User:Cdshel14/sandbox

Wikipedia Project
Article: Principles of Geology

We chose the article because there is a lack of information on the page and the information that is on the page is outdated and insufficient. The Influence section focuses only on Darwin and that can be expanded. The article just keeps repeating information. Some of the external links are Google Docs of the book instead of actually citing to the book. We want to expand the Influence section to include more examples than just how Darwin perceived it. We are also wanting to expand the Book section to give more detail about the arguments of the book.

Possible Sources
 * Arguing for Uniformity: Rethinking Lyell's Principles of Geology by Victor Joseph Di Fate Lizcarrano (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Geology: principles and processes by William H. Emmons Lizcarrano (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The other face of Lyell: historical biogeography in his Principles of Geology by Alfredo Bueno-Hernandez, A and Llorente-Bousquets, Jorge E - full text online Lizcarrano (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Reexamining Lyell's Laws by Michael R, Rampino
 * Charles Lyell's Geological Imagination by Manning, Pascale McCullough

Arguing for Uniformity

APA Citation : Di Fate, V. J. (2011). Arguing for Uniformity: Rethinking Lyell’s Principles of Geology. Perspectives on Science 19(2), 136-153. The MIT Press. Retrieved March 9, 2018, from Project MUSE database. This Arguing for Uniformity section comes from me - Cdshel14 (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * " ... it is an argument for a methodology in geology, based upon empirical conclusions about the earth and its past." (pg 137) - About Principles of Geology
 * Adam Sedgwick and many others that opposed Charles Lyell proposed that he was taking an a priori look at geology, meaning that Lyell was choosing to look at his own ideas of geology instead of the empirical evidence that was in front of him. (pgs 136-137)
 * " Lyell will argue ... that many geological vestiges of the past are in fact the consequences of presently acting causes, and therefore that we ought to “feel much more confidence in the probable uniformity” between geological causes in the past and in the present." (pg 143)
 * In Principles of Geology, Lyell is showing "a plausible approach to geology, since it has yielded considerable fruit up to this point" and that "any stronger conclusion will have to await successful geological reconstructions of the past." (pg 144).
 * The main opposition to Principles of Geology to this day is the same a priori opposition that Sedgwick stated Lyell taking. The only change is the addition that Lyell is combining the empirical evidence with the scientific explanation that was accepted at the time. (pg 140)
 * " On Hooykaas’ reading, then, Lyell begins with a methodological principle of uniformity ... but somewhere along the way begins to take the uniformity of nature as a matter of fact." (pg 140)

The other face of Lyell

"Although some excellent papers have been published (Rudwick, 1970; Porter, 1978; Laudan, 1982; Gould, 1987; Blundell & Scott, 1998)" Wilkinson 2002 - more sources given in the first paragraph Lizcarrano (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * "Uniformitarianism claims that, although the past is unabservable, it must be presumed to have been governed by exactly the same forces as those we can observe in the present. The past can thus be reconstructed by comparing the results of those processes with what we now observe." Pg 551Lizcarrano (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * """ "Ruedwick (1972) differentiated four meanings of uniformitarianism in Lyell's work: (1) uniformity of laws, (2) uniformity of processes,(3)uniformity in the rhythm of change, and (4) uniformity of state or anti-progressionism" page 551"""Lizcarrano (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


 * "Lyell's work follows the methodological ideal of the Newtonian tradition, that is, it tries to explain facts through the search for verae causae (true causes), rejecting hypotheses, understood here as mere speculations." Page 551 Lizcarrano (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Reexamining Lyell's Laws
Rampino, Michael R. American Scientist; Research Triangle Park Vol. 105, Iss. 4,  (Jul/Aug 2017): 224-231.
 * "The discovery in the 1980s that the dinosaurs were killed off by a cataclysmic event threw the whole gradualist view into question. Since then, geologists have come to realize that catastrophes caused other mass extinctions and abrupt, major changes that we see in the geologic record."
 * Lyell believed that any effect on the geology came from the Earth
 * Lyell believed that there were three rules that caused the steady changes of the Earth
 * Geologic change is the product of slow and gradual processes that we can observe today, acting over long periods of time"
 * Forces that affect geology are solely from the Earth
 * The geologic record patterns are not influenced by celestial cycles
 * Baron Georges Cuvier, the father of vertebrate paleontology, was an advocate of catastrophism in the 19th century. While studying around the Paris Basin, he and his colleagues found "and reported empirical evidence for episodic, catastrophic, and sweeping changes". "They found that the geologic record gave evidence of long periods of quiet alternating with brief times marked by the sudden disappearance of fossil species-what we now know as mass extinctions of life". This was contributed to catastrophic forces.
 * Lyell argued that this was due to a "grossly imperfect geologic record" and that we cannot trust our own observations if they go against the "plan of Nature".
 * From his Lyell's work, the motto for geology became "the present is the key to the past"
 * "This predictable pattern means that any study of Earth that includes the notion of deep time must take into account the fact that the greatest magnitude events should not happen often; indeed, there could be millions of years between the largest events." With deep time, there can be very rare but strong geologic forces that shape the geologic record more that the gradual, constant ones and this has to happen if the concept of deep time is to be used.
 * "Although most geologists seem unaware of it, Lyell's edicts were built in part on a distinctly nonscientific assumption that we inhabit a planet designed for human occupancy and that we enjoy a geologic history that represents the unfolding of a calm and methodical process leading to the present world."
 * "The fall of the dinosaurs 66 million years ago at the end of the Cretaceous period was an oft-debated and mysterious event in Earth's history until it was proposed that the extinction was triggered by a powerful asteroid or comet impact, a hypothesis suggested by the father-son team of Luis and Walter Alvarez in 1980." This hypothesis violated two of Lyell's laws due to it being catastrophic and it coming from outside of the Earth.
 * Then a cycle of mass extinctions were found in the geologic timeline and this disproved the third rule of Lyell's.
 * Lyell argued that things were made the same way every time, but "Uniformity of process does not imply uniformity of rates."
 * The reason that Lyell liked Uniformitarianism is due to theology according to the author.

Original Principles of Geology Edits
Criticism : Charles Lyell's Principles of Geology was met with a lot of criticism when it was first published. The main argument against Lyell is that he took an a priori approach in his work. This means that Charles Lyell was pulling from a theoretical idea instead of pulling from empirical evidence to explain what was occurring in the geological world. One opponent of Principles of Geology that agreed with this point was Adam Sedgwick. This opposition from Sedgwick comes from his thinking that evidence is all that is needed to support an idea, and that the evidence of geologic events points to a catastrophic event. The criticism of Lyell continued into the 20th century. These arguments agreed with the a priori argument, but continued on saying that Lyell combined the empirical evidence with the scientific explanation of geology that was accepted at the time. Cdshel14 (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC).

The a priori argument is not the only argument that Lyell faced for his worked. In the 19th century, Baron Georges Cuvier argued against uniformitarianism with the results of his study of the Paris Basin. Cuvier and his colleagues found long period of consistent change with intermittent patterns of sudden fossil disappearance in the geologic record for the area, which is now known as mass extinction. Cuvier explained these sudden changes in the geologic record with catastrophic forces. Lyell responded to this argument, stating that the geologic record was "grossly imperfect" and that observations cannot be trusted if they go against "the plan of Nature". Cdshel14 (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

In more recent years, the concept of deep time has come under fire, questioning whether it and uniformitarianism is real. Deep time is the backbone of uniformitarianism, stating that enough time has to occur for all the geologic events to have created the world you see now. Critics of deep time claim that with enough time, catastrophic events that will shape the Earth more than the gradual, continual processes of uniformitarianism. These catastrophic events are bound to happen, because with enough time anything can happen. Without the concept of deep time, uniformitarianism is invalid. Cdshel14 (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

New Lead Section : Principles of Geology: being an attempt to explain the former changes of the Earth's surface, by reference to causes now in operation is a book by the Scottish geologist Charles Lyell that was first published in 3 volumes from 1830–1833. Lyell used the theory of Uniformitarianism to describe how the Earth's surface was changing over time. His theory directly challenged the Genesis timeline by stating that the Earth is much older to allow geologic processes to occur. The book shows that the processes that are occurring in the present are the same processes that occurred in the past. This theory was in direct contrast to the geological theory of Catastrophism. Many individuals believed in catastrophism to allow room for religious beliefs. For example, Noah's Flood could be described thus as a real geological event as catastrophism describes the changing of the Earth surface as one-time, violent events. Lyell challenged the believers of the catastrophic theory by studying Mount Etna in Sicily and describing the changes from one stratum to another and the fossil records within the rocks to prove that slow, gradual changes were the cause of the ever-changing Earth's surface. Lizcarrano (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Book : In Lyell's work, he described the three rules he believed causes the steady change of the Earth. The first rule is that the geologic change comes from slow and continual procedures that have been happening over a long period of time. This rule is the basic ideals of Uniformitarianism and is easy to understand why this was a rule. The second rule is that all the forces that affects the geology of the Earth comes from the Earth. The third rule is that celestial cycles do not impact the patterns of the geologic record of the Earth. Rule two and rule three go together because Lyell thought that only forces on the Earth cause changes to Earth's geology, and nothing else. Cdshel14 (talk) 19:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Volume 1 introduces Lyell's theory of uniformitarianism. He develops and argues that the earthly processes that we see in the present were the same processes as in the past and caused the Earth to look like it does today.Lizcarrano (talk) 13:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC) Volume 2 builds off of the uniformitarianism theory in volume 1, but focuses more on the organic matter rather than the inorganic matter. This volume is what Darwin took with him on his voyage on the Beagle. In the 3rd volume, Lyell identifies four periods of the Tertiary: Newer Pliocene, Older Pliocene, Miocene, and the Eocene. Lyell used deposits and fossils to argue for uniformity during the Tertiary. This also talks about the grammar or syntax of the processes that occurred in the past in today's language. I couldn't find any more descriptions of the difference or topics covered in the three different volumes of Principles of Geology Lizcarrano (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Link to description of the first volume of the Principles of Geology: http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/P/bo3774432.html Lizcarrano (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Link to description of the second volume of the Principles of Geology: http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/P/bo3631651.html Lizcarrano (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Link to description of the third volume of the Principles of Geology: http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/P/bo4090108.html Lizcarrano (talk) 04:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review by Josie Krawitz (March 18, 2018)
You are off to a very good start. After reading the Principles of Geology Wikipedia page, you can tall that there are some missing links to the page. You explained more about the book, the criticisms, and the potential of adding a new section to enhance the articles quality. The Wikipedia page, in my opinion, discusses more of the characteristics of the book such as the dates, the influences, and bibliography. I like that you are adding more information about the book itself because the section about the book on the article needed a bit of help. I like the idea of adding the section of criticism because this sections shows how Lyell over came the obstacle of his evidence versus his prior knowledge before his findings. Maybe there could be more discussion about the three volumes? I don't know if there is enough information on each to be put into different sections, but it could be a possibility if you need to. There is always more information to be learned and I think it is a great idea to add the section you have under the "New Lead Section." This sections explains more of uniformitarianism and catastrophism and how they helped the former changes of the Earth's surface. The article edits are off to a great start, keep up the good work! Jmk5mc (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Peer Reviewed by Tucker McKernan (March 18, 2018)

 * Very good job by keeping the different viewpoints in the article
 * This portion of the article is mostly based on viewpoints and opinions of different people, but this is alright considering that this section is about criticism Tmyh7 (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You use the word timeline too many times in one sentence, try to reword this and it will be good.
 * Good idea with showing how the book effected everyone's viewpoints, I would try to change the intro to be more about what the work is actually about, more of the books substance. Tmyh7 (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Response to Peer Review

 * The first criticism is that we should have more links in our paragraphs. So for the criticism article, we are going to add a few wikilinks to other articles such as the geologist Adam Sedgwick and the a priori page.Cdshel14 (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * One reviewer suggested that we distinguish the similarities and differences between the three volumes that Lyell published. We will look further into this and determine if it is pertinent to what we want to accomplish with our article. Lizcarrano (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Another reviewer suggested finding more criticism and opposition to the book itself. We are currently trying to find more sources that do offer criticism that are not just blatant arguments about the book or its content. Cdshel14 (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * One suggestion was given that I used the word "timeline" too much in one sentence. This will be either changed with a similar word or the sentence can be re-structured.Lizcarrano (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * From reading the reviews, we want to make sure that we are adding important information to our article. As a group we decided that we are going to add a section within the influence tab about how Lyell's theories influenced Charles Darwin and what Darwin was able to accomplish using these theories.Lizcarrano (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Article Review
The sections that you are going to add to the article contain more information than the article and are well organized. You should consider adding more information about the opponents of the book, specific journals that were used to argue against the book, and the evidence used to help describe the theories in the book. You could also try to explain the different meanings of uniformitarianism in the section that discusses the book itself and include more information about the influence it had on the field of geology.

Practice
This is a bold sentence.

I found it on wikipedia.

Article Evaluation
Plate tectonics
 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

The article seems to stay neutral. The viewpoints that seem underrepresented are the plate tectonics of other celestial bodies. It could be that there is not enough information to completely fill out the sections. The links work and the sources do support the articles claims. The references seem reliable because they cite professionals in relating fields. There are some citations that are from the late 1800s and the early 1900s, but they are to show how the topic use to be opposed during this time. There are a mix of older and newer articles. The Talk page has conversations discussing if the information is really correct and try to flush out any questions that are asked. This article is rated as a B-Class and ranges from Mid to High Importance. This article is apart of the geology, physics, earthquakes, and volcanoes WikiProjects.
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?