Talk:Physics

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good articlePhysics was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 14, 2006Good article nomineeListed
August 15, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
October 28, 2006Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
May 22, 2009WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
July 24, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
April 1, 2012Articles for deletionSpeedily kept
Current status: Delisted good article

Philosophy section -- Mathematics as analytical

The philosophy section advocates an understanding of physics as synthetic and mathematics as analytical. The status of mathematics as analytical vs. synthetic is a core point of divergence in various philosophies of mathematics. Mathematics as synthetic is argued by numerous proponents, the most prolific being Immanuel Kant, as articulated in the introduction of the Critique of Pure Reason.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Pure_Reason#Synthetic_a_priori_judgments --Contribution 14:39, 18 October 2023‎ by 196.189.240.63

Introduction

I would replace the verb "understand" in "understand how the universe behaves..." with, for example, "describe and predict".

the word "understand" is often understood -- if you will pardon the pun -- as comprehend and presumes some underlying actuality for the physicist to grasp. like all other "human" sciences, even the natural ones, physics is a construct. it is, this is true, inspired by our experience of nature and built upon possibly the only truth accessible to us, the mathematical one, but cannot make inferences about any actuality that may underlie that experience. 178.74.7.149 (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

philosophy section

the philosophy section being placed up at the front with it's own section is just really weird. i came here to read about physics, and instead got a weird reading article about how physics is actually philosophy with literally no explanation or examples or anything besides a couple references.

physics is not philosophy, and to call the history of physics philosophy is abdurd. there is philosophy of physics. many old physicists have been philosphers. the two fields are deeply connected. but the way the philosophy section reads is that physics is just a branch of philosophy? what?

this sounds absurd, comes off absurd, and doesn't do anything to help me put physics into a wikipediacally sound perspective

i recommend the philosophy section be merged into the "relationship to other fields" section, moved to the end of the article, thoroughly rewritten, or deleted entirely.it's placement and writing is misleading and confusing 2600:6C47:A03F:C443:9D6A:D4C0:8251:D89D (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALSO ADDING that the "philosophy" section directly contradicts the "history" section by going "well physics is REALLY just an extension of greek philosophy" after literally talking about and discussing the history of physics for a whole thorough section? 2600:6C47:A03F:C443:9D6A:D4C0:8251:D89D (talk) 14:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]