User:Cdshel14/sandbox

Wikipedia Project

Article: Principles of Geology

We chose the article because there is a lack of information on the page and the information that is on the page is outdated and insufficient. The Influence section focuses only on Darwin and that can be expanded. The article just keeps repeating information. Some of the external links are Google Docs of the book instead of actually citing to the book. We want to expand the Influence section to include more examples than just how Darwin perceived it. We are also wanting to expand the Book section to give more detail about the arguments of the book.

Possible Sources

• Arguing for Uniformity: Rethinking Lyell's Principles of Geology by Victor Joseph Di Fate Lizcarrano (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• Geology: principles and processes by William H. Emmons Lizcarrano (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• The other face of Lyell: historical biogeography in his Principles of Geology by Alfredo Bueno-Hernandez, A and Llorente-Bousquets, Jorge E - full text online Lizcarrano (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• Reexamining Lyell's Laws by Michael R, Rampino
• Charles Lyell's Geological Imagination by Manning, Pascale McCullough

Arguing for Uniformity

APA Citation: Di Fate, V. J. (2011). Arguing for Uniformity: Rethinking Lyell’s Principles of Geology. Perspectives on Science 19(2), 136-153. The MIT Press. Retrieved March 9, 2018, from Project MUSE database.

• " ... it is an argument for a methodology in geology, based upon empirical conclusions about the earth and its past." (pg 137) - About Principles of Geology
• Adam Sedgwick and many others that opposed Charles Lyell proposed that he was taking an a priori look at geology, meaning that Lyell was choosing to look at his own ideas of geology instead of the empirical evidence that was in front of him. (pgs 136-137)
• " Lyell will argue ... that many geological vestiges of the past are in fact the consequences of presently acting causes, and therefore that we ought to “feel much more confidence in the probable uniformity” between geological causes in the past and in the present." (pg 143)
• In Principles of Geology , Lyell is showing "a plausible approach to geology, since it has yielded considerable fruit up to this point" and that "any stronger conclusion will have to await successful geological reconstructions of the past." (pg 144).
• The main opposition to Principles of Geology to this day is the same a priori opposition that Sedgwick stated Lyell taking. The only change is the addition that Lyell is combining the empirical evidence with the scientific explanation that was accepted at the time. (pg 140)
• " On Hooykaas’ reading, then, Lyell begins with a methodological principle of uniformity ... but somewhere along the way begins to take the uniformity of nature as a matter of fact." (pg 140)

This Arguing for Uniformity section comes from me - Cdshel14 (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

The other face of Lyell

"Although some excellent papers have been published (Rudwick, 1970; Porter, 1978; Laudan, 1982; Gould, 1987; Blundell & Scott, 1998)" Wilkinson 2002 - more sources given in the first paragraph Lizcarrano (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• "Uniformitarianism claims that, although the past is unabservable, it must be presumed to have been governed by exactly the same forces as those we can observe in the present. The past can thus be reconstructed by comparing the results of those processes with what we now observe." Pg 551Lizcarrano (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• """ "Ruedwick (1972) differentiated four meanings of uniformitarianism in Lyell's work: (1) uniformity of laws, (2) uniformity of processes,(3)uniformity in the rhythm of change, and (4) uniformity of state or anti-progressionism" page 551"""Lizcarrano (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

• "Lyell's work follows the methodological ideal of the Newtonian tradition, that is, it tries to explain facts through the search for verae causae (true causes), rejecting hypotheses, understood here as mere speculations." Page 551 Lizcarrano (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Original Principles of Geology Edits

Criticism: Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology was met with a lot of criticism when it was first published. The main argument against Lyell is that he took an a priori approach in his work. This means that Lyell was pulling from a theoretical idea instead of pulling from empirical evidence to explain what was occurring in the geological world. One opponent of Principles of Geology that agreed with this point was Adam Sedgwick. This opposition from Sedgwick comes from his thinking that evidence is all that is needed to support an idea, and that the evidence of geologic events points to a catastrophic event. The criticism of Lyell continued into the 20th century. These arguments agreed with the a priori argument, but continued on saying that Lyell combined the empirical evidence with the scientific explanation of geology that was accepted at the time. Cdshel14 (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

New Lead Section: Principles of Geology: being an attempt to explain the former changes of the Earth's surface, by reference to causes now in operation is a book by the Scottish geologist Charles Lyell that was first published in 3 volumes from 1830–1833. Lyell used the theory of Uniformitarianism to describe how the Earth's surface was changing over time. His theory directly challenged the Genesis timeline by stating that the Earth is vastly older than the timeline to allow geologic processes to occur. The book shows that the processes that are occurring in the present are the same processes that occurred in the past.This theory was in direct contrast to the geological theory of Catastrophism. Many individuals believed in catastrophism to allow room for religious beliefs. For example, Noah's Flood could be described thus as a real geological event as catastrophism describes the changing of the Earth surface as one-time, violent events. Lyell challenged the believers of the catastrophic theory by studying Mount Etna in Sicily and describing the changes from one stratum to another and the fossil records within the rocks to prove that slow, gradual changes were the cause of the ever-changing Earth's surface. Lizcarrano (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review by Josie Krawitz (March 18, 2018)

You are off to a very good start. After reading the Principles of Geology Wikipedia page, you can tall that there are some missing links to the page. You explained more about the book, the criticisms, and the potential of adding a new section to enhance the articles quality. The Wikipedia page, in my opinion, discusses more of the characteristics of the book such as the dates, the influences, and bibliography. I like that you are adding more information about the book itself because the section about the book on the article needed a bit of help. I like the idea of adding the section of criticism because this sections shows how Lyell over came the obstacle of his evidence versus his prior knowledge before his findings. Maybe there could be more discussion about the three volumes? I don't know if there is enough information on each to be put into different sections, but it could be a possibility if you need to. There is always more information to be learned and I think it is a great idea to add the section you have under the "New Lead Section." This sections explains more of uniformitarianism and catastrophism and how they helped the former changes of the Earth's surface. The article edits are off to a great start, keep up the good work! Jmk5mc (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Reviewed by Tucker McKernan (March 18, 2018)

• Very good job by keeping the different viewpoints in the article
• This portion of the article is mostly based on viewpoints and opinions of different people, but this is alright considering that this section is about criticism Tmyh7 (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
• You use the word timeline too many times in one sentence, try to reword this and it will be good.
• Good idea with showing how the book effected everyone's viewpoints, I would try to change the intro to be more about what the work is actually about, more of the books substance. Tmyh7 (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Article Review

The sections that you are going to add to the article contain more information than the article and are well organized. You should consider adding more information about the opponents of the book, specific journals that were used to argue against the book, and the evidence used to help describe the theories in the book. You could also try to explain the different meanings of uniformitarianism in the section that discusses the book itself and include more information about the influence it had on the field of geology.

Practice

This is a bold sentence.

I found it on wikipedia.

Article Evaluation

Plate tectonics

• Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

• Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

The article seems to stay neutral.

• Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

The viewpoints that seem underrepresented are the plate tectonics of other celestial bodies. It could be that there is not enough information to completely fill out the sections.

• Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

The links work and the sources do support the articles claims.

• Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

The references seem reliable because they cite professionals in relating fields.

• Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

There are some citations that are from the late 1800s and the early 1900s, but they are to show how the topic use to be opposed during this time. There are a mix of older and newer articles.

• Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

The Talk page has conversations discussing if the information is really correct and try to flush out any questions that are asked.

• How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

This article is rated as a B-Class and ranges from Mid to High Importance. This article is apart of the geology, physics, earthquakes, and volcanoes WikiProjects.

• How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?