Talk:Biology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleBiology has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseNot kept
August 11, 2006Good article nomineeListed
September 2, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
January 10, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article
edit · history · watch · refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Biology:

  1. Restructure article to discuss the unifying principles of the field. More information is necessary in the sections.
  2. References must be added.
  3. References must meet WP:CITET standards.
  4. Scope section needs to be renamed and cleaned up.
  5. Lead needs to be rewritten and cleaned up.
  6. Images need to be removed where they are confusing or do not add to the article.
  7. Grammar/syntax edit to: "...consolidating it into single, coherent field." to "...consolidating it into a single, coherent field." (Adding an a between "it" and "single".

Please add or strike through as necessary. 00:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Priority 1 (top)

Agreement[edit]

I am also Christian and believe this persons statements 

*CORRECT (well done richard001)

Basic Unresolved Problems in Biology[edit]

The unresolved problems in biology could be developed in more depth, in particular about the biological basis of aging. Here are just two websites that explain in further detail the problem of aging.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1288306/

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3402200406.html

Marianna Van (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Cherry-picking and source falsification[edit]

I removed a source that was misused to make the claim that the story of modern biology "begins in Egypt" [1]. The source also clearly states that

Despite considerable progress in the arts and culture, generally in Egypt and Mesopotamia and the many civilzations that followed them, neither science per se not organized biology really existed as a separate, organized body of thought. This would remain so at least until the time of Aristotle, in the fourth century b.c.

Thus, it's not quite that clear cut. This is a clear misuse of a source, by cherry picking what is in it to suit one user's agenda, while ignoring what is inconvenient. Athenean (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

This user also removed a high-quality source that made a claim he didn't like (that biology generally begins in ancient Greece), for no apparent reason other than he just doesn't like that. Athenean (talk) 07:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

That's what I wrote according to the source, but it says that real story "Western biology begins in Egypt", please read more carefully when deleting. Also, why did you remove the invention of medicin attributed to Egypt and everything related to it, explain yourself. --Evropariver (talk) 08:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote above? Don't pretend you didn't see that. Your source contradicts itself. And why did you remove Lis Magner? Because you don't like it? That's not how we do things around here. And in case you hadn't noticed, this article is about biology, not medicine. Athenean (talk) 08:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I will answer your question with the same question. Why did you remove Anthony Serafini, you don't like it or you didn't see it? Seriously, I don't know why, is Lis Magner a better writer or what? In my source an earlier period was covered, and both Greece and Egypt are represented in it, so keeping both statements would be too long. Is not medicine part of biology? Antony Serafini clearly states that Western biology begins in Egypt, why don't you mention that, don't make me quote the whole texts, [whoever wants may read it]. I wrote what was like the period until Aristotle, but why did you remove all the information about biology in Egypt, because you do not like it?--Evropariver (talk) 08:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I've come here because Evropariver posted on the Ancient Egypt wikiproject page about this dispute. The problem here is that Serafini makes a broad and subjective claim ("The real story of Western biology begins in Egypt" on page 2), but his claim is partly undermined by the facts he gives. He says "it was nearly impossible to separate magic and superstition from science" (p. 4) and, as Athenean points out, he also says "neither science per se nor organized biology really existed as a separate, organized body of thought" (p. 2). Many historians of science would no doubt argue that medical knowledge that is inextricably intertwined with magical beliefs—as it undoubtedly was in ancient Egypt—does not constitute biology. Besides, I don't know how much Egyptian medical knowledge contributed to the medical or biological knowledge of classical Greece.
In a situation like this it's often best to stick to facts and avoid subjective declarations. Adding a sentence or two about medical knowledge in Egypt and Mesopotamia might be reasonable, but the article should not imply that the science of biology goes back that far. A. Parrot (talk) 17:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, the source is clear, "Western biology begins in Egypt", moving the same source as a citation that biology has began in Greece is a SOURCE FALSIFICATION which Athenean did and this is a completely unacceptable move in the name of the nationalist bias. Please, Parrot, check the source falsification, I am not asking you to change your opinion, just to notice the falsification in the article. Egyptians got massive works as the History of Animals of Aristotle, they knew the plants better than the Greeks did, Egyptian biology was different from that of the Greeks but still considered "beginning of Western biology" so I am against of the removal of this sourced content, which was removed just n=because of somebody's nationality. --Evropariver (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

What the article now says is "Natural philosophy was studied as early as the ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia, Egypt, the Indian subcontinent, and China. However, the origins of modern biology and its approach to the study of nature are most often traced back to ancient Greece." Note the "most often". That means it is common to consider modern thinking about biology as beginning in Greece, but that there can be other opinions. It does not mean that biology necessarily began in ancient Greece—you have to define what you mean by biology first. As Serafini says, medical knowledge goes back far before Greece, and as A History of the Life Sciences points out, biology was not a considered a separate field of science until the 19th century.
Moreover, Serafini's statement that "The real story of Western biology begins in Egypt" may not mean what you think it means. He may simply be referring to the Egyptians' written medical knowledge as a forerunner of biology. He also says that in Egypt and Mesopotamia "neither science per se nor organized biology existed as a separate, organized body of thought. That would remain so until at least the time of Aristotle, in the fourth century B.C. In the case of biology specifically, whatever knowledge did emerge would remain intertwined with medical practice, again, until the time of Aristotle." I see no falsification of sources here. It looks more likely that you've focused on Serafini's one statement about Egypt to the exclusion of everything else he says. A. Parrot (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I concur with the sentiment that the phrase "the real story of Western biology" takes on a different meaning from the source when is is separated from the description of Egyptian medicine as the "rudiments" of science. What the source's author marks as opinion (e.g. "ostensibly") is cherry-picked into a more definitive statement that does not follow from the source text. What does follow from the text is far more disconcerting. @Evropariver has engaged in significant plagiarism. The edits use phrases directly from the source, but the author's appropriate indications of opinion are left by the wayside.BiologicalMe (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
As I see it, the source refers to the "story" of biology starting in Egypt which does not necessarily translate into the study of biology itself. The scientific study of life and living organisms, which is roughly what biology is defined as, hasn't been fully carried out in ancient Egypt. The source makes that clear. Besides, even if one source did say that, we must respect weight. Most sources, if not all, do recognize that our modern understanding of biology came from ancient Greece. The scientific and methodical studies of plants and animals were unheard of till about that time. Étienne Dolet (talk) 23:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, if I dare to interfere, I just found this discussion. I had already answered to User "Evropariver" here. But I can repeat it here, so that everyone can read my statement.

Technically spoken, Evropariver did right. He cited a source correctly and gave the references. Thus, in my opinion he did nothing wrong there.

On the other hand: If someone claims things such as "Western biology begins in Egypt", my alert bells start to ring very loudly. Egypt is not "western"... Second, the author of the book Evropariver used claims that "Five thousand years ago Egyptian priests were already starting to gather a tremendous amount of medical data".

You may wonder now: what's the problem? Well, 5000 years ago, that would mean at appr. 3000 BC.. Holla-yolla! At this time period the Egyptians had just invented their hieroglyphs and a first form of writing! There was no such things as "collecting medical data", because the only things the writers were allowed to write down, were economical events, religious festivals and the names of kings and noblemen.

Well, you could go and point to the famous Medical Papyri, which indeed name plants and trees, that were used for medical treatments. The first medical papyri (Papyrus Ebers, Papyrus Kahun, Papyrus Smith, Pap. Hearst and Pap. Berlin 3038) appear during the Middle Kingdom (app. 1940 BC.). But that has nothing to do with "biology" in some scientific way. The Ancient Egyptians didn't really care about putting plants and animals into scientific groups and families. All they cared about was farming and breeding animals for food and loot purposes and cultivating plants for medical and/or food uses.

I, personally, think that Serafini's book could be used as a citation for the statement about Aristoteles and Paracelsius. That would at least avoid a monotone sourcing. But there is no literature I'd probably know that claims the Ancient Egyptians to be the founder or pre-founder of modern biology. I hope I could help a little. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 06:27, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2016[edit]

  • Phenology – the study of biological development through the life of one individual

Jose Oteros (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --allthefoxes (Talk) 16:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Biology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Biology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion - Article for deletion on Modern Mars habitability[edit]

There is an article at AfD that may interest you. Please comment at WP:Articles for deletion/Modern Mars habitability

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Biology&oldid=933911558"