Talk:History of Animals

History of Animals 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. Review: April 16, 2017. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

History of Science High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Literature / Ancient Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophical literature Ancient philosophy History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Biology Low‑importance History of Animals is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Animals Low‑importance History of Animals is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Animals To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some Open Tasks : Copyedit: Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species. Improve: Photoperiodism, Tool use by non-human animals, Omnivore, Animal suicide, Sphaerium beckmani (a species in family Sphaeriidae), Requests: Mammals: Invertebrates: Campocraspedon Fishes: Zaniolepis frenata Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species. Expand: Junqueira cow, Atka mackerel Nominate and vote: Science collaboration of the month, Article Improvement Drive, WikiProject Animals Collaboration Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Greece Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece 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.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Archives

1

The article on Bees informs us Book IX of Historia Animalium was not written by Aristotle, a claim in discordance with this article. There is no reference for that particular claim, and I don't have time to delve into scholarly disputes on that matter, but maybe someone who knows HA well enough can settle the discord. There might be confusion about the book number, as there seem to be references to bees in different books of HA. --Oop (talk) 10:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Book X is the spurious one; Book IX is not in doubt. I've removed the aside that makes the claim from Bees. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:42, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article would be incomplete without a note on some of the more basic errors. We deal well with the question of whether his actual observations are wrong, but we don't really deal with the more fundamental things that are just products of his time. In trying to get this effect across, I added this:

"There are also more egregious errors that can be attributed to the limits of observation or philosophy in Aristotle's time. For example, in Book I insects are said not to breathe air and later fig wasps are credited with spontaneous generation."

To this I might add all the phrenological elements I've found in Book I: "Straight eyebrows are a sign of softness of disposition... When men have large foreheads, they are slow to move; when they have small ones, they are fickle..."

However, this edit was — maybe rightly — reverted with the call for a citation rather than add to an already "fully cited" article.

Would citing the relevant passages in the book be sufficient, relying on public knowledge to supply the debunking, or would it require citing some scholar having written about these more basic falsehoods? Thanks. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest, and for inquiring. "Public knowledge" is unverifiable, so it fails WP:V. Citing the book itself (obviously WP:PRIMARY, to be used only to establish what the book says) cannot demonstrate anything on its own. So, yes, scholarship published in Reliable Sources is the only option.

"incomplete without a note on some of the more basic errors": the article already contains a section, "Apparent errors", on exactly this point, complete with examples.

I would caution that the article could readily become unbalanced by trying to list all or even a selection of what with fine 20/20 hindsight some might label as "errors": this is not a list and must not become one. More to the point, science, as invented by Aristotle, relies on making testable hypotheses, which may turn out to be falsified, but which will create further work and further hypotheses. This is not "error" but an essential component of the scientific method. Therefore, many philosophers of science would consider it a category error to identify "errors" in a scientist's published work. If that's not sufficient for you, consider that present-day textbooks will be full of statements that future scientists will know to have been falsified. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. Sure, it could be more accurate to call it by some name other than "error". But I think the section currently suggests that the work is entirely founded on observation, and mostly correct observation, especially by the fact that we currently have a rebuttal to each of the possible issues raised (implying by absence that there are no noteworthy issues without rebuttal — the title of the section also leads in this direction). I think it would improve the balance to mention that there are a number of things stated as fact that are not only incorrect but are either grounded in reasoning rather than observation, or grounded in incorrect observation.

Either way, you did make clear that I would need a source to cite if I want to add anything to that effect, so I'll leave it for now. Flipping Mackerel (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. I've added a small bit on models, with the caution that these aren't purely from the History, one reason I didn't do it before. A superseded model is a very different thing from an error, however. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]