| History of science has been listed as a level-2 vital article in History. If you can improve it, please do. This page has been rated as B-Class. |  | History of science was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | | | | | This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | |  B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | | High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. | | |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | | | B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | | Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. | | | |
[edit] Science in China In the last 24 hours there have been a series of reverts, back and forth about this version, mostly pertaining to science in China. First, please note and follow the three revert rule. Second, it may be helpful to discuss the version here to come to some kind of consensus. What is it about the new version people dislike, and what was wrong with the older version? Best, -TeaDrinker (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC) - The main problem is that the new additions seem like mostly unsourced OR. --Tsourkpk (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- There is at least one mispelling by the anon; the text which the anon is hitting was formed by Needham's monumental work Science and Civilization in China which asks Needham's Grand Question: why didn't scientific method arise in China? Apparently one reason is that the age of Discovery in China ran out of cash. The voyages of Zheng He were not followed up, whereas the voyages from Europe 'hit the jackpot'. Needham, for example, faults the lack of knowledge of the laws of mechanics which were still in the process of formation in the West. There was no scientific revolution. Needham, by the way, was a sinophile. China has caught up in science, it is fairly clear; for example, Nobel laureate C. N. Yang, in a public lecture, has stated that everything he needed to learn in physics, he learned in his Chinese university schooling. What Yang needed and got in the U.S. was what are the current problems which need to be solved?. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
You are welcome to correct my mispelling, but the work I wrote is certainly sourced. Needham's "grand question" can be answered simply that the scientific did arise in China, which can be easily supported if you look at historical facts. One of the problems of historians like Needham that study the history of a people whose language they do not understand is that they suffer from a severe impairment in accessing historical records. Historical records are written in a language that is not easily grasped by even a person fluent in a language, so much more one who does not even have that. Unfortunately, translations often lose the essence of the meaning of a text, and many terms are of course not translatable. With this in mind, there was no European scientific revolution until modern times because of important historical factors, but science definitely existed in China since ancient times. The critical steps of hypothesis, experimentation, observation, and theorization all existed in China at least since the Han dynasty when the world's first paper was invented. Please refer to these sources: http://www.ipl.org/div/subject/browse/hum60.60.60/. The insertion that the ancient Chinese philosophical framework prevented them from practicing science is pure rubbish when you consider the facts. Confucius, one of the greatest philosophical influences on ancient Chinese thought, taught in the Analects that ultimately finding "the Way" consisted in "the investigation of things". This investigation was interpreted to be the highest endeavor of man, and it may be one of the factors behind the flourishing of universities and scientific learning in China when Europe at the same time was immersed in religious mysticism and superstition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.176.84 (talk) 19:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC) -
-
- Here is a citation which directly contradicts 99.255.176.84's claim: See Page 467 of H. Floris Cohen, The Scientific Revolution: A Historiographical Inquiry, 1994, Chicago, Chicago University Press.
- In-line citations are definitely in order here. It is unfortunate that the literature of the ipl site you list above refers to concepts which have little credibility in our current time. If you look at the theory of the Chinese seismometer from 124 CE, it refers to dragons etc. We have been trained to disregard those concepts.
- Some bridge articles to translate those concepts to more palatable terms are probably in order. When Newton framed the mechanistic view of the world he moved world civilization away from the unobservables, while still keeping the work of the Ancients, such as Apollonius, Archimedes, etc. Their work survives in the current edifice called Science. But not dragons. What the article needs is concrete scientific advances, their citations, and perhaps some sub-articles. The current List of Chinese discoveries is very much in this vein; perhaps you might wish to summarize some items from this list to buttress your POV.
- I would not be so quick to denigrate Needham; he spent a lifetime studying science and civilization in China, and his research has been extended.
- Here is a link to a biography of Needham The man who loved China by Simon Winchester (2008)
- There is a difference between technology and science. The Four Great Inventions are technology. If you want a starting point for science, Thales' speculation on the nature of matter is considered by some to be the beginning of science. Now I am not an expert on the corresponding Chinese literature, but where are the citations for the analog of Thales? I am aware that air or qi is very important to Chinese civilization, to the extent that a mother will blow on a child's hurt to soothe it, but where is the Chinese literature that speaks to the phases of qi, in a similar way as Thales' phases of water?
- Needham identified wu wei (going with the grain of Nature) as the highest form of action in Chinese thought. Reference: p. 474 of H.F.Cohen
- You may wish to consider the observations of the 1054 supernova in the Crab Nebula. Chinese, Arab, and even possibly Native American astronomers observed and recorded it. (for the Native American petroglyphs see Page 23 Malvin Ruderman (1986) "Old and New Neutron Stars", Highlights of Modern Astrophysics ISBN 0-471-82421-6 ) Does this say that science was ongoing in pre-Columbian America? No. In order for science to flourish, there needs to be a critical mass of thinkers, a scientific community which is observing, hypothesizing, experimenting, commenting. There needs to be an awareness that science is important enough to fund and support, whether individually, or by a larger society of supporters. That is what I was trying to emphasize when I wrote of the failure of the voyages of Zheng He. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 01:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hajj and science In addition, there was the Hajj, which facilitated scholarly collaboration by bringing together people and new ideas from all over the Muslim world. Citation need, no? Faro0485 (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC) It sounds reasonable and intuitive, just relying on common sense. I don't see why you would need a citation for something like this - that would be like needing a citation for saying apples are red. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.176.84 (talk) 20:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC) - Reasonable and intuitive it may be/ or not. However, if a bit of text is questioned, then a citation should be provided to back up that intuition. Vsmith (talk) 23:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
-
- If its reasonable and intuitive enough that means that it doesn't need a citation. Furthermore, if you aren't going to participate in the discussion on Science in China then don't edit my work out because then it is just vandalism. What I wrote is sourced and if you want to dispute it you can join the discussion instead of unreasonably vandalizing my work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.255.176.84 (talk) 03:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I suggest we remove that mention on "hajj and science collaboration" Faro0485 (talk) 00:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC) - Commented out per talk. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 10:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Science in the Islamic world
This article may be inaccurate or unbalanced in favor of certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page. Perhaps we can remove that tag? Faro0485 (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC) - I am unclear about the reasons for the unbalanced/inaccurate tag. Can someone justify it please? In the absence of a response in 9 or 10 days, I propose to comment it out. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
-
- I think the original reasons for the section on Islamic science being "unbalanced towards certain viewpoints" were something along the lines of the following:
- The section is too long for an article that is already at 90 Kb and should be a more focused overview. In a number of sections, the article digresses off the point into unnecessary detail. Specifically in the Islamic section, for example, there are two blockquotes on a single point: that Islamic philosophers developed the scientific method. (For an overview article, more than one blockquote on a single point should probably be avoided.) Some other sections such as Greek and Chinese science are a little too long as well.
- The section supports a single view: that the Islamic world invented science (or to quote the source cited, that science was "the most momentous contribution of Arab civilization to the modern world"). Recognition of the Arab contribution to science is certainly and deservedly gaining strength, but there should be some mention of criticisms.
- There is no mention or discussion of the limitations to science in the Islamic world. See, for example, the preceding section on Chinese science, which outlines cultural limitations, and the following section on Medieval Christian science, which outlines the socio-economic limitations of the Black Death.
- There are also few things mentioned such as cultural history, historiography and philosophy of history, which are not generally regarded as sciences. It's been a while since I've edited this article, and I'm currently on a long wikibreak, but I hope to gather source materials together and come back to improve the article on these issues in June. --Grimhelm (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- OK. have fun; no pressure on the time. We await your contribution. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- Taking out those two quotes and refering the Views of Historians and Scholars section on Science in Medieval Islam would most likely be a starting point, no? Faro0485 (talk) 04:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello! This bot has detected that this page contains an image, Image:Meccanismo_di_Antikytera.jpg, in a raster format. A replacement is available as a Scalable vector graphic (SVG) at File:Antikythera_mechanism.svg. If the replacement image is suitable please edit the article to use the vector version. Scalable vector graphics should be used in preference to raster for images that can easily represented in a vector graphic format. If this bot is in error, you may leave a bug report at its talk page Thanks SVnaGBot1 (talk) 10:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC) [edit] Citation? In prehistoric times, advice and knowledge was passed from generation to generation in an oral tradition. The development of writing enabled knowledge to be stored and communicated across generations with much greater fidelity. Combined with the development of agriculture, which allowed for a surplus of food, it became possible for early civilizations to develop, because more time could be devoted to tasks other than survival. Many ancient civilizations collected astronomical information in a systematic manner through simple observation. Though they had no knowledge of the real physical structure of the planets and stars, many theoretical explanations were proposed. Basic facts about human physiology were known in some places, and alchemy was practiced in several civilizations. Considerable observation of macrobiotic flora and fauna was also performed. The following above needs inline citation. Faro0485 (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Which line specifically needs Citation? Can you highlight problem areas? --67.132.247.216 (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
|
