Talk:Treatise

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Books History of Science Mid‑importance This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

In the current revision of the page, one of the criteria for the definition of a treatise is as follows: "The subject is abstact: If the subject is of the physical or natural world, the work becomes scientific writing." I strongly disagree with this criteria as there is no definition to my knowledge that neither explicitly or implicitly implies this criteria. Even the previous definition before @Mbubel: edited the page, although incorrect, I'd argue was more accurate which is as follows: "The subject is intellectual or abstact: If the subject is of the physical or natural world, the work becomes scientific writing." I still disagree with this definition and will argue that this criteria should either be removed or modified to focus on the intellectual aspect of the previous definition. Many scientific books are described as treatises, such as James Clerk Maxwell's "Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism". Since I'm not presented with sources for this criteria for a treatise, I will hide/remove it until otherwise given ample sources and reasoning to accept this criteria as part of the definition of a treatise. W.C Cross (talk) 21:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so glad to hear your comment @W.C Cross:. I've been eagerly waiting for someone to dig into this topic.

I am not the one to answer your question though, as I wrote it originally and made the edit. Yet, I'll share my thought. I removed 'intellectual' because it is redundant. It opens up the discussion of what is intellectual. In the end, I am indifferent whether to keep it in or not with a preference to keep it out.

Let us discuss the other part of your comment. If the treatise genre includes works of the physical or natural world, then that makes every scientific writing a treatise by default, does it not? Doesn't every scientific writing have the obligation to aspire to the same standards as a treatise? Does this mean "scientific writing" and "treatise" are synonyms? There's the rub. They can't be synonyms as abstract topics are not scientific writing.

So, what is a treatise? The answer is long, though as you are engaged in this topic, here goes.

First, maybe the answer is that abstract topics cannot be labelled as a treatise (meaning treatise is a synonym of scientific writing). If this is true, why did they create a new name for the same genre? This suggests abstract topics can be labelled as a treatise.

As abstract topics are worthy of the treatise label, another possible answer is that treatises have two branches. One branch would be abstract topics and the other branch is scientific writing as a whole or with specific criteria that subdivides scientific writing. This is a plausable answer, yet, the name for one branch is scientific writing, which tells us that such works should be made separate as opposed to a sub-genre.

The third possible answer is that, before scientific writing began in the 14th century, such works literally qualified as a treatise (since scientific writing had yet to explode in quantity of works). But when scientific writing became its own genre, it split from the treatise genre. This is the most plausable answer. The definition, however, didn't evolve to document this change, which is most likely due to the adolescence of the genres. But as time is giving us transparency, we can now apply reason for the benefit of society.

This discussion hints to how the article should be updated. I'll wait for your reply before applying that edit.

Looking forward to the response.M) (talk) 02:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Section 2 of "Treatise", it seems that the final sentences imply more criteria for the definition of a treatise. It's stated as follows:

"In addition to the features above, to qualify as a treatise, the work has to be revolutionary and create a sustained momentum. The revolutionary feature is important as it positions the work as being notable. The sustained momentum feature is important as without it, the work is unsuccessful in exposing the principles of the subject.

Treatises typically don't follow the long tail distribution of popularity like many other written works. They tend to follow the diffusion of innovations theory though on long time scales. This distribution of popularity with time also applies to wisdom literature and possibly other written genres."

While the second part of this definition seems reasonable, the first part of this definition seems contrived. Neither of these definitions have sources and I would like to see sources confirming these. Until then, I will leave the definitions untouched.

In general, this page is lacking in sources and we should compile some on this talk page to fill in any claims made in the page. W.C Cross (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]