Re: Date limit set on first Americans

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 01:12:32 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Wilkins)
wrote:

>Eric Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 11:17:18 +0100, Peter Ashby
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> > Eric Stevens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Re peer review, it would be accurate to point out that the final
>> >> >prompter for him to go public with his views was when he was asked to
>> >> >"peer-review" Alfred Russell Wallace's exposition of natural
>> >> >selection...
>> >> 
>> >> I don't know so much that he was asked to 'peer review' as he was
>> >> asked for his opinion.
>> >
>> >For goodness sake Eric, you are making yourself look silly. Just stop
>> >the semantic games and have some good grace.
>> 
>> I have already replied to this once but it seems as good a point as
>> any to inject the results of some digging I have been doing:
>> 
>> I have been investigating the circumstances of the publication of
>> "Origin of Species" and have come across
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/leghist/desmond.htm which seems
>> to summarise Darwins life reasonably well. In particular, I noted that
>> it states:
>> 
>>   " ... Huxley started challenging 'Creation' in his lectures at the
>>    Government School of Mines in Piccadilly, while Darwin finally
>>     -  the years of procrastination over - began a huge tome,
>>     projected at three volumes, which he called Natural Selection.
>> 
>>     then on 18 June 1858 came a letter from a specimen-collector
>>     Alfred Russel Wallace from the Malay Archipelago, detailing a
>>     similar theory. It frightened Darwin into starting a shorter book
>>     to retain priority. Darwin's and Wallace's papers were read
>>     jointly at the Linnean Society on I July 1858 to a resounding
>>     silence. Darwin, his eighteen-month-old retarded son having
>>     just died, stayed away - but it was the kind of absenteeism
>>     that would mark his last years. His hastily-finished popular
>>     book, one to go over the heads of the experts - On the Origin
>>     of Species by Means of Natural Selection - was published by
>>     John Murray in November 1859. "
>
>Desmond is a good source, but the original letters, and material are
>better. I recommend Janet Browne's biography is you are interested in
>this - she edited the complete letters.
>> 
>> This deals with a lot of the matters raised in this part of the
>> thread. From my point of view, and with respect to 'peer review', the
>> important aspects are:
>> 
>> 1.  The reception at the Linnean Society of both Darwin's and
>>       Wallace's ideas suggested that they would not in general
>>       have been approved by a contemporary general editorial
>>       or peer review committee of his peers formulated in the 
>>       fashion of such bodies today. 
>
>No, the reception was due to the fact that they had sat through a long
>series of papers prior to this, and it was hot. Basically they were
>bored. It suggests nothing about how an individual reviewer with the
>papers in front of him might have reacted.
>> 
>> 2.  'Origin of Species' was never subject to any independent 
>>      review process.
>
>John Murray did solicit opinions before publishing it - I vaguely recall
>one of them was Chambers... but the ideas OoS was discussing were
>subject to peer review. Let's not get too caught up on this point -
>Darwin was checked by the leading men in the English-speaking
>professional world of the time.
>> 
>> 3.  If it is correct that his book was "one to go over the heads
>>      of the experts", it is likely that a peer review committee
>>      composed of the 'experts' of the time would neither have
>>      understood nor approved of the publication of Darwin's ideas.
>
>Again, you are over-extending your inferences to suit a prior
>conclusion. In fact, the Origin is a summary - Darwin and Murray called
>it an "abstract" - of a much longer manuscript that Lyell and Hooker had
>seen.
>> 
>> The first edition of 1859 comprised 1,250 copies (all sold the first
>> day) and was published by John Murray. John Murray was a specialty
>> publisher founded in 1768 and published the works of authors as varied
>> as Lord Byron and Jane Austen. I have not yet established whether or
>> not John Murray took on the publication of 'Origin of Species' as a
>> commercial proposition or whether Darwin paid for the publishing
>> himself. Certainly Darwin's financial circumstances were such as to
>> enable him to have done that. It seems not unreasonable that he should
>> do so if he was motivated by the desire to beat Wallace to the draw.
>
>So argued a number of authors - I list them on the "Precursors" web page
><http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwin-precursors.html>, but I am
>unconvinced there is sufficient evidence to suggest anything improper on
>Darwin's part. 

Are you suggesting that it was improper for Darwin to pay for the
publishing of his own book?  Surely not!

>However, he clearly wanted priority (and note that
>Wallace was for his entire life happy to grant it). Murray was uncertain
>about the commercial viability of Darwin's book, but took it on since
>Darwin had published several other books with him. 

I wasn't aware of this. Presumably John Murray was well rewarded for
his pains.

>After the first
>printing he was aware he was on to a good thing. Another book published
>almost at the same time that was an equal commercial success was the
>first self-help book, by the aptly named Samuel Smiles (a popular writer
>- I have another book by him at home, also published by Murray). AFAIK
>Darwin did not pay Murray anything to publish OoS.
>> 
>> I stand by my original point that Charles Darwin would have
>> experienced considerable difficulty having 'Origin of Species'
>> published if in 1859 he had to run the gauntlet of 21st century peer
>> review process composed of his 19th century fellows.
>> 
>And I think you are wrong.

We shall have to differ.




Eric Stevens