Talk:Chemistry

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chemistry article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite, and welcoming to new users Assume good faith Do not attack other users For disputes, please see our guideline	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Daily article pageviews

Graphs do not work. You can go to the graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org.

Some elements were clearly known and understood as elements well before the 1600s. It is very culture-centric to say this kind of thing and we should avoid it. The Chinese were "scientific" enough to come up with gunpowder, the gunpowder used in fireworks and just bullets, the Greeks with a sort of napalm, and the Romans could certainly tell the difference between a great many of what we now call elements. They all knew that gold and lead had some properties in common, leading to the ambition of turning one into the other (which actually became possible in the 20th century although of course not economical). They knew about "salts" and the way that a few related crystals were interchangeable with each other in certain reactions.

It's not out of line to have a History of Chemistry in order to keep this out of here. Also whatever else is done, the article on Chemistry should focus on the various ways to express the periodic table of the elements and the concept of valence and the ion, since this is the least controversial thing one can say about chemical reactions - that the table describes their patterns.

Any repeating of the particle physics dogma that molecules are somehow made out of smaller bits made out of smaller bits should be kept to the minimum required to support the idea of valence. We have enough mechanistic paradigm biases in Wikipedia already... it's entirely rational to think of chemistry as a cognitive optimum whereby creatures made out of organic parts comprehend those parts, without ever inventing a "proton" or "neutron", although one can neutrally present these as variables on the periodic table itself.

This is foolishness, how is the reduction of creatures to their organic parts any less of a "mechanistic paradigm" than stating facts about molecules being made of atoms and atoms being made of protons neutrons and electrons. It sounds like you'd be more fit to edit the articles on metaphyisics or pseudoscience.

=Okay Chemistry is a subject matter whereby interested people can ask and answer questions about the details of material things, about how they are made up by nature and other processes, and thus is a broad field of interest. And the basics lie in the study of the chemical elements and their properties. Thus the human learning process should start with the idea of the existence of about 84 relatively stable chemical elements and of the idea of their properties being the result of an accumulation process of their constituents (parts) leading up to the accumulative numbering of 118 elements of which only the 84 have relatively stable lifetimes due to atomic instability properties. And the more you can know about the periodic table and it's subject matter the better. WFPMWFPM (talk) 04:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-- Its beautiful that you managed to get from writing a relative simple article about chemisty to what Chemistry actually is. Although a mere layman, I cant help get the feeling that you think about this too much.