Talk:Corpuscularianism

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Metaphysics

History of Science Low‑importance

	History of science portal 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.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Problem

I have a problem with this article. According to the article " expounded in a predominant manner by thirteenth-century Italian Franciscan alchemist Geber". I used the link to Geber and found that he did not lived in the 13th century, but in the 8th century, that he was not Italian but a Persian and that he was not a Franciscan but a Muslim. There also a Pseudo-Geber], but he is Spanish from the 14th century. Avihu 18:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As User:Avihu said on the talk page, there's something wrong with Corpuscularianism. Geber is neither Italian nor Franciscan nor 13th-century. Perhaps it's a different Geber, but it doesn't sound like an Italian name. --Itub 10:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the Levere reference and the words are correct. I would trust Levere over other references (however, I'm sure clarification is needed). Trevor H. Levere is a professor at the Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology at the University of Toronto and he has written many exceptional history books on chemistry. The Wiki article, however, probably needs more research and references to figure out more about the pre-Newton ideas on Corpuscularianism. I added more to the article. Later --Sadi Carnot 15:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the words are correct, then certainly the wikilink is not correct. --Itub 15:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I fixed it, I re-linked to the False-Geber (which is likely the correct person); we probably only need better life-span dates for his bio and references? --Sadi Carnot 15:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's likely that this is the famous Pseudo Geber after all: [1]. --Itub 15:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The date seems to be the only issue now; Levere and this reference says 13th century; your reference and the page on Pseudo-Geber says 14th century? We'll have to keep our eyes open for better references to clarify. Later: --Sadi Carnot 04:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More book refs: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. They give dates ranging from the 12th to the 14th centuries. However, it seems that Pseudo-Geber's most famous work (Summa Perfectionis) was published at the end of the 13th century. My conclusion for now is that he probably lived at the turn of the century, which explains why he is sometimes characterized as "13th-century" and sometimes as "14th-century". However, there seems to be some uncertainty and controversy. --Itub 07:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review

This article was created by User:Sadi Carnot. This editor (Sadi Carnot) has been blocked for creating bogus articles and a pattern of disruptive editing. All of this users contributions to Wikipedia need to be closely examined. There was an obvious error in the citation by "Sadi Carnot" of "A History of Chemistry for Alchemy to the Buckyball". Does anyone have a copy so we can verify what it says? I'm uncomfortable with the other cited sources (.com webpages). --JWSchmidt 05:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sources

There is a great deal more to Corpuscularianism than is in the page sources [9] google books for a start.J8079s (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

όμοιομέρειαι

The idea of Corpuscularianism not came from Atomism but from the different concept of Oμοιομέρειαι. They are equalis the way of combining that creates matter (everything is in everything) similar concept is present in Leibniz (the Atoms of Democritus are different and have multiplicity of substances identified by the geometric shape). Every όμοιομέρειαι contain everything needed to form the different elements. The idea is criticized in Aristotle and it is derived from σπερματα of Anaxagoras. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.222.74.148 (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article Review

The article on Corpuscularianism is understandable, but lacks coverage in some areas. The article mentions Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton as contributing to this idea, but it fails to elaborate on the importance of this concept to science at the time. The article could be improved by discussing the importance of this theory and its effect of the on the Aristotelian explanations that dominated that time period. It might also be beneficial to mention that each minute corpuscle has a specific shape, size, and movement. These qualities have an effect on properties of the overall matter the corpuscles compose. This article is in need of better sources to fully explain the importance of this theory within the history of science. I made an edit to this article in order to note the impact of Corpusclarianism and Boyle’s explanations on science at that time. Osbo6401 (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Corpuscularianism. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080611053822/http://www.vernonpratt.com:80/conceptualisations/d06bl2_1mechanical.htm to http://www.vernonpratt.com/conceptualisations/d06bl2_1mechanical.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 03:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]