Talk:Uniformitarianism

---

I have a slight issue with this. There is Uniformitarianism and there is uniformitarianism. The first is the religious belief that everything is now as it always has been and always will be. The second is the scientific principle that one assumes that things occurred in the past as they do today in the absence of evidence to the contrary; it applies to other sciences as well as geology such as astronomy and paleontology Dunc_Harris|☺ 11:07, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

all mainstream scientists support uniformitarianism.

Last sentence: Today, however, all mainstream scientists support uniformitarianism.

I think this statement was valid twenty years ago. I remember vaguely having read various articles in science magazines in the recent years reconsidering various catastrophes having occurred during the history of the earth. A quick google search revelead for example [1] (impact events, some literature references) and [2] (a conference). Somebody who is in the field might comment on this. -- Di Stroppo

That's quite an assertion. I think it's something deserving of proof and reference, and until then should not be phrased as an undisputed fact.

um..... the whole of geology is based on it. 82.3.50.59 17:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Useage by renown scientists

The article should mention the use by Charles Darwin and Charles Lyell for their theories. Alan Liefting 22:36, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I made a small addition indicating that mainstream religious denominations have no problem with uniformitarianism. (One of the pioneers in the development of uniformitarianism was Nicolas Steno who was beatified by Pope John Paul II.)

I also made a few word changes to enhance accuracy, e.g. "The geologist James Hutton was a pioneer of the theory" was changed to "The geologist James Hutton was a pioneer of the principle" as I think most scientists place Uniformitarianism at the principal or "law" level rather than theory. Jay Gregg 22:15, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Propositions of uniformitarianism

The four propositions of uniformitarianism are given in the article as "1) Uniformity of law; 2) Uniformity of kind; 3) Uniformity of degree; 4) Uniformity of result". Could someone who knows them elaborate on their meaning and rationale for acceptance/rejection of each? -- Coffee2theorems | Talk 11:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Rates of Change

The disambiguation page for uniformitarianism mentions that the processes which govern the formation of mountains occurred at the same rates in the past as today. The article on scientific uniformitarianism does not mention rates of processes but only that the processes are the same. Can somebody knowledgeable in this area add more information to the article in discussion of rates? -- Anonymous 00:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

"Criticism of Geologic Uniformitarianism"

The section with this heading is total nonsense. No scientist of any repute would give any credence to “young earth creationist” criticisms of the principal of uniformitarianism. I therefore am removing it. Also, I believe that this page should be combined with the other Uniformitarianism article. There is no need for to articles covering what is essentially the same subject. (Jay Gregg 02:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC))

Recent research

The recent research [3] simply clarifies our current understanding of sedimentologic processes and says nothing about uniformitarianism. To say that it challenges uniformitarianism or ...obviously DOES have to do w/uniformitarianism is WP:Original research. Vsmith (talk) 14:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I am beginning to doubt whether you have read the cited research. I does indeed have to do with uniformitarianism, and is therefore not WP:Original research. To claim otherwise is violation of WP:NPOV. Goo2you (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I've read the original Science paper and I agree with Vsmith. The work is NOT a challenge to uniformitarianism. Please see my comment on the Catastrophism talk page. This section should be removed. Wilson44691 (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

"(This article was a mess, inaccurate and in someplace completely wrong. your ignorance is unfathonable.)"

Before I talk about the content, I'm going to point out that your edit comment was WP:UNCIVIL. I disagree with your edit, but that doesn't make me "ignorant", just of a different mind than yours. If you can't tell the difference, you're going to have a lot of trouble on Wikipedia.

The changes you made were largely cosmetic and not particularly an improvement. Perhaps not entirely coincidentally, they hid the deletion of the following key sentence: "Today, however, most if not all mainstream scientists support uniformitarianism as do most mainstream religious denominations."

On the whole, your changes did not benefit the article, so I reverted them once, and now I'm going to revert them again. Besides the apology you owe me for your incivility, you're going to need to justify your suggested changes clearly in this forum before trying to impose them on us again. Otherwise, I assure you that I will not be the only one reverting them on sight. Spotfixer (talk) 05:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"Today, however, most if not all mainstream scientists support uniformitarianism as do most mainstream religious denominations."

That sentence is COMPLETELY false! I am a senior undergrad studying paleontology. The paragraph I replace this falsehood with not only comes from one of my texts books (which is used by universities everywhere), it has been echoed by all my professors. Uniformitarianism is completely passe among real geologists. Actualism, which allows for catastrophes is the primary working hypothesis. Check the source before you put your foot in your mouth. Anyone who believes that sentences are wildly out of date and ignorant.

Whomever put in the section about the 4 propositions (NOT FORMS) of uniformity simply did not understand what Gould was talking about. The names of the 4 propositions used are not the ones typically used. Gould, in Times Arrow, Times Cycle calls them Uniformity of law, Uniformity of process, Uniformity of rate, Uniformity of state. I merely added the correct names according to those who really know. There is MUCH that needs to be done to that section to bring it up to snuff. I was just getting started.

People who revert based on utter ignorance deserve what they get. Christian Skeptic (talk) 07:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Until you can offer an explanation that is both civil and convincing, you are not going to get your way. Spotfixer (talk) 07:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

rewrite

The following is to replace the nearly stublike existing text. It comes largely from Stephen J. Gould's Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle.

I expect to place this on the main page with in a day or two to allow for review. Christian Skeptic (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

[Moved to /Christian Skeptic rewrite to prevent it from clogging up the talkpage & to allow the references to be observable. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC) ]

My initial impression of this rewrite is negative as:

1. It gives WP:UNDUE weight to a single source;
2. The employment of quotations is excessive, intrusive, and often unenlightening; and
3. It contains quite a number of uncited statements.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Gould is the premier expert on the history and definition of Uniformitarianism. If you know of anyone better let me know. 80+% of what I added are sourced. I don't know about the parts I didn't add. I have perhaps 4 direct quotes. There are 4 'quotes' just below the headings of the 4 uniformity propositions that give a short, clear definition of what each one is. That hardly seems like excessive quoting. Christian Skeptic (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

1. The article Stephen Jay Gould doesn't mention "Uniformitarianism" even once -- odd if he's the "premier expert" on the field. Further, I would have thought that Uniformitarianism lies more in the field of Geomorphology than Paleontology. If he is such a giant in the field, then this article should provide (third-party sourced) commentary on his contribution to it.
2. Adding 20% (or any) unsourced material is unacceptable.
3. Your pull quotes are disruptive, particularly as they are inserted into short sections (3 instances) or into a section already broken by a quote-template (fourth instance).

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I additionally have the suspicion that the rewrite includes considerable WP:SYNTHESIS of Gould's book. According to a GoogleBooks search, the book only mentions "uniformitarianism" on 12 pages (with "uniformitarian" on 5) -- making it unclear why this is being treated as the be-all/end-all source on this topic, and does not mention "falsifiable" or "unfalsifiable" even once. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

For this very reason, as noted by the very first sesntence "The following is for those who don't believe Gould actually said all this.....", souce material for Gould was originally and temporarily included with the first rewrite. That souce material is found at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Uniformitarianism_(science)&oldid=263882110#Source_Material. 153.90.173.124 (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I presume that's you Christian Skeptic? Block-evasion will get your block extended you know. Looking at the original, I think your version is somewhat of a cherry-picked distortion -- on the falisifiable/unfalsifiable issue: highlighting the "not testable" aspect but omitting the "statements about methodology" & "geology's versions of fundamental principles-induction and simplicity--embraced by all practicing scientists both today and in Lyell's time" side of it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Also I note that the extended passage "You can't go to a rocky outcrop and observe either the constancy of nature's laws or the working of unknown processes. It works the other way round, before you can proceed as a scientist, you must 1) assume that nature's laws are invariant and 2) you choose to exhaust familiar causes before inventing any unknown mechanisms. Then you go to the outcrop of rock." from Gould's original is used without quote-marks. A couple of slight alterations, but still WP:COPYVIO. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:01, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

why?

Is there a particular point to this copyright violation? Spotfixer (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Obviously not for you. But for those who think....

1. Copyright infringement implies trying to make money off of someone else and passing it off as your own. 2. This book is out of print. 3. The author is dead. Christian Skeptic (talk) 00:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

However, it's a 1987 publication, so the book is still under copyright; the rights are possibly, but not necessarily, held by the author's estate. Regardless, there's no demonstration it's free, which means it has to comply with the non-free content policies. —C.Fred (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed and fixed. Spotfixer (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

By-the-by, the "point" for posting the source material was noted in the first sentence of the section. And I quote: "The following is for those who don't believe Gould actually said all this....." Christian Skeptic (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup, anyone?

I just took a look around here, and tried to add some material to replace an ungrammatical (and not-entirely-correct) sentence, and realized that I just wrote what was already written in several other places.

So.... I think a cleanup should be in order, such that material isn't stated more than once, and there is a good order. There are also too many quotes in my opinion, and ones that sound like people talking, but that are not characterized inline as "Lyell said that "bla bla".

I'm not sure when I'll get around to fixing things up, but I will eventually (weeks to months); in the meantime, if anyone else has nothing to do... :) Awickert (talk) 06:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Forms

Christian Skeptic wrote "Forms of uniformitarianism: These make up Uniformitarianism as a whole". This is not true. There's more than one form, so these are not elements. I fixed this more than once. Please stop breaking it and definitely stop insulting and threatening me. TruthIIPower (talk) 03:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits; I don't think that they are necessarily bad, but Christian Skeptic seems to think so, and asked that you take it here - hopefully this leads to a productive discussion. I understand that you are frustrated - likely Christian Skeptic is too from his/her recent edit summary - but with your edit summaries like "undo more bad changes", it's hard to see this not going to the talk page. Awickert (talk) 03:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Gould makes it clear, as noted in the section, that strict Lyellian uniformitarianism was made up of 4 elements--uniformity of Law, uniformity of Process, uniformity of Rate and uniformity of State--two philosophical assumptions and two hypotheses. ALL of these TOGETHER make up Lyell's uniformitarianism. Any one of them separately IS NOT uniformitarianism. (Read Gould's 'Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle'.) Therefore, this section is not talking about FORMS of uniformitarianism, but ELEMENTS of uniformitarianism. Natural Laws are taken as uniform across time and space, but that by itself is not uniformitarianism. The same applies to Processes.

Gould goes on to say in "Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle" that Lyell was forced by logic to drop his uniformity of State, else Darwin's evolution could not happen. Further, Gould points out that all geologists today, this includes all my geology professors, no longer accept uniformity of Rate, but rather, have adopted Actualism, which allows for some catastrophes. So today's uniformitarianism is different than in Lyell's day and even just 50 years ago.

If you are going to edit this topic, do so from knowledge and back it up with sources. EVERYTHING I have posted and edited is SOURCED by reliable sources. NOTHING you have done has been backed up by ANY SOURCE! So, get your sources and THEN edit the article, else it is just useless OR. You have not fixed anything, but merely vandalized in-depth sourced material. Christian Skeptic (talk) 06:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This argument is neither convincing nor coherent. First you claim they're elements, then you admit that today's uniformitarianism takes a different form that does not contain these elements. If you can't even pick a story and stick to it, your changes are harmful to this article. TruthIIPower (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

This article could certainly be significantly improved, but CS's version is far more in keeping with the sources. I've reverted back to the last reasonable version by CS. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've been working to improve the article for some time now. It's beginning to reflect what reliable sources have to say, but there is more to be added and it badly needs to be reorganized. Christian Skeptic (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - sorry about the reorganization - still hasn't hopped to #1 on my to-do list. Awickert (talk) 02:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Pre Uniformitarian Age

Perhaps by contrasting what uniformitarianism isn't, we may see better: Before uniformitarianism appeared everyone by definition was a young-earth creationist (Avicenna, Newton, Kuo et al). The 400-plus flood legends and endless creation legends demonstrate this. Thus uniformitarianism is a reaction to young earth creationism, and is opposed to it. Showing this to be so today is the uniformitarian insistence that planet Mars had cataclysmic floods, despite the complete lack of water there, while the Earth, nearly totally covered with water, is arbitrarily denied a global flood. The only reason for this denial is that it corresponds to a YEC position, and is thus untenable from a uniformitarian POV. The pre uniformitarian period should therefore be categorized as YEC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 7kingis (talk • contribs) 06:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Avicenna

The concept of uniformitarianism in geology was first proposed in the 11th century by the [Islamic geography|Persian geologist]], [Avicenna]] (Ibn Sina, 980-1037), who provided the first uniformitarian explanations for geological processes in [The Book of Healing]] (1027). He observed that [mountain]]s were formed after a long sequence of events that predate human existence.ref name=Hassani>Munim M. Al-Rawi and [Salim Al-Hassani]] (November 2002). "The Contribution of Ibn Sina (Avicenna) to the development of Earth sciences" (PDF). FSTC. http://www.muslimheritage.com/uploads/ibnsina.pdf. Retrieved 2008-07-01. </ref> ref name=Goodfield>[Stephen Toulmin]] and June Goodfield]] (1965), The Ancestry of Science: The Discovery of Time, p. 64, [University of Chicago Press]] (cf. The Contribution of Ibn Sina to the development of Earth sciences)</ref While discussing the formation of mountains, he explained:

quote| Either they are the effects of upheavals of the[ Crust (geology) crust]] of the [earth]], such as might occur during a violent [earthquake]], or they are the effect of [water]], which, cutting itself a new route, has denuded the [valley]]s, the [Stratum strata]] being of different kinds, some soft, some hard... It would require a long period of time for all such changes to be accomplished, during which the mountains themselves might be somewhat diminished in size. ef name=Goodfield/>

Later in the 11th century, the [History of science and technology in China|Chinese naturalist]], [Shen Kuo]], also recognized the concept of '[deep time]]'.