tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314190564205081026.post2697898289784317113..comments2024-03-04T01:27:26.200-08:00Comments on History of Geology: The Last Virtuoso: Robert Hooke and his contributions in geologyDavid Bressanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17650115671464472095noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314190564205081026.post-68991382938609181232011-02-22T10:00:21.015-08:002011-02-22T10:00:21.015-08:00In theory Hooke with his notion on petrified wood ...In theory Hooke with his notion on petrified wood in Micrographia (1665) establish priority in the organic formation of fossils, there are suggestions that Steno in his De canis Caput (1667) was influenced by this idea or heard about it by others, but in fact there is no evidence for direct communication or reference between the two. <br /><br />YAMADA argues that both Hooke and Steno were influenced by the writings of Robert Boyle (1627-1691) and the friendship to Danish Ole Bloch (1626-1690), who know both men and possibly shared ideas about fossils and rocks.<br /><br />However there are important differences in the geological argumentation and how sea and land change and how fossils form in Steno´s and Hooke´s works - it seems reasonable to me to say that both men based their work on preexisting concepts and data, but finally developed their geotheories indipendentently each from the other.<br /><br />YAMADA 2009: Hooke–Steno relations reconsidered: Reassessing the roles of Ole Borch and Robert Boyle. in Rosenberg, G.D., ed., The Revolution in Geology<br />from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment: Geological Society of America Memoir 203, p. 107–126,Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314190564205081026.post-1823476900882079332011-02-22T07:27:48.936-08:002011-02-22T07:27:48.936-08:00Dave, you write that Hooke's work in geology i...Dave, you write that Hooke's work in geology is either forgotten or overshadowed from Steno's work but I thought that Hooke knew of and extended Steno's work, am I wrong?Thony C.http://thonyc.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314190564205081026.post-43702609345501947232011-02-22T03:33:14.981-08:002011-02-22T03:33:14.981-08:00These are important considerations - I didn't ...These are important considerations - I didn't intend to mock about Hooke again by choosing such title (I intended the positive significance of the term) or such introduction, but how he and natural philosophy was seen at the time. <br />I added some text hopefully to clarify that I consider Hooke was strongly misrepresented by the spectacle and underestimated today in his geological work. <br />However Hooke himself ranted/recognized in his diary that the figure of Gimcrack was strongly influenced by, or mocked his work. <br /><br />Also his later "demise" is strongly influenced by private problems, ill health and the hostility with Newton and the discussion of the nature of light. <br /><br />Hooke contributions are even more complex than this short introduction - it is possible that Hutton at least know of many of the considerations of Hooke and became strongly influenced in his later work of geology.<br /><br />There is a much more complete biography on the matter (I didn't read):<br /><br />DRAKE, E. T. 1996. Restless Genius: Robert Hooke and His Earthly Thoughts. Oxford University Press, New York.David Bressanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17650115671464472095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314190564205081026.post-38883188923274526062011-02-22T02:46:53.632-08:002011-02-22T02:46:53.632-08:00Becky, your comment is very correct but it also de...Becky, your comment is very correct but it also demonstrates that when a historian analyses satire that character description are not necessarily transfered one to one from their models in real life. Gimcrack is a mosaic of various contemporaneous viturosi but there is little doubt that Hooke was one of the main models.Thony C.http://thonyc.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314190564205081026.post-37162110876105388502011-02-21T12:49:08.879-08:002011-02-21T12:49:08.879-08:00Thanks for this geological perspective on Hooke. H...Thanks for this geological perspective on Hooke. However, there is an important sense in which Hooke should not be identified with the Virtuoso of Shadwell's play: Sir Nicholas Gimcrack. He is, as the title suggests, a man of leisure who chooses to play at learning with his absurd experiments and crazy inventions. Hooke, by contrast, needed to make a living. He was, by his position as an employee of the Royal Society, in a different social class to many of the Fellows that he dealt with. This perspective perhaps also allows for a bit more understanding of Hooke's anxieties about priority and acknowledgement.beckyfhhttp://whewellsghost.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.com