Talk:Book of Optics: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:32, 7 December 2009

	History of science portal This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Unassessed

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

‹See TfM›

Physics: Publications B‑class Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Publications Taskforce.

Latin version

Alhacen (2001). Alhacen's theory of visual perception a critical edition, with English translation and commentary, of the first three books of Alhacen's De aspectibus, the medieval Latin version of Ibn al-Haytham's Kitāb al-Manāzịr. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, v. 91, pts. 4 & 5. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society,. ISBN 0871699141. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)states that latin name of the work is De aspectibus, not Perspectiva. → Aethralis 19:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Insofar as Alhazen used the Aristotelician intromission realist theory of sight, I wonder how one could claim that his optics "correctly explained the process of sight for the first time." Maybe another formulation would be better (except if you believe that the image projected by an object is than transmitted to the eye and then to the brain without any translation or coding... Spirals31 (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many problems

There is much in this article that seems overly favourable to Ibn al-Haytham.

For example, Ibn al-Haytham was the first to discover that the celestial spheres do not consist of solid matter is nonsense. The celestial spheres don't exist; they are part of a long-discarded theory. ...and he also discovered that the heavens are less dense than the air. Well no, he didn't. He asserted it. And since the heavens are essentially a vacuum, he was wrong about that too. Notice how the astronomy section contradicts the scientific-method section.

he developed a method for determining the general formula for the sum of any integral powers, which was fundamental to the development of infinitesimal and integral calculus does not sound at all believable.

He speculated on electromagnetic aspects of light Are we really supposed to believe that?

This is Nikola Tesla all over again...

The article is also repetitive and seems to have suffered from cut-n-paste: His book Kitab al-Manazir (Book of Optics) was translated... - oh dear, someone has forgotten we are in the BoO article!

William M. Connolley (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you believe is not important. Go ahead and read the all 6 chapters of his book and show that he in fact has not done these things. Or demand that these claims are backed with references that could be reached. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.65.95.195 (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't he also be called Persian rather than Iraqi, or at least something like "Persian (present-day Iraq)" ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.122.105 (talk) 06:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article is written as a love letter to Ibn al-Haytham. The entire article need a serious rewrite, because as it stands it is a blight on Wikipedia. This specific page was used as an example of the poor scholarship of Wikipedia by one of my son's teachers, and he was very correct. Supertheman ^(talk) 05:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. In this state it is almost unusable. Typical example of the problems would be "He is the first to describe accurately the various parts of the eye and give a scientific explanation of the process of vision." This is of course untrue, as he does not do such thing. Inverted images on retina of the things seen were described by as late as by Kepler, also the position of the optic nerve is by Alhacen not in the correct position. This sentence (as does much of the article) leaves the the wrong impression. → Aethralis 06:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Composition Date

Composition date listed here appears to be wrong. A.I. Sabra (arguably the foremost scholar of this period) places its composition "at any rate, after AD 1028." See Sabra, A.I. 2003. "Ibn al-Haytham's Revolutionary Project in Optics: The Achievement and the Obstacle." In The Enterprise of Science in Islam: New Perpesctives, The MIT Press. Quote from page 90. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.74.15.238 (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 :The entire article is written as a love letter to Ibn al-Haytham. The entire article need a serious rewrite, because as it stands it is a blight on Wikipedia. This specific page was used as an example of the poor scholarship of Wikipedia by one of my son's teachers, and he was very correct. [[User:Supertheman|<font color="darkblue">Supertheman</font>]] <sup><font color="darkblue">(</font>[[User_talk:Supertheman|<font color="darkblue">talk</font>]]<font color="darkblue">)</font></sup> 05:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
+::I completely agree. In this state it is almost unusable. Typical example of the problems would be "He is the first to describe accurately the various parts of the eye and give a scientific explanation of the process of vision." This is of course untrue, as he does not do such thing. Inverted images on retina of the things seen were described by as late as by Kepler, also the position of the optic nerve is by Alhacen not in the correct position. This sentence (as does much of the article) leaves the the wrong impression. → [[User:Aethralis|Aethralis]] 06:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 == Tags ==