Talk:Natural philosophy

message: I'm unhappy at the section entitled revival describing the use of the natural philosophy term  to cover creationism. The action appears to me rather to be crafty misappropiation! I did my science degree at a university where the original use is still carefully kept alive - and it wouldn't extend to covering the supernatural except as a critical footnote in history. Linuxlad 12:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Natural philosophy encompassed a lot of what we consider non-scientific today, including natural theology.  And that section seems to make clear the problematic nature of said "revival" vis-a-vis modern science.  But it's relevance is also rather marginal, and I wouldn't object to the removal of that section.--ragesoss 20:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the term is being craftily misappropriated, something creationism is noted for. it should be explained here. Perhaps the title Revival is inappropriate: any ideas for improvements? A modern usage section could cover both uses, or something like "Use to redefine modern science" might be appropriate, subject to consideration of NPOV issues. Either way, when such usage is linked here the situation should be made clear to avoid giving unwarranted credibility to neo-creationist pseudoscience. ...dave souza, talk 20:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The new addition clearly has POV problems, and verifiability may be an issue. Also, Philip Kitcher and Bertrand Russell have been added at some point with no explanation as to their relevance. The danger with moving this lot to a new article could be the creation of a POV fork, something to consider. ..dave souza, talk 20:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: revival?

message: Recently the Nature article was split and a major part of it was put onto an article called Philosophy of Nature. I tend to think the article should be re-named Nature (Philosophy), in this way we keep the material closer to it's intended use, and perhaps distinct from the present article? Or perhaps it should be merged to this article? --Andrew Lancaster 15:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Philosophy of nature should definitely not be merged here (and the see also at the top should probably be moved down to the regular see also; this article is only slightly more relevant than the rest of the see alsos).  Given the content of the new fork, your renaming proposal seems logical.--ragesoss 17:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  compare to Philosophy of Nature article 

message: How about a section on more recent revivals of natural philosophy? Two figures that deserve to be included (that I can think of off the top of my head) are Hans Jonas and Brian David Ellis. JKeck (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Contemporary Scene? 

message: The most misleading part of this article is the suggestion that never and at no time in history was the term "natural philosophy" synonymous with our modern conception of "science."
This is simply not true. Sure, natural philosophy wasn't always the same thing as modern science, but a lot of fully mature science was done under the name of "natural philosophy."
I think omitting this explanation is just going to result in a heck of a lot of confused readers when, for example, they read Michael Faraday's famous Candle Lectures and see the sentence, "...there is no more open door by which you can enter natural philosophy than by considering the physical phenomenon of a candle." (Lecture 1, first paragraph). And so what will the reader think, that Faraday is making reference to "proto-science" rather than the fully mature science in which he made seminal breakthroughs?
I will consider making this alteration myself, but I can only do so to a limited extent since my history of the formative centuries of modern science is scant.--Scyldscefing (talk) 04:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic Distinction Between "Natural Philosophy" and "Science" 

message: I see the distinction between natural philosophy and science as: anything you read in a science book preceded by "The Theory of" is natural philosophy, anything proceeded by "The Law of" is science. It was necessary long ago to tie the absolute of science to the highly likely of theory to get very logical natural philosophy such as Darwin's theory into the classroom past theist who believe everything came into existence in six days.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.151.248.4 (talk) 02:06, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  My two cents on the Problematic Distinction Between "Natural Philosophy" and "Science". 

message: The term “Natural Philosophy” was used as a synonym for “Physics” on an everyday basis at the University of Glasgow until at least the early 1980s. The main building that now houses the combined Department of Physics and Astronomy was referred to then as the “Nat Phil” building. And in Scottish high schools, a common text book for Ordinary Grade (O-Grade) Physics teaching was titled “Nat Phil ‘0’”. Physics graduates from Glasgow had the opportunity to have their degree registered as either Physics or Natural Philosophy. I’d add this to the article, but I have no sources other than my own direct experience. 70.112.38.105 (talk) 03:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still in use until recently 

message: I have included links to Taoist traditions, as we know their history with natuural science and medicine. Shenqijing (talk) 10:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The addition of Taoism. 

message: This article has plenty of good and accurate information, I think there are parts in this article that could be expanded upon like the Section on Scope: There could be a section describing some of the thoughts that natural philosophers had about the world such as inventions to help the make measurements of the planet, cosmos, and even materials that make up these things.
Orcandiver (talk) 16:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Evaluation of the Article 

message: Not only does it read strange – if it is supposed to mean "physics in the Aristotelian sense," it should be written as "physics (in an Aristotelian sense)" or similar rather than just "physics (Aristotle)" – but it also links to the page for the work "Physics" by Aristotle, making it seem as if natural philosophy is the study of said work, which it most certainly is not. 
Therefore, I suggest these two changes:
1. Editing the first sentence of the introduction so that it says: "Natural philosophy or philosophy of nature (from Latin philosophia naturalis) is the philosophical study of physics (in the Aristotelian sense), that is, nature and the physical universe."
2. Making "physics (in the Aristotelian sense)" link onto https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_(Aristotle)#The_meaning_of_physics_in_Aristotle
Please let me know what you think about these suggestions. I will think it over and may edit it if none object. 
Thank you, Hven Petrowicz Hven Petrowicz (talk) 10:54, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "physics (Aristotle)" link in introduction