![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
See the discussion about the contemporaries Edward and Edmund Stone at Talk:Edward Stone (natural philosopher).-- Ferran Mir ( talk) 11:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
This article was nominated for a good article review at Talk:Edmund Stone/GA1, but the review was put on hold because the reviewer didn't think it was ready for review yet and the nominator couldn't figure out how to get it to a review-ready state, so the review never went through. See Talk:Edmund Stone/GA1 for the preliminary discussions. – jacobolus (t) 07:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
The below material was moved from Talk:Edmund Stone/GA1. – jacobolus (t) 07:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in. "I unfortunately couldn't find a scan of the book about the shape of the earth, so it's hard to judge its content for myself or tell whether the review was fair" -- based on my reading, it seems this is an unfair characterization. Stone doesn't seem to be attacking the spheroidal shape of the earth per se, but instead the methods that astronomers and geographers use to justify it. He, at least, disagrees that it is perfectly spherical. "In a word, there can be no dispute about the roundish figure of the earth and sea. The multiplied experience of all the seamen and travellers of these latter ages most fully confirms it" (25). "There is no-body can tell really to which of the round figures, viz. a sphere, spheroid or other solid, the figure of the earth approaches the nearest.--The arguments of all who have treated of this being insufficient and doubtful, as I think" (46).
He understands certain asserted proofs, like the earth's shadow being circular when cast on the moon, as wrong because it supposes the moon is also spherical (26); if it's not, then the proofs don't work for him. Perhaps the issue is that he uses a wacky definition of spherical, and devotes a ton of space and energy to discussing mountain ranges and canyons. "I say ... it is evident some lands are 15 miles higher than others, which must necessarily too much spoil the spherical figure of the surface of the land and waters" (45). But: "I am far from positively asserting it [the Earth] not to be spherical, or near enough to that figure, as to cause ... errors in geographical conclusions" (84).
Whether this is helpful, I leave to you. A copy of the text can be found at ECCO, Gale CW0108075909. Urve ( talk) 01:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
See the discussion about the contemporaries Edward and Edmund Stone at Talk:Edward Stone (natural philosopher).-- Ferran Mir ( talk) 11:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
This article was nominated for a good article review at Talk:Edmund Stone/GA1, but the review was put on hold because the reviewer didn't think it was ready for review yet and the nominator couldn't figure out how to get it to a review-ready state, so the review never went through. See Talk:Edmund Stone/GA1 for the preliminary discussions. – jacobolus (t) 07:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
The below material was moved from Talk:Edmund Stone/GA1. – jacobolus (t) 07:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Sorry to butt in. "I unfortunately couldn't find a scan of the book about the shape of the earth, so it's hard to judge its content for myself or tell whether the review was fair" -- based on my reading, it seems this is an unfair characterization. Stone doesn't seem to be attacking the spheroidal shape of the earth per se, but instead the methods that astronomers and geographers use to justify it. He, at least, disagrees that it is perfectly spherical. "In a word, there can be no dispute about the roundish figure of the earth and sea. The multiplied experience of all the seamen and travellers of these latter ages most fully confirms it" (25). "There is no-body can tell really to which of the round figures, viz. a sphere, spheroid or other solid, the figure of the earth approaches the nearest.--The arguments of all who have treated of this being insufficient and doubtful, as I think" (46).
He understands certain asserted proofs, like the earth's shadow being circular when cast on the moon, as wrong because it supposes the moon is also spherical (26); if it's not, then the proofs don't work for him. Perhaps the issue is that he uses a wacky definition of spherical, and devotes a ton of space and energy to discussing mountain ranges and canyons. "I say ... it is evident some lands are 15 miles higher than others, which must necessarily too much spoil the spherical figure of the surface of the land and waters" (45). But: "I am far from positively asserting it [the Earth] not to be spherical, or near enough to that figure, as to cause ... errors in geographical conclusions" (84).
Whether this is helpful, I leave to you. A copy of the text can be found at ECCO, Gale CW0108075909. Urve ( talk) 01:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)