Talk:Uniformitarianism

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.173.248.254 (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2004
um..... the whole of geology is based on it. 82.3.50.59 17:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  all mainstream scientists support uniformitarianism. 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Propositions of uniformitarianism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Rates of Change 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Criticism of Geologic Uniformitarianism" 

message: The recent research  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Recent research 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cleanup, anyone? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Pre Uniformitarian Age 

message: 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. [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) 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]]'.{cite book | last = Sivin | first = Nathan | authorlink = Nathan Sivin | title = Science in Ancient China: Researches and Reflections | publisher = Ashgate Publishing [Variorum]] series | year = 1995 | location = [Brookfield, Vermont]] | pages = III, 23–24 | nopp = true }} After The Book of Healing was [Latin translations of the 12th century|translated into Latin in the 12th century]], a few other scientists also reasoned in uniformitarian terms.ref name=Hassani
:Avicenna explains that rocks are formed from the four basic elements earth air fire and water. Mountains (according to Avecinna) were formed from these same elements in the past when things were different (not uniform).J8079s (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't quite understand what you mean by this? Where does Avicenna say this? And why did you also remove Shen Kuo? Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 06:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avicenna 

message: you dont cuz it's hard dah  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.125.196 (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  how do you describe uniformtarism 

message: Given the following statements in the article:
:Gould expounded on similar propositions in Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle (1987), stating that Lyell conflated two different types of propositions: a pair of methodological assumptions with a pair of substantive hypotheses. The four together make up Lyell's uniformitarianism.
:;Methodological assumptions
:The two methodological assumptions are universally acclaimed by scientists, and embraced by all geologists. Gould further states that these philosophical propositions must be assumed before you can proceed as a scientist doing science.  "You cannot 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 around." You first assume these propositions and "then you go to the out crop of rock." 
Here is the full quote: 
"You can't go to an outcrop and observe either the constancy of nature's laws or the varity of unknown processes. It works the other way round: in order to proceed as a scientist, you assume that nature's laws are invariant and you decide to exhaust the range of familiar causes before inventing any unknown mechanisms. Then you go to the outcrop.  The first two uniformities are geology's versions of fundamental principles-induction and simplicity--embraced by all practicing scientists both today and in Lyell's time." p 120
Gould is here talking about two assumptions (he labels them "methodological")-- uniformity of Law and parsimony.  Gould says they are assumed first before a scientist can proceed to do science.  These methodological assumptions are fundamental principles, i.e. philosophical assumptions which all practicing scientists embrace in order to do science (whether they realize it or not).  By this he is saying that philosophical assumptions (fundamental principles) are assumed before science can be done, i.e. science is based on philosophical assumptions that come first.
The statement-- "Gould further states that these philosophical propositions must be assumed before you can proceed as a scientist doing science" -- is a precise summary of the quote which follows it.  Indeed, that quote is the basis for the statement.  Including the quote directly in the paragraph is duplication, clutters up the article, impedes the flow of the article, and is quite unnecessary.  It makes sense to put it in a footnote reference so that those who are interested can see the source.   And those who aren't, can move on without interrupting the thought of the article.  (or one can eliminate the above summarizing statement and just use the quote, which is against WP style.)  For this reason I am putting the quote back into the footnote reference where is logically belongs.  SmittysmithIII (talk) 02:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no full quote, you're trying to hide the statement telling us what Gould meant by methodological assumptions because it establishes the topic of the "Methodological assumptions" section introduced by it. They were taken one at a time, WP:TENDENTIOUS excuses require no response and justify neither edit warring nor personal attacks. +See WP:3RR.—Machine Elf 1735 01:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  ok.  one at a time...... 

message: SmittysmithIII and Mthoodhood blocked as socks of Allenroyboy. Edits reverted, blocked editors can't edit, that's the purpose of blocks. Dougweller (talk) 16:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blocked socks 

message: <Blockquote>Uniformitarianism has been a key principle of geology and virtually all fields of science, but naturalism's modern geologists, while accepting that geology has occurred across deep time, no longer hold to a strict gradualism.</Blockquote>
The sentence above does not convey to me anything... What does "deep time" refer to, and what does strict gradualism refer to? warshy (¥¥) 17:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second sentence is lead is of very bad encyclopedic quality... 

message: When we use the techniques of astronomical spectroscopy to analyse the light from all stars and galaxies, those relatively near (just a few light years away) and those as far away as we can (some 13 billion light years away), and also those at all intermediate distances in between, we discover that all such light contains the unique spectrum of hydrogen red-shifted by varying amounts. That distinct pattern of spectral lines is due to the electron shell energy levels of the element hydrogen.
The fact that we see this unique pattern of spectral lines within the light emitted by the main sequence stars throughout the universe, those both near to us and those far away, means that all of these stars emit the light that they do via the process of fusion of hydrogen into helium. This necessarily means that all of the stars of the universe are "following" the exact same physical laws and processes, using the exact same elements, as does our own sun locally.
Now the absolutely telling bit is that the light we see today coming from galaxies 13 billion light years away was made at the source some 13 billion years ago, just as the light we see now coming from our own local sun was made at the source some eight minutes ago. And, crucially, the light in both cases was made in the exact same way, from the exact same elements, using the exact same processes. This necessarily means the exact same laws of nature operate today as operated 13 billion years ago, and at all times in between.
It turns out that the laws of nature that govern stellar nuclear fusion, the make-up and properties of the elements, electron shell energy levels, spectral lines and the propagation of photons operate today in the exact same way as they did some 13 billion years ago, and at all times in between. This is a fact we can directly infer from our observations and analysis of the light emitted by distant stars and galaxies.
The first sentence of this wikipedia article claims this: "Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe."
"Uniformatarianism" is not an assumption nor is it a belief in that it does not require faith, it has in fact been unambiguously measured and confirmed by direct scientific observation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.104.208 (talk) 11:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Uniformatarianism is a scientifically observed fact since we observe it by direct measurements of the light emitted by distant stars and galaxies. When we look at distant stars and galaxies we are literally making observations of the past. I will change the middle of the article to reflect this and thereby make the middle of the article consistent with the opening sentence and with reality.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.104.208 (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to assume light has a finite speed outside our region in order to conclude that we are looking into any significant past.  And in order to interpret the spectral lines we need to assume they mean what they would do on earth.  So the assumption comes before any possible interpretation of the data.  Given the assumption we can interpret the spectral lines as indications of certain processes, and given the additional assumption that light does not lose energy along the way, we can interpret the red shift as indicative of expansion of the universe.  There is no way to disprove the hypothesis that the light we see was created, as they say, last Thursday. - 114.248.214.101 (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

text: Edits are in place now to correct the earlier apparent contradiction. Explained that Gould's claims that assumptions and extrapolations must be made are merely claims. Provided links to support the actuality that we literally directly observe the distant past when we analyse the light from distant stars and galaxies.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.104.208 (talk) 07:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Uniformitarianism" is not an assumption 

message: The lead of this article says that uniformitarianism is the observation that scientific laws are the same across time and space, but the middle of the article says that that these are “assumptions”...“that come before one can do science and so cannot be tested or falsified by science.” These 2 assertions are, at best, not identical and, at worst, they even seem to contradict each other.  Is “methodologic” uniformitarianism something that cannot be falsified, or is it something that has not been falsified? 71.178.51.189 (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Uniformatarianism is a scientifically observed fact since we observe it by direct measurements of the light emitted by distant stars and galaxies. When we look at distant stars and galaxies we are literally making observations of the past. I will change the middle of the article to reflect this and thereby make the middle of the article consistent with the opening sentence and with reality.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.104.208 (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to assume light has a finite speed outside our region in order to conclude that we are looking into any significant past.  And in order to interpret the spectral lines we need to assume they mean what they would do on earth.  So the assumption comes before any possible interpretation of the data.  Given the assumption we can interpret the spectral lines as indications of certain processes, and given the additional assumption that light does not lose energy along the way, we can interpret the red shift as indicative of expansion of the universe.  There is no way to disprove the hypothesis that the light we see was created, as they say, last Thursday. - 114.248.214.101 (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

text: Edits are in place now to correct the earlier apparent contradiction. Explained that Gould's claims that assumptions and extrapolations must be made are merely claims. Provided links to support the actuality that we literally directly observe the distant past when we analyse the light from distant stars and galaxies.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.104.208 (talk) 07:37, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: self-contradiction

message: From the Encyclopedia of Geomorphology Volume 2  By Andrew Goudie
"Shea (1982) identified twelve fallacies associated with the use of the term uniformitarianism: that uniformitarianism (a) is unique to geology; (b) was first conceived by James Hutton; (c) vias named by Charles Lyell, who established its definitive modern meaning; (d) should be called actualism because it refers to the actual or real events and processes of Earth history; (e) holds that only currently acting processes operated during geologic time; (f) holds that the rates/or intensities of processes are constant through rime; (g) holds that only gradual, non catastrophic processes have occurred during Earth's history; (h) holds that conditions on Earth have changed little through geologic time; (i) holds that Earth is very old; (j) is a theory or hypothesis and can be tested; (k) applies only as far back in history as present conditions existed and only to Earth's surface or crust; (I) holds that rhe laws governing nature arc constant through space and time. He recommends abandoning the term. 
"Kennedy’s definition is, in the last analysis, the most satisfying
uniformitarianism is a practical tenet held by all modern sciences concerning the way in which we should choose between competing explanations of phenomena. It rests on the principle that the choice should be the simplest explanation which is consistent both with the evidence and with the known or inferred operation of scientific law's. Uniformitarianism is therefore applicable to both historical inference and to prediction of the future outcome of the operation of natural processes (Goodman 1967)."
Doug Weller (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  12 fallacies and a definition 

message: The article doesn't even mention the Copernican principle, nor any of the other instances of uniformitarianism.  It should be renamend "Uniformitarianism in geology".114.248.214.101 (talk) 03:20, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Why just geology?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Uniformitarianism. 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/20080907225227/http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/geography/hutton/Abstract-facsimile/abstract1.htm to http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/geography/hutton/Abstract-facsimile/abstract1.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080907225227/http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/geography/hutton/Abstract-facsimile/abstract1.htm to http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/geography/hutton/Abstract-facsimile/abstract1.htm
*Added  tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3724/is_200309/ai_n9253355
*Added  tag to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_5_108/ai_54830705
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) 05:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Uniformitarianism. 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/20090729030536/http://www.jedburgh-online.org.uk/aroundjedburgh.asp to http://www.jedburgh-online.org.uk/aroundjedburgh.asp
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) 20:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: While the 18th century section provides interesting information on the history of geology, it does not provide any information of importance on the concept of Uniformitarianism.  It mentions the concept of deep time, but that is not of concern to Uniformitarianism either.  I believe that it should be removed from the article.  --OtisDixon (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  18th Century 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Uniformitarianism. 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  tag to http://www.scottishgeology.com/outandabout/classic_sites/locations/glen_tilt.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110611161755/http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.3275,y.0,no.,content.true,page.2,css.print/issue.aspx to http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.3275,y.0,no.,content.true,page.2,css.print/issue.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060624122338/http://www.bartleby.com/65/un/uniformi.html to http://www.bartleby.com/65/un/uniformi.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) 02:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The article currently states "Geoscientists support diverse systems of Earth history, the nature of which rests on a certain mixture of views about the process, control, rate, and state which are preferred".  Is this supposed to be a statement about what geoscientists support now, or in the 19th century?  The placement of the text suggest the latter, but the wording (particularly the use of the present tense) implies the former.  I'm also not sure what is meant by the claim "Because geologists and geomorphologists tend to adopt opposite views over process, rate, and state in the inorganic world, there are eight different systems of beliefs in the development of the terrestrial sphere", and the following table and paragraphs don't explain which views are held by geologists and which by geomorphologists.  (And besides, I'm not sure it even makes sense to treat "geologists" and "geomorphologists" as fundamentally distinct groups). Iapetus (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Systems of inorganic earth history" 

message: the sentence "Other scientists disagree and consider that nature is not absolutely uniform, even though it does exhibit certain regularities." is supported by a single citation from 1778. Is there any source that  surveys scientists from this century that would support that sentence or can it be removed? It certainly doesn't belong in the lead. jonas (talk) 19:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  lead paragraph