition and emotion.
It would not be until the Renaissance moved to Northern Europe that science would be revived, with such figures as Copernicus, Francis Bacon, and Descartes. They are often described as early Enlightenment thinkers, rather than late Renaissance ones.

The over-the-top reverence for ancient texts ("older equals better"); the disregard for "laws of nature"; and the emphasis on intuition over logic were all "downgrades" from the high scholastic period (1250-1350). So, it seems to be more reasons for that "red link" than just the steep decline in population caused by the Black Death. On the other hand, I’m not sure Fastfission agrees with the statement that the Renaissance was a period of backwardness. Let's wait his comments. --Leinad-Z 16:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)