Talk:List of Catholic clergy scientists/Archive 1

Questioning sources and terminology

This seems to be based entirely on the Woods book. It's unclear why classing medieval religious thinkers as "Catholic" is particularly interesting or helpful [most of these scientists are working in a historical milieu where a) everyone was part of the church and b) where the church felt little need to define itself against other Christian traditions and had yet to conceive of itself as "catholic"]. This article does, however, seem to be interested in taking every European "scientific" (another problem here) thinker writing before the Reformation and claiming that they are Catholic. Which is sort of true but not particularly useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.53.108 (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Claim: "This seems to be based entirely on the Woods book."

Answer: All of the books listed in the Further Reading section (and more) were consulted for this article. When Woods' book is quoted there is an appropriate citation. Woods only mentioned a few of the scientists listed in this article.

Claim: "It's unclear why classing medieval religious thinkers as "Catholic" is particularly interesting or helpful"

Answer: All of the invididuals on this list were/are Catholics. They were bishops, priests, monks, and those who received minor orders in the Catholic Church. The medieval Catholics on this list are useful as a refutation of the conflict thesis which states that religion and science are incompatible. It is also a refutation of the mistaken belief that the Scientific Revolution was a fruit of the Reformation.

Claim: "[most of these scientists are working in a historical milieu where a) everyone was part of the church and b) where the church felt little need to define itself against other Christian traditions and had yet to conceive of itself as "catholic"]".

Answer: True, before the Reformation there was one Church, in accord with Christ's command. We don't find thousands of competing sects like we have today. But the Church did have to defend itself against other "Christian" traditions. Please review the list of Church councils and the heresies they addressed. The Church conceives of itself as Catholic because that is the nature of the Church founded by Christ. This universality through space and time is a work in progress and was set in motion by Christ's command to make disciples of all nations. The Church had this mandate from the beginning.

Claim: "This article does, however, seem to be interested in taking every European "scientific" (another problem here) thinker writing before the Reformation and claiming that they are Catholic."

Answer: This article does not address every European scientific thinker before the Reformation. It only mentions those individuals who were Catholic clerics and who made significant contributions to the development of science. I claim that they are Catholic, because, well, they were Catholic. Finally, nearly all of the individuals on this list are European because the Scientific Revolution occurred in Europe. Akasseb (talk) 19:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

To me it's not so much the claim as the entire tone of the article, which reads more like a press release than a neutral exposition. Joe Garrick (talk) 13:32, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Dashes

List of Roman Catholic cleric–scientists → List of Roman Catholic cleric-scientists — The right writing of such compounds as philosopher-scientist or cleric-scientist is with hyphen. They are conjunctions, not disjunctions. --Omnipaedista (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Name Change?

I think a more appropriate name for this page would be "List of Roman Catholic clerics who made contributions to the development of science" It's a more accurate description, but it's a bit long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.187.141 (talk) 04:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

References

I have updated the inline references to correct the problem of repeated citations indicated by the Ibid tag. The short footnote format which does this best is nicely supported by the Sfn and Cite book templates and friends. This meant a small change to the citation format with year of publication in parentheses following the authors.

I hope other editors agree that these changes are an improvement. The article format is sufficiently consistent that I can wait a few days for comments before making any further changes. I would propose to update the Further reading section to be consistent with the Citations, and add ISBN numbers where possible.

Using Sfn for the inline references makes it much easier to add references elsewhere in the article. Anyone intending to add further inlines may wish to check the cited details and add "their" ISBN number... --Mirokado (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Reason for deletion

Article exists solely to promote the dogma that human science was advanced because of, rather than despite, the Roman Catholic Church. See the sole author's bizarre polemic on the talk page: "The Church conceives of itself as Catholic because that is the nature of the Church founded by Christ. This universality through space and time is a work in progress and was set in motion by Christ's command to make disciples of all nations. The Church had this mandate from the beginning." --86.147.248.29 (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

That's an utterly ridiculous deletion reason. The article is now at AfD, but will almost certainly be kept. -- 202.124.72.178 (talk) 06:40, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, 86.147.248.29 is non-sensical on multiple levels. Does he/she want to delete the article for reason of statements on the talk page, not anything in the article itself? Then have him, by reasoned argument and Wikipedia policy, have the writer of the statement on the talk page delete the offending quoted comments--on the talk page. Deleting those opinions would, of course make no difference in the reply's effectiveness, nor could the article be touched. Facts can't be argued with. The article provides obviously useful factual information, and furthermore does a great job of disproving with facts the widely held, ignorant prejudice that the Catholic Church and its clerics were ever (or are now) anti-science. There is no proof that science advanced "despite" the Church's positions. There is plenty of proof, in print and in history, that Catholic theology and institutions virtually invented Western science. But this article is a list of scientists, not an argument. It lists factual information. So, 86.147.248.29 needs to take up his/her cause elsewhere: it is irrelevant here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.237.156 (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Good to see some people with common sense in this age of atheist zealots who abuse the internet for their crusades. Kudos to you!

In fact the "dogma" that science made progress because of rather than in spite of the Catholic Church is no dogma at all; it belongs to the realm of free investigation. After all, most of these achievements came after the death of the last Apostle to begin with. However would dispute it is not, if he is a Catholic, in any problematic position as a Catholic at all; though as a reasonable man, he would do well to see whether his facts would in any way support his assertions.

(Forgive the Catholic precisation.)

That said, it is, while no dogma, a rather well-established fact. It is also a well-established fact that makes the Catholic Church appear in a good light. It is also an understandable Catholic wish to see the Catholic Church portrayed in a good light. And so what? That doesn't make the article's content factually incorrect, period.--2001:A61:202E:3301:E5F6:E4F1:E000:E7D2 (talk) 15:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Francesco Faà di Bruno

On the theory that Francesco Faà di Bruno's last name is Faà di Bruno, I've listed him under "F" where he had formerly been only under "B". For now I've left the listing under "B" intact. Maybe if there is to be only one link to the article about him, the other location in the list should have a cross-reference. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I think every name should be on the list only once. After many years of formal education I have not yet mastered the ordering of names! If he belongs in the F list, then I would remove him from the B list.Akasseb (talk) 04:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Similar page: Roman Catholic cleric-musicians/composers

A number of well-known musicians and composers, e.g., Franz Liszt, Antonio Vivaldi, Antonio Soler, Matteo Albeniz, Gaspar Sanz, Josep Galles have been priests or at least clerics in the Catholic Church. Would be interesting to see an extensive list. 199.192.209.23 (talk) 03:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Fr. JPR

Copernicus

Based on my research, I agree that there is not definitive proof that Copernicus was a priest. This page, however, is not merely for priests. The first note in the references section states: "This list includes priests, bishops (including popes), deacons, monks, abbots, and those who received minor orders in the Church." For this reason I have reverted your previous edit. Akasseb (talk) 03:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

please add Eric Wasmann

http://gap.entclub.org/taxonomists/Wasmann/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.150.154.50 (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect attributions

Fixed this claim that Niccolò Zucchi invented the reflecting telescope (was added here[1]). Please note that sources related to the subject written from a POV are not considered reliable per WP:RS. I have tagged the article ((third-party)) for source problems. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

before editing the article with a simple search you might find: "About 1608, or perhaps 1616, Zucchi used a lens to observe the image produced by a concave mirror, and thus produced a primitive reflecting telescope, apparently the first one. Later, in Optica philosophica, 1652, he described it."[2]. Or from the Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomers published by Springer: " He designed an apparatus using a lens to observe the image focused by a concave mirror, thus providing an early version of the reflecting telescope."[3]; "Niccolo Zucchi is credited with constructing the first reflecting telescope in 1616."[4]; "the first to use an eyepiece lens to obtain the image produced by a mirror was an Italian Jesuit, Niccolo Zucchi, in the early seventeenth century." [5].So if you disagree it is up to you to bring a valid source that states otherwise and not to claim without proof that the attribution is incorrect because you claim that the source was POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.40.138.134 (talk) 08:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Per two very reliable sources, The History of the Telescope by Henry C. King Page 44 and Stargazer By Fred Watson, Inc NetLibrary Page 109 Niccolò Zucchi's experiment with a mirror was unsuccessful, so he never was able to "observe the image" or "obtain the image" let alone observe "spots on Mars" as further claimed. Please read the Niccolò Zucchi article for sources explaining these claims.

A book titled "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization" will have a POV bias (and an understandable lack of knowledge in the field) when compared to a standard text book on a specific technology/invention (in this case on the history of the telescope). Since that source (and a similar source quoted at length in the lead) is used throughout this article I have reinstated the ((third-party)) tag. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

and I gave you 4 sources stating the opposite. Or do you think that the Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomers published by Springer is POV or biased? [6]. In the Springer's Encyclopedia we read: "Using his reflecting telescope, Zucchi made a careful study of the spots on Mars (which had already been discovered), and from this data Jacques Cassini was able to discover the rotation rate of Mars.". More in-depth discussions belong to Zucchi's page and not here where we must give a very general description of individual scientists. As you have dismissed Woods' book as POV and biased for claiming that Zucchi invented the reflecting telescope, considering that Woods writes what is stated in a recent reliable standard reference book for historians and astronomers, the third party tag is inappropriate. Woods is quoted only six times in the article and he is not the main or only source of it as most of the scientists have their Wikipedia page. If you disagree with other quotes from Woods please let me know or change them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.40.143.243 (talk) 07:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Springer is not POV or biased, just unreliable. You may want to read through WP:RS since sources should be "weighed to judge whether (they are) reliable", not just counted. Observing "spots on Mars" points to a pretty bad source, note Watson and King do not bother to mention this and even a source you provided (Galileo Project) describes it as "wildly improbable". Also sources after 2005-2006 need to be double checked because they may just be a copy and paste of Wikipedia (some of those sources sound awfully familiar). "Woods is quoted only six times" (well 5 for Woods and a big long clip for Wright in the lead) plus unspecified citations is half the citations in the article. That plus a scattering of WP:PEACOCK words makes the article come off a bit biased. Cleanup tags are for all editors to take a whack at this, not just you and me. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Sources and Weasel Words

According to the infoboxes at the top of the page, there are issues with weasel words and a source that is too close to the subject.

Is this really an issue? And if it is how can it be fixed? Let's clean this article up and get rid of the boxes. 71.50.0.71 (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, its an issue. The article uses the word "first" 41 times and uses the slightly weaselly phrase "one of the first" 7 times. If the claim does not appear in the linked article with reliable sourcing then it should not used as a description in this list. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure that using the word "first" is necessarily a problem. I am also not sure that this can be classified as a weasel word issue. It is the nature of the scientific enterprise that those who have made significant contributions are often the "first" to do something in their fields. I do think the article needs to be better sourced. In my opinion, that would eliminate the need for the infoboxes.66.138.157.97 (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Weasel Words are not Weasel Words once they are reliably sourced.... so that is the problem and the solution. This is a "List of Roman Catholic cleric–scientists", not a list of "firsts", so there is only one requirement to be on the list, they have to be "Roman Catholic cleric–scientists". Most of the PUSHING "first" wording can be deleted, without sourcing it gets into WP:PUFF. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I hope to slowly add reliable sourcing to this article. Since Woods' book is a tertiary source too close to the subject, the references to it should be replaced with better sources. Using the word "first" is not puffery and does not violate Wikipedia standards. While puffery is often marked by ambiguity and an inability to verify claims, a statement that something is "first" provides meaningful information which can be verified by examining the historical record. There is, however, other puffery in the article that can be reworded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.138.157.97 (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup would be good. This gets into puffery because we have a "larding" of claims that are not the entries primary notability. For example, with the first "first", José de Acosta, the claim does not match his article's lead. His short description should really be "Spanish 16th-century Jesuit missionary and naturalist in Latin America." Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the comment should be the more neutral possible without any emphasis: Who wants to know more can read the wiki page about. But I would to know this: I was reading the Wp page "List of atheists in science and technology"[[7]] so I was wondering if there is a difference between a "List of Roman Catholic cleric scientists" and a "list of Roman Catholic clerics in science and technology". Domics — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.150.136.81 (talk) 08:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The page List of atheists in science and technology use the word "first" approximately the same amount of times. Prepster (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)PrepsterPrepster (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree completely regarding the use of "first". Historians take great effort in determining the origins of a theory or first observation of a phenomenon. It is useful if it can be verified from a reliable source. The use of "first" is an indicator of the cleric's importance. I also think it would be useful to the users of Wikipedia. It has been noted that "First" is not considered a weasel word in many other Wikipedia pages.--104.247.234.102 (talk) 18:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)