Talk:Scientific method

emojis added?

were the DNA emojis added by a LLM? Scubatoad (talk) 09:58, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

see response here -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 01:54, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

The section History should be revised

It clearly put Bacon as the founder of the scientific method, although all books i have ever found told a different story. There was an exchange of ideas between him and Galileo, but it was Galileo's work being sent to Bacon first. The way it is written now gives no justice to the people who did the real work. Was it edited by someone in Cambridge? Hahaha ~2026-32519-58 (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Also, the English version differs substantially from the other languages. Shouldn't be. ~2026-33160-32 (talk) 06:57, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

See Shmuel Sambursky. Sambursky knew his history of physics, including Alhacen. There have been other sources, such as David C. Lindberg, and A.Mark Smith, who has studied Alhacen for over four or five decades, with his English translation of the Latin version of Book of Optics, which now dates back over 1000 years. Thus Arabic scientists (not only Muslim scientists, but also other Syrian scientists) ought to be credited for the spread, and preservation of scientific method. -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 04:35, 18 September 2026 (UTC). If this seems paradoxical to you, keep in mind that there was a time when Greek was the lingua franca of science, just as there was a time when, before Greek, Eqyptian was the lingua franca of medicine. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 11:04, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2026

"The history chapter is quite wrong, or at least very different from the other languages wiki (and very different from all the texbooks i have ever seen). I believe it should be revised to make it more historically accurate." ~2026-36802-56 (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. meamemg (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

What's up with the "DNA" indicator?

I guess we're doing it to mark all the excerpts from a specific source which are spread out over several sections? But it's very weird, I don't know anywhere else that this is how we handle it. ~2026-49859-38 (talk) 09:18, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not something i've seen elsewhere, though that isn't a disqualifier. It's very obvious what it is, though, and made more so by the explanation at the first occurence: The basic elements of the scientific method are illustrated by the following example (which occurred from 1944 to 1953) from the discovery of the structure of DNA (marked with and indented). Did you miss that, or not undestand how it's working ~ a quick demonstration in each section using the develoopment of understanding of heredity/DNA through the use of the scientific method steps. ~ Lindsay^Hello 09:56, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

I understand how it's working it just stuck out to me as unusual on wikipedia, and (like has been commented above) struck me as an llm-ism ~2026-50035-10 (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

The little DNA icons have been in the article since 2005, and are older than LLMs. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 03:22, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Note that WP:Five pillars have had similar icons since 2005, as well. -- Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 11:13, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't see the similar icons you're referring to. Unless you mean the files e.g. Wikipedia:Five pillars#/media/File:Encyclopedia icon.svg? But those are used completely differently. ~2026-42684-42 (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2026 (UTC)