![]() | JavaScript NA‑class | ||||||
|
![]() | Science Redirect‑class | ||||||
|
![]() | This redirect was nominated for deletion on 10 May 2016. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This is basically a fork of the current science page.
We can discuss this draft on the current science talk page, for simplicity.
I propose that we copy the consensus page back over the current science page when the time is right. We can avoid attribution problems in the history, that way. -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 18:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
@Ancheta Wis and anybody else, can you please comment on the emerging outline elements. Can the existing material on history, philosophy, and method fit into the themes of thes sections? Do we need separate sections, as in the nondraft article, for history, philosophy, and method? Just asking. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 02:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I just realized you meant the Neuenschwander essay on Light. So taking light as the central element, if we examine Neuenschwander's essay
This is impressive, but to use a Wisconsin phrase, it's not all rainbows and doughnuts. There are issues such as dark matter, etc.
For light and color, my favorite is the chromaticity diagram -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 14:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
@Ancheta Wis, I like the sound of this, yes. I could imagine a very nice essay following either of the outlines you've proposed. I also like your ability to think creatively. Would this not, however, be a tremendous amount of work? And, then, would other editors find it appropriate for an encyclopedia article. I'm feeling the vacuum of few contributors, here, just you and me. We need someone else to comment, I think. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 14:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
My motivation for participating in this draft is to produce, in a relatively quiet page, material for the role which Alhacen played with the legacy of Aristotle and Hellenic thought with the Perspectivists, who were intellectually ready for their forebears, and who directly influenced Renaissance art. His role is well documented already, by scholars who have known of him for a thousand years. Specifically, A. Mark Smith has worked on this for some 40 years already (cf David C. Lindberg). I realize I should also write Smith's page, if someone does not beat me to it. Same for Shmuel Sambursky, of course (Sambursky does have a page on he.wikipedia.org). -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 16:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
It heated up quickly. I responded, and in the process, almost put in the following in Talk:science:
Some of the consequences of Alhacen's productive example:
We are hashing these consequences out at
Draft:science page, in tentative outline right now. All contributors are welcome.
Do you think it would help? -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 17:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The philosophical schools of Constructivism and intuitionism arouse hostility for some reason. I do not think this hostility is sufficient reason not to use this philosophical basis for investigation. Otherwise, the hostile parties are left only with defensive tactics, not constructive responses in their war against their enemy. (Compare Stanislaw Lem's memoir, as a schoolboy, in his war against education. Compare Feynman's stand against education as a form of intellectual tyranny)
But a constructive action creates its own justification, as a free market will just use the action for its own purposes. Witness the success of crowdfunding. -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 18:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi! Could we copy this discussion over to Talk:Science and leave a redirect, so we can keep discussion in one place and make sure that everyone sees it? Thanks! Sunrise ( talk) 05:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() | JavaScript NA‑class | ||||||
|
![]() | Science Redirect‑class | ||||||
|
![]() | This redirect was nominated for deletion on 10 May 2016. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This is basically a fork of the current science page.
We can discuss this draft on the current science talk page, for simplicity.
I propose that we copy the consensus page back over the current science page when the time is right. We can avoid attribution problems in the history, that way. -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 18:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
@Ancheta Wis and anybody else, can you please comment on the emerging outline elements. Can the existing material on history, philosophy, and method fit into the themes of thes sections? Do we need separate sections, as in the nondraft article, for history, philosophy, and method? Just asking. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 02:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I just realized you meant the Neuenschwander essay on Light. So taking light as the central element, if we examine Neuenschwander's essay
This is impressive, but to use a Wisconsin phrase, it's not all rainbows and doughnuts. There are issues such as dark matter, etc.
For light and color, my favorite is the chromaticity diagram -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 14:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
@Ancheta Wis, I like the sound of this, yes. I could imagine a very nice essay following either of the outlines you've proposed. I also like your ability to think creatively. Would this not, however, be a tremendous amount of work? And, then, would other editors find it appropriate for an encyclopedia article. I'm feeling the vacuum of few contributors, here, just you and me. We need someone else to comment, I think. Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 14:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
My motivation for participating in this draft is to produce, in a relatively quiet page, material for the role which Alhacen played with the legacy of Aristotle and Hellenic thought with the Perspectivists, who were intellectually ready for their forebears, and who directly influenced Renaissance art. His role is well documented already, by scholars who have known of him for a thousand years. Specifically, A. Mark Smith has worked on this for some 40 years already (cf David C. Lindberg). I realize I should also write Smith's page, if someone does not beat me to it. Same for Shmuel Sambursky, of course (Sambursky does have a page on he.wikipedia.org). -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 16:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
It heated up quickly. I responded, and in the process, almost put in the following in Talk:science:
Some of the consequences of Alhacen's productive example:
We are hashing these consequences out at
Draft:science page, in tentative outline right now. All contributors are welcome.
Do you think it would help? -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 17:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
The philosophical schools of Constructivism and intuitionism arouse hostility for some reason. I do not think this hostility is sufficient reason not to use this philosophical basis for investigation. Otherwise, the hostile parties are left only with defensive tactics, not constructive responses in their war against their enemy. (Compare Stanislaw Lem's memoir, as a schoolboy, in his war against education. Compare Feynman's stand against education as a form of intellectual tyranny)
But a constructive action creates its own justification, as a free market will just use the action for its own purposes. Witness the success of crowdfunding. -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 18:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi! Could we copy this discussion over to Talk:Science and leave a redirect, so we can keep discussion in one place and make sure that everyone sees it? Thanks! Sunrise ( talk) 05:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)