Talk:Lord Kelvin/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Age of Earth Controversy

Presbyterian

Discussion inaccurate in several respects. (1) Implies Thomson rejected natural selection on account of his Christian faith, perpetuating discredited conflict thesis in the history of science and religion. According to The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “The vast majority of authors in the science and religion field [are] critical of the conflict model and believe it is based on a shallow and partisan reading of the historical record." Helen De Cruz, "Religion and Science," The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Spring 2017 Edition, Edward N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/religion-science/ Kelvin's actual reasons described in Chapters 17 and 18 of Energy and Empire: A Biographical Study of Lord Kelvin, by Crosbie Smith and M. Norton Wise. (2) Implies his views opposed a united geological community. In fact the geological community was divided on the question of the age of the earth. Simple dichotomy between physics and geology addressed and rejected in Norton & Wise, p. 579-80. (3) Neglects the centrality of disputes over proper scientific method which arose in the wake of Origin; weight of scientific opinion in the 1860's against Darwin on the grounds that his views speculative & unempirical & therefor no legitimate part of science. However, in the 1870's and 80's it rose to prominence with the younger generation, who simply changed the definition of science in order to accommodate Darwin's approach; hence dispute over Origin's status in part an inter-generational dispute between scientists as to what ought to count as legitimate methods & assumptions, in which the younger generation eventually prevailed through attrition. Kelvin's views in line with that of earlier generation of scientists, in respect to which Darwin & Huxley stood as outsiders. On this last point see James R. Moore, The Post-Darwinian Controversies: A Study of the Protestant Struggle to Come to Terms with Darwin in Great Britain and America, 1870–1900 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), p. 195-200, and surrounding passages generally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassian1080 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

William Thomson went to a kirk, not a chapel. He was indeed an elder of the Church of Scotland there. "Chapel" is the term in Wales for a place of worship that is not Church of England. I agree with the body of this above, by Cassian1080, that indeed Thomson was entitled to be skeptical of Darwin's evolution, and of Lyle's estimate of a Very Old Earth, independently of the fact of his Christianity. He improved, by almost four orders of magnitude, upon the estimate of 6000 years by Archbishop Ussher of Armagh. Having gone to that trouble, and concluding that the age could not have exceeded 100 million years, he was entitled on perfectly good scientific grounds, by the evidence available to him, to be skeptical of Natural Selection, and even of the geologist Lyle's conviction that marble in the Alps implied a much older Earth. Both of these would have required thousands of millions, as indeed we now know that they did.

DaveyHume (talk) 07:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Excessive repetition of Lord title

I think it is not good style to repeat the title Lord before every single mention of the name Kelvin. A few days ago Vsmith removed many of the "Lord"s and left a reasonable number, but subsequently 81.157.153.165 replaced them all with an edit summary saying that 'Kelvin was not his name'. I would say that Kelvin became his name when he was raised to the peerage, and can be used to identify him from that point on. We do not repeat other titles (such as Mr., Ms., Doctor, Professor, Reverend, or even King or Queen) every time we mention a person, so why should Lord be repeated every time?

In the section "Biography, history of ideas and criticism", some of the references have titles including "Lord Kelvin", but others just say "Kelvin". I suggest we do the same in this article, and I think Vsmith has proposed a reasonable selection of when to use "Lord" and when not. Dirac66 (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

No reply after 10 days, so I have restored the edits of Vsmith to delete the excess uses of "Lord". For the infobox, however, I have put the complete name: William Thomson, Lord Kelvin.Dirac66 (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Name or title "Kelvin"

The article does not explain the connection between the two names Thomson and Kelvin. The title "1st Baron" suggests that "Kelvin" is a place in England, but this is not clear. Please clarify. Pgan002 (talk) 12:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

See intro, paragraph 3, sentences 1-4. Dirac66 (talk) 13:04, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Nationality

The Encyclopaedia Britannica article makes it clear that the Thomson family originally came from Scotland and they returned to Scotland when William was ten years old. He is therefore by all accounts an Ulster-Scot. Some might even say is is just plain Scottish. The deleted reference was modern propaganda which contradicts the information in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. When two sources contradict each other, we go by the one which is obviously true. Centuryofconfusion (talk) 00:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

You wrote "the one which is obviously true", when what you mean is "the one which I agree with"!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:William_Thomson,_1st_Baron_Kelvin/Archive_1

In the above link(in mid-2016), we discussed this (it's under 'Kelvin was Scottish', in the Archive section) and you accepted some of the points. Why do you now want to revert from that? Please read the discussion below, and where you replied "Yes, I see your point.."

William Thomson's family had lived in an undivided Ireland for centuries before his father took a job in Glasgow and so the family moved there when he about ten years old. When he was 59 years old, in 1883, he "said he spoke as an Irishman on the Irish Question.", see in p67 of http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/ims/bull48/BR4801.pdf And as I wrote three years ago: "Or do you think William Thomson was wrong about himself, just that he was very good at the physics and mathsy stuff but is not to be listened to if it does not fit in with your ideas of where somebody is from (even if he's actually from there!)?"

I will modify a sentence I wrote three years ago, and say that "He should best be described as Irish-Scottish (of Ulster-Scots heritage) in that he became a naturalized Scottish person, after his childhood in Ireland."

The link to being raised in Ireland, (by a family resident in Ireland for centuries) and Kelvin's opinion of what that meant, should not be ignored (especially for reasons of bias).

If William Thomson's family were in Ireland for a short(ish) period of time, then one could say there wasn't much of a link at all with Ireland. This is the situation with the great English philosopher G.E.M. Anscombe. She was born in Co.Limerick, Ireland, but no one says that she is Irish. Her father worked in Ireland for a period, but then the family returned to England. This is not the case with William Thomson, whose family had lived in Ireland for centuries. That is why Kelvin himself, aged 59, "said he spoke as an Irishman on the Irish Question.", see in p67 of http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/ims/bull48/BR4801.pdf

From mid-2016:

"Kelvin was Scottish

Although he was born in Belfast in the UK he was of Scottish parentage and the family moved back to Scotland again when he was only ten years old. 
http://www.britannica.com/biography/William-Thomson-Baron-Kelvin He was never Irish in any real sense. Kelvinside is an area of Glasgow, Scotland, where he took his
peerage name from. Centuryofconfusion (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC) 

What do you mean by Irish, "in any real sense"?! Do you have a certain narrow caricature definition that you want to impose here, is there a political/tribal aspect to 
it? Do you want to drag strange old ideas of 'blood' and religion into it? Do you associate the word Irish with some people from particular 'blood lines' and
(historically) speaking a certain language? These are quite odd ideas, and sound like something from the 17th century! Thomson was born in Ireland and grew up in Ireland
to the age of about 10. When he went to Scotland he was considered Irish, and he considered himself Irish. He considered himself British aswell. He did not consider
himself to be from an old Gaelic-Irish family, because he wasn't, and nobody else did either, but all considered him Irish, including himself. In a speech of 1883,
William Thomson "said he spoke as an Irishman on the Irish Question.", see in p67 of http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/ims/bull48/BR4801.pdf Or do you think William Thomson
was wrong about himself, just that he was very good at the physics and mathsy stuff but is not to be listened to if it does not fit in with your ideas of where somebody
is from (even if he's actually from there!)? He should best be described as Irish-Scottish, in that he became a naturalized Scottish person, after his childhood in
Ireland. Also you wrote that he was of Scottish parentage, but his father was actually the fourth son of a farmer in Co.Down (fyi, not in Scotland). — Preceding unsigned
comment added by Donn300 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC) 

Yes, I see your point. But Scotch-Irish is the term you want. Not Irish-Scottish. Centuryofconfusion (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Scotch-Irish on wikipedia: 
·The Ulster Scots people, an ethnic group in Ulster, Ireland, who trace their roots to settlers from Scotland
·Scotch-Irish Americans, descendants of Ulster Scots who first migrated to America in large numbers in the 18th and 19th centuries
·Scotch-Irish Canadians, descendants of Ulster Scots who migrated to Canada
Kelvin was none of these things so Scotch/Scots-Irish isn't the correct term. 2A02:C7D:6998:1800:DC7:8EBA:E8A1:521C (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
He was in the first group that you list. He was an Ulster Presbyterian and his ancestry came from Scotland. He was therefore an Ulster Scot who migrated to Scotland and 
became Scottish. We could perhaps say that he was Ulster Scot/Scottish. Sandstable (talk) 20:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)”

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Donn300 (talk • contribs)

I want to draw attention to bias in the approach here when compared to other entries. It is important to note that none of the following similar pioneers are called "British" in Wikipedia:

• Rankine was a "Scottish Civil Engineer",
• Watt was a "Scottish inventor and mechanical engineer",
• Brunel was an "English Mechanical and Civil Engineeer",
• Telford was a "Scottish Civil Engineer",
• Babbage was an "English polymath",
• Newcomen was "an English inventor",
• Stephenson was "an English Civil engineer and mechanical engineer".

Now, William Thomson was brought up in Ireland, to the age of 10, and received his initial education in Ireland (and when arriving in Scotland at the age of 10 he then went to university there (not unusual at the time, as the article explains). Thomson's family had been in Ireland for four generations (they were of Ulster-Scots heritage). Why is there an attempt to deny the link to Ireland? Some people want to blatantly use a different way to describe him compared to all of the other examples above to suit their own agenda. In a speech of 1883, William Thomson "said he spoke as an Irishman on the Irish Question.", see in p67 of http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/ims/bull48/BR4801.pdf Or do these people with an agenda think William Thomson was wrong about himself, just that he was very good at the physics and mathsy stuff but is not to be listened to if it does not fit in with their ideas of where somebody is from (even if he's actually from there!)? He should best be described as Irish-Scottish, in that he became a naturalized Scottish person, after his childhood in Ireland. That is not to say that he was not other things ASWELL.

The link to being raised in Ireland, (by a family resident in Ireland for centuries) and Kelvin's opinion of what that meant, should not be ignored (especially for reasons of bias).

Leaving politics out of it, it is not right that some people suppress the fact of Thomson's Irish link, in the same way that Rankine was Scottish etc., regardless of what way (or how, originally in 1800) Ireland was temporarily in the United Kingdom (against her wishes or not). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donn300 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Blackburn

While consulting the article for another purpose, I noticed the prominent claim that Thomson 'worked closely' with mathematics professor Hugh Blackburn in his work. I was surprised by this, as it seems to imply or insinuate that Thomson needed mathematical assistance. As Thomson was Second Wrangler in his year at Cambridge, and renowned for his mathematical brilliance, this does not seem likely, unless he delegated some donkey-work to Blackburn. So I have also consulted the two main biographies of Thomson (the old one by Silvanus Thompson, and the modern one by Crosbie Smith and Norton Wise), and find nothing to support it. Smith and Wise only give Blackburn two brief mentions. Unless there is something else to substantiate the claim, I suggest it be deleted. If anyone should be prominently mentioned as a collaborator of Thomson, it is surely Peter Guthrie Tait, who co-authored major works with him.2A00:23C8:7906:1301:14DD:336C:348E:D34B (talk) 18:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)