Talk:History of science/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

History of science Wikiproject

Seems like a good place to advertise this for interested parties: History of science Wikiproject proposal. --Fastfission 15:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed for iron rockets in India

Could you please place a citation for the iron rocket? It appears that gunpowder would have then been available in India for the propulsion of the rocket. Is this so? What is the citation? --Ancheta Wis 02:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy?

I was just glancing and noticed something that I know is not correct, and its a rather simple thing, a date: "Linus Pauling's book on The Nature of the Chemical Bond used the principles of quantum mechanics to deduce bond angles in ever-more complicated molecules, culminating in the physical modelling of DNA, or (in the words of Francis Crick) the secret of life. In the same year, the Miller-Urey experiment demonstrated..." It was the same year? Paulings book was published in the 30's but the Miller-Urey experiment was not until 1953. Am I misunderstanding something? Giovanni33 09:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC

Thank you for the note. I simplified the sentence to make clear that the DNA modelling was in 1953, the same year as the Miller-Urey experiment. That leaves the date for Pauling's book unspecified, but clearly written earlier than 1953. --Ancheta Wis 09:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Dont forget the Greeks

Why does this article jump right from alchemy to the middle ages. What about Archimedes, Plato, Aristotle, etc.? Never thought I'd see an anti-Greek bias on Wikipedia? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 07:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. See Pre-experimental science and the History of science in early cultures#Greek and Hellenistic science subpages, which attempt to portray Greek science as a natural successor to earlier cultures, especially Egypt, Mesopotamia, India and China. The article was severely pruned from a 90K size in an attempt to reach Featured status; thus the elision of 'Greek and Hellenistic science' from the main History of science page, which had previously attempted to sketch Science in 30K. From the previous versions, only Aristotle remains on the main History of science page. Currently the main article exceeds 45K.

There has been a conscious attempt to portray the global development of science, and not only the Western version, so as to avoid systemic bias, which is a Wikiproject in itself. Isaac Newton himself credits 'the Ancients' as his forebears, which includes Greek science, of course (as well as the entire globe). We invite your participation in this Wikiproject, where you might sketch any proposed contribution you may wish to offer. --Ancheta Wis 09:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Citations -- Footnotes

Can I suggest that we encourage the use of footnotes in history of science articles. A good example of what I have in mind is the Archaeoastronomy page (and when adding some new material to the main History of Science article, I converted the existing citations to use that footnote format).

It seems like a good way to ensure that content is verifiable.--SteveMcCluskey 22:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

PS I was just reading History of science in early cultures and saw that it has an inconsistent use of footnotes; there's one footnote but most notes are links to web pages. I'd rather see a title in a footnote than wait to download a 341 page PDF file (see notes 3 and 4).

As I understand it (I'm new to Wikipedia) the automatic footnote procedure is new (and has the advantage of renumbering notes as pages are edited and deleting them as paragraphs are removed). Is there / should there be any consensus on preferred citation style for history of science? --SteveMcCluskey 01:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Migrating older notes to the new style is definitely a plus, in my opinion. From the related WP style guide pages (WP:CITE), it looks like the only mainstream citation style that actually supports footnoted references is CMS (and some people prefer inline citations except for didactic footnotes). In practice, it looks like there is widespread support for the new footnote system for citations. Personally, I think most readers are not looking for sources and so would find inline citations distracting. For those that do want to see sources, jumping down to the notes is not too much to ask.--ragesoss 01:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I learned the footnote system {{fn|1}}Citation in the text and {{fnb|1}}The Footnote for the Citation at the foot of the article. There have been several changes but the fn/fnb seems to be the most stable, as the other methods, for example anb does not seem to work anymore. So, can you give an example from which we can work? --Ancheta Wis 10:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

As the link to Wikipedia:footnotes shows multiple methods, we need 1 example method for this article. You are welcome to give the example on the talk page or in the article. Ancheta Wis

As far as formatting, this is new style.^[1] --ragesoss 11:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

1. ^ New style formatting

So that says a succeeding citation ^[1] will behave thus? The world waits.^[2] --Ancheta Wis 11:16, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

O.K. In my first try, I simply duplicated the format, but by convention, it appears that only one <references/> ought to be used, once only in the article, in the References section. --Ancheta Wis 11:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Are we moving toward a consensus that the new <ref> style is a good way to go? If so, I'll use it in future edits. --SteveMcCluskey 15:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it seems like the most flexible format, and in keeping the references near the part of the text in which they are referenced, it keeps things from slipping out of place over time. --Fastfission 15:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Does that mean we should all use the <ref> tag in the same way as is done on the earlier mentioned Archaeoastronomy page? Because that page does not seem to use the {{cite}} method, which to me seems to be the preferred way to cite. Or are these somehow separate issues? -- Wijnand 15:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how they're related; do you have a link to the documentation on the {{cite}} method? --SteveMcCluskey 17:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

{{cite}} is another referencing system, an older one than <ref></ref>. The main problems with the former are that it is very easy for the footnote numbers to get off (if someone inserts an external link into the text of the article, it throws them all off), and because it can be very hard to figure out, many edits later, exactly what footnote was supposed to correspond to what piece of text. With <ref>, neither of these are problems since the citation is actually stored in the part of the text that it is cited from. I don't think there is an official WP-wide policy on what sort of citation format to use (Wikipedia:Footnotes encourages the use of the <ref> tags but also claims to leave it open to the editor to decide what they prefer), but the advantages of the <ref> system are pretty large, IMO. There is a tool to convert from the old format to the new one at User:Cyde/Ref_converter, but I haven't used it myself. --Fastfission 19:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

JA: Let me just recommend that WP editors not invest a lot of time and entropy [sic] in citation styles and tools that are utterly DOA, like cite and ref. Jon Awbrey 20:54, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Fastfission: That is not the way I understood it, but that may well be my fault. I thought {{cite}} is a method to create uniform citations, whereas <ref> is a method to create 'footnotes'. So that would mean you'd get something like this: <ref>{{cite book | author=someone | title=the title}}</ref> and so on. I didn't know this would mess up numbering. -- Wijnand 20:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me, you're right about all that -- I was getting it confused with another template. I'm pretty sure I've seen people use the cite templates inside the ref tags (personally I can't stand using cite templates, but I understand why others find them useful). --Fastfission 23:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I pasted in your nested <ref> {{cite ... }} </ref> in two places, one here ^[3]. How does it look to everyone? One thing that I see is the numbering is indeed sequential in the article; the linked references have the the expected numbers. It even allows putting the list of footnotes at the top of the article, if that is where <references /> sits in the article. It could even be used as a kind of Table of Contents if it sat at the top of an article. --Ancheta Wis 22:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

What I like most about {{cite}} is that it will make sure all references are formatted consistently within an article. For those who want to use it, check out WP:CITE/ES for example styles. (Remember you have to follow the links tot the templates and check the source to actually see what's going on) And Ancheta Wis: to me it looks good :-) But I don't know about using references as a ToC.. -- Wijnand 06:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

<reduce indent> second that: in working on Catherine Cranston which involved repeating reference to sources for various points, with some of the sources contradicting each other to an extent, use of the <ref name=xxxx>{{cite book | first=xxx etc. ...}}</ref> system with citation templates from Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles#Citations of generic sources for books and web references worked really well. Having the cites in the text rather than trying to keep track of them in a separate footnote is good, though I found it a bit confusing at times. Overall, strongly recommended. ..dave souza, talk 12:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

For Whom The Bell Tolls

JA: A few general remarks on citations, footnotes, and stuff. No Wiki is an island, sufficient unto itself, but part of a Wider World, and even though WikiPediagogues are somewhat new to the business of sourced research, the Wider World is not, and there happens to be a rather vast amount of cumulative experience, and even quite a few experimental research studies, on the documentation practices that work best, on any number of factors from cognitive comprehension to robust maintainability, over the very, very long haul. WP denizens, including RoboCite and RoboRef innovators, are simply wasting their time and effort going up against what has become standard practice in that Wider World. Now, all of the reasons why the "Way Of Things" (WOT) came to be as it is can be explained if anybody is interested, but the sheer thrill of automating antiquated ways of doing things seems to be keeping anybody from heeding what is an utter no-brainer here, so I will just leave to these words to the wise. Hear me now, and believe me later, Jon Awbrey 14:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

eh? ..dave souza, talk 14:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Dave on this one.. -- Wijnand 20:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

JA: Ah. Two Canadians against the World. The usual odds, I must say. Jon Awbrey 20:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

JA: I much prefer to spend time working on articles, and only get in-cited every now and then to comment on these indicental matters out of a sense of self-defense, so here for your e-musement is an earlier manifester on this general non-subject:

Putting roller skates on the horse

JA: That's not how the Automobile got invented. The way I see it, a lot of time and ingenuity is being wasted on a system of citation that experienced scholars just plain don't use anymore, and never will again, for all sorts of reasons that would be immediately obvious here if WikiPedians had a longer history of actually sourcing their contributions in any routine and systematic way. Here are some of things that normally become obvious when you do this all the time.

1. Once you get more than a dozen or so items in your list of references and/or bibliography, then it's time to use an alphabetized list for both.
2. The list of references needs to be in one place, not scattered throughout the text. This allows for (1) easy error correction and omission checking, by virtue of the parallel comparison of literature entries that it facilitates, (2) extracting the references whole hog from an article, as scholars already familiar with a topic often find that the literature section is the only thing of real interest, for instance, if it cites sources that they haven't seen before. Further, this practice helps to prevent the erosion of accurate citations that inevitably occurs as editors will tend to use more and more abbreviated reference entries as time goes on.

JA: To be continued. Hold yer horses. Jon Awbrey 20:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Suddenly you're making a lot more sense. But then this practical issue arises: is such a system available in the Wonderful World of Wiki? Or even: should such a system be available, given the fact that most wikipedia articles are and ought to be well shorter than your average scientific article? I generally see (or edit) articles with at most five references to books or articles. Although you are right that correcting a typo can become hard if you also have to go figure out where the text with the typo actually is, I don't see a reason to at least use this system for now.

I also don't see a wikipedia article as primarily a place where scholars go to find sources, but as an article that explains a subject to just about anyone who is interested. The references are very useful, but in my opinion more so to make claims verifyable and to give some starting points for further reading, than to fill a scholar's BibTeX database. If that's what you meant. -- Wijnand 06:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with the assessment that scholars don't use footnotes. In work done in the history of science, extensive footnotes and/or endnotes is still the favored mode of citation. The goal of using such footnotes, closely tied to the content, on Wikipedia is to help with making sure that individual claims can be easily sourced. A list of alphabetized references at the end is not prohibited, even with a footnote system. --Fastfission 11:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

JA: Look, I'm just a messenger here. I do not expect that anybody will be swayed one way or the other just because of what I say, so all I can do is point to a world of customs and practices, and maybe it will serve to think about that. The stability of customs and practices is an index of their utility, hardly the last word on their optimality, but it happens that current practices in documentation are supported by a lot of experience and reality-testing of different ways of doing things.

JA: To clarify what we are talking about, here are some general points:

1. Footnotes are used for editorial remarks, not citations. The apparatus of editorial remarks may be extensive in critical editions of important works, but outside of that footnotes tend to be incidental and minimal.
2. Citations are placed in text, in forms like (Plato, p. 123) when there is only one work of a given authorship being used in the article, or forms like (Peirce 1870, pp. 1–9) when there are several works under the same authorship. It's best not to lose sleep over the presence of the p's, but leave that to taste.
3. References are placed in a alphabetized list of references.

These are the practices that seem to work best over the long haul. Jon Awbrey 12:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason I want to see citations is that as I look through Wikipedia, I frequently come across statments that seem really questionable, with no citations to back up where that specific fact comes from. I think putting a citation to a reliable source immediately adjacent to every fact that isn't common knowledge is a strong way to insure Verifiability.

I think JA is exagerrating the extent of uniformity in the "Wider World" outside Wiki. The standard practice he suggests (Footnotes for editorial remarks, Citations in text, and an alphabetized list of references) is in fact standard in the social sciences (I use it when writing for collections edited by my archaeolgist and anthropologist colleagues).

As FastFission points out, almost every historical journal uses Footnotes for both editorial remarks and citations, and sometimes adds an alphabetized list of references. It's a matter of disciplinary preference, indicated by the fact that the Chicago Manual of Style has separate chapters for the two styles of citation. When writing historical articles, I suggest following general historical practice (especially since Wiki now has such a nice way to keep footnotes organized). --SteveMcCluskey 17:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

JA, you're talking about the customs of one discipline. There are many options and Wikipedia's WP:CITE policy does not discriminate against them. I have no problem with parenthetic citation, but it is just one way to do it, and like all forms of citation it has its ups and downs. Footnote and endnote citation is extremely prevalent in historical works. Parenthetical is more common in the sciences and the social sciences. Neither is exclusive and neither is outmoded. I fail to see why this discussion belongs here, in any case (if you want to discuss the merits of citation formats, go to the policy page on citation), and I don't think the world hinges on this distinction in any case. --Fastfission 19:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

While I appreciate that JA is in dead Ernest, for a non academic like myself the recent system gives a hefty push towards being more systematic about references, even looking to show editions which I didn't try to do before. The "standards" he cites strike me as relating to, well, paper papers, and a bit irrelevant with linked text on these overgrown electric typewriters we're all using. Still, if what is desired can be achieved with software easily used by us mere mortals, so be it. ...dave souza, talk 20:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I despise inline citations; they are always an eyesore, whereas it's kinda nice to see footnote superscripts, once you get used to them.--ragesoss 20:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Is "history" one of the sciences studied in the history of science?

I was surprised to see the new section on "History" in the general article on History of Science. It's a good essay, but I don't think it belongs there for several reasons:

• In English usage history is not considered to be one of the sciences, unlike German usage which places it among the Wissenschaften.
• Historians of science seldom write about the history of history. Of the 5000 items in the 2004 and 2005 issues of the Isis Current Bibliography only one was categorized as the history of history as a discipline, and that was a biography of the historian of science, Herbert Butterfield.
• Historians also seldom write the history of their discipline. An essay in Perspectives: Newsmagazine of the American Historical Association vol. 44, no. 5 (May 2006), pp. 23-26, 36 commented on the lack of such inquiry.

Without commenting on its quality, I would remove this new section as misleading the reader on the scope of the history of science as it is currently practiced. --SteveMcCluskey 21:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

But is the study of History moving to a set of principles? If so, then that would be an argument that Historiography is gaining a scientific slant. Would it make sense to include Historiography rather than History itself? --Ancheta Wis 22:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Reading the content of the new section, it appears that the content of Historiography is still in the stage of ostensive definition. Ancheta Wis 22:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anybody considers history a "science" itself. There were, of course, people with aspirations for such, but it was always a call of making history a science, never a claim that it was a science (excluding Soviet rhetoric of course, which thought everything they did was a science). Today there are very few if any historians who would argue that history is or should be a "science" under the strict definition of science. --Fastfission 01:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Folks, welcome to the real world. Go to any college, and history is under social sciences. Psychology (or at least a significant contingent within psychology), and some sociologists finally prove their methodology as empirically and statistically sound (within the last 35 years or so), and all of a sudden, well, all the social sciences are in. Please do me a favor and go explain that to intelligent design advocates. ... Kenosis 01:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're advocating here. Sociologists and psychologists like to call themselves scientists, and some people disagree. But historians almost never call themselves scientists. Political scientists don't actually think they are "scientists" either, as I understand it, and wouldn't classify themselves under "history of science". --Fastfission 04:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Not advocating anything. I was merely observing that this is a fairly classic demarcation problem as I see it. I think sociology, liguistics, anthropology and such disciplines are already stretching the term "science", but that's just a personal preference for use of the term. What I do see is that once the other social sciences are presented, there appears to be little warrant to exclude history...Kenosis 13:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

And in any case... historians do often write about the history of history, but it is considered a type of historiography, not history of science. Historians of science are, of course, often concerned with historiography and its effects (Kuhn devotes quite a bit of SSR to discussing the historiography of science) but that does not make "history" a "science" in the sense that including it in this article would indicate. --Fastfission 04:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Fastfission puts it well. I think the history section doesn't belong here. The only time historians call themselves (social) scientists is when they want NSF grants ;). History of political science does have some relevance to history of science (e.g., Leviathan and the Air Pump and other SSK work), but isn't treated as a science on its own; it should probably go as well.--ragesoss 04:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What if the contribution were to be moved to the historiography article itself? --Ancheta Wis 11:15, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

That would work really well; it could almost just be dumpted right in as its own section after the "basic issues section" and before the journals list. "History of history," perhaps. The social science section is more about the historical role of politics in science; is there somewhere it could go? We don't have a Science and politics article. It might have a place in the theories and sociology article.--ragesoss 16:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Ancheta's suggestion of incorporating it into historiography , or perhaps starting a new entry called "History of history" would be the way to go. BTW, I posted a note about this on Daanschr's talk page, asking if he wanted to comment (since he wrote most of the History of history section). --SteveMcCluskey 21:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's put it all in historiography; it could definitely use the information (it has nothing on the history of historical writing in it at the moment). We could move it through the 19th and 20th century with a little consultation to Peter Novick's That Noble Dream, if someone has the time. --Fastfission 22:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I automatically presumed that history was a science, when i wrote my peace about history of history in this article, being enthusiastic about it that history was missing. I have a bachelor degree in history and am now doing my master. I have to admit that i have never heard a teacher on the university saying that history is a science. It is not an issue there. In the Netherlands (where i live), it used to be an issue ten years ago. Some politicians wanted to make an end the history education, because they thought that it didn't contribute anything and only costs society money. In France however, history is considered as the prime social science and it is very important there.

If i look at the defenition of science in the opening of this article, then i don't understand why history is not considered a science. it says: 'science refers to the system of acquiring knowledge – based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research.' The word science could be replaced by the study of history and then it would easily fit this description. The main difference between physics and history is that history involves far more causes to explain something, so it is very hard to come to the 'right' answer of 'scientific' questions in the study of history. Maybe it is a solution to add the remarks of Kuhn about science and state that it is controversial that social sciences belong to science.--Daanschr 08:41, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

About the immaturity of the study of history: the study of history in America surprises me. It seems like it is more important in America what to do with historical knowledge, then to find out what actually happened. American history handbook have a strong tendency to moralism. I don't understand why subgroups in the society should have such an impact on the study of history. There is lots of emphasis on female and African American history. Also, i like open questions instead of multiple choice in exams. To conclude, i think that the Dutch approach of the study of history is far more scientific. A major problem in the history study is the emotional involvement of people.

French historians started using philosophy, psychology, sociology, mathematics and other specialisms in their research, which makes it more scientific to my opinion. Sociology and psychology have the tendency to deal primarily with the present. Sociology uses the past to describe the present. History is about really understanding the past as it was. I don't know if the use of knowledge is important in science?--Daanschr 10:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

If you're interested in a good book on the development of the historical discipline in the U.S. in the 19th and 20th centuries, esp. on why certain questions have become as important as they are, I do recommend Peter Novick's That Noble Dream: The "Objectivity Question" and the American Historical Profession, which is really a pretty good book on it, and the rise and fall of demands that history be "scientific". Most historians in the U.S. and Europe would not consider history a "science" -- it does not have a pre-set methodology, it does not necessarily matter if its results are not testable, and it often does not attempt to be reductionist in its explanations (often much the opposite), just to name a few things which distinguish its goals from most recognized "sciences". For the purposes of a discussion like this, one needs to also draw a big line between history at the high school or undergraduate level and history at the graduate or academic level -- in the U.S., anyway, they are vastly different both in terms of content, style, and purpose (history at the high school level is, in the U.S., explicitly intended to make people into good citizens, not historians; history at the undergrad level is usually about learning facts and the rudiments of methodology; history at the graduate level is about learning the methodology and how to do independent research -- just to generalize wildly about these things, from my experience). Anyway, I think this content should be added to the historiography article, without a doubt. --Fastfission 14:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

You know more about this then me, so i agree that history should be removed from this article. I like to note that most historians are not concerned about wether history is a science or not. I didn't learn anything about it at the university, except for the teacher of philosophy of history, who told a great deal about it. Also, in the handbook used for philosophy of history it is said that most historians don't care about it. In De constructie van het verleden by Chris Lorenz, history is put under social sciences. In the Netherlands, history doesn't belong to the social sciences but to the study of literature just like in Germany. In France, history really is a social science. Do you know anything more about the debate on this topic? Maybe science has a different meaning then wetenschap or Wissenschaft.--Daanschr 14:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

A good question is wether history is seen as a science in non-American english-speaking countries, like the United Kingdom, India, South africa, Canada, Australia etc. Or if a worldwide view is important, then America should be compared with all other countries. In the Netherlands history is sometimes referred to as geschiedswetenschap.--Daanschr 14:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I recently posted proposed merger templates at Historiography and History of science#History. The templates have default links to Talk:Historiography where other aspects of this issue may be raised. --SteveMcCluskey 13:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I just merged it into the Historiography article. You people do what you will on this page. =) -- TheMightyQuill 18:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Medieval Indian Science

The Medieval Indian Science section seems a little off topic. At the start it refers to innovations that occured before the Middle Ages, then it talks about things that don't seem to be directly related to the history of science. "The spinning wheel used for spinning thread or yarn from fibrous material such as wool or cotton was invented in the early Middle Ages" hardly refers to science, or even pre-scientific investigation. Referring to different metals as being "invented" probably isn't the best terminology either - "discovered" could be more appropriate.

None of this section appears to be referenced, and there has been a request for a citation for iron rockets since February.

It may also be more appropriate for Indian Science to be put before the Islamic Science section, as some Indian concepts are mentioned as being the basis for Arab mathematics and pre-scientific investigation. Grimhelm 19:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Islamic Science

There's been some discussion previously of the need for an article on the History of Islamic Science. At present there is a small section of that sort in the article on Islamic science.

There's a real potential for tension there because two different groups are interested in the topic of Islamic Science, and these two groups define it in very different ways. I am concerned that the different assumptions of these two groups may lead to unnecessary conflict, which can be avoided by dividing the present article in two.

• The article "Islamic science" seems to have been founded by advocates of a modern intellectual movement called "Islamic science," which seeks to establish the practice of science within a particular set of traditional Islamic religious norms. Thus the article defines "Islamic science [as] science in the context of traditional religious ideas of Islam, including its ethics and philosophy. A Muslim engaged in this field is called a Muslim scientist. This is not the same as science as conducted by Muslims in the secular context" (my emphasis).

• Historians of science, on the other hand, find this definition excessively constraining, since we investigate the ways in which scholars within the Islamic world developed scientific ideas through original research and by drawing on and transforming the ideas of their neighbors and predecessors. It really doesn't matter to historians of science whether the particular scientist was Muslim (e.g., al-Khwarizmi), Sabian (e.g., Thabit ibn Qurra), Christian (e.g., Hunain ibn Ishaq), or Jewish (e.g., Hasdai ibn Shaprut), whether he advocated strict adherence to Muslim traditions (e.g. al-Ghazzali) or was critical of tradition and open to the ideas of foreign philosophers (e.g. Averroës), or whether he worked in a religious or secular context. If he studied natural phenomena and worked within the Islamic world, his work fits the historians' broader definition of Islamic science.

These contradictory expectations are likely to lead to conflict in two or more different ways:

• When historians wish to discuss scholars who don't follow traditional Islamic religious norms, while advocates of the modern movement would wish to delete these from the discussion.

• When advocates of the modern Islamic science movement wish to discuss those modern scholars who contribute to the development of that movement, while historians would wish to delete them as not relevant to the historical development of science in Islamic cultures.

Rather than go this unhappy route, I propose an amicable divorce, removing the section on the History of Islamic Science (perhaps renamed History of Science in Islam) and making it a separate article under the History of Science portal, and leaving the remaining article on Islamic Science as part of the series of articles on Islam. --SteveMcCluskey 21:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, the split has been accomplished. The new article History of science in the Islamic World has been set up (right now it's only a somewhat large stub), with appropriate links and a disambiguation page at Science in Islam. Feel free to help build this article into a good historical study. --SteveMcCluskey 15:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The brethren of purity, Basra, 950 CE is an earlier scientific society than Giambattista della Porta's. I learned of it from Wightman's Growth of Scientific Ideas. But it already has an article! --User:Ancheta Wis 12:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Stable version now

Let's begin the discussion per the protocol. What say you? [submitted 11 July 2006 by User:Ancheta Wis

The editors here have done a phenomenal job with this article in my opinion. The content is well balanced, and the illustrations and layout are excellent. ... Kenosis 04:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC) ... What's up with the current section on History of science#Medieval Indian science and technology though? The material on Aryabhata seems quite credible and can be sourced though secondary literature on the Aryabhatiya. Much of the rest seems to be on extremely thin ice. ... Kenosis 06:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur that a stable version of the article should be selected. On balance, the article is quite good although I have a few problems with the section on Pre-Experimental Science which, as I expressed elsewhere, is of doubtful validity. Nonetheless, I think we can settle on one of the recent versions for the stable version of this page and future editing will work its way in. --SteveMcCluskey 14:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

PS Here's my nomination of the current version for the stable version. --SteveMcCluskey 14:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Y'all do you know that the "stable version now" thing is just a (highly controversial) proposal and that there exists no policy or infrastructure to support it, right? JDoorjam Talk 01:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but some of us think it's a very good -- and long overdue -- idea. In that case, the principles Be bold and Ignore all rules seem relevant. --SteveMcCluskey 03:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

As does WP:CONSENSUS. I recommend you join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Stable versions now. JDoorjam Talk 04:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not, the discussions were generally opposed to the idea. WP:CONSENSUS, WP:PROT, WP:5P all individually (never mind collectively) trump a still-under-discussion-but-largely-rejected proposal. Cynical 20:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

More missing material?

Anything on geographic-specific histories of science, ie: history of science in US? [left unsigned 06:24, 11 July 2006 68.255.4.208 ]

Political science...

While I think that Mac Davis's new political science section is much better in terms of content than the previous one, it is a little long, no? I mean, I don't think most people even consider political science to be part of the history of science (I don't know when it first started calling itself "political science" but it certainly wasn't called that in Machiavelli's day when it was clearly considered more along the lines of law and history than it was a "science", which even today most people don't call it), and currently it is as long as the section on "Biology, medicine, and genetics" in the 20th century (three major topics in one). Perhaps someone can prune it down a bit? Mac? --Fastfission 03:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

History of Political Science

The new section on the History of Political Science was lifted verbatim from the Antecedents of political science section of the article on Political Science.

While this change replaced a section that dealt more with the political context necessary for the development of science than the history of political science, I've reverted to the previous version. --SteveMcCluskey 02:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

OOPS, I should have read FastFission's comment before talking. I think his idea of using it as a starting point for editing is a good one. I won't revert.

BTW, is it plagiarism to lift a section from another Wikipedia article? --SteveMcCluskey 02:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not plagiarism, as it helps consistency in seperate articles, and all edits are assumed to be free to use anyway:

"If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it."

It is perfectly reasonable to redistribute information between separate articles, although a reword or change of style can help it stay on-topic. Grimhelm 15:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Steve, by the tenets of the GNU Free Documentation License, anything written under it is free content. Thus material written under GFDL is appropriate for re-use in another Wikipedia article. --Ancheta Wis 15:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Peer review citation needed

Please comment on the discussion at Talk:History of scientific method#Peer review in medieval Islam?. --SteveMcCluskey 16:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Italian Renaissance Backwardness

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

Science, and particularly geometry and astronomy, was linked directly to the divine for most medieval scholars. Since God created the universe after geometric and harmonic principles, to seek these principles was therefore to seek and worship God.

The image of the Vitruvian man (right) is misleading in the medieval section of this article, as the Italian Renaissance to which the image belongs was a time of great scientific backwardness (see here).

I suggest that another suitable image, such as that from the History of science in the Middle Ages (left), should replace it, as it is more in the spirit of European scientific thought from the 12th century Renaissance. (I would, however, also recommend that the caption of the left image be made more concise). --Grimhelm 10:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I have shortened the caption from 11 lines to 7 lines, so it reads thus:

To medieval scholars, because God created the universe using geometric and harmonic principles, trying to understand geometry and astronomy was seen as trying to understand God.

I have also added a reference to the image caption. --Grimhelm 12:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd be a little cautious in describing the Renaissance as a time of scientific backwardness; it was more properly a time of shift of scientific focus away from scholastic natural philosophy to other disciplines: especially (al)chemistry the biological sciences of botany, medicine, and anatomy. Alan Debus's book, Man and Nature in the Renaissance, nicely sketches this different focus.

I like the picture from the Bible Moralisee of God the craftsman. It's a good depiction of the medieval perspective on nature. The caption, however, is a bit wordy, I'll have a go at moving part of it to the text. --SteveMcCluskey 14:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the initial period of the Italian Renaissance is described in another article as follows:

There were no new developments in physics or astronomy, and 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.

And it also says that the scientific shift you mention did not occur until the Northern Renaissance of Francis Bacon and Copernicus; the emphasis of this article's Scientific Revolution section on Vesalius (Holy Roman Empire) and Newton (England) supports this. Of the 15 Renaissance people mentioned in that section, only one of them is Italian (Galileo). --Grimhelm 15:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be based on other Wikipedia articles. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet. Could you cite a specific reliable source for this opinion?

Thanks for pointing me at the History of science in the Renaissance article; from a quick glance it seems to need editing and documentation too. --SteveMcCluskey 17:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Revisionist History

Many people are thinking it, so I'll go ahead and say it out loud. A Wiki by its nature is going to trend towards the history that people prefer rather than the history that actually happened, which is ominous. Page locking and peer review schemes are just stop-gaps. My advice to people devoting their time to this is to give it up.

I've just come back from browsing the links, and now I'm doubly convinced. The article on "floating point" (a means of representing real numbers in computer memory), states without qualification that floating point was in use by the "Kerala School" of mathematics in the 14th century. (A moment ago I removed an attribution of floating point to the Kerala School from this article.)

Of course, it'd be possible to work out a notational scheme for doing floating point by hand, but it'd be a sloppy mess (keeping track of bits, etc). You'd need a very good reason to do so. Perhaps there's something to be gained from the loss of precision in overflow and underflow cases? Even if there is, how could one trust the Kerala School article to discover what it is? The article is a recitation of the Keralese concepts that were being applied in India long before they'd been heard of in Europe, concluding with a section -- the longest in the article -- containing speculations as to how these concepts might've made there way to the Europeans. Practically nothing is said of the concepts themselves!

In any case, the fact that something as arcane as floating point numbers made its way into an article on the history of science is evidence enough of gross disproportionality. And I'm afraid it's endemic to the Wiki concept. I'm serious when I say this -- people should stop wasting their valuable intellectual energy on this.

Do you actually have reason to doubt the Kerala case in particular or are you just rejecting it out of hand? I don't know much about Indian mathematics but the claim about floating point numbers is available in secondary literature as even a cursory search of just online literature reveals. See, for example, Dennis F. Almeida and George G. Joseph, "Eurocentrism in the History of Mathematics" Race and Class 45, no. 4 (2004): 45-59: "Deduction was an integral part of pramana, but it was not imagined, as in the case of Greek mathematics, that the exclusion of the empirical somehow conferred a superior and infallible status on deduction. In addition, the use of irrational numbers, unlike early Greek mathematics, was accepted in Indian mathematics by the use of floating point number approximations. ... On the other hand, from the fifteenth century onwards, the Kerala mathematicians employed computational mathematics with floating point numbers to understand the notion of the infinitesimal and derive infinite series for certain targeted functions. ... " I don't know if that's true or not — nor do I honestly care much — but personally I'd lend a bit more authority (for the purposes of the Wiki) to the published claim than your personal judgment that it would be a "sloppy mess" (it is clear, at least, that you clearly took your maxim of not wasting any intellectual energy on this to heart).

Wikipedia is bound by content policies which attempt to restrict the overrepresentation of fringe views. The project is always a work in progress and never quite complete, but to dismiss it out of hand seems a rather uncritical—if not irresponsible—move. I suspect you have very little understanding of how the Wiki actually works on a day-to-day basis; it's a little more complicated a dynamic than you seem to think it is, and in areas where there is active support from specialists it is actually quite easy to make sure that nonsense is kept out. For areas which are less well-known it is of course harder to have that sort of policework.

Please feel free to spend your "valuable intellectual energy" elsewhere. --Fastfission 03:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I said that a notation for doing floating point by hand is possible (which is obvious). There's no doubt it'd be cumbersome working with bits, where different bits have different interpretations. Keralese floating point does sound interesting, but where is it? Floating point is a very specific thing -- one bit of memory to represent the sign, some number of bits to represent the exponent, etc. It'd be very interesting to know that people were working with bits in the 14th century. Perhaps it was something like floating point, but how would I know? Where is it? (It's certainly not in the race-and-class math book you cite.) The more important question is this: What is such an arcane aspect of mathematics doing in a short article on the history of science?

I didn't mean to be insulting with the waste-of-time remark. I had in mind the people who seem to be pursuing this full time. Here's what's going to happen with wikipedia (you heard it here first) -- as Internet access becomes more and more widespread, you're going to get more and more edits from people who feel that their own countries aren't adequately represented, or who feel the need to promote this or that 'ism'. The task of sorting it all out will become overwhelming. This floating point issue is a good case in point. How much can experts on the history of science possibly know about floating point? (Maybe it's not such a representative case because it's related to computer science, which I'm sure a lot of people in the wiki community are familiar with.) You'll get more and more of these "citation needed" mark-ups, and there just won't be enough person-power to provide the citations, or to check the citations that are provided. Saying that people should just give it up was too extreme -- I should've just said that it's a losing battle. Look at the history for the article on the French Revolution. Someone made dozens of attempts to reapply the same trivial changes; changes that don't even have any sort of agenda. Imagine an army of such people who DO have an agenda.

The review of Physics continues at Talk:Physics/wip

Some time ago a group of editors set up a "work in progress" page (at Talk:Physics/wip) to hammer out a consensus for the Physics article, which for too long had been in an unstable state. Discussion of the lead for the article has taken a great deal of time and thousands of words. The definitional and philosophical foundations seem to cause most headaches; but progress has been made. Why not review some of the proposals for the lead material that people are putting forward, or put forward your own, or simply join the discussion? The more contributors the better, for a consensus. – Noetica 02:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: Concrete proposals have now been put forward, arising from recent discussion aimed at producing a stable and consensual lead section for the Physics article. We have set up a straw poll, for comments on the proposals. Why not drop in at Talk:Physics/wip, and have your say? The more the better! – Noetica 22:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)