Talk:History of science

Pharmacology of Egypt (reconsidering an edit reversion)

Headbomb: Thank you for your many contributions to Wikipedia. I see from your userpage that you want to make the Internet not suck. You've also said there: "If it's good, do it, if it's bad, don't do it". I wholeheartedly join you in these sentiments. In that vein, please do reconsider your reversion of my edit to this article. The sentence I deleted (and you reverted my deletion) says this:

"Medical historians believe that ancient Egyptian pharmacology, for example, was largely ineffective.{{Cite web |url=http://www.hom.ucalgary.ca/Dayspapers2001.pdf |title=Microsoft Word – Proceedings-2001.doc<!-- Bot generated title --> |access-date=9 March 2010 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080407062556/http://www.hom.ucalgary.ca/Dayspapers2001.pdf |archive-date=7 April 2008}}"

That assertion, which is very obviously a sweeping generalization (and no page number provided BTW), is cited to one document: online conference proceedings. The articles in the conference were written by medical students ("History of Medicine Days is an annual event which gathers medical students from across Canada to present brief papers on history of medicine at the University of Calgary"). There is an article (by a medical student) titled "Pharmacologocal Practices of Ancient Egypt". I assume that's where this assertion is being cited to? Let me quote from the conclusion of that medical student's article: "Our knowledge of the pharmacopoeia of ancient Egypt is clearly inadequate to support many sweeping generalizations about the effectiveness of the drug therapy regimens." So let's consider: An article by one author, and that author is a medical student, and the article says that sweeping generalizations are impossible, is being cited to support a sweeping generalization on Wikipedia that asserts that many experts hold an opinion that the author himself (a medical student) explicitly disavows... your reversion does not help the Internet not suck. Please consider self-reverting... Fair warning: It is quite possible, and indeed likely, that I'm going to be deleting a lot of text from this article, bit by bit, as I head for WP:GAN. In the future, please consider coming here to Article Talk to discuss before reverting my deletions. Thank you  § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 15:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

"While the bulk of Egyptian remedies can now be recognized as incapable of providing a cure, and in many circumstances even alleviation of symptoms, owing to their lack of active ingredients, it would be inappropriate to label all of these treatments as placebos. Of the 260 prescriptions in the Hearst Papyrus, 28 percent contain an ingredient which can be perceived to have had activity towards the condition being treated"

Emphasis mine. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@Headbomb: So you are willing to sign your name to this edit,and you're determined to source a sweeping generalization regarding "medical historians (plural)" to one statement on one paper written by one and only one person, and that person was a not a medical historian by any stretch of the imagination, but was instead a medical student? Even though that same medical student later backtracks on his own authority (or anyone's authority) to make sweeping statements? [And remember, after you back down, which in this case you must, because your argument is wholly without merit, I respectfully request that you to come to Talk in the future before reverting me here, because I intend to do a lot of editing...thanks]. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 12:12, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

While working on another article I found "Take a Lame and Decrepit Female Hyena…": A Genizah Study of Two Additional Fragments of Sābūr Ibn Sahl's "al-Aqrābādhīn al-Ṣaghīr" which involves boiling the hyena for 60 days until you get a syrup, taking care to strain out the fur (this is meant as a medicine). The antidote is probably older than the 1200 year-old manuscripts of Sabur ibn Sahl, which were relegated to the Cairo Genizah. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 16:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Ancheta, I'm Ling. Nice to meet you. I'm hoping to take this article to GA over the next few weeks or even months; you're welcome to join in if you want. It will be a nontrivial project. I saw your userpage. What da heck is Flowstream? And by coincidence, I was thinking of Plumpy'nut just this past week. Oddly, the article doesn't mention that it contains (or maybe, used to contain?) plum extract. That was the reason for the name "plum peanut". Thanks for your input here. There are two goals in this present moment, adding WP:RS text, and avoiding adding non-WP:RS text. You're helping with the former; I'm discussing the latter with Headbomb.... whose reversion I am now reverting. Thanks again, Ancheta... § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 22:08, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

This is an RS, directly overseen by Julius Szekrenyes of U Calgary, an expert pharmacologist with a specific focus on Ancient Egypt. Sources don't get more specialized than this. WP:PARITY is important, and an entire section on ancient pharmacology uncritically taken at face value is unacceptable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

@Headbomb: ... WP:RS says, "Context matters. The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content" (my emphasis). Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard says, "Many sources are reliable for statement 'X', but unreliable for statement 'Y'". I will certainly stipulate that Julius Szekrenyes is WP:RS when he writes his own articles with his own name on them (thus staking his career and reputation on the contents), in his own field of study, in a peer reviewed publication. I am not arguing against that. I am saying this source, with this author, and that statement, in this context, is pretty much completely non-WP:RS. As for "...an entire section on ancient pharmacology uncritically taken at face value is unacceptable", well, we haven't had time to fix the entire section (and by extension, anything in the entire article) and make it well-written and well-verified etc. I deleted 2 or 3 sentences as a bare beginning, the very barest of beginnings, of an attempt at a complete rewrite, and you reverted. Conclusions: 1) That source, that author, and that statement are all non-WP:RS in this context. 2) If you're worried about the entire section, then invest a few weeks of your time to join me in the complete rewrite of the article, in the spirit of eventualism and {{sofixit}}. My next step, if you do not agree, is to go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 02:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Heliocentrism suggestion

I thought the article for heliocentrism is in need of more detailed content. As written, it seems to miss the impact of Copernicus' contribution. I added some suggested citations to improve the content. King of the Changes (talk) 13:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Description for Adenine picture

When the picture of Adenine structure is opened (Advances in Genetics section), the detailed description states that it is Thymine as opposed to Adenine. Is this a discrepancy? Zhedeye (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Science of hydraulics

The Chinese Records of the Grand Historian#Sima Qian's historiography contain Sima Qian's device for recording negative information over the dynasties. Joseph Needham's Science and Civilisation in China records the scientific skill of the scholar bureaucrats in hydraulics when they were constructing the great waterworks of China over thousands of years. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 07:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ancheta Wis Hydraulic engineering in China was certainly something that existed by the Warring States Period, though it is clear that the application of the waterwheel to various mechanical wonders was not a thing until about the 1st century BC during the Western Han period. Don't worry, though, the China section might be disorganized and lacking at the moment, but I am planning a near total rewrite soon and will probably start a draft today. Very recently I completely rewrote the abysmal section on "China and East Asia" in the related science in the ancient world sibling sub-article to this one. I also added entirely new sections on Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica in both this main article and that sub-article; more information is desperately needed on Zapotecs and Mayas, as well as Mixtecs and Aztecs who aren't even mentioned yet. Aside from that, you can expect a largely rewritten section on ancient and Imperial China coming soon, with smaller mentions of medieval Korea, Japan, and Vietnam as well (since their scientific traditions were based on China's). Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)