Talk:Science

Possible sources

I'm going to list here some general sources that I personally own copies of, in the hope that this might help refocus things somewhat. They are mainly history of science, but one covers philosophy of science as well. If others add what they have, or have access to, or think should be used, or shouldn't be used, please add them here. What I'm trying to get is a list of the sources best placed to give a general overview, to help guide the article and make sure it doesn't end up unbalanced and focused too much on one area at the expense of other areas. It might help to put this on a subpage if it gets too large. Carcharoth (talk) 01:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

General sources

History

• Science: A History 1543-2001 (2002) by John Gribbin
• Fara, Patricia (2009), Science : a four thousand year history, Oxford: Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-922689-4 pp.53-54
• Lindberg, David C. (1992), The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, 600 B.C. to A.D. 1450, University of Chicago Press, ISBN 0-226-48231-6
• Needham, Joseph (1954), Science and Civilisation in China: Introductory Orientations, vol. 1, Cambridge University Press
• Needham, Joseph; Ho, Ping-Yü; Lu, Gwei-Djen (1976), Science and Civilisation in China: Chemistry and Chemical Technology, Part III: Spagyrical Technology and Invention, Historical Survey, from Cinnabar Elixirs to Synthetic Insulin, vol. 5.3, Cambridge University Press

Philosophy

• Peter Godfrey-Smith (2003), Theory and Reality, University of Chicago, ISBN 0-226-30062-5

Introductory texts

• Worldviews - An Introduction to the History and Philosophy of Science (2004) by Richard DeWitt
• Arthur Koestler (1960) The Watershed: a biography of Johannes Kepler Doubleday Anchor Books. Part of The Science Study Series originated at MIT. An extract from Koestler's The Sleepwalkers, intended for young people. P.45 shows a diagram which Kepler drew July 9, 1595 in one of his classes. The diagram was his inspiration for Mysterium Cosmographicum, a model of the solar system built from the Platonic solids
• Peirls, R. E. (1956), The Laws of Nature, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, p. 284

Specific topics

• God's Philosophers - How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science (2009) by James Hannam

• Bossut, John (1803), A General History of Mathematics From The Earliest Times To The Middle Of The Eighteenth Century (1803), London, St. John's Square, Clerkenwell: J. Johnson, St. Paul's Churchyard, p. 543, ISBN 054883153X. Translated from French by John Bonnycastle (1803). Bossut was "member of the French National Institute of Arts and Sciences, and of the Academies of Bologna, Petersburg, Turin, etc." as quoted from the title page. Printer is Bye and Law. Reprinted by Kessinger Publishing. Pages 542-543 are a table of 'mathematicians', sorted by century -- early, middle, and later parts, dating back to 900 B.C., and ending in 1765. The term 'scientist' had not yet been invented. Only 312 names are listed.
• Pólya, George (1945), How to Solve It, Princeton University Press, ISBN 0-691-08097-6. A mathematical vade mecum
• Lakatos, Imre (1976), Proofs and Refutations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-29038-4 & ISBN 978-0521290388. John Worrall & Elie Zahar were the editors of this posthumous book, which is a mathematical discussion in an imaginary classroom; the pupils are denoted by Greek letters; Teacher is un-named. They are all mathematicians, each of whom Lakatos views as imperfect personifications of Mathematics. Lakatos builds on the Euler characteristic which is discussed in several of Pólya's books. Unlike Galileo's Two New Sciences, in which Galileo sometimes speaks in his own voice, Lakatos is pupil Lambda, whose search for certainty compels him to work on boring problems, and which blinds him to the interesting ones. In Galileo's book, the named speakers represent a Copernicanist, an intelligent layman, and an Aristotelian/Ptolemaist; in Lakatos' book, the pupils represent various philosophical schools, such as formalists or authoritarians. Lakatos' and Teacher's sympathies lie with the informalists, who seek to learn or teach, respectively.
• Shing-Tung Yau and Steve Nadis (2010) The Shape of Inner Space: String Theory and the geometry of the universe's hidden dimensions. Basic Books. ISBN 978-0-465-02023-2 Yau is a differential geometer, of Calabi-Yau manifold fame. P.95: "If two manifolds have different Chern classes, they cannot be the same." (The converse does not hold.) The first Chern class is the Euler characteristic, which Euler discovered by study of the Platonic solids.
• Ulam, Stanisław (1983), Adventures of a Mathematician, New York: Charles Scribner's Sons (autobiography).
• Srinivasan, Bhama; Sally, Judith, editors (1983), Emmy Noether in Bryn Mawr: Proceedings of a symposium sponsored by the Association for women in mathematics, in honor of Emmy Noether's 100th birthday, Springer-Verlag, ISBN 0-387-90838-2 {{citation}}: |first2= has generic name (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Biographical information on Noether's life can be found on pp.133-137 "Emmy Noether in Erlangen and Göttingen", and on pp.139-146 "Emmy Noether in Bryn Mawr".

• Watson, James (2007), Avoid Boring People: (lessons from a life in science), p. 353, ISBN 978-0-375-41284-4. Watson gives quite earnest advice to ambitious people contemplating a career in science: Who, What, Where, When, How, etc.
• Schrödinger, Erwin (1944), What Is Life?, Cambridge University Press. Introduces negative entropy. Both Watson & Crick read this before their DNA effort.

Discussion

Clearly the above is only a starting point. The Gribbin and Fara works will be useful, but there are other works out there that will need to be used as well (for example, Simon Schaffer and Steven Shapin). The DeWitt work looks to be aimed at university students starting an HPS course. The Hannam work has good footnotes and a good bibliography, but is more a popular history work (and is narrower in scope) and hence is probably better used for more detailed articles (probably only of use here for suggesting works to consult). Rather than try and locate all of the most useful sources, it might be best to pick three or four that will be good enough, and then get stuck in there, and then refine as needed from that point. But I'm reluctant to do that until some of the discussions have settled down a bit and there is more clarity about how to approach this article (mainly how to avoid excessively duplicating material already present elsewhere). But when things are settled on exactly what needs doing here, I'll be happy to help with references from these books if needed. Carcharoth (talk) 01:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

One of the authors I cited has an article in Italian Wikipedia but not in en.wiki. Any ideas on the authorlink for the {{ Citation }} ? --Ancheta Wis (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Added one per the SBHarris contribution. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 03:50, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Added several more titles. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 12:51, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Ego and competition

Physicist Evelyn Fox Keller argues that science may suffer for its manly stereotypes when ego and competitiveness obstruct progress, since these tendencies prevent collaboration and sharing of information.

Wouldn't also be fair to say that "ego and competitiveness" are hugely important as motivators in science; that without them progress would slow to a crawl? I think the above opinion needs to cover both points of view in order to be balanced. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree and extend to say that a science needs to have science-related themes or spirits of
—dynamism of conflict, competition, rivalry, debate,
—harmony of cooperation and tolerance,
—vibrancy of shared values (valuational) community (modified by The Tetrast (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)), and
—integrity of supports, checks, and balances.
While dynamism-vs.-harmony is sometimes cast as a male-female gender-role thing, it's not at all clear to me how vibrant shared values and integrity of checks and balances align with stereotypes of gender roles — if they don't align with gender roles, that may be an added good reason to note them along with dynamism and harmony. Well, I have a guess as to how James Joyce would align them, if one allows for his ironies, but maybe that's better for a Joyce page! Anyway I have to throw my hands up in the air as to how (in terms of gender roles or otherwise) to handle those themes succinctly enough for such a brief section, or find any comprehensive accounts to cite. The Tetrast (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC).

Extended content

RJH, reading between the lines, I think it is pretty clear that the contributors to this article improvement effort need to establish a protocol for acknowledging some hierarchy in the contributions. The default presumption is that each of the section headers can have a set of contributors who can add to the section without holding up the parade. Perhaps there might be a venue for the digressions from the goal of article improvement. Perhaps each contributor might write, and a consensus might decide where to place each contribution, in some retrievable, repeatable location (say, perhaps as a diff between URIs), so that each contributor can still feel valued. For example, some of the editors might take the role of administering the size of this talk page. As an example of such administration, there was a consensus that the lede be left for last; since I transgressed that consensus by changing a citation in the lede, that might be a reason to move that citation elsewhere, say, for example, to the outline, as its fate. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment. The new addition is interesting. But I still don't see how it relates to women and science. Further elaboration may be necessary or the new added text may be misplaced. danielkueh (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Concur with danielkuehl. Does the cited neurobiologist Jacobson discuss competitiveness as accompanying the ego? If so, then it should be mentioned in order to make the contrast with Keller clearer. The Tetrast (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC).

Perhaps the substitle should be changed from "Women in science" to "Practitioners in science." Otherwise, a new subcategory should be created if this section is to expand, which I don't think it will. danielkueh (talk) 22:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

See the contrast between the advice of Watson 2007 and that of Emmy Noether (as recounted in Srinivasan & Sally 1983), the former, competitive, the latter, cooperative. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It's all gone quiet...

Hmmm, Looie and Fifelfoo, the page has gone quiet - as you were the ones who identified content to work on/add, have at it. It might give this article a little momentum...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll bibliographise in the next fourtnight to twentyonenight. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Yippee! Now where is Louie....sorry, this is a bit like council workers doing street repairs really, but I reckon if the two of you just go for it and see how it develops, then we can take stock. Might be the most orderly way....heheheCasliber (talk · contribs) 10:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The environment got too noisy for me to follow discussions. I've been drawn into other things, will see if I can get back to this at some point. Looie496 (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It's quiet now, so the stage is all yours (and Fifelfoo's) - 2-3 folks getting stuck in is an optimal number. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• Preliminary report: History of Science has a vast literature, and for this level of article it is vital to focus on tertiary sources: field reviews in scholarly journal and introductions; textbooks aimed at post-graduates is the ideal, though under-graduates are acceptable. Part of this is to do with the vigorous historiographical debate in the History of Science, which goes into minutae. History of Science is geographically divided prior to the Renaissance, and then focuses on Western Science. The presence of competing critical historiographies (particularly in the field of meaning and explanation) means that we need to be very careful when presenting a narrative of the history of science. The "currency" in the field appears to be thirty to forty years; if we focus on works published after 1999 we will be generally embodying the most recent work. The core explanatory concept used in history of science for the current period is "technoscience"—we need to introduce readers rapidly but gently to similar structures of thought (scientific "revolution", paradigm, etc.) without dumping them into the lap of Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend. There is an excellent Cambridge series in ongoing publication, but it is huge and based around expert chapters. We ought to focus on the introductions and generalist opinions in these works, though relying on geographic area summaries and "fringe" practice summaries in the history of science. And keeping it fast, small and readable. Much of the "history of science" overlaps with "philosophy of science," and more importantly, there is a moderate overlap in history of contemporary science with much of the rest of the article (science practice; science in society). Oh, and the scope presented in histories of science includes the social sciences _and_ notes fringe practices as relevant "non-sciences" to science. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

So erm...a bit of light reading and chuck in a few lines then eh? No worries, she'll be right, mate ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I hope it will be possible, once Fifelfoo posts a draft bibliography, for other editors with less relevant background (such as myself) to be able to go and read some subset of them so that we can contribute to discussions about content and assist with integrating the material at a level a little higher than copyediting. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Mike Christie, there are some resources available to you instantly:

• Watson 2007 recounts how he learned the basics of good science from C. S. Peirce. See for example, Peirce (1878) "How to Make Our Ideas Clear", as well as "The Fixation of Belief". Watson's boyhood joy in natural history he got from bird-watching with his father.

  Watson and Crick discovered the macromolecular structure of DNA. They were inspired by Erwin Schrödinger (1944) What is Life.

  Peirce might well be denoted the American Prometheus.

• Ulam 1983 recommends Poincaré, Henri (1905), Science and Hypothesis Eprint

  Ulam was a contributor to the Manhattan Project, along with dozens of others at the Nobel laureate level. He conceived the first successful iteration of the design of the hydrogen bomb, in the process of proving that Edward Teller's design would fail to achieve autocatalytic action.

• Srinivasan & Sally 1983 documents how Emmy Noether, at age 18, finally distinguished herself from her peers by deciding to enter Erlangen, and later, Gottingen University. Pages 133-182 show various facets of her personal and professional life, including a method for attacking the problems of her field (e.g. p.142, which is to constantly shift perspective, according to Ruth S. McKee), which she taught to her students. The testimony of her students distinctly demonstrates the differences in approach between her group, and a male-dominated one. It is instructive to contrast this with the advice given by Watson 2007.

  Emmy Noether proved the conservation of mass, energy, charge, and other constants of motion.

• Joseph Needham, Science and Civilisation in China (SCC) multiple volumes written over a lifetime, might not be so easy for you to get. Apparently there are fewer than 5 sets of SCC available in my state of 5 million residents. But if you can get to a set, just open one volume and prepare to be overwhelmed by good scholarship. Needham spent a lifetime pursuing a counterfactual question (according to Fara 2009, pp. 53–4). Therefore his null hypothesis was falsified, and China has had science all along.

  Any one of Needham's volumes would have been a respectable life's work, for a typical historian.

--Ancheta Wis (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC) I just added notes in italics to state some broader significance of the sources, for the benefit of casual readers. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 13:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 7 November 2011

Extended content
I would like to make a section pointing out a certain fallacy concerning science, also on the scientific method page. Skelletor (talk) 05:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC) Can you be a little more specific? Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)  Not done Provide more details and request the edit again. CTJF83 17:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

More on philosophy

I am trying to counter possible overdevelopment on the history side; thus my agenda is to raise possible avenues on the philosophy side for science. For example, we could insert

Further information: subjunctive possibility and intersubjective verifiability

--Ancheta Wis (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

In terms of balance, sounds good. Page is only 78kb so still got room to add. I'll have a read-through and copyedit in a day or two and see how we go. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Template issues

I noticed Ancheta Wis having trouble with those templates. My experience is that if you just use the generic {{citation}} then harvard templates work fine in order to create the correct links.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Andrew, thank you for the suggestion. I incorporated it in the Lindberg reference above. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 13:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

In line with a suggestion that you made on the lede effort that we worked on, I finally found a short definition of positivism: R. G. Collingwood (1946, a posthumous book edited by T.M. Knox) The Idea of History Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-500205-9 p.126: "Positivism may be defined as philosophy acting in the service of natural science, as in the Middle Ages philosophy acted in the service of theology." ---Ancheta Wis (talk) 13:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

To all editors

@Ancheta Wis, have you finished adding what you wanted to add? You want someone to copyedit/post queries/nitpick now? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no end to the possibilities. Please feel free to edit away. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that there is a criterion that appears to be governing the question. Apparently, any activity makes an article unstable. However, there is a contravening note which allows constructive article improvement. I wonder which situation applies. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

@Ancheta's last points, this article hasn't been nominated yet, so no worries re stability. It's probably at about 80% of the maximum size we'd want the article to be, hmmm. Let me have a read, especially of what's been added and I'll jot some ideas below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:03, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

To all editors: Casliber was kind enough to invite us in on the fun, which I second. Please feel free to add value to this article. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

If there is a period of inactivity, it appears that good faith edits are allowed, in the interest of advancing the article. I'll guess that several days to a week of inactivity re-opens the window to further editing. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

While I'm looking at this, we can give Fifelfoo and Looie a heads up that the history section is up for whatever they wanted to do with it. After this, the best thing is to take stock and folks to suggest what needs more or less detail, and adding and subtracting and see if we have a fair consensus on content and comprehensiveness, before nagging some copyeditors (and while we're copyediting, folks need to keep an eye on material as staying faithful to the source it comes from). Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

PS: The sections added/expanded look pretty good and straddle the readability/exact meaning line pretty well. I couldn't see much to tweak at all. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Is the Measurement section what we had in mind when it was proposed? I had a thought that it is a tad specific for the article (??) - should be in physics maybe? Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

  The idea of measurement dates back at least to the Chaldeans, who used astronomical data for magical reasons. They are mentioned in The Book of Daniel. Astronomy is the oldest science by far. To jam it in the physics article is to put a modern spin on the idea & begs the question of intersubjectivity. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

aah ok, that's cool. point taken. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Additional topic

I admit you have to be a physicist or electrical engineer to get this, but it is a very important topic: negative entropy. I was not aware that this was an esoteric topic because I grew up with it, but very few people in the encyclopedia seem to know it. I believe it should be in the article. It ranks in importance with false vacuum, but I agree that false vacuum should not be in the article.

I would like to work in negative entropy (also called information) into the article. OK? --Ancheta Wis (talk) 06:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You sure it's not too specialised? It's been elided too....09:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

To elide means to omit. You meant another verb, which unfortunately doesn't yet exist, but which we now need in the hyperlinked world. (I refrain from editing the above contribution. ;-) --Ancheta Wis (talk) 12:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about its use in Ancient Greek with disappearing syllables, which has happened with "negentropy". :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The article on negative entropy neglects a crucial point (by only implying it): negative entropy can be measured in bits. That is surely a statement that readers on the web can relate to, and that the topic came about from a consideration of life by a scientist ( Erwin Schrödinger, an imperfect personification of Science — to paraphrase Lakatos). The backstory: Nobel laureate becomes disgusted with quantum mechanics, and retreats to write a book about biology, which inspires two younger scientists to do work which is then recognized by a Nobel prize itself. His book parenthetically lets two others (an engineer and a mathematician) show the relationship of life (an agent of negative entropy) to information. To me, that is a perfect illustration of the consilience of science. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I would rather wait and see what you add before offering an opinion, but it does sound too specific for a core article such as this. Can you outline the kind of material you think should be added? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, here is a possible context:

---

Thomas Jefferson (1813) Letter to Isaac McPherson "That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement, or exclusive appropriation." Quoted in Steven Johnson (2008), The Invention of Air p.xiii (citation p.241 credits Lawrence Lessig for this Jefferson quotation), a book on the influence of Joseph Priestley on the Founding Fathers of the United States

Thales: everything is made of water.

Pythagoras: everything is made of numbers (calculi)

Democritus: atomic hypothesis

Aristotle: nature, logic

Stoics: everything is made of matter, shaped by fire (as in a metal forge)

Matter and Energy

Conservation of mass

Conservation of energy

Conservation of charge

Conservation of momentum

Stefan Boltzmann

Entropy is not conserved

Information (Negative entropy)

Communication

Computing, Programming, Open source

A network of networks - the Internet

Movement from single source of authority to Crowdsourcing

---

It is a proposal. Nothing is set in stone. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 23:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the proposed outline, I can see some of these topics fitting in the history of science or possibly philosophy sections, but covering all of these does seem too detailed for me. However, perhaps we should wait for a substantive discussion. If the next step is to agree on a reasonable set of sources, which I believe is Fifelfoo's goal, then we are still a couple of steps from debating content. Perhaps when Fifelfoo posts his suggested bibliography you could suggest additional works if needed that would support this material. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I wonder how big the article'd be if we included all this......Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Ancheta, I applaud your intentions but like the rest, I am not sure if all that information is necessary in a general article on science. My two cents. danielkueh (talk) 14:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all for the responses. The statement of ideas need not take a lot of space. But since there is a space (memory) budget, it serves to identify just how much to allocate to ea. topic. The history of an etymology ought not to trump a compact statement explaining "why science creates reliable knowledge". I look forward to the citations. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

AW, I think that for this very broad article we need to treat the history using the big themes which connect science between the ages, and trying to identify the most crucial turning points. Indeed, let's not forget that what we already have is already an incomplete effort at this. Here is something for discussion:-

• Pre-philosophical science. No obvious beginning point. Involves basic knowledge and reasoning, but also linked to the same mythologies which people used to explain their laws and traditions.
• Philosophical science. The Pre-Socratic philosophers, who later Greek philosophers often referred to as Physicists (nature studiers). Introduction of the concept "nature", as in "the nature of a dog", and the natural versus conventional distinction, the "way" that things are which is not chosen by humans (or human-like entities).
• Socratic science. Socrates controversially turned philosophy to the study of human nature, the realm of mythology and tradition, and is executed. Aristotle creates a less controversial systematic programme of study which is basically teleological, and human-centred. For example: the sun goes around the earth, and many things have it as part of their nature that they are for humans. Each thing has a formal and final cause and a role in the rational cosmic order.
• [I think we have to miss Hellenistic science, because it is basically a continuation of earlier themes and it dies out. It can be mentioned in passing in one of the two prior sections, that pre-socratic style physics continued to some extent after Socrates.]
• Medieval science. Continues the Aristotelian programme, in a way compatible with monotheism, initially mainly Islamic, but increasingly European towards the end of the middle ages. Relatively dogmatic and static, despite some notable exceptions.
• The Renaissance and the origins of the modern programme. Several key turning points occur, initially mainly in Italy, and partly inspired by the recovery of old Greek texts: the Aristotelian corpus is shown to be wrong about the solar system by Copernicus, then argued to be wrong even about politics by Machiavelli, who blames the corruption of the medieval Catholic church upon it. Galileo uses mathematics and experiment to demonstrate more problems with medieval belief, and is persecuted. Bacon and Descartes then argue in print for a new science: Bacon arguing for a non-teleological science based upon experiment, and Descartes arguing for mathematical science.
• Newton and Leibniz. Successfully develop such a new physics integrated with a new mathematics. Leibniz also incorporates terms from Aristotelian physics, but now being used in a new way, for example "energy" and "potential".

For the continuation, perhaps others can propose. Obviously key moments obviously include evolution, electromagnetic radiation, relativity and quantum physics. I would suggest that things like the internet are not history as such but something for another part of the article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to the rescue. That was 'heavy lifting'. You are showing us that it is possible for knowledgeable editors to crisply state broad themes to the rest of us. Now, if each of us could simply contribute their broad knowledge, citations, and sub-links to other summary articles, it should be possible to make additional progress in the months ahead. For example, to continue in the same vein, see below: --Ancheta Wis (talk) 10:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Laws of Nature Using hypothetical statements in the form of mathematical expressions, Newton, Huygens, the Bernoulli brothers, and other mathematicians (for the term 'scientist' had not yet been formulated --Bossut 1803) produce a series of rational statements for their peers.

• Scientific communities By publishing articles, and by writing letters to each other, communities of like-minded researchers, who could understand each other's statements, began to build upon each other's work.

• Crisis and resolution In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, large bodies of knowledge had crystallized (Peirls 1956). Some of the posited laws of nature were shown to be not universal laws, but applied to a specific domain, such as for macroscopic bodies moving at speeds far below the speed of light. This was the situation, for example, for Newton's laws. It was shown that the posited laws could be understood as models of nature, with specific domains of applicability.

I think those three points fit into the scheme I sketched so far, rather than forming new points. Some discussion:-

• The "laws of nature" idea arises from Bacon I think. Before him, Aristotelians always tried to find the laws of the nature of each type of thing, or each form of thing, so there is a human nature and rocks have a nature and so on. Bacon was the one who specifically argued that the real "forms" science should study are simple and general properties like heat.
• Scientific communities. I think this developed in several ways. Printing and other historical things helped anyway. But as a deliberate idea, such as the idea of academies, public debate, open collections of facts, is again something one finds in Bacon. Consider "New Atlantis".
• Crisis and resolution, as a kind of pattern for how science would evolve once it had been re-founded, so lets say after Newton and Leibniz, I wonder if there is any one particular turning point we can point at or whether consciousness of the inevitability of such crises simply built up gradually. Obviously modern science has such a crisis at the beginning, with Copernicus, but the fact that modern science itself will have them, and the question of whether they are inevitable, is possibly still more of an issue for philosophy than science as such. Not something that scientists think about every day.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit conflict with immediately following post] Let's try to structure ideas in a way we can add to or subtract from. I noticed that my inclusion of Machiavelli in the grand themes is not likely to survive if we are being strict:-

Pre-philosophical science	Logical knowledge acquisition, but combined with traditional and mythological knowledge.
Philosophical science	The Pre-Socratic philosophers, who later Greek philosophers often referred to as Physicists (nature studiers). Introduction of the concept "nature", as in "the nature of a dog", and the natural versus conventional distinction, the "way" that things are which is not chosen by humans (or human-like entities). Such science continued during the Hellenistic period.
Socratic science	Socrates controversially turned philosophy to the study of human things, including human nature, the earlier realm of mythology and tradition, and is executed. He criticized the older type of study of physics as too speculative. Aristotle creates a less controversial systematic programme of Socratic philosophy, which is teleological, and human-centred. For example: the sun goes around the earth, and many things have it as part of their nature that they are for humans. Each thing has a formal cause and final cause and a role in the rational cosmic order. Motion and change is described as the actualization of potentials already in things, according to what types of things they are.
Medieval science	Continues the Aristotelian or "Scholastic" programme, in a way compatible with monotheism, initially mainly Islamic, but increasingly a Western European synthesis of Catholicism and Aristotelianism towards the end of the middle ages. Relatively dogmatic and static, despite some notable exceptions (al-Kindi, Roger Bacon etc).
The Renaissance and the origins of the modern programme	Several key turning points occur, initially mainly in Italy, and partly inspired by the recovery of old Greek texts: 15th century. The Aristotelian corpus is shown to be wrong about the solar system by Copernicus. 17th century. Galileo uses mathematics and experiment to demonstrate more problems with medieval physics, and is persecuted in Italy. In northern Europe, printing of works critical of medieval thinking flourishes, and Bacon and Descartes argue for a new science: Bacon arguing for a non-teleological science based upon experiment, and Descartes arguing for mathematical science. Bacon specifically argues that philosophy and science should be dedicated not to speculation, but to improving the lives of all people.
Newton and Leibniz	18th century. Successfully developed such a new physics integrated with a new mathematics. Leibniz also incorporates terms from Aristotelian physics, but now being used in a new non-teleological way, for example "energy" and "potential". This in the style of Bacon, assuming that different types of things all work according to the same laws of nature, with no special formal or final causes for each type of thing.
19th century.	Darwin succeeds to explain the differences in types of even living things without requiring formal or final causes, causing new controversy about modern science. Confirmation of the existance of atoms by Dalton Thermodynamics and electromagnetic theory raised new questions which could not be easily answered using Newton's framework.
Relativity and Quantum physics	20th century. Newtonian physics is fundamentally revised, leading to a new physics which contains two parts, that are not yet full incorporated.

Good. Then the three points are subtopics. It immediately makes me ask, 'how is it that this vision of science held up over such an extended period?'. Feynman believed we are in a crisis in theoretical physics right now. The ball is currently in the experimentalist's court, and the viewpoint of Peirls 1956 is retrospectively OK, but incorrect/incomplete as Laws of Nature for the future. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 10:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Your question contains debateable assumptions in itself. Has there been one vision of science which has held up un-changing? To the extent that there has been one possible controversial answer is obvious: it is just progress, and the ideas which work survive. But I think not everyone agrees. Is this however a question which we need to answer in order to describe science?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I have made a kind of draft, expanding out those notes, just to see what it might look like. I have put it on my Sandbox for now, but if others think this is worth working on maybe we should move it to a draft page for this article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)