Talk:Energy (science): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Paul Wormer No edit summary |
imported>J. Noel Chiappa (Not a big deal) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
==Name?== | |||
If the distinction is between energy as discussed in physics and as discussed in psychology, then the former should ''not'' be titled [[energy (science)]], but [[energy (physics)]], since many people consider psychology, too, to be a science. I don't know that psychologists discuss energy under that title... Another obvious sense is energy in the sense of oil, solar, nuclear, etc. ... | If the distinction is between energy as discussed in physics and as discussed in psychology, then the former should ''not'' be titled [[energy (science)]], but [[energy (physics)]], since many people consider psychology, too, to be a science. I don't know that psychologists discuss energy under that title... Another obvious sense is energy in the sense of oil, solar, nuclear, etc. ... | ||
| Line 6: | Line 8: | ||
:Larry, there are more sciences than physics that use the concept energy. Personally, I don't see psychology as a science (my late father, who was a psychologist, agreed with me on this). In any case, in psychology (science or not), energy has a completely different meaning than in physics, chemistry, engineering, biology, and so on. For one, energy (psychology) is not measurable, i.e., cannot be expressed in joule (or do you say to mrs. Sanger in the morning: "I have 10 kJ today and will write a nice blog and do some other work, whereas yesterday I had only 0.1 kJ and didn't get much done")?--[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 08:40, 22 May 2008 (CDT) | :Larry, there are more sciences than physics that use the concept energy. Personally, I don't see psychology as a science (my late father, who was a psychologist, agreed with me on this). In any case, in psychology (science or not), energy has a completely different meaning than in physics, chemistry, engineering, biology, and so on. For one, energy (psychology) is not measurable, i.e., cannot be expressed in joule (or do you say to mrs. Sanger in the morning: "I have 10 kJ today and will write a nice blog and do some other work, whereas yesterday I had only 0.1 kJ and didn't get much done")?--[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 08:40, 22 May 2008 (CDT) | ||
: I think there are good arguments both ways. Physics is certain the field in which energy is ''defined'', although others (e.g. chemistry) make use of it. | |||
: I don't really have any strong feelings one way or the other about the best name - I would only ask people that we discuss potential new names ''before'' we start moving articles around; since cluster moves are not (yet) automated (although I've just found some stuff that may enable us to make it easier), moving from name to name is a pain. | |||
: As to the correct target for the redirect at [[energy]] (whether to go here, or the dab page) - it's not that important, frankly. As long as there's a redir there, and all articles which reference this concept eventually get linked directly here, that's all that matters. I think most links to the name [[energy]] do mean this one, so it's probably reasonable to go here. [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 09:54, 22 May 2008 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 08:54, 22 May 2008
Name?
If the distinction is between energy as discussed in physics and as discussed in psychology, then the former should not be titled energy (science), but energy (physics), since many people consider psychology, too, to be a science. I don't know that psychologists discuss energy under that title... Another obvious sense is energy in the sense of oil, solar, nuclear, etc. ...
And weren't we preferring to redirect energy to energy (disambiguation)? Just curious, maybe not. --Larry Sanger 07:49, 22 May 2008 (CDT)
- Larry, there are more sciences than physics that use the concept energy. Personally, I don't see psychology as a science (my late father, who was a psychologist, agreed with me on this). In any case, in psychology (science or not), energy has a completely different meaning than in physics, chemistry, engineering, biology, and so on. For one, energy (psychology) is not measurable, i.e., cannot be expressed in joule (or do you say to mrs. Sanger in the morning: "I have 10 kJ today and will write a nice blog and do some other work, whereas yesterday I had only 0.1 kJ and didn't get much done")?--Paul Wormer 08:40, 22 May 2008 (CDT)
- I think there are good arguments both ways. Physics is certain the field in which energy is defined, although others (e.g. chemistry) make use of it.
- I don't really have any strong feelings one way or the other about the best name - I would only ask people that we discuss potential new names before we start moving articles around; since cluster moves are not (yet) automated (although I've just found some stuff that may enable us to make it easier), moving from name to name is a pain.
- As to the correct target for the redirect at energy (whether to go here, or the dab page) - it's not that important, frankly. As long as there's a redir there, and all articles which reference this concept eventually get linked directly here, that's all that matters. I think most links to the name energy do mean this one, so it's probably reasonable to go here. J. Noel Chiappa 09:54, 22 May 2008 (CDT)
Categories:
- Article with Definition
- Developing Articles
- Nonstub Articles
- Internal Articles
- Physics Developing Articles
- Physics Nonstub Articles
- Physics Internal Articles
- Chemistry Developing Articles
- Chemistry Nonstub Articles
- Chemistry Internal Articles
- Engineering Developing Articles
- Engineering Nonstub Articles
- Engineering Internal Articles
- Energy policy tag