Talk:Nicole Oresme

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents 1 Self-published source 1.1 Web based source 1.2 Reviews and comments 1.3 Proposed reversion 1.4 Book began life as doctoral dissertation 2 Further references needed 3 An algebraic equation? 4 "probably one of the most original thinkers of the 14th century." 5 Requested move 5.1 Survey 5.1.1 Survey - in support of the move 5.1.2 Survey - in opposition to the move 5.1.3 Survey - neutral 5.2 Discussion

[edit] Self-published source

This article seems somewhat idiosyncratic in its treatment of Oresme; it pays little attention to the extensive historical studies of Oresme by Edward Grant and other lesser known historians of science.

Instead it relies heavily on a book by Dr. Ulrich Taschow, Nicole Oresme und der Frühling der Moderne. Although I have not read this book, I am concerned that it is the only book listed on the web page of its publisher, Avox Medien-Verlag and that the founder and director of this publishing firm is Dr. Ulrich Taschow. Since it is a self-published source it should be treated with caution and should not form the central core of this article. --SteveMcCluskey 20:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Web based source

Note the following reference citation in the article, also from Ulrich Tachow.

• http://www.nicole-oresme.com Oresme Biography from which the above article was taken, with friendly authorization of its author Ulrich Taschow. There you can also find the complete bibliography of Oresme's work and many other materials on Nicole Oresme.

What should we do about this extensive use of self-published sources; as I see it this article needs a major rewrite so it represents a broader consensus of historical opinion. --SteveMcCluskey 20:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reviews and comments

There are no reviews (or other citations) of Taschow's book listed in the Institute for Scientific Information's three major citation indexes. There is one essay review (which I could not access) by André Goddu (a well known Oresme scholar) mentioned on Google entitled "Nicole Oresme and Modernity" in Early Science and Medicine, 9(2004):348-359.

The publisher's web page [1] includes the following passage from the book cover which speaks for itself:

In medieval thought, everything was anticipated, from the modern Information Theory, System Theory, the Self-Organization and Chaos Theory; the discovery of the Complexity, Indetermination and Infinity of the world, the Wave-Mechanics of sound and light, the Theory of Overtones of the 19th century; the psychological discovery of the Unconscious, of the Constructivity and Subjectivity of Perception; H. v. Helmholtz’ “Theory of Unconscious Conclusions of Perception”… to the first formulation of a modern Theory of Cognition, Psycho-Cybernetics and Psycho-Physics in the sense of G. Th. Fechner.

--SteveMcCluskey 01:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

PS -- I just accessed Goddu's essay review, which is generally sympathetic in tone, but begins with a quotation from Marshall Clagett on the dangers of trying to anticipate modern discoveries in early thinkers like Nicole Oresme (p. 348), and midway through expresses puzzlement over Taschow's idiosyncratic interpretation of Oresme's idea of species, concluding that "The only explanations for Taschow's interpretation left are his committment to equating Oresme's theory with a wave-mechanical account, and his misreading of Ockham" (p. 357).

It seems that a reinterpretation of Oresme in such decidedly modern terms does not provide a sound basis for an encyclopedia article about a major figure in the history of medieval science. --SteveMcCluskey 01:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to second what Steve is saying - while I'm not that familiar with Oresme's writings in the original, there seemed to be a lot of stretches of ambiguous concepts to make Oresme seem like he was on the cusp of modern physics and psychology (and...?). It reads a lot like the essays on Indian mathematicians that claim they invented calculus (and that Europeans like Newton bascially stole it). There's enough interesting original thought that is well documented (like graphical expression of subject and extension) to keep Oresme plenty startling without resorting to contortionist connections to very modern concepts. Xanthoptica 04:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed reversion

Having thought over the matter this weekend, it seems that the most reasonable procedure would be to remove the additions to the Nicolas Oresme article based on the self-published work of Ulrich Tacschow, and revert the article to the state of the revision as of 19:54, 6 July 2005, when it was listed as a mathematics stub. In addition to that I would add the image of Oresme and a listing as a history of science stub. It's a shame to do such drastic editing, but if we are to maintain a trustworthy encyclopedia, articles must conform to Wikipedia policy on sources. --SteveMcCluskey 01:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Book began life as doctoral dissertation

Further investigation found that the book began as Taschow's doctoral dissertation in musicology (musikwissenschaft) at the Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg in 2001. I've struck out my earlier comments that no longer seem applicable. That being said, the article still seems excessively Whiggish in seeking the modern in Oresme and needs revision to provide a more balanced portrayal of Oresme drawing on a wider range of scholarly interpretations. --SteveMcCluskey 15:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further references needed

I've just converted all the footnotes and inline references to the <ref> format. Some of the inline references were incomplete and further documentation from other sources would be helpful. --SteveMcCluskey 01:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An algebraic equation?

under mathematics there is this statement: "Oresme proved that this definition is equivalent to an algebraic relation in which the longitudes and latitudes of any three points would figure: i.e., he gives the equation of the right line, and thus long precedes Descartes in the invention of analytical geometry." This certainly needs a cite from Oresme's materials. If I recall correctly, Oresme does not provide any equations, although Clagett's translation inserts them (my guess is that this statement is a misreading of Part I, Chapter 7 of the Tractatus de configurationibus) SmaleDuffin 18:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)SmaleDuffin

[edit] "probably one of the most original thinkers of the 14th century."

Nice vagueness in that first sentence with `probably', but this strikes me as very point of view. Ockham, Duns Scotus, Petrarch, Dante, Chaucer, Wyclif.... the bar is set pretty high to be `one of the most original thinkers of the 14th century'. SmaleDuffin 18:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)SmaleDuffin

[edit] Requested move