Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plato's theory of refraction

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete. Merge/rename discussion can be done on the article's talk page. --Ezeu 07:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plato's theory of refraction

The theory of refraction attributed here to Plato in his Timaeus does not appear in the Timaeus, nor is it attributed to Plato in the mainstream literature on the history of optics. The account seems to fit the experiment described by Ptolemy in his optics, and most accounts see it as a case of typical Ptolemaic "data smoothing," in which measured data is smoothed in terms of Ptolemy's prior assumptions about the bending of light. This article should be deleted. It conceivably could be revised and retitled "Ptolemy's theory of refraction," but this is too small a part of Ptolemy's work to merit a separate entry. SteveMcCluskey 15:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am going for delete as hoax unless some sources come to light. Batmanand | Talk 15:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ptolemy if someone is willing to rewrite as necessary. Otherwise, delete. Maestlin 18:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hold it. This goes all the way back to a text contributed to the article History of science in February 2005 by a serious user, now a respected admin. I've asked for clarification but he may be a bit busy at the moment. The attribution may be wrong, but I don't think it was intended as a hoax. It is a mystery, though, where the attribution to Timaeus comes from; this was not in the article Pre-experimental science the text was lifted from. Lambiam ^Talk 21:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename, and repair - I spent several weeks in one of my Science, Technology, and Society classes at MIT replicating this experiment. I checked my course notes, and the theory was indeed of Ptolemy and not Plato. I'm not sure how that mistake made it into the encyclopedia, but it's good that it was finally caught. This is an excellent and well-documented example of a non-scientific method, and I think pre-experimental science should mention it. The text now at "Plato's theory of refraction", once factually corrected, would actually make a good start on a history of optics, which is currently wedged into the history of physics. Detailed explanations of obsolete scientific theories and methods are of themselves interesting and quite educational, whether or not they are a significant part of a famous person's biography. Ptolemy could simply link to the revised and retitled article. Thought experiment also links to this article as an example; that any any other inbound links will need to be adjusted. -- Beland 22:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Lambiam for filling in the original source of Beland's essay. I still see two problems with it:

First, the judgemental tone criticizing early science for not measuring up to the expectations of modern science. Such judgemental attitudes violate the Neutral Point of View standards of of Wikipedia. Incidentally, such judgemental attitudes are also criticized by historians -- and especially historians of science -- as "Whig history" and by anthropologists as "ethnocentrism." Any rewrite will have to seriously address this judgemental tone.
Second, as Beland notes, he reproduced Ptolemy's experiment in an STS class at MIT. This suggests something is lacking in any discussion of it as an example of "pre-experimental science." I've already suggested on the History of Science Project that the "pre-experimental science" article be rewritten with a more neutral title -- perhaps something like "ancient science."--SteveMcCluskey 22:56, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are indeed problems, but they are repairable; for example one can "neutrally" observe that apparently the methods of earlier natural philosophers are not precisely the same as those of modern scientists. They probably did not keep proper lab notes either :) In any case, not a ground for deletion. Lambiam ^Talk 00:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's high time Wikipedia had better coverage of history of optics, and if renaming this page will get it started, I'm all for it. There are many fine Wikipedia articles that began life this short or shorter. Having the article in existence might pressure editors to improve/extend it. Maestlin 19:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maestlin's suggestion sounds good: rename as History of optics and revise extensively. The present material on "Plato" (i.e., Ptolemy) and Alhazen, of course, will only be the beginning of the revision. --SteveMcCluskey 18:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per Maestlin's most excellent suggestion after suitable dePlatonization and rePtolemification, and delete the resulting redirect page after fixing incoming links, such as from Thought experiment. --Lambiam ^Talk 20:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to refraction Ewlyahoocom 20:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's more appropriate to treat this topic as a historical one rather than as a scientific one and make it the starting point of a renamed entry on the History of optics. But then, I'm a historian :) --SteveMcCluskey 22:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is there one source on the page?? OSU80 03:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.