Talk:Nicole Oresme

I call 'Hoax'...
This article seems to me to be in large measure either the product of mental illness or the result of an elaborate and unamusing hoax. By means of labyrinthine expositions of a concealedly fatuous nature, Oresme is here credited with a quite bizarre number of pioneering achievements -- very few of which are actually to be found in the mainstream literature (such as the Catholic Encyclopedia entry linked). Severe reservations need to be expressed concerning supposed demonstrations of priority that proceed in such lavishly anachronistic terms, and which rest on such perverse interpretations. What is more, one sees that entire areas of text merely repeat the content of other areas, and a quite unreasonable degree of suspiciously fawning praise is lavished upon the work of one single researcher. In its present form, the article seems to me to have little value. In my submission, it is in large measure the work of a prankster or a crackpot. Pfistermeister (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe Oresme along with Buridan and a few others may have inspired the Oxford Calculators. I believe the reporting is sound. Nor is it mine. Most was here when I found the article.


 * The Oxford Calculators predated Oresme by many years; I think they also predated Buridan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.17.27.34 (talk) 22:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Which reference do you believe to be unscholarly? Which claim needs to be cited? Student7 (talk) 11:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * According to the CE I have, he did exist! http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11296a.htm. Student7 (talk) 11:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid there is no way I can discuss this with a person who thinks that what I wrote above has something to do with whether or not Oresme existed. Pfistermeister (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, have fun discussing this with the many other editors working on this article! Cheers!Student7 (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Historical revisionism all over the place
Most of the article smells like original research or Historical revisionism. I call for scolarship concensus among citations like this:

"Based on the musico-mathematical principles of incommensurability, irrationality and complexity, Oresme finally created a dynamic structure-model for the constitution of substantial species and individuals of nature, the so-called "theory of perfectio specierum" (De configurationibus qualitatum et motuum, Quaestiones super de generatione et corruptione, Tractatus de perfectionibus specierum). By means of using an analogy of the musical qualities with the “first and second qualities” of Empedocles, an Oresmian individual turns into a self-organizing system which takes the trouble to get to his optimal system state defending against disturbing environmental influences. This “automatic control loop” influences the substantial form (forma substantialis), already present in the modern sense, in the principles of biological evolution, "adaptation" and "mutation" of genetic material. It is quite evident, that Oresme’s revolutionary theory overcame the Aristotelian-scholastic dogma of the unchanging substantial species and anticipated principles of the "system theory", self-organisation and biological evolution of Charles Darwin."

Take the words "finally created a dynamic structure-model for the constitution of substantial species and individuals of nature", "self-organizing", "optimal system state", "already present in the modern sense", etc. Most of the sentences used only have validity whithin the "modern view" and mostly constitute a revisionism language in order to say that this guy is basically all the scientist between XVI and XXI.

I call for revision of:

- Claims of modern influence, cited 1 by 1 and with scholarship concensus.

- Use of modern specific context language from this thories claimed to be "before their time".

- Claim of anticipation, citing the translation of the works of Nicole Oresme, not by reinterpretation, but by direct citation.

So far most of the claims maked in the article can only be found online as mirrors of wikipedia. I'll be disecting them while i have time for it. 190.158.6.164 (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * One of the stylistic problems for me, is that Taschow is quoted widely for the guts of the article, although Taschow himself is WP:NN. He should be relegated totally to footnotes until he has his own article. While it may seem necessary to mention him as he is quoted so widely, my thought is that it has detered criticism in the past. "Taschow says that..." Oh, well, if Taschow said it, it must be true, when actually his opinion is not only not worth more than other sources, but maybe worth less! Student7 (talk) 01:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Begin the remotion of some of the wildest claims like

This “automatic control loop” influences the substantial form (forma substantialis), already present in the modern sense, in the principles of biological evolution, "adaptation" and "mutation" of genetic material.

It is quite evident, that Oresme’s revolutionary theory overcame the Aristotelian-scholastic dogma of the unchanging substantial species and anticipated principles of the "system theory", self-organisation and biological evolution of Charles Darwin.

I revert if there is more material to support them, yet i've find none so far. --190.158.6.164 (talk) 11:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Remove more wild claims

"In his modern "psycho-cybernetics" and "information theory" Oresme solved the "dualism-problem" of the physical and the psychical world by using the three-part schema “species - materia - qualitas sensibilis” of his brilliant "species-theory" (in modern terms: information - medium - meaning). The transportable species (information), like a waveform of sound, changes its medium (wood, air, water, nervous system etc.) and the inner sense (sensus interior) constructs by means of "unconscious conclusions" a subjective meaning from it."

The issue mentioned (dualism-problem) is not a clear reference in information theory and psyco-cybernetics is a book, not a line of investigation or development. The claims are highly dubius information is "species"?, information in its modern context have a precise definition in science and engineering and to claim that Oresme have access to those is highly anachronical.

--190.158.6.164 (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you're right on. The writings of Ulrich Taschow have not made any significant impact among historians of medieval science.  The whole section on Oresme's science needs major revision.  Perhaps when I have time....  --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Avox Media = Ulrich Taschow WP:COI?
I was just tracking down a reference and I noticed that the publisher of Taschow's book, Avox Media, is apparently directed by Dr. Ulrich Taschow. This looks suspiciously like a violation of WP:COI. Since the early edits citing Taschow come from a WP:SPA, User:Nicolas Oresme, which seems to be Taschow, this article needs to be cleaned up. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In the three years since I made that comment the article has been considerably cleaned up, but Taschow's self-published source remains in the list of References. Since it is no longer cited in the article, I will remove it, and Andre Goddu's review of it, from the References. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Oresme
Since the pronunciation of Oresme is non-intuitive (the 's' is silent in Modern French), I've added the IPA transcription. I'm not aware of any established Anglicized pronunciation with the 's' pronounced, so I assume the existing sound file is incorrect. I've removed the link to the file in the article for now. --Iceager (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know how it is pronounced in English, but the 's' of Oresme is not silent in modern French, according to . Ceinturion (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any unequivocal evidence as to how Oresme's name was pronounced. However, the various medieval spellings of Oresme's name suggest that the "s" was not pronounced.  Grant's extensive biographical sketch (pp. 3-10 of the introduction to his edition of De proportionibus proportionum) lists the following spellings at p.3, n. 2: In Latin Orem, Oresmus, Oresmius, Oremius, and Horen; in French Oresmius, Orème, Oresmes, d'Oresme, d'Oresmieux, Orem, and Orême.  Some of these spellings may be idiosyncratic on the part of a scribe, but the frequency of the dropped "s" in both Latin and French suggests that the "s" was silent.  SteveMcCluskey (talk) 04:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If for one side there is doubt about whether the /s/ was or not pronounced in his time, it seems consensual that it's currently always pronounced in French, and in my opinion this modern pronunciation should be the one given in the article (or, as a compromise, include both forms). —capmo (talk) 06:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If I may add a personal observation; I've heard several discussions of Oresme's work by Grant, Clagett and others, and they didn't pronounce the "s". There's no way to cite this, but it is a strong indicator of the current scholarly pronunciation of Oresme's name, which reflects the spellings in the medieval manuscripts. Are there any sources indicating a voiced "s" specifically in the pronunciation of Oresme? SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * SteveMcCluskey's list of contemporary spellings is I think decisive - plainly, the 's' cannot have been pronounced at the time. Since 'how his name was pronounced' must refer to his time not ours, we should use the Grant reference as proof that the 's' was not sounded, and leave the matter at that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I also can't cite any written reference, but I have asked two native French speakers and both confirmed that they pronounce the /s/ in Oresme. Maybe the scholars cited by Steve are using a reconstructed pronunciation instead of the modern one. Anyway, just by the fact that in modern French there are people who pronounce the /s/ is reason enough for me to have both pronunciations added, in addition to an explanatory note. —capmo (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Like fantasme, etc, yes. Well, why don't we say clearly that it seems Nicole O did not pronounce the S in his name, but that modern French speakers generally do? Seems the logical and best answer really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Oresme's Work
Oresme published ideas in his books about things that were not proven for some time later in history. Some examples of these ideas are as follows: in his book Livre du ciel et tu monde he considers the idea that earth is rotating and the stars are not, an idea not fully accepted until 200 years later by Copernicus; in De configurationibus qualitatum et motuum he creates a coordinate plane similar to Descartes and uses it to solve problems involving distance speed and time, very similar to integration; in De porportionibus propotionum he discusses whether the ratio of the period of two celestial bodies were a rational number, and in doing so became the first person to use fractional exponents. With that said, i believe it is safe to say that Oresme came up with original ideas that were so far before his time that sometimes he even rejected them himself.

Kazumooo (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)kazumo

Oresme's work was indeed ahead of his time. Oresme is credited with establishing some of the rules for exponents, for example: x^m x^n = x^m+n (x^m)^n = x^mn. Cruzdg1 (talk) 18:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately most great advances in life in general are years ahead of their time. Think about when math actually started, most people didn't believe in what they were trying to do until years later. Shelby.Meyenburg (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

@== Removing references ==

That Oresme was "probably one of the most original thinkers of the 14th century" is currently backed up by three references, of which I'm removing two: &mdash; Sebastian 23:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) http://mrzimmerman.org/New%20Folder/HW/Middle%20Ages/sciebtist.htm, a private page with no more than a very crude entry on Oresme.
 * 2) http://www.jstor.org/pss/4130192, a link to a book review that consists of 3 pages, of which however only the very first sentence is available to the general public.
 * Whatever the merits of the JSTOR review (it doesn't say much, unsurprisingly, and if the entry was based on the first sentence, that was pretty hopeless), materials on JSTOR are generally allowable, and being behind a paywall is no obstacle - any Wikipedia editor can freely request such an article (or visit a library, or ask an editor who has access). Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Nicole Oresme character in Quantum Vibe
A character in the web comic Quantum Vibe is named Nicole Oresme. Algr (talk) 06:16, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:Economists
The article says Oresme wrote one of the earliest works on economics. Yet, he is not categorised at the bottom of the page as an economist. Was he not an economist? allixpeeke (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Oresme's political thought
I noticed that Oresme's political thought is conspicuously absent from this article even though there has been more than 50 years worth of research on this topic (M. Grignaschi, A. D. Menut, S. M. Babbitt, J. Krynen etc). I would like to add a section on his political thought as outlined by the aforementioned authors. Oresme is not as original as other contemporary authors since he translated and commented Aristotle's moral writings (Ethics and Politics mainly) rather than reforging Aristotelian thought into a new work (like Marsilius of Padua or William of Ockham). His political thinking, however, is quite different from that of other contemporaries who were also Charles V's retainers, so I believe a section on Oresme's political thought would be worthwhile. Maester NoWei (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. It sounds like a good idea although, as you mention, Oresme's political thought is not as original as his work in the physical sciences. The usual expectation of good secondary sources applies. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Confused Text
The text indicates a connection between Oresma and Richard Brinkley, but is so garbled as to be incoherent:

"A Richard Brinkley is thought to be an inspiration for the modus-rei description, but this is uncertain." 2A02:908:2612:9300:4842:F308:D86E:1245 (talk) 15:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)