Talk:History of scientific method

message: Russell's history is notoriously sloppy. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russell as a source 

message: After perusing the article on the scientific method itself in addition to contributing to a biography, I noticed two individuals who I thought could possibly be included here. Upon reviewing this article, though, I noticed that it is already quite long and we certainly don't want it to be bloated. I do, however, feel this warrants mention and would like to see what others think. Medieval Andalusian pharmacist Abu al-Abbas al-Nabati is credited with introducing the method to Materia medica; his work is said to have lead to the establishment of pharmacology as a field. He was also the teacher of Ibn al-Baitar, who could also possibly be mentioned in a small blurb. What do others make of this? There isn't as much material available on these two as the other individuals mentioned here, but perhaps a passing mention wouldn't hurt. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: What was their contribution to a specific method? Might there be quotable material from them to support their inclusion in the article? Or was it a philosophical or methodological orientation which made them notable? --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 19:00, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Ibn al-Baitar seems to have a more detailed article though his contribution doesn't seem as distinguished - he apparently composed a record of all previous medical discoveries made in the Near East up to that point. He is, however, always mentioned alongside his teacher al-Nabati, who seems to have less coverage. His contribution seems more significant; what I'm seeing at Materia_medica#Medieval, Timeline_of_biology_and_organic_chemistry#Before_1600 and History_of_botany#Medicinal_plants_of_the_early_Middle_Ages is that he was the first to really organize the method as it applied to botany and pharmacology, using empirical testing methods and separating verified and unverified reports. The claim seems to be that he was the first. I am, however, woefully ignorant of the history of the scientific method specifically, so I'm not sure if that would be considered notable in light of the other individuals included here. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:39, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for inclusion of two others early contributors 

message: There is a bare sentence about Willich which appears in a context 400 years too early. It has no citation, either. It might be more constructive to have it in a later section. --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 14:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Be Bold J8079s (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the sentence just before 1562, with the publication of Sextus Empiricus. --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 19:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Willich 

message: I found this: "scientific method with a distinctive emphasis on multiple working hypotheses" at  They cite "Amiss" as their source. I would like to work it in some how but I don't want to upset the flow. J8079s (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: My typo sorry J8079s (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epicurus 

message: Absolutely no mention of the father of the scientific method? Born 970AD... 195.213.215.85 (talk) 22:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ibn al Haytham 

message: The recent good faith addition of Tycho Brahe might well be welcomed in the Science in the Renaissance article. -- Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 01:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science in the Renaissance