Talk:Edmund Stone

Similarly named people

See the discussion about the contemporaries Edward and Edmund Stone at Talk:Edward Stone (natural philosopher).--Ferran Mir (talk) 11:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Good article review

This article was nominated for a good article review at Talk:Edmund Stone/GA1, but the review was put on hold because the reviewer didn't think it was ready for review yet and the nominator couldn't figure out how to get it to a review-ready state, so the review never went through. See Talk:Edmund Stone/GA1 for the preliminary discussions. –jacobolus (t) 07:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

book about the shape of the earth

The below material was moved from Talk:Edmund Stone/GA1. –jacobolus (t) 07:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Sorry to butt in. "I unfortunately couldn't find a scan of the book about the shape of the earth, so it's hard to judge its content for myself or tell whether the review was fair" -- based on my reading, it seems this is an unfair characterization. Stone doesn't seem to be attacking the spheroidal shape of the earth per se, but instead the methods that astronomers and geographers use to justify it. He, at least, disagrees that it is perfectly spherical. "In a word, there can be no dispute about the roundish figure of the earth and sea. The multiplied experience of all the seamen and travellers of these latter ages most fully confirms it" (25). "There is no-body can tell really to which of the round figures, viz. a sphere, spheroid or other solid, the figure of the earth approaches the nearest.--The arguments of all who have treated of this being insufficient and doubtful, as I think" (46).

He understands certain asserted proofs, like the earth's shadow being circular when cast on the moon, as wrong because it supposes the moon is also spherical (26); if it's not, then the proofs don't work for him. Perhaps the issue is that he uses a wacky definition of spherical, and devotes a ton of space and energy to discussing mountain ranges and canyons. "I say ... it is evident some lands are 15 miles higher than others, which must necessarily too much spoil the spherical figure of the surface of the land and waters" (45). But: "I am far from positively asserting it [the Earth] not to be spherical, or near enough to that figure, as to cause ... errors in geographical conclusions" (84).

Whether this is helpful, I leave to you. A copy of the text can be found at ECCO, Gale CW0108075909. Urve (talk) 01:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@Urve I can't access the text from your link. Did you read the review of this book from the Monthly Review? Does it seem accurate? It claims more or less that Stone doesn't think there had been a sufficient demonstration (by that time) that the Earth was closer to shape of a sphere than to e.g. an icosahedron or similar polyhedron. By Stone's calculation, Lake Victoria must be at an elevation of 15 miles above sea level (disagreeing violently both with contemporary judgments of <1 mile and with the modern accurate measurement of about 0.7 miles). The arguments and evidence he employed (according to that review) seem to me like a mix of affected iconoclastic skepticism and outright crankery, and the assessments in other sources (based on that review) that Stone might be suffering some age-related dementia seem consonant with similar cases of elderly scholars (for a recent high profile example, cf. Atiyah's claim to prove the Riemann Hypothesis). –jacobolus (t) 05:31, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. If you'd like, email me and I'll send you a copy on reply, probably tomorrow or the next day. I hadn't read the Monthly Review's piece -- forgot it was in the citation, though I read Chalmers and Carlyle, and I disagree with their conclusions --, but I skimmed MR and it's accurate. I would not call Stone a crank as much as a contrarian. Proposition II, for instance (see MR where it's given in full), is an irrelevant observation. He does not really, I don't think, call the earth an icosa/polyhedron (in our sense) as much as he is just "asking questions" about whether geographers and astronomers are really doing science. His statement about the equator sums up, in my view, what the book really does: "I know indeed, that every body calls it a circle, but I am not to take for granted that it is one without good proof. New opinions, started by great men, whether true or false, are too apt to be adopted and catched by the lovers of novelty. There have always been as many blind followers in the sciences as there are in religion, and politicks of the state" (88, emph. added). Certainly iconoclastic.

About dementia, two things. First, I'm sad to hear about Atiyah going off the deep end; I read Atiyah and Macdonald's Introduction to Commutative Algebra and it was one thing that made me love algebra. Second, I have no view on Stone and dementia. It's plausible, maybe even likely, that this work was written under the direction of some kind of cognitive decline. But I do see genuine scientific thought here, too, and being a contrarian isn't restricted just to those with dementia :)

If Carlyle is the most on-point source for this, I think we should say something like 'Stone's publication of a book in 1766 questioning the scientific validity of Earth's sphericity may be evidence of cognitive decline'. Though 'dementia' is probably also acceptable given Chalmers' statement about 'dotage'. If it's also in the MR source somewhere, then even better. Though I'd like to hear what Vati says if you plan on continuing to use 'dementia'. NB: This is a minor point in his biography, and however it is resolved (or not) is fine with me. Urve (talk) 07:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm not insisting on being harsh on Stone here. "Cognitive decline" might read milder than "dementia". We could definitely also describe the book a bit more, though I don't want to belabor it. I must say though, I don't have a whole lot of sympathy or patience these days for the "just acting questions" contrarian routine. Maybe I've just read too much climate denialism, antivax material, Assadist war crimes apologies, etc. in the past few years, but in my experience this schtick is typically adopted either in bad faith, by people uncritically regurgitating bad-faith propaganda, or by folks with a chip on their shoulder who can't find the emotional distance to critically judge available evidence. Stone obviously didn't have much to gain personally out of maybe-the-Earth-is-icosahedral nonsense, which is why I would personally lean towards calling it crankish. –jacobolus (t) 16:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@Urve I modified our text a bit. Does that seem fair? (If not, feel free to make your own edits.) –jacobolus (t) 20:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Definitely fair. Better than I would have written. I emailed you back. Best of luck with this and other projects, Urve (talk) 01:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)