Talk:History of science/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

GA Delisting

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of December 23, 2007, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.
The biggest problem right now with this article is citations. It begins really well, with each subsection containing at least one in-line citation at the end of the paragraph, then slowly starts disintegrating until the latter half contains no citations whatsoever. This article was passed before the introduction of standard criteria in 2006 and, while it can be argued that the citations are contained within the individual articles themselves, those citations need to be extracted and added to this article, which should in theory be easier than finding all new references to cite the material. In addition, there are smaller problems, pertaining mainly to the manual of style, that should be addressed before re-nomination at WP:GAN. It may be helpful to review the criteria set out in WP:GACR. Cheers, CP 23:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

why math and social sciences????

the problem with this page is that it lists a whole lots of facts that are not related to science, their are whole sections talking about mathematical achievements, but math is distinct from science, and its also treated distinctly here on wiki. These references to math should be removed since they clutter the article with irrelevent fatcs and continue to confuse readers with the idea that math and science are the same, which of course they are not since math is just a system of logic, while science on the other hand offers insights into nature that are fundemntal truths, as opposed to math which essentially all abstract. Secondly, there is whole laundry list of social sciences, and that has even less to do with science, the whole social science section must me removed, since it has obsolutely no relevance in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.181.171 (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree in part, however the statement that social sciences came about from applying scientific method to studying society does a huge disservice to the social science discipline. The links between the history of science and the social scientist's view of natural science are in my view highly relevant here and we need someone more capable than I to distil out the concepts and links between the two. Seanosul (talk) 05:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

RFC:Science in Medieval Western Europe

I am requesting commentary on the creation of the Science in Medieval Western Europe article as a split out from the Science in the Middle Ages article. If you have comments please offer them here.

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Medieval science sub-articles

There was a discussion that began on the Science in the Middle Ages talk page that has led to a larger discussion about what articles should exist. It seems appropriate to continue that discussion here.

The basic questions which arose were whether an article titled Science in the Middle Ages should focus primarily on Europe, whether there should be an article talking about medieval science around the world and an article talking about Europe in particular, and a general question as to what the proper naming conventions/scopes should be of such articles. Comments from one of the contributors:

If this was purely to do with terminology, I think I would agree with SteveMcCluskey. However, I don't think it is - there was enough interaction between China, India, the Muslim world and (even if mainly through the Muslim world) western Europe during the period to justify an article surveying science in all four geographical areas during some period roughly corresponding to the European Middle Ages. And, particularly allowing for the amount of material, this should probably not be the same article as the detailed one on medieval western European science. So in practice I agree with Mcorazao, though further consideration of the titles (and possibly the exact scopes) of both articles may be advisable. PWilkinson (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Others have felt that "Middle Ages" is a term primarily associated with Europe and so the "Middle Ages" article should be focused in that direction.

My two cents:

• This article, History of science, discusses both Europe and the Islamic world under the term "Middle Ages". I would argue that even that is too narrow but still it does not give extra weight to Europe. The use of the terminology should be consistent across articles (i.e. either narrow the use of Middle Ages in this article or expand the use in Science in the Middle Ages).
• Although "Middle Ages" has been traditionally used to refer primarily to Europe I do not believe it is fair to say that scholars today exclusively use the term in this vein. There are woks that talk about Medieval China, for example, referring to the same period (although admittedly there are other works that refer to other Chinese periods as their "Middle Ages" as well).
• I personally think that authors should be careful about using terms referring to time periods to exclusively refer to one culture even if that term is almost always used with that culture. There may be exceptions but I think it is clearer and potentially more NPOV to mention the culture one is describing in the title.
• I think the articles should be split out as follows:
  • Science in the Middle Ages - Discuss science throughout the world. Particular weight should be given to events that were most significant both in terms of their effects on history and in terms of their long-term impact on modern science (sometimes the two are not the same). In other words it is not necessarily inappropriate to limit discussion of primitive cultures that did not contribute significantly to the world during this time.
  • Science in Medieval Western Europe - An article focused on Roman Catholic Europe only mentioning other cultures in the context of how they influenced or were influenced by RC Europe.
  • Others - Ideally it would be nice to rename articles discussing other cultures to follow a similar naming convention but I'm not married to the idea. My main concern is not whether articles are called "Science of" or whatever but rather that the titles are clear on their scope.

Other comments?

--Mcorazao (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

A split by time might be viewed as capricious after all the work is done. How would you split Middle ages from Antiquity?

• For those of us who were influenced by the Roman empire, would you split it at the rise of the Holy Roman empire?
• Now about the Caliphates-- How about the Judaeo-Hellenic predecessors to the Caliphates? There was a time when Arabia was Jewish (That is what Musawi means, for example: follower of Moses=Jewish, to this day in some North African passports).
• For India, where would you split Middle ages from antiquity? With the rise of astronomy? With the rise of metallurgy or the wheel?
• For China, where would you split Middle ages from antiquity? With Shen Kuo?
• For Oceania, where would you split Middle ages from antiquity? With the rise of oceanic navigators and ocean-going vessels?
• With metal-working or some other technology or methodology(such as scientific method)?
• With the rise of scientific communities in each of the cultures? --Ancheta Wis (talk) 00:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, by the same principles I would argue these arguments are capricious. One can extend your arguments saying that all history is intricately interlinked and therefore the entire history of the planet cannot be separated. So I don't see this as a useful line of thinking.

The point is that if you are going to break up the history you have to break it up somewhere. So either you break it up by having one article for each culture discussing the entire history of that culture or you break it up by time periods. There are valid arguments for each but I would argue that breaking it up by time periods is more practical in that it is easier to discuss the interrelationships between cultures.

As far as where to draw the line obviously that is somewhat arbitrary. If we focus on where the major scientific achievements were being made it is somewhat easier. Obviously there was an important transition in the European/Near Eastern/North African world between roughly 4th and 8th centuries and then again between the 13th and 15th centuries. So certainly for that part of the world the intervening period is an interesting time to separate. And given that this part of the world contained much of the leadership in science (albeit different leaders at different times) it is not unreasonable to at least partially bias things in that direction. Clearly, China cannot be ignored, though. But there were some important transitions in China that roughly correspond to this same period. Notably, the Tang Dynasty (618-907) and Song Dynasty (960-1279) are regarded as a high points in Chinese civilization (the Tang dynasty is tthought of by some as the start of the Chinese state). Chinese civilization would take a radical turn, though with the arrival of the Mongols in the 13th century and so this can be seen as the end of the Medieval period parallel to what happened further west.

Again these lines are somewhat arbitrary and not the only lines that could be drawn but it is not unreasonable to say that there was an identifiable "era" in Eurasia/North Africa (the area of most scientific progress) during this time.

--Mcorazao (talk) 07:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It might be useful to split by Everett Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations. My guide to this is the role of language. For example, the orang asli of southeast Asia now speak the same languages as their neighbors, even though they were clearly the first to inhabit the region. Neighboring cultures will transfect each other with their memes.

So for example, if we were to split by the rise of scientific communities, then the history of science could be marked by the rise of the astronomers of Chaldea, the academy of Plato, the Brethren of Purity in Basra, and the academy of Giambattista della Porta. There might be corresponding communities in China which can be identified by sources in Joseph Needham's work, etc. Note that these markers would be less arbitrary than a time. After all, Einstein teaches us that time does not pass uniformly for all people. Note that there are nations of the world which are skipping some historical stages of development, going right from subsistence agriculture to cellphone-based commerce. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 09:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have time to go into detail, but I would strongly recommend that we don't have articles that try to duplicate each other. Of two articles dealing with the same topic, the topic with the larger chronological or geographic or topical scope should summarize the material provided in greater details on the chronologically, geographically, or topically restricted articles. Trying to keep two articles dealing with Medieval science (for example) up to date and at the same level of detail will result in inevitable contradictions (the problem of forks). Experts on areas need to know where to focus their attention (on the detailed entries) and they (or others) can then summarize the material for the more general articles. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 11:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ancheta Wis, are you suggesting reorganizing this (History of Science) article, then? I was really simply suggesting following the current organization of the article, that is a primarily time-based article with lesser subdivisions by culture. The problem is that the Science in the Middle Ages article has been inconsistent with this because of the weight it gives to one culture (or more specifically to one culture which was not uniquely the scientific leader).

In any event, to the extent that the articles have divisions by region I have no inherent problem with tuning the microscope more to focus on specific communities within various nations. I would argue, however, because of the complex interplays in societies that when you focus in too far in articles as broad as the ones we're discussing you can end up making things more confusing instead of less. But if you want to suggest a more specific outline of what you're thinking feel free.

SteveMcCluskey, I don't know what you're trying to say. There are currently many articles discussing Medieval Science (History of Science, Science in the Middle Ages, Islamic science, Science and technology in ancient India, etc.). Are you arguing that we should consolidate all of them to History of Science?

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback so far, BTW! --Mcorazao (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

My read on Professor SteveMcCluskey's guidance is that we should let this article summarize the main points of the child articles, and that the child articles can contain the detailed entries. That helps keep the child articles from forking. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 00:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, my point about avoiding duplication was referring more to the recent duplication of the Western European content of Science in the Middle Ages in a new article Science in Medieval Western Europe. As I've said before, I'm not certain that this fork is a good idea, given the general acceptance in Academia and Wikipedia of the Middle Ages as a term in Western European historiography. My comment above wasn't addressing at all the relationship of the Medieval Science articles to the general History of Science article; I was concerned with what we should do one step down in the hierarchy to the relationship among the Medieval Science articles.

If there is a consensus to broaden Science in the Middle Ages to include everything that happened in science in the period of about 450-1450, from Yucatan to Paris to Baghdad to Beijing, I don't think that article would be readable or coherent if it treated all those areas in full detail. All those areas could be briefly summarized, perhaps contrasting why science was developing differently in those areas in a World history mode. A good example of what I have in mind is in G. E. R. Lloyd's recent series of studies comparing ancient Greek and Chinese science, but unfortunately for the reconceived Science in the Middle Ages article, there's not much serious scholarship comparing scientific developments during the Middle Ages. Those concerns underlay my (moribund) PROD for the new Science in Medieval Western Europe.

If the fork survives, IMHO the main treatments of Medieval Islamic, Chinese, Mesoamerican, Byzantine, Western European, etc., science would best remain in articles devoted specifically to those topics and the Science in the Middle Ages article would provide a comparative overview.

What are your thoughts of this way of conceptualizing the Medieval Science Wikispace? --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The Science in Medieval Western Europe article appears to fork the earlier Science in the Middle Ages, rather than to extend it with additional detail, which would be more useful for the encyclopedia. For example, Abdus Salam, in his Nobel lecture, mentioned Michael Scotus' studies of Arabic in order to read the extant literature of his time, but the article does not mention Michael Scotus, as additional detail.

Perhaps I might quote Mortimer Adler (1985), Ten Philosophical Mistakes ISBN 0-02-500330-5 page 192:

• "Precisely because science is investigative and philosophy is not, one should not be surprised by the remarkable progress in science and by the equally remarkable lack of it in philosophy."

It is a common error in philosophy to 're-invent the wheel' by casting aside earlier thought, rather than to build on what has been established earlier.

The encyclopedia would be better served by articles which highlight the thinkers of the Middle Ages who formed science, by showing us how they investigated the world around us. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 10:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm reading your comments correctly, but are you proposing that the core of the history of science section should be biographical articles of Galileo, Ibn al-Haytham, Bede, etc. and that large-scale overview articles should not play as large a role? I kind of agree with that concept, but there's also a place for interpretative articles dealing with transformative periods such as the Scientific Revolution, histories of specific sciences, e.g., History of astronomy, relations of Science to other elements of culture, and comparisons of the scientific institutions and ideas in different cultures. I certainly agree with the template that focusing on chronology as the only way to divide our study should not be our only approach.

On another matter you mentioned, are you agreeing that the duplicative fork of Science in Medieval Western Europe from Science in the Middle Ages was "a bad idea"?

Finally, is this article's talk page really the best place to discuss this idea? It seems like a broader conceptual one for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of Science, but since it's already established here, I'll just put a link to this discussion. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am saying the duplicative fork is a bad idea.

The core of the history of science is ultimately about the people like Galileo, and the interpretive articles ought to harvest the fruits of the investigative thinkers like Galileo, and not really the commentators like Francis Bacon.

Since I restrict myself to watching this article, you may wish to communicate with me on this page, or you can communicate on my talk page. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 00:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, we agree that the duplicative fork is a bad idea, but we are still left with the problem of how best to deal with science in other, non-western, cultures, e.g., Byzantine science, Islamic science, and whatever during the period that in Western Europe is known as the Middle Ages.

To make a less significant point, I'm a little less happy with the focus on investigative (or progressive) scientific thinkers like Galileo; much of scientific activity involves minor elaborations of what is known (what Kuhn called the articulation of a paradigm) while some is even less concerned with scientific progress but passes on what is known to succeeding generations. I don't think this minor disagreement is worth getting distracted by.

The big issue, rather, is how best to organize the various articles under the History of science wikiproject (incidentally, that reminds me that I misspoke earlier when I talked about biographies in the History of science section -- I meant biographies under the history of science wikiproject. Sorry for any confusion that caused)--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Alhacen, for example, actually performed dissections of the human visual system! He sketched a drawing that resembles the Vesalius' engraving to be found in the visual system article, but 550 years earlier.

Lee Smolin (2001) describes what it feels like to be a working physicist in the middle of a paradigm shift in his Three Roads to Quantum Gravity ISBN 0-465-07835-4, I can't cite a page number right now. pages 8-13, 43-48, 96. (pages added Ancheta Wis (talk) 19:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC))

If we view science as an extended conversation between investigators, then the history of science is an indexed, annotated, journal of the conversation. How we slice the journal is up to us; I have a personal preference for the cinematic technique called the crosscut. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 03:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

SteveMcCluskey, I have an idea: we could view Science in the Middle Ages as composed of multiple streams, in shape like a tree, the trunk being the direct forbears of today's science, and the lower branches being the history of ideas which are no longer accepted, and the crown of the tree being the future accepted science (modern science).

For example, even Einstein believed in a static universe, in concept the same as the Firmament of the Middle Ages, but this idea has been superseded by a universe which is one of many possible ones, each changing over time. And even Time itself has a beginning (in the Big Bang).

A second example, which I am only repeating from second-hand, and not from study, is the acceptance of an orderly, rational, designed universe (apparently the world-picture in the Middle Ages). This idea is no longer accepted by mainstream physicists. However, it is a vital part of the history of science, and is even taught in the schools in many parts of the world.

Alchemy and Magic in general had not yet separated from Science in the Middle Ages. If they are treated as dead ends, they can still be part of a pseudo-science category in the history of science.

Mathematics and Science were still small enough to be do-able by a single individual. Perhaps this can be viewed as the hallmark of Science in the Middle Ages. The scale of science not having yet grown to gigantic proportions. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 12:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, folks, first let's stop with the red herrings. I have clarified on the other talk page that the current level of duplication between the newly created Science in Medieval Western Europe from Science in the Middle Ages is because we haven't agreed on what we're doing not because the amount of duplication is what's intended. Now I'm clarifying it here. I find it hard to believe that this is not obvious and I'm going to assume any further attempts to bring that up are deliberate attempts to sideline the discussion.

So to respond to specific points here:

• "let this article summarize the main points of the child articles" (Ancheta Wis) - My suggestion was exactly that we should have a hierarchy of discussions with the parent articles providing less detail and the child articles providing more details. If this is what SteveMcCluskey is intending to say then I agree (although then it's not clear why we're arguing).
• "Middle Ages as a term in Western European historiography" (SteveMcCluskey) - This is the traditional use but, as I've said before, it is not exclusively the way the term is used today, even in this article. Regardless as I've said articles that are specific to a culture should ideally be titled to identify the culture in a clear manner.
• "If there is a consensus to broaden Science in the Middle Ages" - Careful. The proposal is to broaden the scope, but reduce some of the detail in this particular article.
• "if it treated all those areas in full detail" (SteveMcCluskey) - Red herring. Nobody has suggested that.
• "Science in the Middle Ages article would provide a comparative overview" (SteveMcCluskey) - This is a restatement of what I've proposed (albeit perhaps stated better than I did).
• "The Science in Medieval Western Europe article appears to fork the earlier Science in the Middle Ages, rather than to extend it with additional detail" (Ancheta Wis) - Red herring.
• "which highlight the thinkers of the Middle Ages who formed science" (Ancheta Wis) - Eloquent words but hasn't everybody been saying this already? Or is there some point I'm missing?
• "core of the history of science section should be biographical articles" - I don't really agree with the notion of focusing on individuals in an article that is as broad as this one. Without making the article extremely long you end up giving unfair weight to individuals who were, in fact, helped substantially by the environment that surrounded them. That's not to say that individuals should not be mentioned but, IMHO, the focus should be on cultures.
• "focusing on chronology as the only way to divide our study should not be our only approach" - I agree that chronological discussions do not have to be the only means of presenting information. However,

1. I do think the articles should be organized in a coherent manner meaning that there should at least be a primary organizational criterion (chronology, culture, or whatever).
2. I personally believe chronology is the best primary criterion, as long as you're not too strict about (e.g. should not go year-to-year). The reason is simply that when you try to focus separately on cultures and individuals through very long stretches of history there is a tendency to obfuscate the relationships between those cultures and individuals which often is at the heart of how the science developed.

• "It seems like a broader conceptual one for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of Science" (SteveMcCluskey) - Maybe you're right. I have found in other discussions that often more people look at the article talk pages than the project talk pages so that's why I chose this one.

So nobody has directly addressed what I proposed (some of the commentary could be interpreted as indirect responses but ...). Any actual comments on that? Also any specific comments on the fact that the History of Science template (which is referring to world history, not the history of any specific culture) uses the Science in the Middle Ages article as the primary article for the referring to the chronological period even though we seem to agree that this has not been what the article was originally intended to be?

Thanks:

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Added some info in Classical Antiquity section

I added material on the most important advances during this period, particularly in mathematics, geography and astronomy, as these are the areas I am knowledgeable in. I included the most important natural philosophers of the day and why their work is important. In addition, I added material connecting the science of the Classical Age to modern science, which I think is important. I feel this is a very important article and it is a pity it lost its GA rating. I would be interesting in collaborating with people to restore that rating. --Tsourkpk (talk) 08:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

While of course astronomy is vital to the article, I do feel that geography, biology, botany, zoology, mineralogy and geology seem to be under-represented. I have added short sections on Theophrastus and Pliny the Elder's work in these areas, but feel that more should be added. The article seems long on text and verbose at times, and very short on pictures. There also needs to be more discussion of the practical uses of science in technology and engineering, such as surveying (with maths as a strong component). On style, the article needs shortening and the text tightened. Peterlewis (talk) 08:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Good points, all of them. We should focus on essentials to tighten the text. It is late now and I need to go to bed, but I will look at it some more tomorrow. --Tsourkpk (talk) 08:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added some more info on Pliny and Theophrastus plus pics. But is a section on the sociology and philosophy of science appropriate?? Peterlewis (talk) 09:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I would think that sociology is not enough of a hard science to be inlcuded here, and that philosophy of science has its own article. Also, as far the surverying and engineering technologies, tha really belongs in the History of Technology article. As for tightening the text, I noticed for a start that the intro is quite long and contains quite a bit of junk, which i will start clearing in the next few days. --71.198.103.119 (talk) 05:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Best of luck, but I think some refs to the practical use deserves mention if only in passing. After all, many new ideas came from the need to solve practical problems (Archimedes comes to mind immediately) Peterlewis (talk) 06:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Multistage Rocket?

The subsection in regard to developments in china during the 16th and 17th century refer to the invention of the solid fuel and multistage rocket. I've searched all of the articles in regard to solid-fuel and multistage rockets as well as chinese technological achievements and no mention has been made. This is bizarre, but without any knowledge on either subject myself I am merely observing.--207.62.237.123 (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not much. Add a firecracker on top of another firecracker. How hard could that be? --204.118.111.226 (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Chinese invention of multi-stage rockets has nothing to do with firecrackers.

"The ancient Chinese multi-stage rockets were used both on land as well as naval warfare. They were known as "Huo Long Chu Shui 火龙出水", literally "Fire Dragon Coming Out of the Water". The "Fire Dragon Out of Water" was a two-stage rocket and was mentioned in the Chinese source Wubeizhi 《武备志》(1621).

It was comprised of about a 1.65m long tube equipped with many rockets inside. The front was designed to look like a dragon head while the back was designed to look like the tail of the dragon. The two ends of the rear body of the fire dragon were equipped with two rockets. These rockets were linked by strings to the ignite the inside. One used a final string to ignite the 4 rockets at the lower portion of the fire dragon. The lower portion of the dragon's bodies are the 1st stage rockets, while the inner bodies of the dragons are the 2nd stage rockets.

When "Fire Dragons out of water" were placed onto a warship and used for attacking enemy ships, one would ignite the 4 first-stage rockets at the lower portion of the dragon's body. This act as a rocket booster propelling the dragon body forward for a certain distance. After the combustion of the 1st stage rocket is depleted, it would automatically ignite the 2nd stage rockets on the inside body of the dragon. These 2nd stage rockets would be fired out of the dragon's mouth towards the enemy ship, creating explosions on the enemy ship. Each rocket has about 750 g of gunpowder. The weapon is about 5-10 kg and can traverse a cruise distance of 1.308-1.962 km

This two stage rocket is the ancestor of today's multi-stage inter-continental missiles/rockets. Joseph Needham once mentioned that the "Fire Dragon out of water" is the ancestor of the Apollo spacecraft that landed on the moon during the 20th century."

Firecrackers were the playthings of the ancient Chinese used for joyous festivities. Multi-stage rockets were developed by ancient Chinese rocket scientists and relied on complex mathematical calculations from rocket science theory.

Images

I have added a pic of Roger bacon since he is much more relevant than the image of a monk with dividers. Peterlewis (talk) 06:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Peter. Just to clarify, it wasn't a picture of a monk but of God employing a pair of dividers as he created the universe, illustrating the medieval concept joining the divine craftsman of Plato's Timaeus with the biblical God creating "all things in measure, and number, and weight" (Wisdom, 11: 21). As such it had real relevance to this article but Bacon's OK too. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I always wondered what God looked like: now I know. Ok then add it back into the section. But keep roger Bacon in too cos he is a vital figure in the early development of science. Peterlewis (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Projectiles do not contradict Aristotle’s laws of motion

In its 'Early Modern Science' section the article currently claims:

“For example, an arrow flying through the air after leaving a bow contradicts Aristotle's laws of motion, which say that a moving object must be constantly under influence of an external force, as the natural state of earthly objects is to be at rest.”

This claim is illogical nonsense. Projectiles do not contradict the law that a moving object must have an external force, but rather their conjunction simply entails there must be some such force which must therefore be identified, and Aristotle suggested it was the moving medium. Moreover nor do Aristotle’s laws require an external force, but only some conjoined force in the case of anti-gravitational (i.e violent) motion. I provisionally flag a citation needed for where Aristotle is supposed to have stated any such law as claimed.

Analogously logically incompetent historians of science claim heliocentrism contradicts Aristotelian dynamics, but which it does not. It merely entails some mover of the Earth (and other planets) must be found: as Kepler’s Aristotelian dynamics posed it ‘What moves the planets ?’. His answer was the rotating sun pushes them around. Galileo’s was their internal force of impetus. Newton’s was their transverse inherent force and centripetal gravity. Three different variants of Aristotelian dynamics. --Logicus (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)