Talk:Romanticism in science

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject History of Science (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


Peer Review by Eugene for Romanticism in Science:

-I like your intro in that you link the birth of romanticism as a response against the Enlightenment, but could you comment also on the decline of romanticism, and what happened after? -Maybe in your discussion of the Enlightenment you could name some people that were prominent in that area. -What is the significance of the 4 basic principles of romanticism? You could perhaps expand on this idea a little more. -I like your discussion on the important works in romantic science. Maybe you could expand on your ideas of von Humboldt, since he is someone we studied in class.

Peer review by Blake - I thought that your introduction was very clear and concise, setting up your topic very well. As Eugene noted, you should probably integrate some information into your introduction about the decline of Romanticism and the causes that led to such decline in order to fully encompass the scope of Romanticism. As well, the quote in the first section about the 4 basic principles seems to be a very important point, and I think that this point should be elaborated upon in order to better understand the meaning of the four principles. I also like how you cite many individuals that contributed to Romanticism or were themselves, considered Romantics. However, I feel like some of the descriptions of their contributions to Romantic thought are cut a little short and it is difficult to fully comprehend the scope of their impact on Romanticism. I was getting a little confused with the structuring of the part of your article on "Important works in Romantic science," as I was not sure if it was supposed to follow the order of your introduction to the section..."the various disciplines on the study of nature that were cultivated by Romanticism."

Peer Review by Lauren: I think you introduce your topic well, but you could try to work on some of the sentences- the last sentence of the introduction, especially, was unclear. I like how you mention the four themes set forth by Romanticism; maybe you could explain these in the body of the article and state explicitly what they are (I got confused about what the last two were). I think you did a good job comparing Romanticism to Enlightenment, because the contrast helps solidfiy exactly what Romantics believed. In the Principles of Romanticism section, you could, as Blake suggested, try to touch on each part of the first quote, and explain the difference between mechanical and organic metaphors later on. In Important Works... I think it would be helpful if you expanded a bit on what exactly the hierarchy represented. I like how you demonstrate the depth of the Romanticism movement with the list of disciplines influenced by Romanticism, although you you might want to explain the significance of the works like Davy and "chemical philosophy." Overall I think this is a very helpful article in explaining the principles of Romanticism.

Peer Revision By Nick I like the way the article transitioned from the intial Enlightenment Period to the Romantic period through the use of the comparison between the two methods of thought. In this section you might want to try to keep the two paragraphs linear in a time-like progress to allow for less confusion when reading it. The section concerning the Principles of Romanticism is well done and I really enjoyed getting the quotes to explain the "Importnat Works" of Romanticism to tie the way that Romanticism affect the culture of the time.

Peer Review by Aidan: I think that you have a very strong introduction that is well organized. I like how in your introduction you have stated what scientific movements occurred before and after Romanticism. Something that you may want to add is a time period in your paragraph titled Romantic Science vs. Enlightenment Science when you refer that “the Enlightenment had a firm hold in France” so that the reader has a specific timeframe and doesn’t have to refer back to the introduction. I agree that it is good that you include the quote of the 4 basic principles of Romanticism but it could possibly make your two last paragraphs clearer if you quoted the specific principle that you are describing in the first sentence of each as you did in the previous two paragraphs. In your Examples of Major Contributors section you may want to add a few sentences that explain why you are describing the major contributors of Romanticism. Overall this is a well organized and well structured article.

Pier Review-Jaymie[edit]

I think you did a great job in your introduction as well. I really liked your explanation and naming of important works in the movement. I think you did a really great job in explaing how it came about, and in your introduction giving that glimpse into the purpose for a quick read. The only critique I would say would be the in the decline of romanticism. Maybe it could be extended by how the decline brought about a change in the society.

Peer Review by Matt[edit]

I think the article is very well written and conveniently organized. The introduction does an excellent job of providing a brief summary of each of the sections that are to follow in the article. The first 2 sentences of the introduction are very concise amd give a great overview of Romanticism. The section entitled Romantic Science vs. Enlightenment Science had lots of relevant information about Enlightenment Science. Perhaps ot would be better to set up this section with 2 parts: one part for similarities and one part for differences between Enlightenment and Romanticism. Also the final secction could possibly be elaborated. I found it a little confusing to think that the entire Romantic movement ended as a result of one man's work on Positivism.

Mistake? Or am I just reading it wrong?[edit]

"No longer were people seeking a unification between man and nature based on the ideals of harmony, but a more precise approach that eventually gave rise to the study of science that is prevalent today. But it's not actually useful." Is that supposed to be part of it? It seems slightly important to me. On the other hand, I might just be reading it the wrong way. Comakid 20:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Additional references[edit]

This is a huge subject - lots has been thought and written on the subject. This one article is a start, but it could be much better.

First, there are not enough references to suggest just how much thought and writing has been done on the subject. Second, the quality of the article as it stands needs improving.

Finally, I have a contribution to make, but I'm not sure how to include it. Here it is:

An obscure but important contribution to the study of Romanticism and its relation to science, specifically to epistemology, is Owen Barfield's Romanticism Comes Of Age. Barfield directly addresses the question, "In what way is imagination true?" and in answer develops a critique of Romance. The essence of that critique is a focus on imagination as an organ of perception. Barfield's other works, including Saving the Appearances: A Study in Idolatry, looks at Goethe's scientific studies as seminal works of Romantic science, including Metamorphosis of Plants and A Theory of Color.

Glad to see that this article is part of the History of Science project.

Djsmitherman 19:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Danny Smitherman

Peer Review by Scott for Romanticism in Science[edit]

I'm curious why Andreas Vesalius is included in the list of Enlightenment scholars -- I tend to teach him as an exemplar of the Renaissance, and it seems to me that a 16th-century scholar is much too early to include in this period. Brainybear (talk) 13:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)brainybear

I had the same question. It does not make sense to include Vesalius in the Enlightenment, and even Descartes is stretching it a little bit. Scaluni (talk) 04:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)