Talk:John Tyndall

message: In response to a question someone placed at the Wikipedia Reference Desk, can anyone find if Tyndall said the following, and where, as quoted by H.P. Blavatsky in Isis Unveiled"(1877): ("It is not so long since Professor Tyndall ushered us into a new world, peopled with airy shapes of the most ravishing beauty. "The discovery consists," he says, "in subjecting the vapors of volatile liquids to the action of concentrated sun-light, or to the concentrated beam of the electric light." The vapors of certain nitrites, iodides, and acids are subjected to the action of the light in an experimental tube, lying horizontally, and so arranged that the axis of the tube and that of Vol. 1, Page 128 THE VEIL OF ISIS. the parallel beams issuing from the lamp are coincident. The vapors form clouds of gorgeous tints, and arrange themselves into the shapes of vases, of bottles and cones, in nests of six or more; of shells, of tulips, roses, sunflowers, leaves, and of involved scrolls. "In one case," he tells us, "the cloud-bud grew rapidly into a serpent's head; a mouth was formed, and from the cloud, a cord of cloud resembling a tongue was discharged." Finally, to cap the climax of marvels, "once it positively assumed the form of a fish, with eyes, gills, and feelers. The twoness of the animal form was displayed throughout, and no disk, coil, or speck existed on one side that did not exist on the other."  This does not sound like the down to earth prosaic researces by Tyndall described in the Wikipedia arricle. Edison 04:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Blavatsky was a cheap conwoman. Chug enough laudanum and you'll see serpents heads, tulips and all kinds of stuff. 83.70.35.39 19:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that it doesn't sound at all like Tyndall, but I'm open to correction, as I trust we all are. -- Astrochemist 00:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blavatsky quotation from Tyndall? 

message: This article had a tag saying that its neutrality was in question and to "Please see the discussion on the talk page."  No  discussion was here, so I removed the tag. --  I understand that there are about six comments on this page (all unsigned) concerning Tyndall's nationality.  Is that why the article was tagged?  Does the article contain anything that is questionable concerning John Tyndall's life and work?  I also can understand if there is debate on British vs. Irish, but that would seem to be a question of accuracy and not neutrality.  A response will be appreciated. --  Astrochemist 19:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag removed 

message: Working on the T.H. Huxley page I made some notes on his closest friends. These were my notes on Tyndall:
:Huxley's closest friend throughout his adult life was the physicist John Tyndall. Tyndall was born in an Irish Protestant family, and after quite a good school education and a PhD under the great Bunsen at Marburg in Germany, spent the rest of his life in London. The PhD, a German invention, could be done in two years, and was by Tyndall (therefore the degree represented a standard more like the MSc today). 
:Despite this good start he had every bit as hard a time as Huxley to get a scientific appointment. When it came, it was as Professor of Natural Philosophy at the Royal Institution: later Tyndall succeeded the experimental genius Michael Faraday as the Superintendant of the R.I. and worked with Huxley in many ways to improve science and science education. Like Huxley he wrote articles and gave lectures for a wide audience (McMillan & Meehan 1980). He was a fit man, and went climbing in the Alps regularly; and though his religious views changed he was always an Orangeman: 
:"Sooner than hand over the Loyalists of Ireland to the tender mercies of the  priests and Nationalists I would shoulder my rifle among the Orangemen." (The Times, London, 3rd June 1886). 
:His wife accidentally killed him in 1893 when she gave him chloral intead of magnesia; in her grief she delayed his biography by many years (Eve & Creasey 1945).
I think this raises a few questions about the Tyndall page as is:
1. "Tyndall was to a large extent a self-made man" is quite wrong. How can you talk about him not having any advantages when he had a great deal that Huxley and Wallace did not have? Good schooling followed (albeit by a few years of work) by a PhD under Bunsen is about as good a start as anyone ever had in those days!
2. The issue of his background has been burked. He was both Irish and British; and furthermore he was about the strongest supporter of the Empire as you can get. He was an Orangeman, and if anyone doesn't like it, that's just too bad. Wiki must be in the business of truth or it is going to be in trouble all over the place.
3. Text considerably under-rates the significance of his work on diamagnetism.
4. Also (minor points): not sound to link Darwin with him in any way; just happened to be alive at the same time!! And the intense application over his PhD is largely rhetoric; Germany invented the PhD, but its content was far more modest than would be the case today.
I leave the page untouched at the moment, but it can't stay like it is, hiding under a bush!  Macdonald-ross 17:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another slant on Tyndall 

message: At left is a photo of Tyndall at the start of his scientific career. The portrait at right is Tyndall at the height of his fame. More portraits of Tyndall are available at the Smithsonian Institution's website  here.  Seanwal111111 (talk) 06:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Photos of John Tyndall 

message: I've taken out this sentence: (The Royal Institution commemorates Tyndall with a series of eponymous BBC-televised Christmas lectures by eminent scientists) because 1. they are now on Channel 5, not the BBC 2. they do not bear Tyndall's name; they are just called the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures, and 3. they were instituted by Faraday (in 1825), not JT. OK? Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christmas Lectures 

message: Recently the file :File:John Tyndall by John McLure Hamilton.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 01:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New file [[:File:John Tyndall by John McLure Hamilton.jpg]] 

message: I don't know if i'm right here. but the link to DEIST is not correct in connection to John Tyndall. It is linked to a Death Metal Band and not to a propper DEIST (religion) article. 14:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  demarcation 

message: The following text has been deleted from the article twice by 144.15.255.227 for the reason that it links to a commercial website (amazon.com):
::The majority of the books have been re-issued in recent years by a variety of publishers and can be bought new.
To justify the deletion, 144.15.255.227 cites a Wikipedia policy statement about external links. But that statement begins by saying: "This guideline does not apply to inline citations." What's an inline citation? "An inline citation is placed in text, often at the end of a sentence or paragraph, to substantiate and catalogue the information's origin source." The information that most (and probably all) of Tyndall's books are currently in print is remarkable and surprising, and the external link to amazon.com exists to substantiate and catalogue the information's origin source.
The policy statement about external links is irrelevant since it does not apply to inline citations. Still, here's what it says: "Links normally to be avoided include... links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services.... Instead of linking to a commercial book site, consider the "ISBN" linking format." That language is allowing an override of the usual rule when there's a good reason for the override. In this case there's a good reason. Namely, the only sites on the Internet today that will provide a list of Books in Print at no cost are sites that sell books.
Regarding Tyndall's books, Amazon.com currently has new printed books in stock from these publishers:
Nabu Press
General Books LLC 
Kessinger Publishing, LLC
Adamant Media Corporation 
University of Michigan Library
Cornell University Library
BiblioBazaar | BiblioLife
Read Books
Braithwaite Press
The length of that list tells you something about the low-volume royalty-free book printing industry, but it's also saying something about a continuing market for Tyndall's books.
::BTW, the talk page at User talk:144.15.255.227 has the warning: "Attention: This IP address, 144.15.255.227, is registered to Medtronic, Incorporated (medtronic.com) and is shared by multiple users.... If you are an unregistered user operating from this address, note that this need not necessarily be the IP address of your machine. In many cases, it turns out to be the IP address of a proxy server...." The warning goes on to advise that an editor with IP address 144.15.255.227 should create a login name. 
Seanwal111111 (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue about linking to a list of Books in Print by Tyndall 

message: I see my edit concerning Pope Pius IX was reverted claiming he was not Pope in 1888 (which is correct). However, the sentence starts "In 1864 the Pope declared..." and only later continues "and in 1888 he declared...". So, reverting my edit was, at least partly, correct. Yet, shouldn't we make clear that it is not the same Pope declaring something in 64 and 88 but indeed two different ones? Shouldn't we furthermore indicate which ones those were? Janfrie1988 (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Who was Pope?

message: I have deleted the following paragraph inserted by Special:Contributions/114.78.183.180:
::Tyndall explained the heat in the Earth's atmosphere in terms of the thermal opacities of the various gases in the air, whose IR blocking effect he mistook for absorb of radiant heat, a.k.a. infrared radiation. His measuring device, which used thermopile technology to measure the infrared opacity of gases is described in his 1861 paper[8]. He was the first to measure the infrared opacity of the gases nitrogen, oxygen, water vapour, carbon dioxide, ozone, ethene, etc. Although he concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the atmosphere, Tyndall only ever measured opacity and radiative emission in gases. The experimental setup depicted here, is only capable of measuring transmission and opacity, as it has no means of determining the proportion of opacity due to reflection. Tyndall concluded that opaque gases had a moderating effect on temperature, making the days cooler and the nights warmer. However, his work on the thermo-optical properties of gases was further undermined by its dependance on the supposition of luminiferous aether which, consequently, lead to his confusion of kinetic and conductive heat transfer. This aethereal heat transfer concept along with its attendant confustion of kinetic heat transfer and conductive heat transfer later propagated into Arrhenius' work.
With regard to the concern that the gas can reflect radiant heat, you can measure the reflection using essentially the same system that Tyndall used to measure the transmission and the opacity. The word reflect occurs over two dozen times in his book about measuring the radiant heat absortion of gases, mainly because he's very attentive to the issue of reflections from the surface of the tube in which the gas is being contained. The reflections from the gas itself are relatively negligible compared to the transmissions and absorptions -- and the comment from 114.78.183.180 above doesn't give any grounds to suspect otherwise.
I'm unsure about whether I understand the last two sentences from 114.78.183.180 above. But in any case, assuming it's valid to make a distinction between "kinetic" heat transfer and "conductive" heat transfer, I don't regard it as appropriate to have in Wikipedia article. It's self-published theorizing. I see it's also posted at http://tyndall1861.geologist-1011.mobi/. It's okay to have it there, but not in Wikipedia. By the way the 1861 article "On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, Conduction.-The Bakerian Lecture." is in Tyndall's 1872 book at  and that book contains lots more from Tyndall about the subject. I have restored what 114.78.183.180 deleted on the subject in Wikipedia.  Seanwal111111 (talk) 20:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of recently inserted critique of Tyndall's measurement of infrared absorption by gases 

message: There is a discussion regarding external links in this article at the EL noticeboard. Your insights may be helpful.--NortyNort  (Holla) 08:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion at ELN 

message: *Please see the result of a report at the edit-warring noticeboard on 'British' versus 'Irish' for Tyndall. All editors who are tempted to change his nationality again are warned that they should have previous talk-page consensus for their action. Otherwise they are risking a block. 
*Editors may strongly disagree with the current nationality (British or Irish, whichever). Feel free to open a discussion here on what should be done, either here or at a more central page. There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles#John Tyndall and possibly that is the right place for it. There was also a discussion at WT:BIOG but it seems to have ended with no result. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *There has been prior discussion about nationality on this page. This discussion began in 2003 and is still continuing this month. See Talk:John Tyndall#Tyndall's nationality. The one thing which has not been tried yet is a formal WP:Request for comment. EdJohnston (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: RfC posted at Wikiproject Ireland. RashersTierney (talk) 11:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: He was an Orangeman that said that talk of an Ireland not part of the UK implied "mendacity or delusion". I would propose a wording somewhere along the lines of was a prominent British 19th century physicist from County Carlow, Ireland". — JonCॐ 13:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: All I have to say in this matter is that being an Orangeman and Irish were not mutually exclusive back then, as Irish Unionists obviously saw themselves as Irish and British in the context of supporting Ireland remaining in the Union, and on a case by case basis British in terms of their heritage. The Irish Unionist identity in Northern Ireland changed to a large extent in recent history due to sectarian strife but fortunately those attitudes are reverting once more but that is a different story altogether. Regards. Sheodred 15:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like Anglo-Irish to me.86.42.202.67 (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute about Tyndall's nationality 

message: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland has been pipelinked to Irish in the infobox to avoid any misconceptions that he was not just Irish but British at the time since Ireland was part of the United Kingdom, he was still a native of Ireland which was part of the UK that is historical fact but it does not make him any less Irish or less British, and  was he part of the Anglo-Irish Ascendancy. Maybe all of that should be included in the lede as well.
See discussion here.
Consensus anyone? TheFortunateSon (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: There are an overwhelming amount of reliable sources that state that Tyndall is Irish. In university we are informed in our science lectures not just by our lecturers byt by various text books that Tyndall himself is Irish. I do not understand why this fact is left out here, is it due to envy and disdain for homegrown successful Irish scientists from a British perspective?
===References===
* http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15874560
* http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/611577/John-Tyndall
* http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2011/0922/1224304515089.html
* http://www.siliconrepublic.com/clean-tech/item/23757-irish-scientist-john-tyndal
* http://www.tyndall.ie/content/john-tyndall-0
* http://www.yale.edu/graduateschool/writing/forms/Pre-writing.pdf
* http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Tyndall/tyndall_2.php
* http://books.google.ie/books?id=T5AD2c-CiHQC&pg=PA190&dq=Defenders+of+the+Union:+A+Survey+of+British+and+Irish+Unionism+Since+1801,+John+tyndall&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SQ8AUJ60LoSKhQfM7pH-Bw&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
* http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-fire-strikes-stop-drop-and-sing
* http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227081.500-the-man-who-discovered-greenhouse-gases.html
* Ireland and her people; a library of Irish biography, by Thomas W. H. Fitzgerald
* http://books.google.ie/books?id=e2kW7Ta6Q8wC&pg=PA443&dq=what+about+darwin,+john+tyndall&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tA8AUNTlBYrDhAfpk4CBCA&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=what%20about%20darwin%2C%20john%20tyndall&f=false
* The Cabinet of Irish literature, by Charles Anderson Read, Thomas Power O'Connor
If this issue is not resolved perhaps a different approach should suffice, perhaps dispute resolution or mediation.
:::A user by the name of SeanIIIIII told me to come to talk page, this the most recent one about nationality, judging by all these sources, I guess he is Irish, I don't see how that is irrefutable like he is suggesting. There is overwhelming evidence here to suggest that he is Irish given all the sources listed above by an editor, even BBC and Encylopedia Brittannica, two staunchly British institutions state it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.179.142 (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: For any selected set of sources that says Tyndall was "Irish" there is an equal and larger set that says Tyndall was "British" or "English". This is one of reasons why the opening paragraph of the Wikipedia article says Tyndall was "a 19th century physicist" and does not say he was "a 19th century British physicist" nor "a 19th century Irish physicist". And this is consistent with the Wikipedia guidelines for the opening paragraph of biographies at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies. See also what's said above on this talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Tyndall#Tyndall.27s_nationality dated 2008 and 2009. Seanwal111111 (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: He is considered Irish in mainstream scientific and media circles in Ireland, Britain and internationally. The article should reflect that, just because there is a small scrap of sources that claim otherwise does not contradict the fact that he is considered and is Irish should be omitted. Just because you don't like it does not mean the article should adhere to your opinion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.179.142 (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, he is a British physicist and he is not an Irish physicist. But the Wikipedia article is just saying he is a physicist, and leaving the reader to read the facts of his biography. The word "Irish" that you want to insert in the lead paragraph is entirely unnecessary, and inserting it would not be consistent with the Wikipedia guidelines about "context" in the opening paragraph that I referred to. Under the guidelines the opening paragraph is to provide some background biographical "context", such as where he lived and worked, as well as summarizing what he's notable for. The opening paragraph already does that. Regarding his nationality, once again, please see my comments above at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Tyndall#Tyndall.27s_nationality . Seanwal111111 (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationality 

message: * http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15874560
* http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/611577/John-Tyndall
* http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sciencetoday/2011/0922/1224304515089.html
* http://www.siliconrepublic.com/clean-tech/item/23757-irish-scientist-john-tyndal
* http://www.tyndall.ie/content/john-tyndall-0
* http://www.yale.edu/graduateschool/writing/forms/Pre-writing.pdf
* http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Tyndall/tyndall_2.php
* http://books.google.ie/books?id=T5AD2c-CiHQC&pg=PA190&dq=Defenders+of+the+Union:+A+Survey+of+British+and+Irish+Unionism+Since+1801,+John+tyndall&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SQ8AUJ60LoSKhQfM7pH-Bw&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
* http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-fire-strikes-stop-drop-and-sing
* http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227081.500-the-man-who-discovered-greenhouse-gases.html
* Ireland and her people; a library of Irish biography, by Thomas W. H. Fitzgerald
* http://books.google.ie/books?id=e2kW7Ta6Q8wC&pg=PA443&dq=what+about+darwin,+john+tyndall&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tA8AUNTlBYrDhAfpk4CBCA&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=what%20about%20darwin%2C%20john%20tyndall&f=false
* The Cabinet of Irish literature, by Charles Anderson Read, Thomas Power O'Connor
If this issue is not resolved perhaps a different approach should suffice, perhaps dispute resolution or mediation.
:::A user by the name of SeanIIIIII told me to come to talk page, this the most recent one about nationality, judging by all these sources, I guess he is Irish, I don't see how that is irrefutable like he is suggesting. There is overwhelming evidence here to suggest that he is Irish given all the sources listed above by an editor, even BBC and Encylopedia Brittannica, two staunchly British institutions state it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.179.142 (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: For any selected set of sources that says Tyndall was "Irish" there is an equal and larger set that says Tyndall was "British" or "English". This is one of reasons why the opening paragraph of the Wikipedia article says Tyndall was "a 19th century physicist" and does not say he was "a 19th century British physicist" nor "a 19th century Irish physicist". And this is consistent with the Wikipedia guidelines for the opening paragraph of biographies at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies. See also what's said above on this talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Tyndall#Tyndall.27s_nationality dated 2008 and 2009. Seanwal111111 (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: He is considered Irish in mainstream scientific and media circles in Ireland, Britain and internationally. The article should reflect that, just because there is a small scrap of sources that claim otherwise does not contradict the fact that he is considered and is Irish should be omitted. Just because you don't like it does not mean the article should adhere to your opinion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.179.142 (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, he is a British physicist and he is not an Irish physicist. But the Wikipedia article is just saying he is a physicist, and leaving the reader to read the facts of his biography. The word "Irish" that you want to insert in the lead paragraph is entirely unnecessary, and inserting it would not be consistent with the Wikipedia guidelines about "context" in the opening paragraph that I referred to. Under the guidelines the opening paragraph is to provide some background biographical "context", such as where he lived and worked, as well as summarizing what he's notable for. The opening paragraph already does that. Regarding his nationality, once again, please see my comments above at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Tyndall#Tyndall.27s_nationality . Seanwal111111 (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Today an editor with IP address 122.61.61.161 has inserted into the John Tyndall article the following quotation from Tyndall:
::"I do not fear the charge of Atheism; nor should I even disavow it." http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/24527/pg24527.txt
It's a misleading quotation because what Tyndall actually said was:
::"I do not fear the charge of Atheism [from my critic]; nor should I even disavow it, in reference to any definition of the Supreme which he [the critic], or his order, would be likely to frame."
That statement by Tyndall is only saying that Tyndall doesn't accept a traditional definition of the Supreme Being. A few paragraphs earlier in the same essay Tyndall said: 
::"Were the religious moods of many of my assailants the only alternative ones, I do not know how strong the claims of the doctrine of "Material Atheism" upon my allegiance might be. Probably they would be very strong. But, as it is, I have noticed during years of self-observation that it is not in hours of clearness and vigour that this doctrine commends itself to my mind; that in the presence of stronger and healthier thought it ever dissolves and disappears, as offering no solution of the mystery in which we dwell, and of which we form a part."
Tyndall's opinions on God and religion were only a tiny part of his written output, and they contained nothing original. But anyway here are additional quotations from Tyndall to help make clear what his opinion was. All of these quotations are in Tyndall's book "Fragments of Science" Volume II, a copy of which is at http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/24527/pg24527.txt
::Tyndall: "In our day the best-informed theologians are prepared to admit that our views of the Universe and its Author [God] are not impaired, but improved, by the abandonment of the Mosaic [Biblical] account of the Creation.... Thus religion survives after the removal of what had been long considered essential to it.... From the earliest times to the present, religion has been undergoing a process of purification, freeing itself slowly and painfully from the physical errors which the active but uninformed intellect mingled with the aspirations of the soul. Some of us think that a final act of purification is needed, while others oppose this notion with the confidence and the warmth of ancient times. The bone of contention at present is the physical value of prayer.... It is not my habit of mind to think otherwise than solemnly of the feeling which prompts prayer. It is a power which I should like to see guided, not extinguished -- devoted to practicable objects instead of wasted upon air. In some form or other, not yet evident, it may, as alleged, be necessary to man's highest culture."
::Tyndall: "The order and energy of the universe I hold to be inherent, and not imposed from without, the expression of fixed law and not of arbitrary will, exercised by what Carlyle would call an Almighty Clockmaker.... If you should urge that if the Builder and Maker of this universe chose to stop the rotation of the earth, or to take the form of a burning bush, there is nothing to prevent Him from doing so, I am not prepared to contradict you. I neither agree with you nor differ from you, for it is a subject of which I know nothing."
Tyndall wrote very little about God and religion, as I said. When he did write about it, the fundamental thing he had to say was that it was a big "mystery" and "a subject of which I know nothing". He said: 
::"When I attempt to give the Power which I see manifested in the Universe an objective form, personal or otherwise, it slips away from me, declining all intellectual manipulation. I dare not, save poetically, use the pronoun 'He' regarding it; I dare not call it a 'Mind;' I refuse to call it even a 'Cause.' Its mystery overshadows me; but it remains a mystery, while the objective frames which some of my neighbours try to make it fit, seem to me to distort and desecrate it."
Furthermore Tyndall NEVER said words to the effect of "The existence of God is dubious". Instead, like in the above quotations, what he said was words to the effect of "The existence of any specific, itemized, attributes of God are dubious." And he said that lots of what's in the Bible is "credulous prattle". That is the view of a Deist, not an agnostic, and not an atheist.
Tyndall also said, and readers have interpreted it as agnosticism: "Let us lower our heads, and acknowledge our ignorance, priest and philosopher, one and all.... The phenomena of matter and force come within our intellectual range; but behind, and above, and around us the real mystery of the universe lies unsolved, and, as far as we are concerned, is incapable of solution." I repeat that Tyndall NEVER said "we do not know whether a God exists or not."
Seanwal111111 (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it could be interpreted as deism; or (even as you have summarised his views) they could be interpreted as agnosticism or even atheism. He seems to be careful to avoid having his views being put into any sort of box. So why put his views into a box labelled "deism" with all the properties that might imply?Orbitalforam (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tyndall's opinion about God 

message: Today the editor Omnipaedista inserted into the John Tyndall article that Alexander Bickerton was a notable student of John Tyndall. Alexander Bickerton moved to London in 1867 and took classes at the Royal School of Mines, where the teachers included Edward Frankland, Thomas Henry Huxley, and John Tyndall. But Tyndall quit teaching at the School of Mines in 1868 (ref), so could only have lectured to Bickerton for one year. Moreover Tyndall's primary place of work in 1867 was the Royal Institution, where Tyndall had a laboratory with paid assistants. At the School of Mines Tyndall was basically only a lecturer who came in, gave the lecture, and returned to the Royal Institution. There are other notable people who attended lectures by Tyndall in London in the 1850s or 1860s at one venue or another, and we don't count them as "notable students". Likewise I don't think we should count Bickerton as a "notable student". At Wikipedia Bickerton is not listed as a notable student of Edward Frankland nor of Royal School of Mines. I think that's appropriate as well. Thus I'm going to undo today's insertion. Seanwal111111 (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexander Bickerton attended lectures by Tyndall in 1867. So what? 

message: The Wikipedia article about John Tyndall says: "When he died, his wealth was £22,122" (and there's a footnote that this number was assessed in probate court soon after his death). We want to briefly convey to the reader how much wealth that was. Until this week, the article said: "For comparison's sake, the income of a police constable in London was about £80 per year at the time." This week, editor Gareth E Kegg deleted that sentence and put in its place "(£2.14 million as of 2014)", citing the website MeasuringWorth.com, which arrives at £2.14 million number by just rescaling the £22,122 by an index of inflation of prices of retail goods from 1893 to 2013. However, the same website warns that this is NOT a good way to arrive at an indicator of wealth. The following is my summary of what is said at MeasuringWorth.com : Measuring the worth of £22,122.
::In 2013, the relative value of £22,122 from 1893 ranges from £2,141,000.00 to £24,920,000 depending on what measure you use. If you want a feel for the value of £22,122 wealth in 1893 there are these indicators:
::--> historic standard of living value of that wealth (based on index of retail prices) is £2,141,000 in 2013
::--> labour value of that wealth (based on index of wages) is £9,038,000 in 2013
::--> economic status value of that wealth (based on index of the per-capita GDP) is £15,050,000 in 2013
::--> economic power value of that wealth (based on the share of GDP) is £24,920,000 in 2013.
::Discussion of these measures and which one may be best is at Five Ways to Compute the Relative Value of a UK Pound Amount and "Explaining the Measures of Worth". The first option, which simply adjusts the wealth amount by the historical price inflation of retail goods, is NOT a suitable measure for quantifying historical wealth. 
Notice above that the inflation of wages' prices has been much bigger than inflation of retail goods prices. An additional point, which I didn't see mentioned at MeasuringWorth.com, is that much of wealth is in the form of real property and the real property price inflation has been much bigger than the retail prices inflation since 1893. Meaning that if you were to rescale £22,122 by a real property inflator instead of a retail goods inflator, you'd be using a better inflator and it would be a bigger inflator.
I propose to restore the deleted sentence about the early 1890s policeman's annual salary, and I propose to refer the reader in a footnote to the MeasuringWorth.com website, and I propose that no conversion to today's money be quoted in the Wikipedia article's main text, because any such conversion is a sausage that cannot be intelligently digested without a lot of background knowledge that most readers don't have. Seanwal111111 (talk) 00:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: In my view the best available indicator of 1893 wealth in 2013 pounds is the ratio: (£22,122 wealth in 1893 / GDP per capita in 1893 in 1893 pounds) = (such wealth in 2013 / GDP per capita in 2013 in 2013 pounds). Or in other words (GDP per capita in 1893 in 1893 pounds / GDP per capita in 2013 in 2013 pounds) = (£22,122 wealth in 1893 / such wealth in 2013). Using the data at MeasuringWorth.com, this means £36.54 / £24,862 = £22,122 / £X which means £X = £15,050,000. This is framing the wealth amount as a portion or share of the UK's annual GDP (with the GDP adjusted to remove the factor of the growth in the number of people, and otherwise unadjusted). Seanwal111111 (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, go ahead, make the change and BE BOLD!!! Could you please also add "...a substantial amount for the time" for ignoramuses? Also, PLEASE consider writing a book on Tyndall or pitching an article on him to a major magazine or newspaper, podcast or history journal etc. Half this unread talk page consists of YOUR amazing research of this sadly forgotten man's life and times, and it needs a wider audience. You are a brilliant writer as well as an editor, keep up the good work :) Thankee Gareth E Kegg (talk) 19:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tyndall's monetary wealth: Put in terms meaningful to today's reader and not misleading 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John Tyndall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130502145330/http://www33.brinkster.com/iiiii/gasmask/page.html to http://www33.brinkster.com/iiiii/gasmask/page.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the German Wiki article :de:Bolzensprenger a yet unmentioned but impressive experiment on heat expansion invented by Tyndall is described. There is language neutral graphics available (see thumbnail).  Maybe some one likes to integrate this here or in a new article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xorx (talk • contribs) 07:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I translated :de:Bolzensprenger to English: Tyndall's bar breaker. I am wondering which place in this article it might be linked best. I could imagine that a section about his most famous and/or impressive experiments would be an enhancement. -- Dr. George (T) 08:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  One more Experiment by Tyndall: "Bar breaker" 

message: There is a typo in the last sentence of note 61, (reproduced in it's entirety below) but I'm not confident enough about what it should be changed to,  to make the change directly.   I believe that the  "M" should probably just be deleted, that at least results in a coherent quote, but perhaps the "M" is part of something that accidentally got deleted.  :
 John H. Lienhard (2006). How Invention Begins: Echoes of Old Voices in the Rise of New Machines. Oxford University Press. p. 204. . The agnostic physicist John Tyndall once remarked that Faraday drank from a fount on Sunday that "M" " refreshed his soul for a week."
DlronW (talk) 13:39, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  typo in note 61 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John Tyndall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080907075712/http://www.gkbenterprises.org.uk/thesis/ch05.htm to http://www.gkbenterprises.org.uk/thesis/ch05.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The article now states: "Prior to Tyndall it was widely surmised that the Earth's atmosphere has a Greenhouse Effect, but he was the first to prove it. The proof was that water vapour strongly absorbed infrared radiation."
I think we should nuance this statement with the recent discovery of the 1956 paper by Eunice Foote. While he was the first to rigorously prove it, her experiments had already demonstrated the effect three years before his discovery, see for instance: https://www.rolandjackson.co.uk/single-post/2018/05/19/The-saga-of-Eunice-Foote-and-John-Tyndall.
I'm on two minds whether she should be mentioned. On the one hand, it is good to make a distinction between their work, on the other hand it is quite likely he was quite onaware of her work.. Femkemilene (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes sense to mention her/her paper to me. It's highly related (in time and content), and the sentence could include a phrase like "It is not known whether Tyndall was aware for Foote's work", with a reference to that link. -- naught101 (talk) 04:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eunice Foote and discovery of CO2 as GHG