Uniformitarianism, and other Victorian myths

Quotes and comments;

1. 'Lyell's concept of uniformity had four components. First, he quite reasonably assumed that the natural laws are constant. Scientific inquiry of any kind is impossible if we cannot assume that, for example, the laws holding the planets in orbit or the laws of chemical affinity have not been constant.' - Ian Taylor

- because we can't prove 'laws' have always been constant we can never go beyond theory; i.e. all scientists can give us are theories, they can never (despite the screeching of school teachers) give us facts. Science is always and forever part philosophy, part metaphysics. The person who is properly humble not only accepts this, but embraces it.

- 'natural law' is another myth. It's a human invention; no one can prove such a thing exists. What I'm referring to is the idea the seeming laws of the universe occurred by some kind of fiat decree of matter... that they're just the 'mechanical' result of the big bang, or the constitution of matter, or somesuch. (Maybe they are, maybe they're not; but it can't be proved in either case.)

- as Lyell's theory of Niagra Falls was a matter of bias and unfounded belief, so is the theory of evolution. (The theory that Charles Darwin so graciously claimed as his own. He got away with stealing the theory because he had the Victorian qualifications others lacked.) As many have remarked, the picture of evolution painted in the 'Origins' is a kind of biological Uniformitarianism.

- what a comic spectacle it is to see the debauched Marxists of today accepting as their own these Victorian prejudices and fantasy stories.

2. 'Implicit in this assumption [Uniformitarianism] is the belief that God has never at any time violated those laws by intervention.' - Ian Taylor

- but why shouldn't god ever intervene in his creation? Human beings do this all the time, in their own more limited creations. (Not that we would expect god to be capricious and immoral as is the case with man.)

- Uniformitarianism is one of the silliest ideas ever invented. One hates to interject psychology into science, but it's hard not to see the desire of a country gentlemen in this; the desire that things not change... that he can live comfortably on his land rents... and not be disturbed... that 'life' trudge slowly along in the way the gentry want it to go.

3. 'Second, Lyell assumed that the earth's geological features were caused entirely by processes we see taking place today. Again, this is reasonable but excludes the possibility of large-scale catastrophic events, whether or not they were divinely originated.' - Taylor

- Reasonable? What's reasonable about it. There's hubris in the pretense only what can be known by man is real or important or true.

4. 'Third, he assumed that the geological changes are always slow, gradual, and steady...' - Taylor
- like the changes in a gentleman's income.

Notes;
1. 'In the Minds of Men' - Ian T. Taylor (Online edition)
2. 'Measurement of the rate of recession of Niagara Falls has been made periodicially since 1841, the date of Lyell's visit, and these published figures show that, far from exaggerating, the local inhabitant was too conservative. A rate of four or five feet a year is closer to the facts (Tovell 1979, 16). - Taylor
- you couldn't ask for a better demonstration of bias in action than the fact Lyell ignored local information of 3 feet, and used a figure of 1 foot instead. This is fraudulent however you look at it.
3. 'Today's geologist prefers to adopt a cautious figure of twelve thousand years, made on the basis of radiometric tests carried out on some pieces of buried wood discovered in the blocked St. David's gorge, which was part of the original Niagara spillway (Tovell 1979, 17). However, the blocked gorge of Niagara is a story beyond the present purposes, which are to illustrate how a preconception in the mind of one man, Charles Lyell, contributed significantly to the subsequent complete change of mankind's worldview.' - Taylor
- 'science' can't prove how old N. Falls is. Only human observation could have done that.
- I see this as an analogy for most of the science done by Victorian gentlemen. (Including the prime example C. Darwin.) It was based on a specious mix of ignorance and bias.