Talk:Timeline of scientific discoveries

Probable bias in the timeline

This list does not state the landmarks of disciplines outside the Physical sciences. This page seems to assume that sciences means only Physical sciences like physics, chemistry etc.. and not disciplines like psychology, linguistics, neurosciences, cognitive sciences, sociobiology etc. Or may be we just need another all encompassing timeline, like a Timeline of landmarks in Human thought or a Timeline of Scientific thought. Robin klein 06:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

You are right, of course. The list is in rather bad shape right now, and could do with a whole of lot expansion.--ragesoss 07:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Still true. 71.198.188.212 (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

True, but hope it's a bit better now... --89.187.142.72 (talk) 10:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Quarks and the standard model

I've added the acceptance of quarks leading to the standard model, but without an exact date let alone a person. Any suggestions? Rjm at sleepers 08:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Ptolemy

Biblbroks has removed Ptolemy on the grounds that "the geocentric model isn't a discovery only a theory". The introduction says that the "timeline below shows the date of publication of major scientific theories". (My emphasis.) Ptolemy's geocentric model dominated European thought for hundreds of years, which seems "major" to me. If we are to remove theories that have been disproven, Coppernicus and Newton's laws of motion should go as well. What do others think? Rjm at sleepers 06:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Ptolemy and his model should stay in this timeline. --Leinad ∴ -diz aí. 12:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

When removing Ptolemy's model I was guided solely by the title of the article. However, as said in the intro this timeline is by the definition the list of ... scientific theories also, argument for the inclusion of Ptolemy stands, especially because geocentric theory lasted long and was of great influence. So, I agree it was a major theory and it should be included. But, when readding to the article maybe some rewording could help the accuracy, because model isn't a theory after all. --Biblbroks's talk 20:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Rjm at sleepers 06:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this page should specify hypotheses as well as theories and discoveries. In fact, I think we really need to be rather general and say 'significant events'. A theory, though widely misunderstood, is generally considered to be an idea of some depth that has stood the test of time. Darwin, for example, had no theory of evolution, he wrote on the 'Origin of Species' which is quite a different matter. He did have what he stressed was a hypothesis, regarding evolution by pangenesis, which incorporated the inheritance of aquired characteristics - in other words, he actually did not have a theory of evolution such as we call 'Darwinian' today. One of the major elements in the modern synthesis of evolution was August Weismann's 'barrier', which he proposed dogmatically, and which remains dubious even today. No theory, no hypothesis even. Science is not as clear-cut as some would like to think. Then there are the 'laws', like 'Hooke's law', taught at school, but of dubious validity, and religious sounding in nature! Don't get me wrong, I'm a scientist through and through, but the truth is that science is far from sure how to define itself. --Memestream (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Occam's Razor

Is Occam's Razor really a scientific discovery? Isn't it more in the realm of logic, law, philosophy, and, in some cases, debate? It feels out-of-place on this article. Bulldog123 18:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

See my section above regarding the unsatisfactory nature of the words 'theory' etc. I think Occams Razor deserves mention, as it is often quoted and hence is a significant concept. Perhaps that's what we should entitle this page - Timeline of scientific concepts, and then we allow for the fact that so many theories are superceded, which is an accepted part of the discipline we call science. --Memestream (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

2011 - CERN Breaks the speed of light using the large hadron collider disproving Einstein's theory of special relativity.

2011 - CERN Breaks the speed of light using the large hadron collider disproving Einstein's theory of special relativity.

That statement is not generally accepted by the science community. Science requires that experimental findings be tested, that the experiments be repeated more than once, closely monitored and retested again by others (ever heard of peer review?) under the same conditions before anything is accepted as fact, let alone as changing the established scientific theories which have all been repeatedly subjected to the same rigorous processes. The findings from this one experiment have not yet been tested, ie. the experiment has not been repeated or subjected to this rigorous testing process, so the findings are not scientific fact, they are speculation on the basis of one experiment.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2040735/Speed-light-experiments-baffling-result-Cern-Did-Einstein-wrong.html#ixzz1Z04hLYg4

It will be 20 years before that statement can be justifiably placed in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.150.186 (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the experiment it just looks as if there was some light speed fluctuation involved. In fact, light speed isn't always constant, the fluctuations are well known by physics empirists, just not officially propagated by the Universities: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2013/04/speed-of-light-not-a-constant-it-varies-.html, http://phys.org/news/2014-09-curious-case-fluctuating.html --89.187.142.72 (talk) 10:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Penicillin

Surely Fleming's discovery of penicilin should be listed in the 20th century discoveries? It had massive implications to Medicine and is essentially the foundation of a vast part of modern healthcare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.149.97 (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. --89.187.142.72 (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Nicola Tesla

Surely, Nicola Tesla deserves to be mentioned? He discovered the "rotating magnetic field" in 1882, alternating current (which shapes all of humanity today more than ANY other invention), the AC motor in 1887, his Tesla Coil in 1891, which in turn allowed him to invent radio in 1895 (awarded in 1943) and the first remote control drone in 1898, and wireless power transmission.

Tesla never invented any radio. He should not even be mentioned among those that helped to the development of radio.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.19.218.162 (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Whoever inventioned the radio doesn't belong here but on this list: Timeline of historic inventions

--89.187.142.72 (talk) 10:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Are Inventions Discoveries?

Will Durant created a database and timeline of discoveries, but they included objects like the transistor, steam engine, printing press, etc. that have changed the planet. My question is: should those be included here, or should this list be merged with those in the other article Timeline of historic inventions? The interesting thing is that article has many of the same issues as this one ("who did what, when, where?"). Neither article seems to understand simultaneity, to wit China, Europe, Islamic Spain, etc. CAN all discover the same innovative breakthrough in similar time frames, making the issue an "and" rather than an "either/or." Pdecalculus (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Technologies as you describe them are usually inventions, while new scientifical knowledge is a discovery. The difference actually is very clear and simple, only when e.g. new pharmaceuticals are invented (by technologies and/or chemical processes) it gets complicated. I'd say that new substances are inventions, but the findings what they can be used for are "only" discoveries. So it's some sort of combination of both. --89.187.142.72 (talk) 10:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Untitled

there was a time when Bhaskaracharya born in india Bhāskara, was an Indian mathematician and astronomer. He was born in Bijapur in modern Karnataka. Bhāskara and his works represent a significant contribution to mathematical and astronomical knowledge in the 12th century as per Wikipedia 12th century 1121 – Al-Khazini: variation of gravitation and gravitational potential energy at a distance; the decrease of air density with altitude Ibn Bajjah (Avempace): discovery of reaction (precursor to Newton's third law of motion) Hibat Allah Abu'l-Barakat al-Baghdaadi (Nathanel): relationship between force and acceleration (a vague foreshadowing of a fundamental law of classical mechanics and a precursor to Newton's second law of motion) Averroes: relationship between force, work and kinetic energy

click here to have a look the name of bhaskara is absent in wikipedia so i request to wikipedia please put his name 175.100.136.254 (talk) 11:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

While not being sure why this comment is still here, I'll try to adress your issues: There are discoveries and hypotheses. If a native somewhere in a jungle sees a snake for the first time of his life, he made a discovery (at least from his point of view). But if an indian somewhere in an American desert says that the speed of light is constant, he just made a hypothesis. Strictly speaking it's not a discovery at all, at least if not based on some empirical data. So please tell us based on which empirical data your Ibn Bajjah's and Abu'l-Barakat al-Baghdaadi's made their "discoveries"...because philosophy - what these guys probably did - can only form hypotheses through words, but not make empirical discoveries, that's the purpose of science instead. --89.187.142.72 (talk) 10:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Jan Swammerdam

The edit by user DonSiano at 21:10, 8 April 2010‎, adds the line "1669 – Jan Swammerdam: Species breed true" which I am not even sure how to correct. I am not sure I would know to summarise what Jan Swammerdam discovered, the only reference to the date of 1669 on his page being "his 1669 publication, Historia Insectorum Generalis (The Natural History of Insects)". I had thought the phrase "Species breed true" might be the consequence of overlapping edits, but the line about Jan Swammerdam was only edited by DonSiano at 21:10, 8 April 2010‎, and has been left untouched since at the moment of this message, 13:15 UTC, 14 Mai 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.101.219.41 (talk)

Gender bias?

Discoveries made by females seem to be listed simply to add more women to the list. Many discoveries are not important enough to be listed. 84.215.38.127 (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2017‎ (UTC)

Gerolamo Cardano

1545: Gerolamo Cardano discovers complex numbers. Is this correct?

Replace Subject Headers with Chronological List

Currently, each section of the timeline includes subsections pertaining to each subject. E.g.; Bronze Age > Mathematics > Numbers, measurement, and arithmetic. The bullets within these subsections are in chronological order, but the chronological sorting "resets" when the headers switch subjects. Consequently, this article, entitled "timeline," is actually a series of very brief, disassociated timelines. In keeping with other timeline articles, we should re-organize the entire page with chronological sorting, broken up perhaps by Age. If topic is an important variable for each bullet point, it could be possible to make a table that includes a column for topic, or if bullet lists are preferred, the topic could be included next to the date. If nobody objects within a week or so I will make the edit.

Compare with Timeline of prehistory or Timeline of historic inventions to see what I mean. Baltarstar (talk) 15:45, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Erasure of added material.

"In particular, sources are needed for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. If reliable sources cannot be found for challenged material, it is likely to be removed from the article. Sources are also required when quoting someone, with or without quotation marks, or closely paraphrasing a source. But the need to cite sources is not limited to those situations: editors are always encouraged to add or improve citations for any information in an article."

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources

The article on the Timeline of Scientific Discoveries contains a glaring, and self evident omission: The discovery of the solstice. I inserted a section detailing this omission, without citations, but including descriptions of the geometric alignment of the solstice with neolithic monuments, such as Stonehenge, NewGrange and Nabta Playa and the placement of those monuments within the neolithic period. I also explained why the alignment of these monuments represent a scientific discovery, and that the placement of these rocks are a record of the process used by neolithic people to determine the geometric alignment of the sun's position on the solstice.

None of these descriptions are "likely to be challenged" with respect to their veracity but the editor in question did not "add or improve citations," they just erased the addition in its entirety.

I have only once edited a Wikipedia article before, but given that this omission was so obvious, I felt that it was necessary. Wikipedia is littered with notes saying "citation needed." In fact, this article contains six of them. But for some reason, rather than suggest additions, or in any way communicate what the problem with the addition was, they felt that removing the addition was warranted.

I guess wikipedia is no longer a collaborative effort, but one of autocratic censorship. Rest assured, I will not attempt to make any further additions. 96.249.217.76 (talk) 07:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

" The discovery of the solstice". There was absolutely no verification that the structures cited marked the discovery of the solstice and its a claim that can be challenged or likely to be challenged, re:

"That question is “spectacularly unanswerable,” says Owen Gingerich, Professor Emeritus of Astronomy and History of Science at Harvard University. “No writing to record this great discovery. Lost in the mists of time! Let’s just turn on the ‘Rite of Spring’ and dance with Stravinsky!”"

So per WP:YESPOV you can't even make a claim about it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

You left out the question that was being answered by your quote:

"But exactly who discovered the summer solstice? And when?

That question is “spectacularly unanswerable,”

NOT, that the solstice was discovered, nor that it was a scientific discovery. The title of the article you link is: "Here’s the ‘Earliest’ Sign that Humans Knew About the Summer Solstice" Woops. Thanks for proving my point.

These questions are relevant:

Is the solstice a scientific discovery?

Did Humans discover it?

Can we put it in a timeline?

If the answer is yes to all three, then it belongs in the article. The article you provide proves that the answer to all three questions is in the affirmative. When? Who? We don't know. But we do know that humans built thousands of similar stone circles, many (most?) of which were clearly aligned with the solstice. They didn't happen in the bronze age. 96.249.217.76 (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Is the solstice a scientific discovery? No, people just looked up, there was no science involved.

Did Humans discover it? yes

Can we put it in a timeline? "But exactly who discovered the summer solstice? And when?" "That question is “spectacularly unanswerable,”, that's pretty clear. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Then I guess you'd better remove all these items from the timeline as well.

Bronze Age

(...)The following dates are approximations.

"Iron Age

The following dates are approximations."

"500 BC – 1 BC

The following dates are approximations."

"Is the solstice a scientific discovery? No, people just looked up, there was no science involved."

Wow. People let you edit wikipedia articles? Look up and point to the solstice. While you're at it, point at the equinox. 96.249.217.76 (talk) 04:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)