This title should not be a disambig; the word "analysis" is too important and too frequent to be wasted on a disambig. If a disambig is thought appropriate it should be titled "analysis (disambiguation)". That's the first point.
The second point is that this is a weak page on an important topic. It is more important for this wiki to get on and improve content than worry too much about frills. The concepts of analysis and synthesis are fundamental to science, philosophy, mathematics and more. It's not at all clear how we can best handle them. Let's get some good stuff written, when it may be easier to see what's best. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
- I have "rewritten" the page, and tried to explain the concept. I have left out the verb, as this is something wiktionary should take care of.--Eptalon (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I've made a few changes:
- I've removed the flag, and we can rethink later. It's done its job for the moment by giving us notice of an important page which needed attention.
- I've added a number of definitions, which illustrate how various qualified people have interpreted the meaning of the term.
- Reading the Stanford on-line article, I came to these thoughts:
- Highlight Aristotle's Analytics as the most important ancient source.
- Leave out the not very impressive mediaeval and early modern stuff
- Put in the later 18th C. realisation by Kant and others of the centrality of analysis to science. I was very struck by Georg Christoph Lichtenberg (1742–1799) “Whichever way you look at it, philosophy is always analytical chemistry”. Oh, that's so interesting, and I hadn't even heard of him! Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
- The contributions of Descartes are very important, as he started modern "analytical" philiosophy. But we still have two issues ot solve here: First, "describe" the method, and secondly, give an overview of modern analytical disciplines where this method is used. --Eptalon (talk) 09:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)