Talk:Royal Society

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review This article was externally reviewed (December 14, 2005) by Nature. It was found to have 2 errors.
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.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Inquisition

This should be reworded: " the Inquisition was still the primary form of peer review for scientists in Catholic Europe, " because it is an ill attempt at humor.

I am glad that the phrase is still there. There is some truth to it, and it's funny. Paul 17:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed from the article:

Prior to the Royal Society, Science itself did not formally exist

Eh? -- Anon.

Prior to the Royal Society, the term Science did not exist as we know it. (See below.) -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:25, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And for a long time after, the term science still did not exist as we know it. It doesn't necessarily follow that we can't or shouldn't use it in this article. The term is used in histories of earlier societies like the Accademia del Cimento and the Accademia dei Segreti, and of course when talking about medieval science (pursued in institutions like the University of Paris) and Greek science (in institutions like the Lyceum and the Museum). -- of the reauiln the touned totury

[edit] Royal Society in fiction

There should be a mention to Gulliver's Travels -- 62.99.88.10

Perhaps we can insert a small subsection or just a paragraph dedicated to the portrayal of RS in works of fiction? Another book possibly warranting mention is Quicksilver (novel). Paranoid 10:41, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There absolutely must be mention of Patrick O'Brian's cycle in the fiction section. Both his Stephen Maturin and Jack Aubrey are fellows of the Royal Society, and it is of first importance throughout the twenty novels. There is considerable mention of Joseph Banks as well. Sigma-6 23:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of the Royal Society

This will require some verification. As such, I am not placing this in the main body of the article until it's edited and cleaned up. Also, I have typed a portion of my reference 'as is' from the book itself. (Quoting passages.) (As is, minus any typos that I might have introduced.) -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:23, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A few comments: 1. Francis Bacon was no longer just Sir Francis, but Lord St Albans, by the time the Royal Society was founded.
2. By then, Bacon was also dead. He didn't support the society himself, but some of the foundation members were very supportive of Bacon's ideas. The Royal Society states this on its own web page. It'd be worth linking to a separate entry on Baconianism instead of dealing with that here.
3. The Royal Society considers itself to have originated in the Philosophical College or Invisible College, an informal gathering of thinkers who liked to talk about Baconian ideals.


References:
Steven Shapin, The Scientific Revolution

The original purpose of the Royal Society was to create an alternative form of the study of natural philosophy. The term science did not mean the same thing when the Royal Society was founded. Disillusioned by the current study of natural philosophy being taught by 16th century institutions of education, several people founded the Royal Society.

Several rules were imposed on the members of the Royal Society:
1. Members were not allowed to talk about religion
2. Members were not allowed to discuss about their personal problems and issues of politics

The Royal Society's primary purpose in the 16th century was attempting to establish mechanical philosophy. Or rather, attempt a "depersonalization of nature" as Shapin describes in his book.

Sir Francis Bacon had a large impact on the Royal Society, supporting it and especially with his writings.

Bacon said that the "universities are the seat and continent" of the "distempers" of learning, - Shapin, The Scientific Revolution, Page 133.

The following text is disclosed under fair use of the US Copyright.

From Pg. 134-135 of The Scientific Revolution by Steven Shapin:
A publicist of the early Royal Society of London announced that its membership was composed for the most part of "Gentlemen, free and unconfined," and, indeed, one marked contrast with traditional scholarly sites was the more civic, and more socially elevated, tone of several of the new societies. While Bacon made a humanist case for reforming natural philosophy so as to fit it for civic gentlemen, the participation in the Royal Society of men like the Honourable Robert Boyle -- a wealthy and well-connected Anglo-Irish aristocrat -- substantially transformed Baconian vision into social reality. The enterprise of natural knowledge was intentionally being made attractive to, and fit for, civic gentlemen. The consequences of changing participation in natural knowledge were considerable. A society dominated by gentlemen could more effectively draw on codes of genteel civility and decorum in conducting philosophical debate and evaluting testimony. Gentlemanly society had its own well-developed conventions for guaranteeing good order. The adhesion to natural philosphy of civic gentlemen thus offered a powerful alternative to scholarly disputatiousness.1
The codes regulating the "civil conversation" of early modern gentlemen warned against the intrusion of potentially divisive and disruptive topics. Ad hominem speech, as well as contentious matters of politics, theology, and metaphysics, was seen as threatening the good order and continuance of conversation. Just as the establishment of Boyle's matters of fact depended on protecting the boundaries betwen the factual and the theoretical, so the consitituion of the Royal Society of London explicitly prohibited its fellows from speaking of religion or poltics during the course of its scientific meetings, and similar prohibitions were inscribed in the charters of a number of Continental societies.

Footnote: From page 134 of The Scientific Revolution by Steven Shapin: By no means all natural philosphers -- even in the English Royal Society -- were gentlemen. We still lack a secure understanding of the social map of scientific learning anywhere in Europe, and we do know that many important modern practictioners came from ungentle backgrounds. Nevertheless, the improtance of gentlemanly codes of conduct in regualting behavior is formally independent of the identities of all the individuals operating under those codes. So, for example, knowledge of how to behave in a church is not confined to the community of Christians, or even of believers of God. Nor was knowledge of how to behave as a gentlemen restricted to those who were gentlemen.

[edit] Invisible College

Invisible College redirects to this article, but the name is not mentioned at all in the text.

Invisible College is a book by Robert Lomas about the founding of the Royal Society [1], an educational association based in Santa Cruz [2], the former name of the Educators for Community Enlightenment[3], a publisher of books on the paranormal [4] and various other projects. I suspect it is the first of this list why the redirection occurs. Now, if only I knew how to change redirects... Scottkeir 23:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion request

 Please help improve this article or section by expanding it.
Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007)

...has a nice introduction and some facts, but the body of the article is missing. :( It would be nice to have information about formal status, relation to the Crown, financing, notable activities (missions), foreign relations, internal politics, etc. Paranoid 10:46, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've added a bit about governance (which I guess is your internal politics). You're right though, more is needed. Scottkeir 14:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The hunt for the Nature errors

Any ideas what the Nature errors are?

As talked about above, I'm not sure if the Inquisition can be called peer review.

I've added a couple of source website links and edited the history of the houses of the Society to include Arundel House.

I've also filled out the timeline to the present day. On possible error is that the timeline went from 1666 Fire of London causes move to Arundel House to 1710 acquires its own home in Crane Court - the Society returned to Gresham College for a time. [5]

A minor technicality is that the Royal Society is not a member of the Science Council, it has representation on Science Council's committees. This is not clear from the Science Council's own website [6], but was published in the flyer for an event open to members of Science Council members - [7] Scottkeir 08:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

A fairly basic error is the one that states that the Royal Society is the national academy of Science for England - it is not, it covers the UK, as the front page of the Royal Society website states. Now corrected. Scottkeir 12:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

From what i read they scored for errors and ommissions. It will be hard identify an omission (if that is one of the errors) since that seems a bit subjective. David D. (Talk) 18:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV

The Royal Society of London is not, and cannot possibly be, "the national academy of sciences of the United Kingdom", for the very simple reason that the Royal Society of Edinburgh is the national academy of sciences of Scotland. Perhaps the Royal Society of London is the national academy of sciences of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but certainly not of the whole United Kingdom.--Mais oui! 22:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

No. London is the capital of the United Kingdom. If HM Government want advice on scientific matters they ask the Royal Society. As the Royal Society's about page says it is the "UK's national academy of science". There are Scots who are FRS. The RSE only acts in Scotland, the Royal Society acts in the UK and in some ways throughout the Commonwealth. It's got nothing to do with POV, it has everything to do with fact. — Dunc|☺ 22:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Totally agree. The Fellowship of the Royal Society covers the Commonwealth and Ireland. Scottish-resident scientists can be both FRS and FRSE. They overlap. For example the current President of the Royal Society of Edinburgh is a former President of the Royal Society - according to the RSE's own website! [8] In a similar way, the Royal Society and the Royal Society of Chemistry both cover Chemistry.
Ireland? What about the Royal Irish Academy, which claims to be the academy for the sciences and humanities for the whole of Ireland? -- ALoan (Talk) 21:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Yup, Ireland. The Royal Society Fellowship covers Ireland too - eg Michael Atiyah, the current President of the Royal Society of Edinburgh crops up again [9]. They overlap. Though in terms of practical activities, it looks as though the Royal Society restricts itself more to the UK.[10] Scottkeir 12:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Errors ID'd by Nature, to correct

The results of what exactly Nature suggested should be corrected is out... italicize each bullet point once you make the correction. -- user:zanimum

  • Sprat’s name misspelt in References. (done on 22 December)
  • The timeline implies that the Society stayed at Arundel House from 1666 to 1710, whereas in fact it moved back to Gresham College (not mentioned), where it was based from its foundation till 1666. (done on 15 December)

[edit] Magnetic progression

Or procession. I really can't remember. I'm trying to do a bit on the importance of the continuity provided by the RS. This meant that magnetic North readings could be repeated years later with the same apparatus in the same place, revealing mag North had shifted (previously, differences would have been written off as due to equipment or location). But I can't find refs. Help? JackyR 23:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The value of having a society within which results could be shared and experiments repeated was demonstrated most dramatically in the discovery of magnetic progression.

[edit] Unsourced, POV

I've removed the following, as unsourced and POV. If the editor who added it would like to include something on this, please add a newspaper ref or the like to substantiate it, and rewrite it from a Neutral Point of View. Cheers, JackyR 01:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The Royal Society has recently courted controversy by claiming that Creationism is too prevalent among university students and by labelling it "anti-science". This has angered and deeply offended many Christians who believe that this is wrong. The Royal Society has taken the very unusual step of organising a lecture with Steve Jones to combat Creationism.

[edit] Prime Ministers with FRS

Winston Churchill, Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson and Margaret Thatcher were all elected Fellows of the Royal Society (at least according to Wikipedia). The former two had no scientific background at all. Does anybody know if prior to the (very recent) intoduction of a seperate postion of Honourary Fellow it was common pratice for non-scientists to be honoured in this way. The practice isn't mentioned here or at Fellow of the Royal Society. A Geek Tragedy 22:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Benjamin Disraeli was a Fellow. (It's pointless having two separate articles; we've had the same question and answer in two places.)--Runcorn 19:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Slightly misleading to describe Margaret Thatcher as a non-scientist. Not a distinguished one, certainly.--Runcorn 19:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I think I was careful not to describe her as such (I put "the former two..."). Similiarly Wilson was a respected statistician but I would be surprised if either of them were of a standard to be elected to the fellowship on their research alone. --A Geek Tragedy 22:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

The practice is mentioned at Honorary Fellow of the Royal Society (which should possibly also be merged into this article, if FRS is to be) - Statute 12 is what Margaret Thatcher was elected under, at least. Scottkeir 22:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merging

I think you're right about the seperate articles actually; we probably want to merge Foreign Member of the Royal Society as well.A Geek Tragedy 14:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Unfortunately, someone doesn't want the matter discussed and keeps deleting the tag. --Runcorn 19:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see that there's anything substantial to merge from the FRS article. We might as well make FRS redirect here. --C S (Talk) 09:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That's what used to be the position.--Runcorn 07:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I may be swimming against the tide! I looked up Stephen Hawking and note the initials after his name viz CH, CBE, FRS. I think that the FRS methodology is the most useful for most users.

  1. I click on FRS and get immediate help on what it stands for – I can follow further links if I want more info, but I believe most users just want to know that it means Fellow of the Royal Society, and can immediately back-page to carry on reading the article.
  2. CBE is not so helpful. Because I have to wade through text to find out what CBE stands for - when I may not be interested in knowing anything else about that Order. — Saltmarsh 14:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, actually see your point. Also most electronic refence works DO have special short explanations of abbreviations.:A Geek Tragedy 21:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, Saltmarsh has convinced me: The FRS article should stay separate. --C S (Talk) 09:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I have reduced the size and scope of the article - is Runcorn happy? — Saltmarsh 08:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

So we need an article "Fellow of the Royal Society" that redirects here. The text [[Fellow of the Royal Society|FRS]] inserts FRS into the article, and if you hover over it you can see "Fellow of the Royal Society" at the bottom of the page.--Runcorn 06:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth further discussion.--Runcorn 09:09, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nullius in verba

There is a nice thought by Stephen Jay Gould himself on what the motto means, here [11] extracting the main bit: "It looks like it means "Words do not matter" or "Do not pay any attention to words," since nullius means "nothing" and verba is "word." So most people think it means that words mean nothing and you have to do the experiment. But nullius is genitive singular; it can't mean that. It means "of nothing" or "of no one." I knew what the motto meant. I knew that it was a fragment of a statement from Horace — a famous quotation from a poem, in which he says, "I am not bound to swear allegiance to the dogmas of any master." Nullius addictus jurare in verba magister. It's "Nullius in verba," or "In the words of no (master)." It's just a fragment from a larger line." I suggest changing the explanation on the wiki page.

[edit] First female Member

Is it true that Margaret Cavendish was the first woman to join? (1667) --Nemissimo II 16:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


Not according to the Royal Society Library Search for past Fellows function. This page says the "first women, Marjory Stephenson and Kathleen Lonsdale, were elected to the Fellowship in 1945." Scottkeir 21:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relationship to the Monarchy

This may seem like a dumb question, but given it's name, I presume the Monarch (presently QEII) is involved in some way, either as a patron or officer in some capacity. I read the article but I could not see the relationship identified, apart from the granting of the Royal charter. (Apologies if I missed it). Manning (talk) 05:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

-- added! The Queen is Patron.[12] Scottkeir (talk) 10:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] presidents merge

it has been suggested that the article President of the Royal Society be merged, and incorporated into Royal Society#A selected list of Presidents in this article. your comments are invited --emerson7 14:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it is better left as a separate list. The section in this article and the full list serve difference purposes. The list is a complete record, while the section is meant to draw attention to particularly significant individuals in keeping with the rest of the article, which should give the reader a sense of the Royal Society's larger place in history.--ragesoss (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose; The list of presidents is rather long and would not go easily on the page. The situation regarding this merge proposal was previously confusing because a heading for any discussion or any exlanation was not started here until today. Snowman (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - should be possible (eventually) to have three things: a list, a section in this article, and an article on the history of the presidency, which could go into more detail than the section in this article. The latter can come later after the list has been sorted out (currently there is a list and a template doing the same thing), and the section here converted to prose. Then, as the section expands, an article can be spun off. Carcharoth (talk) 11:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)