Talk:James Hutton

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Alas[edit]

Alas? -- Zoe 04:37, 26 March 2003 (UTC)[reply]

natural selection[edit]

From Paul Pearson, Cardiff University

The quotation from Hutton regarding the natural selection mechanism is from the 1794 'Investigation of the Principles of Knowledge', not the Theory of the Earth as stated. See my article on this in Nature Vol 425, p. 665 (2003) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.251.48.62 (talk) 11:46, 23 October 2003 (UTC)[reply]

This has been corrected, albeit much later, and the article has been cited in the article. — Athaenara ✉ 01:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Wikipedia[edit]

I am a first year student at secondary school, and I was given homework for History to find out about James Hutton. I could not find much information, so I tried on Wikipedia and found what I was looking for! Thank You Wikipedia, for being there and helping me.

Yours Sincerely,

Miss. R Robertson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.83.160 (talk) 11:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad we could be of at least some use to some wee soul! Thanks for saying so. --Mais oui! 11:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Religion quotes Hutton[edit]

Now I don't know for sure, but under the Cultural Reference heading the contributor claims that the band Bad Religion wasn't inspired by Hutton when they used his quote, "no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end" in a song. This seems impossible knowing that the lead vocalist for the band, Greg Graffin, has his undergraduate and master's degrees in geology. I recognized the quote immediately when my geology professor recited it in class ages ago having owned the Bad Religion cassette. So anyway- if I'm wrong then maybe a source could be cited for that tidbit.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommiepea (talk • contribs) 05:42, 5 January 2007

Thanks, I've removed that unsourced claim as you suggest. .. dave souza, talk 09:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is extremely interesting. The source of the questionable assertion is interesting, too, but in a different way. From the article history:

  • 04:44, 10 October 2004 (UTC) (over two years ago) the line, "The punk rock band Bad Religion quoted him saying "no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end" on their 1989 album No Control on the song of the same album title" was added at the bottom of the page by User:Mike Garcia (talk) (contribs).
  • 04:46 (two minutes later) he came back to add to add, "but it wasn't inspired by him." (Four months ago, that user was blocked indefinitely (Block log) for offenses including vandalism and multiple sock puppets.)
  • 19:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC) (over a year after that) another user added the "Cultural reference" section heading and moved it farther up the page without questioning the content.

I've added more information to the line, pluralised "Cultural references" as there may be more in future, and repositioned it between "See also" and "External links." Athænara ✉ 11:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They definitely were quoting Hutton. See their website, they reference that quote as "Hutton, 1795" in the lyrics for their son, No Control. http://www.badreligion.com/songmeta/248/ MBVECO (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced essay[edit]

Toward the end of the eighteenth century, James Hutton presented a challenge to Neptunist theory. The theory is called Uniformitarianism because of Hutton's emphasis on the uniform working of natural forces through a long periods of geologic time. Hutton liked to take long walks through the Scottish countryside through rugged hills, alon the sparkling streamsm across the coastal plains, and down to the sea. Those observations suggested a dynamic Earth that changes day by day. Huttons concluded that the Earth is continually worn away by erosion, and that the aroded denris is transported by stream until the running waters of the rivers meet the still waters of the ocrean. Herem the energy of its transport is lost,m the eroded rock debris is deposited in layers of sediment that grow very thick and in time are converted into sedimentary rock.

The slow but continuous working of the process of erosion would ultimately result in the reduction of all land surfaces to sea level. That this has not happened was evidence of a second force at work in the Earth of uplift. Hutton believed that the dedimentary rock laters forminedin the oceans myst be gradyally elevated to form new land surfaces that replace those being worn away. Hutton found evidence for this part of his theory in the fact that the rocks of the highest mountains contain fossils that resemble living organisms found on ly in the sea. Thus, he concluded the rocks of the continents must have been formed under water.

Uniformitarian theory did not gain immediate success, but it did attract a group of adherents who strongly supported their position through the accumulation of empirical data, and this struggle helped swin the emphasis away from academic debate and focus attention on the value of observation evidence in support of a theoritical position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.38.231.234 (talk) 04:55, 13 May 2007

Biography assessment rating comment[edit]

WikiProject Biography Assessment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 16:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uniformitarianism[edit]

It should be noted that James Hutton never used the term uniformitarianism which is attributed to him in the first paragraph of the article. — Athaenara ✉ 01:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution[edit]

The section on evolution is important, and badly needs references. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

james-hutton.org[edit]

On December 9 2010 "Dave souza" (or someone calling himself that) changed all occurances of james-hutton.org.uk, the real James Hutton page, to james-hutton.org, a "healthy living" spam page (I have changed the links back - 28 occurances!). Link to the change. I report this here because this might be a problem for Wikipedia - and hope that somebody is knowledgeable about what to do, and get that done. This looks like an obvious "hijacking" of a real page on an whatever.org.uk or whatever.com.uk domain linked by Wikipedia by registering a whatever.org or whatever.com domain, change the Wikipedia links, and voila you get people redirected to your page. Why else would somebody register james-hutton.org for a page on "healthy living"? Well it might have been accidental...

I just checked the Spanish page on James Hutton. That page had been changed from james-hutton.org.uk to james-hutton.org on December 7 2011 by "Nachosan". [to the change.] (I haven't corrected them.) "Nachosan" made a lot of other changes on the page that day, but they all seem OK - like the changes "Dave souza" did (except for the deletion of ".org" - if he did it?). This is very peculiar indeed! Also the pages in Galician(Galego) and Korean link to james-hutton.org, those in Hebrew, Portugese, Russian and Finnish to james-hutton.org.uk, while the pages in the rest of the languages don't link to either of the two what I could see. The page in Galician was made March 23 2011 and was probably a translation of the then existing page in English. The Korean page at first didn't link to either page but it was extended (+3000 chars) by "Asfreeas" on December 13 2010 (four days after the edit of the English page) who put a single link to james-hutton.org at the end.

The links on the Spanish page looked like this when "Nachosan" started translating the English page on 20 September 2010: "cite web |url=http://www.james-hutton.org.uk/One/Biography/02.htm |title=Early Years |accessdate=2008-04-11 |publisher=James Hutton.org". Note that the link is correct, but the publisher is "James Hutton.org". On September 7 2010 "Nachosan" had corrected 12 links from "james-hutton.org" to "james-hutton.org.uk", without changing the publisher (which was still "James Hutton.org"). The original links were added by "Dave souza" on April 12 2008 and were to "james-hutton.org" with "James Hutton.org" as publisher. Obviously somewhere between April 2008 and September 2010 BFRS (the owners of the James Hutton site) changed domain from james-hutton.org to james-hutton.org.uk. This was noticed by "Nachosan" who corrected it. After that the Wikipedia pages have been changed back to james-hutton.org which today is a spam-page. By accident or by intent? I doubt that "Nachosan" or "Dave souza" would do it by intent, but perhaps by accident? Episcophagus (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the meanwhile, the owner of james-hutton.org.uk obviously has changed (now a pest control business), making all those links invalid. Maybe someone can redirect the links to waybackmachine Alfrejg (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uncovering this problem. I'm not sure it's worth linking to the archives. It appears to have been an online pamphlet made for the James Hutton Trail in Scottish Borders, and while the information may have been reliable, it would be better to cite books. I have replaced one of the citations. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship to Isaac Newton[edit]

The "Relationship to Isaac Newton" section of the James Hutton article in Wikipedia cites as a source a footnote in a book: Brewster, David (1832). The Life of Sir Isaac Newton. New York, USA: J & J Harper. page 288. This footnote relates to text on pages 312 and 313 of that book, which refer only to "a James Hutton Esq. of Pimlico, Westminster" (London) from 1787 (a year when Hutton (of Edinburgh) was travelling extensively around Scotland on his geological trips). I found no evidence in this source book showing that James Hutton Esq. of Pimlico, Westminster is the James Hutton, geologist of Edinburgh, who is the subject of this Wikipedia article. Any comments on the reliabilty of this source and the Wikipedia article's text based upon it? GeoWriter (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is this James Hutton, the speculations on their relationship make for extremely dull reading, and are probably not worth including in this article. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. I think the claim that JH was James Hutton is unreliable. I also think, however, that the family relationship between James Hutton and Isaac Newton is still worth including in the article because there is likely to be some public interest in a family connection linking two eminent scientists. I suggest the current section should be removed, and a sentence describing the family relationship should be placed somewhere in the article along the lines of "In a biography of one of his descendants, it is claimed that James Hutton and Isaac Newton were first cousins once removed" citing a source reference of Olinthus Vignoles' 1899 book Life of Charles Blacker Vignoles, page 5, as long as the book's sentence "The grandmother of James Hutton and the mother of Sir Isaac Newton were also sisters" could be adapted to make the relationship more James Hutton-centric without that falling foul of any original research/novel synthesis rules. GeoWriter (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Having thought more about the claim made by O. Vignoles in his 1899 book, I think it too is an unreliable source, and also unverifiable (in the absence of corroborating evidence such as scholarly sources which have examined the family history documentation of both James Hutton and Isaac Newton in detail, checking birth and marriage certificates). The claim by O. Vignoles seems to be based on what his own family told him about his own family history. Many family histories are filled with stories of ancestors, actions and relationships, faithfully taken at face value by descendants, only to be later disproved. I think O. Vignoles could have been biased because such a claim would probably have improved his own social status. As this source stands at the moment, I think it meets Wikipedia's standards of reliability and verifiablilty, but only in the sense that a claim has been published in an 1899 book and it can be found in e-book format on the Internet. I think, however, that the content of the claim in O. Vignoles' book - a family relationship between James Hutton and Isaac Newton - fails to meet Wikipedia's standards of reliability and verifiablilty. Therefore, I now recommend complete removal of this relationship from the article. (If evidence can be presented in future showing that the two men were indeed quite closely related, then this Wikipedia article's text could then include that new, better evidence). GeoWriter (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was intrigued enough by this possible connection to add it here. I think that the connection recurs enough that it merits recording somewhere - including the related doubts. James Hutton seemed to me to be the most appropriate place. See also the provenance of the portrait of Isaac Newton in the possession of the Royal Society donated by Charles Blacker Vignoles.[1] I agree that the source for O. Vignoles statement is distant. The article in The Annual Review of 1776 is much closer to the source where 'JH' quotes a document written by his mother. The quotation appears to be reasonably accurate in most of the facts about Newton's family so is not completely speculative. I agree that the 'JH' who wrote this article may not be James - it could have been his brother John or possibly a brother of Charles.GreyHead (talk) 11:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Letters from France: The Private Diplomatic Correspondence of Benjamin Franklin 1776-1785 is a book edited and annotated by Brett F. Woods (a professor of history). It was published in 2006. On page 14 there is a letter, dated 1778, from Benjamin Franklin to Mr [James] Hutton, who Franklin addresses as "My Dear Old Friend". A footnote by Woods states: "son of a clergyman and cousin to Sir Isaac Newton, Lord James Hutton worked as a bookseller for some years. In 1739, he visited the Moravian colony of Herrnhut, in Saxony, Germany, where he met Count Nikolaus Zinzendorf, the German churchman, patron and bishop of the Moravian Church. Hutton retired from commerce in 1745 and was ordained a Moravian deacon in 1749 (Julian, 546). At the time of this letter, Hutton, now a deaf old man, was a favourite at the court of George III (Hutton, 145). Hutton was visiting in France (at Passy), in late January 1778, and this letter seems to be Franklin's response to points raised by Hutton during a personal meeting." On page 18, is a 1778 letter from Benjamin Franklin in which he wrote "An old friend of mine, Mr Hutton, a chief of the Moravians, who is often at the Queen's palace, and is sometimes spoken to by the King, was over here lately".
The James Hutton who corresponded with Franklin and who is described by Woods as "cousin to Sir Isaac Newton" is obviously not James Hutton, geologist of Edinburgh. I'm not claiming that Woods is a more reliable source than C. Hutton, C.B. Vignoles and O. Vignoles (although it wouldn't surprise me to find that Woods is more reliable), but Woods has at least provided evidence of another Hutton and another claim for cousin to Isaac Newton, and the footnote indicates that Woods knows plenty of biographical information about Franklin's James Hutton. Unfortunately, I could not find the detail of the (Hutton, 145) source on the web, but perhaps it might even refer to that James Hutton's own autobiography in which he might write that he, himself, is the cousin of Isaac Newton. If the (Hutton, 145) source could be found it may settle things once and for all. The footnote by Woods suggests to me that there is a reasonably good chance that both C.B. Vignoles and O. Vignoles probably did exactly as I've already suggested ("Many family histories are filled with stories of ancestors, actions and relationships, faithfully taken at face value by descendants, only to be later disproved. I think O. Vignoles could have been biased because such a claim would probably have improved his own social status."). C.B Vignoles could have been similarly misinformed about the portrait of Isaac Newton.
I think all the sources that User:GreyHead has found so far are too unreliable for any mention of a family relationship between James Hutton (geologist) and Isaac Newton to remain in this Wikipedia article about James Hutton, because I think just about all one could now write would be something like "More than a century after Hutton's death, a distant relative published a book in which he claimed that James Hutton was the first cousin once removed of Isaac Newton, but he may have mistaken another James Hutton (of Pimlico, London) for Hutton, the geologist". I think this would take us into "so what?" territory, saying more about the Vignoles and others than it does about James Hutton, and therefore, increasingly, it seems less and less relevant to James Hutton (geologist). The claims of Charles Hutton (who then influenced C.B Vignoles and O. Vignoles) seem to me to show these men may have put 2 and 2 together giving 5, i.e. some wishful thinking.
I think the Hutton/Newton relationship should be removed from the Wikipedia article and it should only be included again if evidence appears that substantially strengthens the Vignoles' claim. GeoWriter (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the article in The Annual Review of 1776 is concerned, JH may well have written accurate details about the life of Isaac Newton. That is unremarkable, considering that JH is the undisputed cousin of Isaac Newton. The point of contention is the doubt about the correct identity of JH. It's no less likely to be Franklin's James Hutton. GeoWriter (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The book The Works of Benjamin Franklin, volume 8, pages 496 and 497, includes a letter written in 1780 from James Hutton, with an address of Pimlico, to Benjamin Franklin on the subject of Moravian missionaries. So, Brewster's JH (James Hutton of Pimlico) is also Woods' and Franklin's James Hutton, not the geologist of Edinburgh. GeoWriter (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a few more sources for future reference. The James Hutton of Pimlico has a DNB entry[2]. The Hutton 145 reference is to Joseph Edmund Hutton's 'History of the Moravian Church'[3] See Chapter IX - and this sources back to Daniel Benham's 'Memoirs of James Hutton'[4] Page 8 has a family history and refers to the David Brewster Memoir and the 'New Anecdotes' - see above. Note: As far as I can tell checking dates the tree is missing a generation, the son of Rev James Ayscough was William (c.1611- ), and his son William (c.1645- ) was the father of Elizabeth. GreyHead (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:GreyHead, I see that you have deleted the section from the article, as I recommended, thanks. Page 317 of the "Memoirs of James Hutton" book by Bentham, that you found, quotes a letter from James Hutton (of Pimlico) in which he writes "... the relationship I claim through my mother to Sir Isaac Newton ...". I think this has been a useful exercise, which may be helpful if other people come along in future with a similar suggestion that James Hutton the geologist was the cousin of Isaac Newton. I think it is now clear that they were not cousins after all. GeoWriter (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Portrait of Isaac Newton". The Royal Society. Retrieved 6 November 2015.
  2. ^ Archbold, William Arthur Jobson (1891). "Hutton, James (1715-1795)" . In Lee, Sidney (ed.). Dictionary of National Biography. Vol. 28. London: Smith, Elder & Co.
  3. ^ Hutton, James Edmund (1909). History of the Moravian Church (2nd ed.). London, England: Moravian Publication Office. Retrieved 8 November 2015.
  4. ^ Benham, David (1856). Memoirs of James Hutton. London, England: Moravian Publication Office. Retrieved 8 November 2015.

Founder of Modern Geology[edit]

Is there a Wikipedia policy against acknowledging in articles any "founder of/father of/etc" honorifics like the one often credited to Hutton? There are at least two references in this article already which use that honorific in their own published titles and I know of many other sources that use it for discussing Hutton.

It looks like Nicolas Steno is also considered to be entitled to this honorific and it is mentioned in a less formal way in that article.

Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 20:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source cited in the Nicolas Steno article ("Four Centuries of Geological Travel" edited by P.W. Jackson, page 26) describes Steno as "founder of the science of geology" and describes James Hutton as "father of modern geology", which are two different honorifics. GeoWriter (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rather Anglophone, perhaps based on Lyell's arguments for what was later dubbed uniformitarianism versus catastrophism, and M. J. S. Rudwick (15 October 2014). Earth's Deep History: How It Was Discovered and Why It Matters. University of Chicago Press. pp. 68–69. ISBN 978-0-226-20393-5. gives a more nuanced assessment which I've incorporated into the lead. . dave souza, talk 04:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hutton & "Superorganism"[edit]

I keep seeing that Hutton is credited with coining the term "superorganism", but I can't find this in the references cited for Hutton. He definitely does not write that in his 1788 paper, "Theory of the Earth" published in the Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh available here: https://archive.org/details/transactionsofro01roya . I read the entire thing, as well as did a word search. Instead, Hutton makes comparison of the Earth as a machine (which makes sense since he wrote during the Industrial Revolution). Yet, this is the paper that Lovelock refers to in 1989 Lovelock, J.E., 1989. Geophysiology, the science of Gaia. Reviews of Geophysics, 27(2), pp.215-222). Lovelock repeatedly credits Hutton for this word in his various publications. I've also seen a reference of a supposed 1785 paper by Hutton, but his 1788 paper mentioned above was his first. In reality, the 1785 reference was a reading to the Royal Society of Edinburgh the paper that was published in 1788. Hutton's publications are discussed by Archibald Geikie in the Preface to the 1899 edition of the "Theory of the Earth" available at Google Books. 144.39.6.3 (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on James Hutton. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on James Hutton. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:28, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Hutton&oldid=1194037504"