Talk:Physics/wip/Archive,forDefinition

message: Yes, striving for a general definition will indeed take you down philosophical and metaphysical roads! That's not altogether a bad thing though. I agree that my definition is one extreme; thus, we should have many definitions: one for everyday use, one general, one specific, etc. You have struck at the heart of the issue when you say that there is no formally-agreed definition: many people define what physics is and its bounds of working validity subjectively. In fact, you may argue that the mating habits of King Penguins is indeed physics! So, let's sort out each of these definitions in turn. I would like to keep the general definition of physics for the sake of pedantry and the "rigourous way". I would also add the "particular definition" - i.e. the one that says, "yes, physics is actually a science". In fact, I only gave you half of my definition: I was going to add the latter half later on (since nobody uses a practical definition that speaks of the true laws of nature - these are not known!). So, lets first decide the type of definitions. I suggest:
#Lay, easily understood definition - for the casual reader to have a general understanding of the topic.
#General definition - one that is "rigourous".
#Specific, or particular definition - a more useful, working definition than the general one.
We can discuss your suggested lead paragraph in more detail bit-by-bit once we have a clearer direction of where we are going.
Krea 17:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure 

message: It would be good to have a few more editors here. I have posted welcome notices to users who are on the Physics Project participant list.--MichaelMaggs 08:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More editors welcome 

message: Reply to Noetica (–MT)
There are three positions here. First, that physics is the the superclass of all the other sciences. This position is satisfied by the following definition:
:Physics is the study of the natural world.
The second is that physics studies the base constituents:
:Physics is the study of the basic constituents of the natural world.
The third is that physics studies matter and energy, or that "base constituents" is unclear to someone who doesn't already know what they are:
:Physics is the study of matter and energy.
It seems that we agree on position 2 over 1, but some arguments made lead me to think otherwise. Though I would enjoy further discussion, I appeal to precident in Wikipedia to resolve the dispute between these.
The Wikipedia categorization system does not place biology or even chemistry under :Category:Physics. Physics, chemistry, and the earth sciences are described as equals under Physical sciences, :Category:Physical sciences, and Fields of science. An argument to change this categorization shound be posted in the relevant place - probably wikiproject science - where a more diverse group can participate. Until it is resolved there, we should avoid this argument here and wait or proceed according to what is established, namely that what is being referred to as "broadphysics" is science in general, and that physics deals specifically with the basic components of complex "physical" systems (namely matter and energy), and complex systems that are best understood in terms of physical law (for example, the orbits of large masses of matter).
Though the argument should now be moot, I'd still like to respond to some points:
* First, podiatry and optometry are not "subsets of medicine". If you have a broken foot, or a sliver of metal in your eye, you don't go to a podiatrist or an optometrist. This is incorrect. If you have a broken foot, you'd go someone who knows enough to fix it. Same for a sliver in the eye. And who do you go to when you have some complex problem of the foot? A podiatrist. A complex problem of the eye? An optometrist. And a complex problem of the teeth? A dentist.
* You incorrectly apply the fallacy fallacy. I did not assert that your position "both should be included" was wrong because of the fallacy, just that the argument "we disagree, so the correct course of action is to include both" was fallacious. The middle ground fallacy, like the opinion fallacy ("our positions, since they seem to be irreconcilable, must be opinions, therefore it is useless to argue") tends to end discussion prematurely, and I wanted to avoid that.
The conflict we should focus on is between the second and third positions. I'll try to get to the heart of the matter. It seems to me that you're defining a word, while I'm describing its referent. The word physics may mean "the study of basic material constituents". What this article talks about, however, is a very certain (and diverse!) study of matter, energy, fields, the role of time and space, and so on. If against all odds all of this is overturned, and the word physics is used to describe some new field, then the contents of this article will be moved to [old physics], and we'll discover that a definition like "...base constituents" is actually incorrect in light of what the rest of the article is about. Word versus subject. If we want to mention that the study of fire, earth, wind and water (or whatever) was called physics, we'd note that under history, and we'd describe how the word physics referred to different things at different times. Today, physics refers to a study of matter and energy (or fields and their interactions), and it's that study of matter and energy that this article talks about. I agree that the word physics refers to "...base constituents", but my disagreement stems from the fact that this article is about matter and energy (which incidentally are the base constituents) and is not about the base constituents - whatever those may be.
–MT 01:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: M's reply to Noetica

message: I have not replied to each of Noetica's paints specifically, nor do I plan to. If I reply to each sentence with a paragraph, we'll see that this discussion soon becomes unmanagable. Sight of the central point will be lost as we argue over whether a podiatrist mends broken bones or not. Central arguments will be spread out over the reply, and instead of replying to logical groups of them in unison, we'll end up replying to small chunks that might not be as sensible on their own. I don't want that.
I've identified two groups of argument (tenet 1 and 2) that Noetica seems to be making, and I've replied to them both as groups. Here are the tenets again:
:1. Physics is the superclass of all the other sciences.
:2. Physics studies the basic constituents.
:3a. Physics studies matter and energy.
:3b. "Base constituents" is unclear to someone who doesn't already know what they are.
I've replied to 1 by appealing to precident, and the suggestion that such a discussion doesn't belong here. Noetica suggests that the categorization system is (mere) bookkeeping. In anticipation, I linked Physical sciences and Fields of science, articles that are clearly not bookkeeping. They are non-volatile articles that demonstrate that there is some form of consensus among editors that physics is not a superclass, but that science is. If Noetica disagrees, then our argument should end here. There's no sense in arguing between tenets 2 and 3 if we can't get this resolved. I don't think that this draft page is the proper place to argue a subject that affects all of the other science articles and the categorization system. We can't have [physics] implicitly claim that it's the superclass of biology and psychology, while other articles like [physical sciences] claim them to be equal. Either Noetica should abandon tenet 1 in regards to this article, or we should take the discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science. There, I'll be happy to reply to whatever points are made, assuming that someone else doesn't respond first.
So, in short, which definition do you propose?
# Physics is the study of the natural world.
# Physics is the study of the basic constituents of the natural world. 
If it's #2, then we'll continue the conflict between tenets 2 and 3 here, and no longer spend time on arguments that are essentially for tenet 1. If it's #1, then we'll continue that discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science. Is this reasonable? –MT 21:00, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: M's reply to Noetica

message: I agree with M that the discussion would become unmanageable if we responded to each sentence with a paragraph. But I have raised a few matters that are simply not addressed in M's responses. I'll not repeat them, since that seems futile.
M recapitulates the tenets that we both worked to identify:
:1. Physics is the superclass of all the other sciences.
:2. Physics studies the basic constituents.
:3a. Physics studies matter and energy.
:3b. "Base constituents" is unclear to someone who doesn't already know what they are.
And M says, concerning 1:
:I've replied to 1 by appealing to precident, and the suggestion that such a discussion doesn't belong here.
Well, where precisely does such discussion find a home, if not at this page set up for just this purpose? Here is an excerpt from an anonymous contribution in the last topic at Category_talk:Physics, which was, interestingly enough, Definition of Physics. I add my highlighting in bold:
:: I utterly disagree with the given definition of physics. 
::Energy does not interact with matter but particles, people, animals interact with each other. It is a bit like saying pears interact with apples.
::When energy interacts with a bicycle, does this mean that the bicycle is beginning to move? No. When a person interacts with a bicycle (pushs the pedals) the bicycle begins to move. Energy is an abstract concept that does not interact with anything!
:: I would switch to the etymological definition : 
::::Physics is the science of nature
::but I would add
:::: In practice, Physics is the science performed within the scientific method as applied by the physics community and defined by the works of physicists like Gallilei, Descartes, Planck, Einstein, Dirac or Feynman. [Note: This is equivalent to "working physicists". – N]
::because I believe a science is not only defined by its object but also by its methods and the community of people doing it.
This thoughtful and comprehensive contribution continues at some length. It received the following dismissive reply:
:: I think you're trying to change the wrong page, because this intro is to a category and shouldn't really be too elaborate. I think no one has changed it since like a year, becuase it jsut isn't important, so I reduced it to a minimum. A complete definition and anything else about physics should be found simply in the article about physics. Cheers. Karol 12:07, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
(!)
That was the end of the discussion: a diversion to our article, Physics.
Look, I've spent a lot of time on this. (So has M; so have many others.) When my detailed analytical arguments are met with a suggestion that I take them elsewhere, I feel that I am right to object. Elsewhere is not the place: this is the relevant place (a page set up for precisely this purpose), and Physics is the relevant article. No, M: the category articles and the science articles are not all "mere" bookkeeping. And they quite rightly locate physics among the sciences, as in a sense one of the specialisations. I have no quibble with their doing that. Nor do I have any quibble with our doing that. But I want to close off future dissent and bickering by allowing that, in an important sense, physics occupies a central and general role. In a way, all other sciences are a part of it. Why can't that be allowed? Just as in the article Fruit. Why should it be that the editors of that article can sort such things out, but we cannot?
M writes:
:Either Noetica should abandon tenet 1 in regards to this article, or we should take the discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science. There, I'll be happy to reply to whatever points are made, assuming that someone else doesn't respond first.
Excuse my scepticism, and see the points I make above, illustrated with the example of discussion at Category_talk:Physics. Don't pass the buck; deal with the issue here.
M asks:
:So, in short, which definition do you propose?
:1. Physics is the study of the natural world.
:2. Physics is the study of the basic constituents of the natural world.
:If it's #2, then we'll continue the conflict between tenets 2 and 3 here, and no longer spend time on arguments that are essentially for tenet 1. If it's #1, then we'll continue that discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science. Is this reasonable?
No, it is not reasonable, as I argue above. What definition do I propose? I've given it twice already. Here it is again, the same in its essentials, but modified by further consideration, partly reflecting the discussion since I proposed it:
::Broadly, physics may best be thought of as the science of nature: the science concerned with identifying the basic constituents of the natural world, and the laws according to which they combine and interact to form complex systems. However, in most current everyday usage, physics is taken to be more limited, since there are special sciences (chemistry, biology, psychology, etc.) that deal with various kinds of complex systems using their own methods and theories. Physics is, for everyday practical purposes, the rest of science after these special sciences are taken out; and physics is the science that focuses more on the basic constituents and less on the complex systems that they form.
– Noetica 00:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But I have raised a few matters that are simply not addressed in M's responses. I'll not repeat them, since that seems futile.
I'm perfectly willing to respond once we decide where we want to continue which discussion. I'm not up to discussing two tangled points at once. I'm not saying "take your arguments elsewhere". That's a dismissal. I want us to choose the correct forum, and I don't think that this backwater talk page is suited for a discussion about whether the other sciences are subordinate to physics. 
I know that this discussion is important and might give rise to emotions, but I ask you to proceed in a reasonable manner. Calling me partisan because I have an argument that contradicts yours, accusing me of "passing the buck" because I'd like to argue with you on another page, and so on - this form of argument is not productive, and is unwelcome.
A discussion of the categorization of physics belongs in a place where we can get a diverse set of people contributing to the argument. Do you think that subcategorizing biology and psychology under physics has no effect on them? That people who have been categorizing these pages aren't interested in contributing to such a discussion? The notion that biology is a subset of physics is not trivial.
You link me to a discussion. An anonymous editor was unsatisfied with the definition and thought that the category page was the right place to bring up discussion. As far as changing the definition of physics, Karol was correct, the right place to do it is the talk page of physics. But as far as changing the definition in a way that affects many other very major pages, well, that sort of discussion just doesn't belong here.
Regardless, you seem to be against having this discussion there. Fine. What I want is more than two people contributing. I'll try to solicit more contributors. Meanwhile, onwards with discussing physics as the superclass of biology etc. I think that this deserves a new section, so see below. –MT 11:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

text: M, by participating in the discussion here you might reasonably be taken to believe that it is the proper forum for such discussion. It is unreasonable and provocative that, when confronted with clear and sustained argument against a position you favour, you then seek to divert the discussion to another page altogether. Let's be clear about what we're doing: this is THE page that a group of serious editors interested in physics have agreed will be the place for threshing out the issues that were causing trouble for the Physics article. We have set out, first, to find a consensus definition for physics. If that is not your intention, you might like to withdraw from discussion here. (I hope you will not decide to withdraw, though.) As for how our deliberations might affect other pages, that's not our prime concern at all. If anything, we have a claim to being the experts who are doing the hard yards, and our precedent should carry weight elsewhere. All that said, I for one am not proposing anything that will have consequences for other pages. Read my proposed definition, and note that I incorporate the everyday, practical definition neatly as a part of it; and I justify that everyday definition. That narrow component of my definition is perfectly in accord with the bookkeeping classificatory régime used elsewhere (and in accord with the rest of the Physics article to follow, I should add). But we are doing more than bookkeeping: we are, I hope, aiming at a well-founded, durable, and philosophically sound definition for a major part of the human intellectual endeavour. I await your responses to the points I have made, and to my proposed definition. I have proceeded in a reasonable manner, and I call on you to do the same. – Noetica 12:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it is not clear where I belive this discussion should take place, then I am at fault. I think that this is not as good a place as wikiproject science. And I agree, I did and still would like to divert this discussion there. If more people - chemists, biologists, and so on - join in this page's discussion of how those sciences relate to physics, then I may be wrong: this may well be the forum I'd like it to be. I agree that the discussion is important, and that our precident should carry weight. Would you agree that for it to carry more weight, we should have more people? If so, perhaps you might support my message at wikiproject science? There was my diversion of this discussion, and my delay in answering your points. Have I been otherwise unreasonable? If so, please let me know where. You can leave a message on my talk page if you'd like. –MT 13:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Noetica's reply to M

message: - (see: English as she is spoke :-)
In parallel to the effort of definition ongoing, above, I quote from  G. Toraldo di Francia (1981) The Investigation of the Physical World  , an English  translation of the 1976 L' Indagine del Mondo Fisico. di Francia quotes Galileo's Assayer
:"Philosophy is written in that great book which ever lies before our eyes, I mean the universe, but we cannot understand it if we do not first learn the language and grasp the symbols in which it is written. This book is written in the mathematical language, and the symbols are triangles, circles, and other geometrical figures, without whose help it is humanly impossible to comprehend a single word of it, and without which one wanders in vain through a dark labyrinth."
di Francia then notes 
:"Literally, therefore, it is nature that forces its own language on the observer, and not the other way around."
To paraphrase, mathematics is the language of nature and Galileo is directing us to learn the language of nature, however she speaks. Thus physics might be thought of as that science which seeks to learn the grammar of nature. Other sciences can also concern themselves with the nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs of the language of nature. The grammar of nature can also be called the characterization of nature. --Ancheta Wis 08:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The language of nature as she is spoke 

message: Hi. Was reading, found this sentence second paragraph of the Introduction category: "For example, chemistry is the science of matter (such as atoms and ) and the chemical substances that they form in the bulk." To me, it looks like there is either an extra 'and', or there is a noun missing inside the parenthesis. Anyone know what the editor was going for there? Or where this comment should go, if not here? ^^;; CrispyDruid 15:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "...atoms and molecules)..." perhaps? The comment should perhaps have gone on the physics talk page instead of here, but no harm done. It's not too important since that whole section will be reworked soon anyway. Krea 16:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo in Intro?