Talk:Physics/wip/Archive,forDefinition2

Appended to the archive 14:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Note to those who have not been following recent discussion: Please refrain from comment, but instead attend to the proposals listed above, created at the request of the moderator; see his comment above. If you have a proposal, then append it to the list above.

Almost a week has passed since the last submission, and 10 days since the first, so lets open the straw poll. Voice your support or opposition for each, and give terse reasons for your choice. A few sentences, at most, should be enough. Avoid arguments. Focus on the lead as a lead, and not as an argument for or against a given position. –M^T 09:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: somehow the software is 'off by one'. So if you want to edit the straw poll section, go to the TOC, select 'off by one' then select 'edit'. --Ancheta Wis 11:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like it wasn't taking into account a heading in the collapsed section above. Removed heading, replaced with equivalent. We should probably comment on these ourselves, so I offer my criticisms (good things are more obvious and harder to pin down). –M^T 14:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to M for setting the straw poll/comments section running - I have been busy for the last few days and haven't had any time to get it running. I am glad to see that folks are commenting in a nice bulleted concise form to each proposal. I suggest leaving this comment phase open for a week or so to allow a "view" to be formed on each proposal. SFC9394 20:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

We have very few external responses, unless we get more, I don't think that this will be productive. Noetica and Krea, please consider revising. You wrote ~600 and ~800 words, averaging 100 and 130 per point. The others range from 34 (MichaelMaggs) to 48 (O. Prytz). It might've been better had none of us commented, save perhaps pre-poll corrective comments. But this is not ideal regardless, since we don't seem to have professional writers, well-known physicists, or a target audience sample reviewing and commenting. Ideas welcome. –M^T 17:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

M, you suggest that Krea and I "consider revising" our responses to the proposals. I am not at all inclined to do that, since I merely said what I needed to say. I could have said more, of course, but refrained from commenting on comments. Now I'll add this: some of the material in comments I found captious and trivially easy to dispatch; I have made small changes to my own proposal, carefully annotated, in response to that. I note that some people have treated this straw poll as a vote, where it had been set up in a way that explicitly excluded a vote. It is therefore regrettable, M, that you issued an invitation to "voice your support or opposition for each", which risks discouraging dialogue towards a consensus. Let's work cooperatively, and respect procedures that have been explicitly laid down. Let me say once more here that I have continually modified my own proposal to respect the concerns of the "narrow" camp. The record of this page's development shows that. And let me ask this: precisely what proposition do you contest in my proposal? It incorporates the essence of the positions of you and MichaelMaggs completely, so far as I can determine what that essence is. I have entered fully into responsive dialogue, in a conciliatory way. I call on everyone to be more flexible and responsive. If we don't all do that, clearly no consensus can emerge. In short, therefore, I call not for a trimming of comments, but additions to comments: say precisely what you don't like, pinning down particular sentences, phrases, or words, and give the proposers a chance to address those concerns. Then respond to proposers' changes, iteratively working towards a consensus. – Noetica 22:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Now that we have gone through an exercise of each writing separate definitions, might we side-step the issue of which is best? Wiki-action works by collaboration on a single topic. By attempting to impose what appeared to be 'good practice' it appears that we are simply repeating the mistakes of Nupedia.

Francis Crick warned about the dangers of defining something which is ill-understood; although physics is well-understood by many practioners, those same practioners are busy re-defining the field, as I state in my proposal. Crick pointed out that after the structure of DNA was discovered, then the definition of the gene was easier to state. In the same way, perhaps after the article is largely written, then item 1 might be back-annotated, to use an integrated circuit term.

Perhaps we might get to a win-win situation, which is the usual state of a wiki collaboration by taking what exists and collaborating on a single version. For example, the current head of Wikimedia, User:Anthere has recounted the history of apple:

The article started as

• 'An apple is a fruit.'

And the community went on from there. While there is still controversy, there is plenty to agree upon. And there are many ways to work around sticking points. For example, we might leave placeholders on disputed points, and go on. --Ancheta Wis 02:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you propose as the placeholder? –M^T 08:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Physics is a science.

Perhaps this might suffice for some consensus. --Ancheta Wis 10:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

A straw poll doesn't mean that you can't express support, only that the support won't be tallied. I very specifically requested tersity. "Do not voice support" was not laid down, "be terse" was. I ask you to consider revision because it seems that you've disregarded the procedure. Don't treat this with hostility; short and direct comments will only help bring focus and, most importantly, more contributers. As for your contribution, I've already outlined my concerns below. You havn't so much written an introduction as yet another argument/justification for your position. Which is fine. But it doesn't make a very good introduction. –M^T 08:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

M, yes: you requested terseness. That is open to interpretation, of course. I have already indicated that I could have been said more, and that I forbore to say it. There is no substance in your claim that I have disregarded procedure. Now you seek to dismiss my proposal, which all agree is well written, and which the history of this page shows I have modified more than once in response to discussion and criticism. You say it is yet another justification for my position? It might read that way, but only because it (unlike your proposal) has an argument and a line of reasoning to it, rather being a string of loosely connected assertions with little of logical rigour and less of focused relevance to the task: uncovering what is essential to physics. I have made clear what I object to in your proposal (and my objections have yielded no scintilla of flexible response from you). But you have not done the same for my proposal. I might reasonably take your refusal to engage, when I ask you direct questions, as hostile and unproductive (if we are now to level such accusations). You refuse to say precisely what proposition you contest in my proposal, and I repeat now your request that you do so. You do not acknowledge for a moment that my definition includes your own – and respects it, justifies it, places it in a context, and hands the remainder of the article over to it. (Yes, perhaps I repeat myself. To stop me doing so, answer what I write the first time: or at least the second or third time.) – Noetica 10:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you not have said, regarding MichaelMaggs's proposal: "Well considered and adapted to various points made above. Disagree with definition - should be timeless, but this one limits us to the current era."? You have to understand that it is very trying to see 100 words where 10 would have gotten your point across just as well. You're treating the introduction like a logical argument - it isn't one. There is no grand quest to discover what is essential to physics. All we're trying to do is give a decent outline of what physics-as-we-know-it is to an elementary school student. I don't have to contest a certain "fact" in your proposal to disagree with it - you could write "'a' is a vowel" 50 times, and I won't argue that, but I'd disagree that it's a good lead. –M^T 19:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Are we back to the discussing? If so, then I think Ancheta's suggestion is excellent. However, I think it'll fail at the very next correction, unfortunately: "Physics is the science of nature/Physics is the science of energy". M, you criticise both my and Noetica's definitions for being too heavy on explanations/justifications, right? Well, I don't think that is a problem at all since, as Ancheta has said, we are trying to define something that is not trivial. Hence, justifications are required I would say. Whilst I am on this point, can I say that to Ancheta that the danger of such definitions is precisely the point Noetica is warning us about: if you define physics as the study of energy, then it is in danger of being incorrect; whereas if it is defined as the study of nature, whilst it may be vague, it will never be incorrect. This leads me nicely to what Noetica, as do I, would now like to know: what is it exactly that bugs the "energists" about the broad definition? I am finding it really hard to see any non-trivial objection to it. For example, Michael, you say that my "first sentence...fails in my view as it covers a whole range of non-physics research such as a biological study into the mating habits of penguins." But I've explained time and again why such an argument is useless: you have used your definition of physics ("...covers a whole range of non-physics [Id est, non-physics-topics from your definition] research...") to argue against mine. This is no argument, and its use without further justification of its existence should be refrained from. So, objections please "energists". (It would help everyone if you yourselves attacked your own objections - something good physicists should always do - so as what gets posted is a good, well thought out, and non-trivial objection). Krea 14:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Krea, you might like to look back at the earlier discussions we had at length about that point. I've addressed it several times, for example here and here. You may not like the fact that the normal everyday use of the word 'physics' differs from what you'd like it to be, but nevertheless it does (evidence: the dictionaries quoted earlier, and the fact that your views didn't prevail in discussions related to the main Physics article). Perhaps you'll get your point in eventually by virtue of persistence and effort when editors who happen to take a different view tire of going over the same points again, again and again.

I regret, once again, that tempers seem to be fraying a little, and that progress (by which I don't mean the number of words typed) remains stalled. Unfortunately, this /WIP page, although an excellent idea, has not been a great practical success in my view and I think we should now close it down. There appears to be no prospect of us all agreeing a lead section that could withstand even a few days in the open-market of the main Physics page. And, no, before anyone suggests it, I don't think that keeping talking will do it --MichaelMaggs 17:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. –M^T 19:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Me too. This discussion is a disaster with very little of it in good faith. Joshua Davis 19:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

What bugs the "energists" about the broad definition is that it's like defining "fish" as "an animal". If this were a classification, yeah, it'd be correct. But it's a definition, and defining it thus gives us no information, and confuses the "fish" concept with the "animal" concept. "A horse is a fish" - yeah, maybe horses evolved from fish, but they're absolutely different. And maybe the word "fish" might refer in the future to some descendant of current fishes - and this will invalidate our definition completely! We don't know what a fish might be, so let's define it as vaguely as possible! I have no idea how you've stood by your position for this long, it's exactly as ridiculous as this fish analogy. –M^T 19:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Good analogy Joshua Davis 19:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Joshua Davis: A good analogy? Let's examine it. For a start, if we were to begin a definition of the word fish by saying that a fish is an animal, that might help some who were perplexed by both fish and animal. There is much to be perplexed about with these terms! What counts as an animal? Are paramecia animals? Are whales? Are sponges? Are humans? Are Vulcans' pets? Are self-replicating mobile robots? I'm certain there would be dispute about one or two of these, even among us here. What counts as a fish? Is a shark a fish? (The Shorter Oxford – the SOED – fumbles and contradicts itself with this one: by its modern definition of fish it is not, since it is not a vertebrate; but in the entry for shark it miraculously transmutes into one: 1 A member of a large superorder of marine cartilaginous fishes (selachians) typically having a long streamlined body, many pointed teeth, five to seven gill slits, rough scaly skin, and freq. a prominent dorsal fin; esp. a large voracious fish of this kind.) Is a whale a fish? (Don't laugh: consider older English whalefish, Dutch walvisch, and German Walfisch.) Is an oyster a fish? (We call it a shellfish, don't we?) Is a lamprey a fish? (Wikipedia is not sure; but it is not, according to the explicit definition of fish in the article Fish. That article, by the way, contradicts itself in its lead, by first saying that all fish are vertebrates, and then discussing the cartilaginous "fish", like sharks: cf. SOED). And you thought this was all easy, right?

M: Further to what I wrote for Joshua Davis just now, let's examine this comment of yours about the proposition A fish is an animal:

But it's a definition, and defining it thus gives us no information, and confuses the "fish" concept with the "animal" concept.

This is seriously wayward. First, no one would claim it as a complete definition. Second, if you look at definitions of fish around the place (Wikipedia, SOED, Britannica, etc.), you will see that they all include some taxonomy. Is a fish an animal? The way people talk generally, this is not clear. Someone might say: I don't eat animals! But I'm not a complete vegetarian: I eat eggs and fish. Third, your continuation above concerning horses as fish is a non sequitur worthy of the memorable witch scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and needs no specific refutation here.

The point is that language does not come as ready-ordered and neatly regimented as you assume. I have shown immediately above how experts (scientists, lexicographers) get confused about such "simple" terms as animal and fish; so how well do we expect non-experts to cope? We are all non-experts outside certain limited domains, and we all need to analyse, and to be guided about, and to reach well-founded conventions about, the exact meanings of words.

Am I being difficult? Is Krea? Is Ancheta? No! Our language and its ways are intrinsically difficult and mercurial. So is biological taxonomy; and so, crucially for this page, are notions about relations between the world and the sciences that study it, and between the sciences themselves.

People are either awake to these subtleties or they are not. M, apparently you are not. People care about such analysis, and such logical exegesis and precision, or they don't. M, apparently you don't. I write too much for your comfort and ease, do I, M (see your earlier points, above)? Well, no matter how much or how little I write, you will not respond to what I put to you. I refer specifically to these points and questions from me, above:

...I have continually modified my own proposal to respect the concerns of the "narrow" camp. The record of this page's development shows that. And let me ask this: precisely what proposition do you contest in my proposal? It incorporates the essence of the positions of you and MichaelMaggs completely, so far as I can determine what that essence is. ...

You do not acknowledge for a moment that my definition includes your own – and respects it, justifies it, places it in a context, and hands the remainder of the article over to it.

And still no focused response! Rather, you blandly decree what we are doing here:

You're treating the introduction like a logical argument - it isn't one. There is no grand quest to discover what is essential to physics. All we're trying to do is give a decent outline of what physics-as-we-know-it is to an elementary school student.

Well, we disagree fundamentally. I say that the lead ought to be logical, and ought to justify any definition it presents. If it doesn't do that, the article makes a poor start, and sets out to emulate innumerable other mediocre treatments of the core science that we are attempting to present lucidly and rationally. And if you think that such mediocrity and superficiality are good enough, giving a quick snapshot of physics as it happens to be practised now, so much the worse. No respect for logical analysis, nor for history, nor for the possible future developments of physics.

In view of this intransigence, I am inclined to agree with MichaelMaggs. We cannot make progress here. If we don't all listen to each other, if we don't all elevate the task above the lowest interpretation available for it, and if we don't all make small shifts to accommodate each other's perfectly justified concerns, there is no hope.

And I – along with others, it seems – now withdraw from the page and from the attempt to bring consensus and stability to Physics. – Noetica 21:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I wrote 120 words. Joshua Davis wrote 2. You countered with 940. Can you please make an effort to focus your responses? You're engaging, perhaps unintentionally, in a rather despised tactic: throw as much information as possible at the opposition without regard for how easy it is to see your points. Do you see yourself as more entitled to our time than we to yours? You talk about how hard it is to define "science" and "biology" - it isn't. The fringes are usually ignored in a sensible definition. I don't think that you understand my analogy, so here it is explicitly:

What bugs the "energists" about the broad definition is that it's like defining "physics" as "science" [a study of nature]. If this were a classification, yeah, it'd be correct. But it's a definition, and defining it thus gives us no information, and confuses the "physics" concept with the "science" concept. "Biology is a subset of physics" - yeah, maybe biology evolved from physics[an earlier thing called 'physics'], but they're absolutely different. And maybe the word "physics" might refer in the future to some descendant of current physics - and this will invalidate our definition completely! We don't know what physics might be, so let's define it as vaguely as possible!

You seem to think that the opposition doesn't care about logic or common sense or whatever. Support your claim. It seems to me that you're horribley confused in your arguments, and in your perceptions of other's arguments. You miss the horse-biology analogy, dismissing it as non sequitur. You, by analogy, argue over how hard it is to define "science", as if this has anything to do with the analogy. You seem to ignore the relevant parts of my responses - my response to your "point where my proposal is incorrect specifically" was "a you could write "'a' is a vowel" 50 times, and I won't argue that, but I'd disagree that it's a good lead." - perhaps that isn't what you were expecting. It essentially means that (percieved) correctness is not the only criteria for a good lead. I don't think that anything stated in the lead needs to have 2 paragraphs backing it up, convincing the reader that it's correct. We state facts, we don't convince. Our references convince for us. You're writing an encyclopedic article, and using it as a soapbox to argue your "physics studies all of nature (including penguin mating habits)" position. –M^T 06:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I take it that I seem to have offended you Michael. I'm sorry - that really wasn't intentional. I'm getting as equally tired of this as everyone I'm afraid: we can't seem to stop arguing in perpetualty. Let me first answer Michael's comments (you can skip this bit if you like - it's only here for completeness). This argument is easily rebuffed: Why should the definition explain how the subject is conducted? It is a definition and nothing more. It is allowed to be as esoteric as it wishes to be. This is a fault however, but it easily remedied: we then go on to say that practically, physics studies energy, etc. Please try to see this from the other perspective: a definition is not concerned with issues of practicality or explanation: it merely defines what the object is. This is more interesting. I'm sorry but I have been trying to define things in a "mathematical" sense (what other sense is there? All definitions are the same: a "mathematical" definition is no different from any other. There is nothing special about mathematical ones - they merely state what properties the object possesses. That is all). So have you been making "mathematical" definitions ("Physics is the science concerned with the discovery and characterization of the universal laws which govern matter, energy, space and time."). So has everybody else here. What is wrong with that? Yes, they may be horribly wrong (I could define physics as the study of the colour blue - I don't think the world is ready for this one yet though...) I said before that all we can do is hope that these definitions are reasonable - and both the narrow and broad are. Anyway, this was just here so that I didn't offend Michael by ignoring him: I don't expect that anyone bothered to read this far though....hmmm, I could just say anything here couldn't I? No. I'll restrain myself...

Anyway, M, I take it you want this to be an easy definition for school kids. Well, I don't (technically, I do too, but I also want it to be something more). I want my peers to look at this page and say, "ah, actually, that's not a bad definition" because I can tell you this: all (ok, that's a bit of an exaggeration) definitions of scientific/mathematical objects are horrible. Somebody from the mathematics department not long ago said that he looked at the definition of a commutative ring (or maybe it was a Noetherian ring, or possible something else - I forget now) and saw three definitions - one of which was wrong!

I think we should just drop this argument and go back to the very basics: discuss what we want this section to be; because I think we, as a group, have different beliefs about what we want this section to be about - which is a core problem that may be causing our wires to cross. I think we all just jumped into it really, and then tried to clarify what we wanted the article to be about. I suggest we just discuss in a very careful, slow, articulate, and civilized manner what we want the section to be about without going into detail about how one would go about this. If this fails, then there is no hope at all. So, lets just all drop the attitude (myself included): SFC9394, may I suggest a "bitch-ometer"? If anyone of us is behaving like a twat, then rack up one point. Five points accumulated, say, from the opinion of any editor (What? We're all grown ups, right? We don't bear grudges...) and the user is blocked from commenting for a set period of time. Hopefully the totally subjective and premiership-referee style way of unsystematic decision making should keep us on our best of behaviour (right?) Anyway, that's just my opinion... Krea 00:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I want a correct and useful lead that is comprehensible to a 10-year-old. Not only correct, but comprehensible. I fully avoided the definition discussion. Nowhere did I mention that something was incorrect in other people's proposals, just that it wasn't comprehensible, or lead-oriented. And yet I'm now bombarded with "oh, so you think my definition is incorrect!? Just you tell me where so that we can argue about it!". A lead section should be ... well, a lead section. It should be very introductory. It should cover and allude to important points on the subject. History should probably be included, and the subsets of the topic. I don't see where this is going, because whatever we write is seemingly tainted by our fundamental definition of physics. We need to find a way to resolve this conflict. –M^T 06:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This helps a lot actually. I'm sorry that such accusations were made against you - you didn't deserve them. However, although I would like the article to be comprehensible, I do not want it to be dumbed down. I have said before that I don't mind having a first sentence or two talking about energy or whatever as long as it stated that it is not a widely held definition amongst professional physicists. We really have two concepts really don't we? That of what physics is, and what it is. That is, what is physics, practically; and what is physics as an ideal. Practically, I define physics as, indeed, the study of energy, or whatever. But as an ideal, I define it to be the study of all nature (penguins and all). Has this been our problem? Have we been arguing about two different things?

Also, I don't think it's fair to accuse Noetica of implicitly making his arguments incomprehensible through quantity (we have all unfairly criticised each other, but I single this one out for a reason). You could accuse me of the same crime. When discussing academic matters, it is always better to be verbose rather than too brief because truth always hides in assumptions. I think it is because none of us stated clearly what our intentions were that has caused us to argue for longer than was necessary. Anyway, I would be against any explicit word count - just stress that points need to be clear, focused, and non-waffly. Artificial barriers would only hinder the explanation of what we truly mean to say: we would have to rely on assuming that the reader was making the same assumptions as you are in any argument posted.

Anyway, I would really like to hear back from you on your opinion on my first point: have we really been arguing about two different things? Krea 12:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that my accusation was perfectly fair. Here it is again: I wrote 120 words. Joshua Davis wrote 2. You countered with 940. Can you please make an effort to focus your responses? You're engaging, perhaps unintentionally, in a rather despised tactic: throw as much information as possible at the opposition without regard for how easy it is to see your points. Do you see yourself as more entitled to our time than we to yours? I don't say this offhand. I've looked at Noetica's comments and I see that they should, and can, be abridged. I've even described how. But Noetica still doesn't seem concerned over the time it takes others to read through 5 pages of argument.

I flatly disapprove of unrestricted-in-size arguments. The length of discussions has been brought up many times as a major problem. We've tried the verbose approach, and it's led to pages of tail-chasing. You propose that arguments be "clear, focused, and non-waffly". I think these are too subjective. Noetica says "I could have been said more, and that I forbore to say it" - and yet I've revised Noetica's 170-word comment on MichaelMaggs's proposal to a mere 24-words (!) and (I think) made it clearer and more focused. Noetica is sure to disagree. If we use your criteria, we'll end up arguing over what 'focused and clear' means. No, I think we should go with objective criteria. I am confident that I can give my entire argument against your position in under 100 words. If I will make this effort, then why should you be exempt? 300 words (assuming you work together) should be more than enough to cover the relevant points. By the time we get to voting, we should have more than 400 words for voters to read. –M^T 16:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I frankly don't have the time or energy to read a manifesto every time I login. I've skipped reading much of the comments because of their length and unfocused nature. To no one in particular: Please compose carefully and concisely what you'd like to say. It will help you more forcefully make your point. And not to be rude, but an extended, repetitive response often has the flavor of a rant. Joshua Davis 18:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Fine. But could you answer what I would really like to know? Krea 19:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

If we're arguing about different things? Maybe that's the case. I would contend that the "practical" definition is more helpful for the reader and is independent of one's philosophy; the "ideal" definition is far too open to violating NPOV. Joshua Davis 21:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

True, on both counts, but the broad definition is not just my opinion: Noetica provided examples of respected academics who also defined physics that way. In fact, I'd could accuse the energy definition as violating NPOV: can anybody provide evidence of its use (bar dictionaries, of course!)? The narrow definition has its place, I agree, but so does the broad one: I still believe it should be included. It's misleading only when not explained; as it stands, it doesn't express a POV; definitions are not required to give an impression of what the researchers do; it's not being vague for the sake of incorruptibility (it is merely an all encompassing definition that does not specify details - it is allowed to do this). Hasn't that answered people's objections to it? Krea 23:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Plenty of counterexamples to Noetica's academics can be provided. Also, I disagree that those acedemics defined physics thus. They said what they did in a certain context with certain implicit assumptions. I challenge you to find one respected academic who will back your "the mating habits of physics are in the domain of physics" - and then I challenge you to find enough to form a majority. You say that the energy definition violates NPOV - I disagree. The burden of proof is on you to show that your definition is a) correct, and b) more suitable. That physics studies matter and energy has never been in dispute, I hope. I ask that we not argue this here, but present our arguments below. I fear that if we continue in this form, then we won't progress. –M^T 23:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I really would like to hear some counterexamples. You may be right in questioning the intentions of the academic's definitions - but you may also be wrong. "The mating habits of penguins are in the domain of physics" is a vague assertion for me to justify: do you mean physics, as conducted today? Why bring up the concept of the burden of proof? But, seeing as you mention it, the burden of "proof" is for you to justify the energy definition (but I do not, unfairly, ask for you to show it is more suitable - merely that it is accepted by a significant quantity of respected academics). Yes, physicists study energy, but you must justify defining physics as the study of energy. Answers may be posted below, as you suggest. Krea 15:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I mustn't. I don't think you fully understand burden of proof, or what can constitute a definition. Any... 'fact' (relationship) about a certain concept can be used to define it, but preference is given to the ones that a) can form the concept in the mind where none exists, and b) are easiest to digest. (Correctness is a given.) I can define physics as "the science most readily associated with Einstein". Now, "the study of matter and energy" is correct, even you seem to agree ("physicists study energy" directly translates to "physics is a study of energy"). No need to prove that further, I think. And I don't think that it's disputed I can therefore define physics thus (because it is the only study of energy). The question now is whether "is the study of nature" is correct, and whether it is a better definition. And it's up to you to show the former, but also the latter, because the energy definition is the accepted standard (open up any dictionary - despite your misgivings, dictionaries are undisputed authorities on definition, and it's up to you to prove them otherwise). –M^T 22:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Are we back to the insults (sorry: accusing me of not fully understanding the burden of proof rattles a nerve)? I'm sorry, but you've just pulled those criteria out of the air: definitions need to be no such thing, and "preference" implies subjectivity - what you think makes one definition preferable to another will not be the same as anybody else's. Go to the mathematics department and tell them that and you will leave with your pride shattered I'm afraid. By your criteria, you would probably define a vector as "an object with a magnitude and direction," and think that a better definition as "a map from the set of functions to the set of reals". A mathematician would disagree, however. I didn't say that you needed to justify that physics studied energy, what you must justify is using this as the criterion for its definition and then promoting it as the 'clear winner'. Perhaps when a dictionary is compiled by a physicist, I will give it more respect, but until then, only a fool (no insinuation meant) would use a dictionary to settle a scientific matter. No, they are not undisputed authorities on definition, and as for proof as such, I can look up more examples if you wish? Again, go to a science department and start making arguments citing dictionaries as sources and your pride will again be left quite bruised. True, I must justify my assertion. You must also do the same, and I request it. Krea 22:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

What criteria out of the air? A definition is basically the word (a reference to a concept) rephrased in a way that is easy to understand, and facilitative of forming the concept if none existed. For example, a person might not have a concept for "incisors" - just one for "teeth". So "teeth adapted for shearing off food, located at the front of the mouth" is then a good definition. It is correct, comprehensible, and if the reader didn't have the concept formed already (that of this specific form of tooth), they do now. I'm well aware that preference can imply subjectivity, but this is irrelenvant. The correctness of a definition is not subjective, and it's this that you must prove before your all-of-nature definition enters the somewhat subjective ring with the established energy definition. Now, as I've said, it doesn't matter what you think of dictionaries. I suggest you research lexicography. Definitions aren't subject to the whims of the writers. They're backed up by many little slips of paper citing major and respected works. You could write Webster, and ask for the citations. I suspect that a major problem here is that you have an idealized notion that you call physics, and it stretches quite broadly. This is fine, but because a definition should be descriptive and not prescriptive, it doesn't matter what concept you call physics. What matters is what most other people mean when they say physics, and want to be reading about when looking up physics. Physics, to them, is a certain study of the fundamental, quite apart from biology and the rest. You feel that it's important to note that physics can explain the whole world. Maybe it can (watch out for consciousness, though!). But it'll still be done from a physical perspective - from the bottom up, very probably with matter and energy. The odds are strongly against new revolutionary theories that cast those two aside. So, my justification is this: "physics is the science of matter and energy" is both correct (you agree) and appropriate (because it is capable of being a placeholder for the word). Once you show that your nature definition is correct (I agree that it's appropriate), we'll discuss how it is that the burden of proof rests on you when arguing against established definitions/ideas/etc. –M^T 00:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, let me be more specific: what I disagree with is definitions being "easy to understand" - I argue that it needs to be no such thing; although, obviously, dictionaries, in order to fulfill their criteria of being useful to the public, need to satisfy this principle, but only because of this latter requirement, not because the definition itself requires so. I'm not sure about the "facilitative of forming the concept if none existed" bit: that seems to be fine - almost a definition in fact! You raise an interesting point about the dictionaries actually. Taking your argument in, I concede that you are indeed justified in using dictionaries to justify your definition; however, I would still be weary that it is only a lay definition, which is not totally appropriate. Now then, back to mine... I would argue that I need not show that the definition is correct; nor, even, that it does not contradict other accepted facts. Definitions, as I suspect you already know, cannot be right or wrong. For example, if I define mathematics as the study of systems where 1=2, it would be meaningless to argue that it is "wrong" (although it may contradict other people's definitions) because it is merely a definition (albeit only one that lunatics would work to!). All I need to show that it is accepted by a significant number of respected academics, right? Krea 12:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

We're an encyclopedia (and not, say, a scientific paper), so we too need to be comprehensible. I don't understand your comment on concept-forming - what's almost a definition? You state that a dictionary only contains a lay definition - I have to disagree. As I've said, dictionaries employ credible sources for their definitions. There might be a technical definition for "string" under computer science (a sequence of characters) and physics (as is string theory), but the definition of physics does not change when entering scientific discourse. So, I don't understand what you find innapropriate about it. Definitions can be wrong if they define something incorrectly - in contradiction to the standard usages in the given language. Now, your 1=2 definition is incorrect, because it is too narrow. Mathematics is pretty much always the study of systems where 1=1. It's useless to argue that your self-defined use of a word is incorrect, yes, I agree, but again, we're not talking about your use, we're talking about standard use. Most people, I think this is obvious, would disagree that the study of cells, or of minds, is physics. What I would suggest you show is evidence that this is incorrect, keeping in mind that definitions should describe the majority, and not be prescribed by a minority. –M^T 14:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, what I meant was that the concept-forming thing was probably a definition of the word definition! But, that's not important. You could be right that the dictionary definition is not lay, since I have not asked for their sources, but I doubt it (based on the definitions of physics that I have seen). You say that the definition of physics does not change when entering scientific discourse, and to this I also disagree: how can you be so sure? This bit of our discussion should probably stop here, however, and merely join with our discussion below.

I find the energy definition inappropriate because it has unattractive features: when trying to define a subject for which the fundamental essence of the objects that it studies is not known, attempting to define the subject with these qualities is inadvisable. This is because the meaning of the word will change as our knowledge changes. The physicists of the past, under the energy definition, where not of the same type as the physicists of today because their physics and modern physics, respectively, where, in essence, different things (which doesn't mean that they studied different things, but that the essence of what they did was different). This is unattractive to most physicists who regard that what they do now, and what Kepler, Newton, Galileo etc. did in the past were of the same type: that what they were doing in essence was the same thing.

Yes, definitions can be wrong if "wrongness" is defined as being applied to a definition that contradicts a more widely accepted one; but this is a requirement that does not exist in the mathematical world. Don't forget that it is not the public who should dictate what goes in this article, but the relative minority of the physicists. It's unfortunate in some ways that the public have a definition that is different to the professional's, but just because they are the majority should not mean that the "minority definition" (i.e., that of the professionals) should be excluded. Therefore, it is unreasonable to ask of what the public think physics is. What should be considered is what the professionals regard as being a definition; and it is to this subset of the population that we must exclude minority definitions. If this is what you meant by saying that my definitions should be "correct", then I agree (but be careful using this adjective in academic circles without defining it beforehand; since, as I have said, its use is non-existent). Well, I think we have sorted out what needs to be done, right? So, discussion here should stop, only to be continued below as appropriate; although, I would like to hear your counter-reply to my second paragraph (possibly under the justification of your argument, below?). Krea 13:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal by Krea

• Too short. A lot of it seems an explanation/justification of the definition. –M^T 14:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• The first sentence - "Physics is the process by which one aims to obtain knowledge of nature" - fails in my view as it covers a whole range of non-physics research such as a biological study into the mating habits of penguins. --MichaelMaggs 18:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• The style is a bit wayward and indirect, but I agree with the general message of this lead, which was the first one posted – so Krea was working without any precedents. I will not write "support" or "oppose" here, since we did this exercise on this understanding (see above): "The straw poll won't be a vote" Why set up or maintain oppositions? We should be collaborating, towards a consensus. – Noetica 20:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal by Ancheta Wis

• Notes several worthy points, but it doesn't seem introductory. Somewhat choppy and advanced. A good history-based overview would be there if it were simplified. –M^T 14:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Some very good things, which may come in useful later on in the article, but it's too specific, advanced, unconnected and long for the lead paragraphs. --MichaelMaggs 18:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Bubbling with creative possibilities that really should be considered for incorporation in the article. I like the generalist, philosophical tenor of this proposal. It goes well beyond the brief to write a lead; and the lead ideas (the universality of physics, its applicability well beyond its conventional demarcation, etc.) tend to get lost in the exuberant and ingenious detail. I will not write "support" or "oppose" here, since we did this exercise on this understanding (see above): "The straw poll won't be a vote". – Noetica 20:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Some good points: I quite like the statement on an "aggregate definition" which serves as a good base to develop this perspective from, amongst others. However, the format is too broken (possible intentionally?), and some points don't seem to fit particularly well into the lead section - the composition of the Earth, for example. The broken nature of the section leaves it difficult for me to asses what the ultimate aim of the section is; although there does not seem to be anything explicitly incorrect. Summarizing, more focus is required on the direction of, and aim of, the lead section (a minor concern if the author did not address this need in formulating the section), but equally, some good points raised. I shall not voice an opinion on the other sections Ancheta has created yet. Krea 17:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal by Noetica

• Clearly written. A lot of it seems an explanation/justification of the definition. The list there outlines well what we'd like to state, but it shouldn't be a list, and should be given more room. –M^T 14:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• A good list, which could be worked up for the later sections of the article. I'm unhappy with an introductory definition, though, which is based on a bald assertion that this is how the subject is 'best understood', and which (by the terms of paragraph two) is neither modern nor practical.--MichaelMaggs 18:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• I will not reply here to anything said in other comments on my proposal, which I have headed Lead and Introduction, combined, let it be noted. I just want to reiterate my aim and my reasons, so that anyone who has missed them earlier can see them now: My proposal encompasses entirely the narrow vision of physics that others have been proposing; I fully respect that point of view, and indeed I account for its importance; I allow that the remainder of the article should adopt that point of view. But I want to start as broadly as possible, so that the narrow understanding of physics fits into a context, and so that our definition is robust enough to deal with all physics: past, present, future, and possible. I will not write "support" or "oppose" here, since we did this exercise on this understanding (see above): "The straw poll won't be a vote". – Noetica 21:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC) [Note: I have made some changes to the wording just now. See the note at the top of my proposal. – Noetica 00:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)]
• This is a well written and easy to understand lead section that supports the positions that it takes. I can find no major inaccuracies, although, to be pedantic, there are some minor points that could be addressed - the largest of which relates to the first sentence: for the sake of generality (which Noetica states as an aim of this lead section), the first sentence implicitly suggests the existence of laws between such "base constituents" and their ability to "combine". However, this may be trivially remedied by stating that "objects do not interact" is itself a law of interaction. As a contrast, my definition just talked of "knowledge of nature" (which itself may be objected to on the grounds of incomprehensibility - thus requiring further explanations). This does not detract from the maturity of the lead section however, and in my opinion, in an attempt of further improvement, it should next try to incorporate other perspectives of what physics is and how it can be defined. Krea 17:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal by MichaelMaggs

• Support: I'm in favor of this proposal because it contains the elements that are most essential in my eyes: the notion of matter/energy, the falsification and the division into classical and modern branches. One remark though: I'd replace space and time with spacetime. Nick Mks 12:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Is quite introductory and has good coverage. That it could be stated in fewer words is my only complaint. –M^T 14:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. This proposal accurately describes my notion of physics. Perhaps it is a bit long, and maybe the section of the laws of physics could be scrapped, made shorter or moved. On the other hand, an intro of this size might be needed for a topic like this. O. Prytz 17:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support - evidently. I've tried to encompass the two main views that have been expressed, but whether that's enough remains to be seen --MichaelMaggs 17:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• (I will not write "support" or "oppose" here, since we did this exercise on this understanding (see above): "The straw poll won't be a vote".) MichaelMaggs has given us a well-considered proposal, and has adjusted things along the way in a conciliatory and responsive fashion. (I have tried to do that in mine, too.) My objections would be these: First, we need a definition that is timeless and flexible, so that it won't be impossible to apply it outside of post-Newtonian times. This is general (though wordy and formulaic): "...the discovery and characterization of the universal laws which govern...", but what follows it is characteristic of our physics, not of how physics must be, of its very essence. It would not be fitting in a discussion of Aristotle's physics, for example. But it should be! Second, the proposal includes much to do with the scientific method; this is inefficient (since all that is dealt with in other articles), and gives the impression that these things are timelessly a part of physics, which they are not. In sum, though, I do have the feeling that we can work to a consensus from a standpoint like this. – Noetica 20:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• This is another well written and easy to understand definition that is focused on the direction that it wishes to take, which covers a broad range of views. There are a few minor points that I would object to however: for one, I have never come across the distinction between a "law" and (presumably) a "theory", and I question its importance. I do not think this is of much concern to practicing physicists, but rather the concern of those people who like to categorize physics into "neat and tidy" packages (although I accept that I may be mistaken). Therefore, with the addition that some theories contradict this distinction (which may possibly result in confusing and misleading a reader), I suggest that it either be more elaborately discussed, or removed - either of which means that it should possibly be relegated to the introduction section. My main objection, however, is the prominence given to the energy definition. Nowhere is it explicitly discussed that it is only one possible definition, which will lead the reader to assume it is the definition of physics - which is misleading. Furthermore, the prominence given to the energy definition is unsupported. Whilst I accept that the energy definition is colloquially accepted, even among physicists, its prominence will have to be justified. Concluding, there are a few things that need justification before I would endorse them, but it is otherwise a commendable suggestion. Krea 17:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal by M

• Nice and concise, but it's not clear what should go into the Lorem ipsum text. Some phrases ("unknown depths") jar slightly. No acknowledgment of the position of some editors who'd like to see a 'broadphysics' definition included. But this text coincides with my general view of the subject.--MichaelMaggs 18:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• This proposal is sketchy, but has useful features. (It could do with some careful copyediting, too!) An implicit distinction is made between complete determination of the behaviour of systems by the behaviour of their constituents, and the matter of understanding the behaviour of systems. This might be seen as one crux in the disagreements we have had. Getting clear about it might point us to a way forward. Apart from that, I would criticise it as I have criticised MichaelMaggs' proposal: the restriction to matter and energy, etc., means that M is dealing not with physics in general and at all times, but narrowly with physics as it is practised now. Why start that way, in a general article about physics? The focus can be narrowed soon enough (see my own proposal). I will not write "support" or "oppose" here, since we did this exercise on this understanding (see above): "The straw poll won't be a vote". – Noetica 21:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• Contrary to the above, I think that my proposal does the most to unify the two (three) positions. The first sentence is pragmatic, and clarifies the universal "fundamental constituents" with the current and easily-understood "matter and energy". The second sentence fully acknowledges that physics can describe everything, but makes no brash statement in either direction (see also Maggs's 3rd paragraph). I avoid the explicit "study of nature" because this defines science, and it's through the fundamental that physics seeks to explain everything. Some of the objections given are very easily remidied; this poll won't decide the final lead. "Unknown dephts" (the only typo) is easily corrected to "there is much still unknown". "Characterize" was favored over "understand" in discussions, but that too is easy to change. I foresee no difficulty in filling in the lorem ipsum. I see nowhere that my proposal is less clear, complete, introductory, or carefully selective than the others, so my support goes to it. –M^T 02:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• This is yet another easily understandable lead section, although it is perhaps too short and a little awkwardly worded in places (including the self-identified ultimate sentence of the first paragraph). I do have some more urgent objections, however. The first paragraph again, as in Michael's definition, promotes the energy definition without justification to the extent that it misleads the reader into thinking it is the definition of physics. I can also accuse it of being explicitly incorrect: namely, it suggests the unsupported statement that matter and energy are "fundamental", which is not known. This can easily be remedied, however, by appropriately inserting the phrase "currently believed". I also fail to see how the second paragraph incorporates the broad definition: something more explicit, or at least better explained, is required. Finally, a minor point in that I do not understand what is meant by the statement that the classical/quantum distinction is fading. The definition of quantum theories are that they have been quantized, and classical ones in that they have not. Thus, there cannot be an intermediate state. Contrast this to Michael's lead statement that said that the significance of the distinction was fading, rather than the distinction itself, which is at first glance what is being implied (even if it was unintentional). Summarizing, more work needs to be done, including the clarification and justification of points made. Krea 17:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal by Joshua Davis

• It's a good way of stating that piece, but requires a whole to be properly evaluated. –M^T 14:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• A good explanatory statement which we could perhaps make use of within the Introduction (ie the next section to be discussed). --MichaelMaggs 18:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• I haven't followed this one, but looking at it now I approve of its general message: the breadth of scope that is essential to physics. This central feature of physics is not dealt with fully or given any articulated explanation (such as I have aimed at), but it's there in embryo. I will not write "support" or "oppose" here, since we did this exercise on this understanding (see above): "The straw poll won't be a vote". – Noetica 21:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• If I understand correctly that Joshua did not add this definition himself, I will abstain from making comments on it. Krea 17:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
• I did write this material myself, although someone else moved it to this section. I am perfectly comfortable with any elements of it being added to the page so please take it into consideration. Joshua Davis 02:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Editors who have contributed to this page have 100 words to argue their position. Editors who have not have 20. Editors may combine their arguments. Arguments may (and should) be revised freely in response to each other. In one week (or less, if we're ready), we'll hold a public vote on the positions, and the article will be written from that perspective. –M^T 07:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The following arguments are in the development stage. Each position and argument is highlighted. The discussion that follows is not intended to be part of the argument, and may be ignored. Discussions are directed at each contributor to help them refine their argument, and not at potential readers. –M^T 18:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I invite all editors agreeing with this position to join me in forming and revising this argument. –M^T 07:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea to first decide on the overall tone and purpose of the article. Let me then say that I totally agree with the first two sentences just above, although they clearly are not how the article should start. But I do have to agree with others that the "matter and energy" definition is artificial; there is no real distinction between the two. Also, I think the definition of physics should not be strictly limited to the study of certain systems but rather should focus on the breadth of techniques and concepts which physicists use. Not surprisingly, I nominate my proposal from earlier as the first two sentences of the article; I think it captures the breadth of the field without going overboard or being too limiting. Anyone want to take it as a starting point? Joshua Davis 08:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Your starting point is taken below. Ancheta Wis 04:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, this has nothing to do with the lead - I want constraned arguments. Let's settle this issue by having both sides give their argument, and then having a vote. Could you elaborate on "...is artificial/no real distinction"? –M^T 11:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: "...is artificial/no real distinction". Well, I just don't know what the distinction would be in modern physics. Matter=energy from special relativity. Do you see a disctinction besides the vague, inuitive one (matter is stuff and energy is light/heat)? Joshua Davis 17:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, there's no distinction. I just don't know what to say in their place. I don't see it as artificial - redundant perhaps. –M^T 20:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

How about something like "matter and its interactions"? The interactions/forces between matter are distinct from matter itself(unless supersymmetry is true, but that is theoretical for now). Joshua Davis 21:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

As long as consciousness and penguins don't fall directly into that definition, I can only agree. I think that "matter and energy" is slightly more readily evocative/understood, but these are minor details. –M^T 23:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I've expanded the argument, putting the text over my limit. However, I don't really think that this much needs to be said - that middle section pretty much covers it. I'll wait for the opposing arguments. If anyone would like to expand or revise the above argument, do as you see fit. –M^T 20:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Revised to focus on position; 94 words. –M^T 02:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Definition

99 words. This is meant as a follow-on version of a definition per the discussion between M and Joshua Davis, as I wish to preserve M's version. Amendments welcome, --Ancheta Wis 00:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that we are not voting on definitions - we've already tried that. What I'd like to address is the conflict between the two perceptions of how all-encompassing (or not) physics is. Most of the wheel-spinning here is a direct result of its non-resolution. Stating your position is important and may suffice, but be aware that you are also free to directly argue for it. –M^T 02:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• [1] H.D. Young & R.A. Freedman, University Physics with Modern Physics: 11th Edition: International Edition (2004), Addison Wesley. Chapter 1, section 1.1, page 2. See my edit below, dated 00:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC) for a direct quotation.
• [2] W.V.O. Quine, Theories and Things (1981), Harvard University Press. Page 99, as provided by editor Noetica. See this link, and I suggest searching for "Quine" to find Noetica's quotes for Quine and others.
• [3] R. Feynman, The Feynman Lectures on Physics (1977), Addison Wesley. Volume 1, Chapter 2, Pages 2-1, 2-2. See my edit below, dated 00:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC) for a direct quotation.
• [4] Steve Holzner, Physics for Dummies (2006), Wiley. Chapter 1, pages 7-8. See http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0764554336/ref=sib_dp_pt/102-1190768-8928948#reader-link, Amazon Online Reader: Physics For Dummies (For Dummies(Math & Science)), last viewed 24 Nov 2006.

Krea 17:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I ask editors which parts of this definition I need to justify. Krea 15:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you have justify the last part. That physics is simply the use of the scientific method is exactly what many people here are disputing. I ask you how physics is then not simply equal to science. I think actually that the beginning of what you've written captures things rather accurately; physics has a set of concepts(like force, etc.) and using those concepts, no matter what you're describing/studying, is doing physics. So talking about animals is not physics unless you manage to describe it fruitfully with the concepts of physics. Joshua Davis 21:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC) ^{But see D below}

I agree, but then what's a concept of physics? This seems circular, unless elaborated upon. I think that it would be 'a concept derived from the study of the fundamental: matter and energy'. What would it be, Krea, by your understanding? –M^T 22:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. As it turns out, I'll try to answer your questions/points in reverse. Hmmm, how would I define a concept of physics? First thing to note would be that the question needs elaboration: I suspect what is meant is current concepts of physics (rather than true concepts, which are not known). The question then just reduces to listing fundamental (as we see them now) principles. This does not merely include matter and energy: I would put in gauge invariance (their permeating influence seems significant), dimensions (i.e., the existence of a space in which these concepts live - but I need to give this more thought actually) and so on (i.e. I can't be bothered to think of any more - I'm tired).

Yes, the study of forces etc. is sufficient to conduct physics, but it is not a necessary condition (as a little side note: did anyone notice that my list of principles actually describes the evolution of the student to use "better" principles in order to study dynamics! Ahh, the simple pleasures of life...). The fact that they are not necessary means that any definition of physics based on these concepts excludes the possibility of new concepts being classified as being physics too. This is a major flaw for me.

For the sake of argument, I ask: so what if physics is equal to science? This is just an issue of semantics isn't it?

Justification? Well, all that I have to hand right now is Feynman, and Young & Freedman. Feynman rants in his usual "why doesn't he just answer my damn question?" way and it's hard to find a clear-cut definition (chapter 2). It's interesting to note, however, that he always talks of general things, and nothing specific (such as forces, energy, etc. Two bits are interesting, however:

"At first the phenomena of nature were roughly divided into classes, like heat, electricity, mechanics, magnetism, properties of substances, chemical phenomena, light or optics, x-rays, nuclear physics, gravitation, meson phenomena, etc. However, the aim is to see complete nature [Feynman stressed this himself, as with all italicized words that follow] as different aspects of one set of phenomena. That is the problem in basic theoretical physics, today - to find the laws behind experiment; to amalgamate these classes." -The Feynman lectures on Physics. Vol 1. Chapter 2, page 2-2, paragraph 4.

"The question is, of course, is it going to be possible to amalgamate everything, and merely discover that this world represents different aspects of one thing? Nobody knows. [Feynman then talks about how nature is a jigsaw puzzle, and how physics is trying to amalgamate the pieces together]". - The Feynman lectures on Physics. Vol 1. Chapter 2, page 2-2, paragraph 6.

Now, while his list of "classes" don't include penguins or the like, he does stress "complete nature", and he continuously make references to the whole of nature. Thus, although he never states a definition, the context of the chapter suggests (and I admit, it is only my suggestion) this: I conject that it is not unreasonable to suggest that his definition of physics would be the study of nature (since he states that the basic problem of physics is to find the laws that govern nature). This no definitive justification of my assertion however (although I would still say it is not an unreasonable indication).

Young & Freedman's University Physics with Modern Physics, 11th (International) edition (a popular undergraduate text on the general principles of physics) states on page 2, under section 1.1 titled The Nature of Physics:

"Physics is an experimental [stress is author's] science. Physicists observe the phenomena of nature and try to find patterns and principles that relate these phenomena. These patterns are called physical theories or, when they are very well established and of broad use, physical laws or principles."

All other texts that I have a rather more specific in their analysis, however, and I can find no other definition of physics. I could go to the department library and see if they have anything else, but I doubt I'll find time for that until at least the new year. Finally, sorry for the length! (But to be fair, the justifications bit took up a lot of space). Krea 00:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Physics being equal to science is not really an issue of semantics. It would make the two words interchangable, because they refer to the same concept. You should justify either why you think they are synonyms, or explain what differentiates the two. As for the quotes, it seems that they're describing a certain approach (physics) that can account for all of nature. None of them are explicit in physics being the superclass of the other sciences, or that it seeks to explain (in the sense of 'understand', not 'account for') complex systems. Is there a source that is explicit on this issue? You may want to consider compressing your justifications into your 100-word argument at some point, voters won't see anything except it. –M^T 01:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that what I say, and what Young & Freedman say is practically identical: "...[physics] is merely the study of nature" and "Physicists observe the phenomena of nature and try to find patterns and principles that relate these phenomena" respectively. I don't understand how you say that this quote indicates that physics only accounts for all of nature, and does not explicitly state that physics understands all of it. What is the difference between physically accounting for something, and understanding it? You gave Macbeth (I think) as an example before, but that was for something a little different. But, more importantly, this distinction seems particular to you, M. I do not think that other people would make this distinction - just as Young & Freedman do not. I am happy to change the word "study" in my definition to "observation" in which case I am referencing this text, and you will effectively be arguing against the position taken by two well respected physicists. Krea 11:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

A biologist might be interested in understanding why a penguin behaves as it does on a high level. A strict physicist wouldn't care about all those evolutionary reasons why a penguin might wiggle its tail (or whatever), caring only to account for this complex behaviour. Does it violate the laws of physics? Can we explain it using physics? Sure - and therefore it is accounted for. This means that a physicist can explain (account for) everything, while explaining/studying (understanding) a small subset of rules. I don't remember the Macbeth example. I think that others have alluded to this distinction. –M^T 14:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. The distinction between accounting for, and understanding complex systems is dependent upon knowledge. We have so little knowledge of the rules right now that it is not possible to understand these complex systems in terms of what we know well, as we both know. However, I assume that when (or if) we acquire enough knowledge of nature's rules about the fundamental stuff, a physicist would be interested in understanding these complex systems in the same way that we now understand atomic spectra (at least for hydrogenic systems). Thus, this accounting-for/understanding distinction is a moving boundary: what was complex in the past is not so today, and I conject the same for the future (stress on the "conject" part). But, I don't see how you inferred that Young & Freedman were talking about accounting for nature, rather than understanding it? To me, I think they saw no distinction since they believed that the distinction is merely dependent on time - and their definition was independent of time (i.e. applicable at any point in history: the definition was appropriate in C18^th, is appropriate now, and, they believe, will be appropriate in the future). Krea 13:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

In what way is it dependant on knowledge? You're essentially arguing that physics is undefinable because its "fundamental essence" is not yet understood. This is sure to be disagreed with. You provide no sources that indicate that physics will ever be interested in some specific complex system. If physicists thought that they were to account everything, they would say things that you quote. If they thought they should explain everything, many of them would once in a while say something about explaining some certain complex system. No such quotes have been referenced. Your "always appropriate" criteria is, I think, easy to counter: what we call physics might change over time, and we shouldn't seek to create rules for applying the word "physics", but rather describe what is meant when someone speaks of physics. Your argument is over the 100 word limit. –M^T 19:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

These arguments are not so important anymore because your position is now untenable isn't it? What I say in my definition, and what Young and Freedman say, amongst others, is almost identical. You could even forget that it was my suggestion and leave it as a case of paraphrasing a respected source. We can drop all the arguments that we have been making to try to convince each other: Y & F have settled the argument. Unless you want to argue against two respected professionals, the broad definition should be included. In fact, I would even suggest there is no need for the vote since there is nothing to argue about anymore. I counted smack-on 100 words by the way. The rest of what you highlighted was not an argument, but the context (and you missed the references too). Krea 22:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Rutherford's Definition

[D] Ernest Rutherford in J. B. Birks Rutherford at Manchester (1962)

8 words.

84 word paraphrase: Science is not merely a collection of facts, but more importantly, a consistent, coherent structure of interconnected results which follow scientific method.

At the time Rutherford spoke, only physics could claim this position. Anything else became a series of ad-hoc positions (stamp collecting: matter, energy, atoms, penguins). Biology had not yet discovered the structure of DNA; the atoms of chemistry had not yet been explained by quantum mechanics. Progress has come by using the constructs of physics.

Confer with Joshua Davis' statement included in #Position B.

1. Einstein's Definition

39 words - [E] Albert Einstein (1936), Physics and Reality, summarized in his Essays in Physics (1950) New York, Philosophical Library p. 51

Confer with Noetica's and Krea's statements above. I do not have a copy of Einstein's Ideas and Opinions which actually dovetail with Position B above. --Ancheta Wis 01:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

48 words. [E2] Albert Einstein (1918, Max Planck's 60th birthday) "Principles of Research" in Ideas and Opinions, ISBN 0-517-55601-4 (1954) p.226. --Ancheta Wis 08:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as someone with two bachelors, 2 masters and a PhD in physics, this article is kind of a mess. I could step in to try to weigh in, but who wants to get in the middle of a big fight?--ReasonIsBest 18:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, all opinions are welcome (especially in a "big fight"!). I'm not sure how up-to-speed you are, though (reading the "vote regarding the definition of physics" section might be a start). Krea 13:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I think everyone here is well-versed in the field, so that is not the problem. The difficulties we've had aren't stemming from expertise but rather from philosophical and stylistic disagreements. But as Krea said, your opinions are more than welcome. Joshua Davis 19:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia (I see that your account is somewhat new). Everyone here is sure to agree with you regarding how much of a mess it is, but we're (probably) chipping away at it. Things will, supposedly, improve. We'll be glad to hear from you. Don't let the size of the page nor our 'grand' argument discourage you. I've highlighted the summaries. –M^T 19:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't follow anymore. What are the yellow boxes? New proposals to rewrite the article or just pieces/quotes to support the original proposals? Nick Mks 10:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Nick Mks, I have no clue anymore. [The rest of this message may be skipped with no loss.] I set out some very clear rules in good faith. I then set an example out. I then elaborated upon the rules several times. Quoting myself:

• You may want to consider compressing your justifications into your 100-word argument at some point, voters won't see anything except it. (To Krea)
• Keep in mind that we are not voting on definitions [...] Stating your position is important and may suffice, but be aware that you are also free to directly argue for it. (To Ancheta Wis)

Krea and Ancheta Wis have taken seemingly any opportunity to extend their arguments. Krea: you get 100 words to state your position, including the argument for it. You use 173. Ancheta Wis, you get 100 words total and a single position. You've given 3 positions in 230 words. Was something not made clear enough? 100 words, one position. Quoting Joshua Davis: This discussion is a disaster with very little of it in good faith. The only one of your 4 positions that is clear and reflective of this entire controversy is D, and even then, it's apparently out of context to this argument, arguing "the only real science is physics" and not "all sciences are physics". I'm clearly an idiot for not anticipating all of this. But then, we learn from our mistakes. –M^T 18:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I propose that we archive the lead proposals, some comments on definition, the straw poll, the vote regarding definition (including the arguments), and this comment on that vote. I won't be posting anything there, and would rather not wait for it to be apparent through non-posting that others have similarly abandonded discussion there. –M^T 19:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I only ever posted one argument, which was 100 words long. The definition above it is for context - it does not form part of the argument itself. How you draw "Krea...[has] taken seemingly any opportunity to extend their arguments", I do not know. I expect an apology. Krea 21:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The rest of this section probably won't interest you if you are new to this and would like to get on with voting. Skip down to the positions.

If you do not approve of any of the listed positions, you may add another one in this form:

----

[All aspects of your position in under 200 words. 3 paragraphs maximum. You may quote whomever you like.] ~~~

Support. ~~~~ [do not make a comment]

If someone casts (or moves) a vote for any position, or adds a position after you've added your position, it may no longer be altered. Make sure your position is polished before posting it. If a position ever loses all votes, it will be deleted. You can only write a single position once; you may not re-instate yours (or anyone else's), or write a new one, even if yours was thus deleted.

You may not modify text that is not your own. You may not post above other people. You may not post in this pre-position section lest we degrade into unstructured argument. You may not create a new subsection under this heading, or add a divider - and then proceed as you please.

If you (that is, a person who has been engaged in the discussion) violate any of these rules, even as far as not including the ---- separator at the top of your position, your edit will be reverted and treated as if it never ocurred. (As opposed to the reverter modifying your position in some way, or breaking the rules by suggesting the correction.) A reason will be given, and you may try again if appropriate. "Support" votes cannot be removed in this manner, but an offending vote's comment section can have its end clipped off if it goes over 50 words (leaving a "… [comment has been trimmed]"), or it can be collapsed into a single listitem/paragraph if it takes up several lines.

Some things considered (extremely) bad form, but not prohibited:

• When writing your position, to direct readers to other arguments (i.e. "see my argument in section X of the archive", "just read the argument made by Thisp Hysicist"). Remember, you can quote directly.
• Quoting others out of context.
• Adding another 200-word position that's similar to an existing position, and differences could have been handled within a 50-word comment.
• Not making obvious consequences of your position clear (e.g. not stating that your position implies that someone studying penguin mating habits is/is not doing physics.)

Try to act in good faith, and take as a (non-mandatory) example the tone/style/etc. of previous positions. –M^T 18:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Physics, biology, and psychology are different sciences. When one studies the universal fundamentals (that is, matter and energy), they are doing physics. When one studies living organisms, biology. Minds and behaviour, psychology. One important aspect of physics is its usefulness in many other sciences. Knowing physics will drastically help a chemist do chemistry. A different approach is to define physics from use: if you are using the principles of physics, you are "doing" physics. Thus, a schoolchild practicing/learning physics would be doing physics, as would a car designer, a sniper/artilleryman, and also a chemist? person who studies chemical reactions/molecules. But this is wrong - here, the word "doing" actually means "using". These people use physics. They don't "do" physics. They don't conduct a scientific study of... of what? Of the fundamental: matter and energy. That's what physics studies. The opposition argues that physics studies all of nature - but this means that any study is physics. This would essentially make "physics" synonymous with "science", and render categories like "natural sciences" nonsensical. This position too is incorrect. Physics isn't any study of nature - it's the study of the fundamental constituents, which we recognize to be matter and energy. –M^T

• Support. –M^T 18:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Physics is a general set of principles thought to be obeyed by all known systems in nature. Practicing physicists traditionally study a limited (albeit rather broad) set of phenomena which are most amenable to direct study using the aforementioned concepts. Most notably this involves fundamental properties of matter, energy, space, and time (which are now all known to be intricately related). As human knowledge has advanced, the set of physical principles and the phenomena fruitfully studied with them have both increased, leading to active interdisciplinary fields such as biophysics and geophysics. Nonetheless direct application of the laws of physics is (currently) prohibitively difficult in many cases. Thus fields like biology, chemistry and others have their own methods and concepts which cannot be directly derived from the presumed underlying physical laws. So physics is not any study of nature; that is natural science, different fields of which have developed their own tools and language. But, importantly, should any field of science discover some phenomena which violates basic laws of physics, the laws would have to be modified in order to retain their general, encompassing stature. Finally, this article is for the general reader, not an expert, and should be written so. Joshua Davis 04:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Support. Joshua Davis 04:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I know that you guys are trying to wrap the discussion up, but I feel that this really needs to be said. Your original article on Physics was very Asiancentric, augmenting all the contributions of these ancient civilizations in Asia that hardly made any developments relating to modern Physics as we now understand it as a subject. Just about every trustworthy source I have read places a little bit of emphasis on the Greeks, but then places most of its emphasis on what Europeans did after the Renaissance (who, like it or not, were the first people to really do anything with the subject), while zero emphasis is placed on Asia. Unfortunately, when I moved over to this discussion and then clicked on the "article" link above it appears that the original article was edited for the better, but then under the section that discusses the history of Physics, there is a paragraph that is once again Asiancentric. Can anyone provide sources (other than from Western Civilization bashing sites), that prove that the Indians and Muslims were the ones that developed the roots of modern Physics? It wasn't until I came to Wikipedia that I read such nonsense. But then again, Wikipedia likes to make sure every group is equally represented instead of presenting history as it really is. Cftiger 10:51 26 November 2006

If this is the basis of your vote above, I ask you to reconsider. The issue we are voting on above is related to the lead, that is, how we introduce the field of physics in the beginning of the article which will then set a tone for the article as a whole. This particular point has been very contentious and there have been a couple of viewpoints which we have not been able to reconcile(you can see all sorts of discussion on this above). The versions referred to in proposal 1 are not(I think) versions of the full article, but rather how we define the field. After settling this we will then go on to (hopefully) fruitful discussions involving the rest of the article. Your concerns, which I have some sympathy with after seeing history of physics, will then have the opportunity to be addressed. But if I've misunderstood your intention and you are voting on 3 because you think further discussion is warranted on the limited topic of the lead and definition of physics, then please go ahead. Joshua Davis 20:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I withdrew my vote above. I didn't really have an opportunity to follow the discussion. When it gets to the point where you actually discuss the content of the rest of the article I will be more than happy to participate. Cftiger 15:41 , 26 November 2006

I don't mean to discourage you from voting at all. We are happy to have more voices; this discussion has been among only a few people and so has become a bit stagnant. Perhaps rather than having to read the all too voluminous text above, you might catch up by taking a look at the positions in yellow boxes above and the text under "Positions". Joshua Davis 21:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems that some new people are coming in(or maybe returning after a long hiatus), but they may be discouraged from participating due to the ridiculous length of the talk page. I propose archiving everything up to, but not including, "Vote regarding definition of physics". That should leave enough of the background of the discussion around but should a lot of repetition. Also, to prevent comments from continuing to pile up in an unmanageable I way, I again implore people to please be concise in our discussions. Joshua Davis 21:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I would wait until this vote is complete - that should then give a timetable for a new process (whatever it may be) and things can start from blank (and the archive dump will include this vote which is the final piece in this chapter of the story). In the meantime the vote chapter should stay at the bottom of the page just to avoid it "drowning" in the high seas of words. SFC9394 22:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Is the vote done, anyway? There is only one other person I can think of offhand(Noetica) who bumps around here regularly and their vote won't swing it one way or the other. Or are we trying to get new people in on this vote(in which case I still think a preliminary archive dump may help)? Joshua Davis 22:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with Joshua - I think the vote is about done really. I don't see the majority being overturned, so we should perhaps move on to the next stage. Krea 13:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I will give it to Wednesday just to ensure it has had a bit of breathing time. SFC9394 22:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

SFC9394- When we do the next stage, you might consider using the main Physics/WIP project page for the texts to be voted on, leaving this talk page for discussion. Experience has shown that trying to have both texts and discussion on the same page doesn't work very easily. --MichaelMaggs 16:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Second the motion. --Ancheta Wis 08:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I have been away from the table for a bit – for reasons of real life, but also in the belief that the premise set out was fairly simple.

The process has, to be frank, broken down. Progress simply isn’t happening.

This can’t continue any longer – so there are 4 options that I offer to other editors:

1. Three final versions are approved – only three can come out of this process, and a vote of the body of people here may be required if necessary to produce these three. With these three final versions a wikipedia editorial community vote is taken – by notification of the vote on the community portal. (the rules I propose for this option are here).

2. A placeholder is put in the WIP page for this section, “Physics is….”, and we move on to productive improvement rather than the pointless back and forthing that has gone on for the last month.

3. The WIP page is opened for editing to all and discussions continue on the lead section.

4. This WIP project is wound up.

All that I require is whether you support 1, 2, 3 or 4.

This process has shown the inherent difficulties in how wikipedia functions. In summary, consensus can’t be reached here because we are facing a problem that has multiple answers, and one which everyone has their own biased views on (and I use the term biased in the nicest possible fashion – an experimentalist is going to view the subject very differently from a theorists, both of whom are going to view it differently from a philosopher). Thus it is either time to start asking for votes on the issue (create something that the “mean” of the populous are happy with), ignore the problem for a while, or close the project. 1, 2, 3 or 4. SFC9394 20:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the problem is that we disagree on lead proposals. We disagree over "physics is the study of the fundamentals/matter" vs. "physics is the study of nature". This issue is bound to come up and lead to more dispute in the future. It's not going to go away if we "leave it alone for a while", as #2 asks. We have yet to address it directly, and decide which position the article should take. I think that a vote (with consensus) can do this, but we can't expect voters to read 20 pages. But how do we make the positions known? Well, have both sides state theirs in as few words as possible. In the last attempt, apparently too much leeway was given to treat this as yet another intro proposal, or... something. I have no idea what happened, aside from blatant disregard for the outlined procedure, and I doubt that it can be salvaged. I posted a very simple, direct, and explicit idea about 2 hours ago. I'd like to give voting there a try before we have yet another vote on the lead (#1). And I have no idea what good #3's open editing and continued unrestrained argument will do. –M^T 21:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The 4 options are copied below for ease of reference while voting.

4 options that I offer to other editors:

1. Three final versions are approved – only three can come out of this process, and a vote of the body of people here may be required if necessary to produce these three. With these three final versions a wikipedia editorial community vote is taken – by notification of the vote on the community portal. (the rules I propose for this option are here).

2. A placeholder is put in the WIP page for this section, “Physics is….”, and we move on to productive improvement rather than the pointless back and forthing that has gone on for the last month.

3. The WIP page is opened for editing to all and discussions continue on the lead section.

4. This WIP project is wound up.

All that I require is whether you support 1, 2, 3 or 4.

• Proposal 1.

• 1. --SFC9394 20:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. --MichaelMaggs 22:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. –M^T 22:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. -- Joshua Davis 03:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. -- Nick Mks 09:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. -- Tatonzolo 09:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. -- Cftiger 20:07, 27 November 2006

• Proposal 2

• Proposal 3

• 1. --Ancheta Wis 20:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC). SFC9394, Thank you for this option.Tatonzolo 09:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. --Krea 21:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC). Contrary to what M says, I think the argument is nearly over. Take a look at my proposal (C) above, and especially the references. I am happy to drop all the philosophical talk about penguins and whatever and leave the broad definition as merely paraphrasing of respected sources.

• Proposal 4