 | This is a user sandbox of JonGreenberger. You can use it for testing or practicing edits. This is not the sandbox where you should draft your assigned article for a dashboard.wikiedu.org course. To find the right sandbox for your assignment, visit your Dashboard course page and follow the Sandbox Draft link for your assigned article in the My Articles section. |
Draft/plans for additions/changes to Scopes Trial Page
editI will/have(depending on when you're looking at this) make the following changes to the Scopes Trial Page
Add the following under creation versus evolution debate (source is Shapiro, Adam, 2014, Trying Biology, published by University of Chicago Press) Adam Shapiro criticized the view that the scopes trial was an essential and inevitable conflict between religion and Science, claiming that such a view was “self-justifying”. Shapiro instead emphasizes that the Scopes trial was the result of particular circumstances, such as politics postponing adoptions of new textbooks(pages 4–5)
Replace middle paragraphs in Teaching of science section with the following(will add in links) (sources are [Grabiner, J.V. & Miller, P.D., Effects of the Scopes Trial, Science, New Series, Vol. 185, No. 4154 (September 6, 1974), pp. 832–837], [George Gaylord Simpson, Evolution and Education, Science 07 Feb 1975: Vol. 187, Issue 4175, pp. 389], [Ella Thea Smith and the Lost History of American High School Biology Textbooks, Ronald P. Ladouceur, Journal of the History of Biology, Vol. 41, No. 3, 2008, pp. 435–471]
The effects of the trial on high school biology texts has not been unanimously agreed upon by scholars. Of the most widely used textbooks after the trial, only one included the word "evolution" in its index; the relevant page includes biblical quotations.[50] Some scholars have accepted that this was the result of the Scopes Trial, citing examples such as Hunter, the author of the biology text which Scopes was on trial for teaching, reforming the text by 1926 in response to the Scopes Trial Controversy.(miller Grabin). George Gaylord Simpson, though, challenged this notion as confusing cause and effect, and instead posited that the trend of anti-evolution movements and laws that provoked the Scopes Trial were also to blame for the removal of evolution from biological texts, and that the Scopes Trial itself did not affect this trend one way or the other. (Simpson) The fundamentalists' target slowly veered off evolution in the mid-1930s. Miller and Grabin suggest that as the anti-evolutionist movement died out, biology textbooks began to include the previously removed evolutionary theory.(Miller Grabin) This also corresponds to the emerging demand that science textbooks be written by scientists rather than educators or education specialists.[50]
This account of history has also been challenged. In Trying Biology Robert Shapiro examines many of the eminent biology textbooks in the 1910-1920’s, and finds that while they may have avoided the word evolution, the overall focus on the subject was not greatly diminished. He suggests that the avoidance of the word evolution was enough to satisfy anti-evolutionists, but the books were still largely implicitly evolution based. It has also been suggested that the notion that evolution was removed from textbooks due to religious pressure, only to be reinstated decades later, was an example of “whig” history propagated by the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, and that the shift in the ways biology textbooks discussed evolution can be attributed to other race and class based factors(ladoucuer). I will also address all instances that are currently tagged citation needed, either added appropriate source, changing the sentence to no longer be making an unciteable claim, or correcting the claim if innaccurate(there is one such claim). Most of these citations will be from The Great Monkey Trial
Lastly, I will add the following to the nonfiction section
Some of the more notable accounts of the Scopes trial include Edward Larson’s Pulitzer prize for history winning Summer for the Gods: The Scopes Trial and America's Continuing Debate Over Science and Religion, as well as the L. Sprague De Camp’s comprehensive account The Great Monkey Trial
Draft for revamp of The Great Monkey Trial page
edit| Author | L. Sprague de Camp |
|---|---|
| Language | English |
| Subject | History |
| Publisher | Doubleday |
Publication date | 1968 |
| Publication place | United States |
| Media type | Print (Hardback) |
| Pages | 538 pp |
| ISBN | 0-385-04625-1 |
The Great Monkey Trial is a book on the Scopes Trial by L. Sprague de Camp, first published in hardcover by Doubleday in 1968.[1] The book is a non-fiction account of the trial, as well as its social and political context and impact. This history of the trial was based on the archives of the A.C.L.U., assorted newspaper files, correspondence and interviews with over a dozen of those present at the trial, books and magazine articles written on trial (including the memoirs of John T. Scopes and the official record of the trial in the Rhea County Courthouse), and a couple of visits to Dayton.[2] The book also contains several political cartoons published at the time of the trial.[3] Several critics have referred to the book as the definitive or comprehensive account of the Scopes Trial.[4][5]
Content and Perspective
editIn the preface, de Camp states that the books goal is to “tell the story of the Scopes evolution trial of 1925, at Dayton, Tennessee, as truthfully as possible.”[6] de Camp rejects previous descriptions of the trial such as “a witch hunt”, “a travesty of justice”, or “a deathblow to Fundamentalism.” Instead, de Camp classifies the trial as one battle in a long and ongoing war between two philosophical worldviews. The first, a “theistic view”, sees the word as governed by entities that are sensitive to human sentiment and are not bound by natural law in their actions. The second “mechanistic view” sees the world as governed by absolute and unchanging natural laws, which gods cannot affect.[7]
In summation of the trial's cultural impact, de Camp suggests that the public ridicule placed on the law by this trial may have influenced politicians against supporting other such "monkey laws". He also suggests that the trial accomplished its goal of raising public interest in evolution. In conclusion, de Camp states that the truth is always competing against many other factors in shaping public perception, but truth has the advantage of persistence.[8]
Style
editThe book frames the trial as a militaristic conflict, frequently using terms such as skirmish and combatant. Additionally, it includes chapter titles such as "The War Cries and Banners", "The Crusade" and "The Din of Battle Rises".[9] Each chapter has a quote at the start which holds some relevance to its contents. These include historical examples of conflict between religion and science, such as selections from Darwin’s Origin of Species and the Inquisition’s Condemnation of Galileo, as well as more poetic statements on human nature from Shakespeare and Lewis Carrol.
Reception
editReviews praised the book for its comprehensiveness.[10] Several reviewers have commended the book for providing a factual and unbiased portrayal of the full story of the trial, as opposed to the fictionalized “Inherit the Wind” or the one-sided H.L. Mencken reporting that they claim shaped previous public perception of the Scopes trial.[11][12] Some have held that this and other "books written specifically about the Scopes trial serve ... to reinforce the spirit of ridicule" associated with the trial.[13]
Kirtley Mathers, one of the scientists who testified for the defense in the Scopes Trial, spoke highly of the book in a review that appeared in Science. Mathers referred to the book as the definitive account of the scopes trial, praising its ability to capture both the atmosphere and the human element of the trial. Mathers also highly commended the research that went into the book. However, he notes one instance where he feels that de Camp misrepresents thoughts that may have gone through trial members’ minds as things which were actually said in court. Mathers also notes several typographic errors, including a few relating to the dates of his own interviews.[14]
Relation to other works
editThe Scopes Trial was also the subject of a chapter in Darwin and His Great Discovery, written by the author in collaboration with his wife Catherine Crook de Camp and published in 1972.
Notes
edit- ^ Laughlin, Charlotte; Daniel J. H. Levack (1983). De Camp: An L. Sprague de Camp Bibliography. San Francisco: Underwood/Miller. p. 62.
- ^ De Camp, L. Sprague (1968). The Great Monkey Trial. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc. pp. [ix]-x.
- ^ de Camp, pp. 103, 386
- ^ Kirkus Review
- ^ Mencken, H.L (2002). H.L Mencken on Religion. Prometheus Books. p. 299.
- ^ de Camp, pp. 9
- ^ de Camp,pp. 490
- ^ de Camp, 493
- ^ de Camp, Contents Section
- ^ Kirtley Mathers, Science, Vol 159 Issue 3815, pp. 616
- ^ Staff, Caltech Engineering and Science Magazine, 1968, p. 6. ISSN 0013-7812
- ^ Science
- ^ Bernabo, Lawrance; Celeste Michelle Condit (1990). "Two Stories of the Scopes Trial: Legal and Journalistic Articulations of the Legitimacy of Science and Religion" in Popular Trials: Rhetoric, Mass Media, and the Law, edited by Robert Hariman. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 55-85, 204-18
- ^ Science
Category:1968 books Category:History books about the United States Category:Books by L. Sprague de Camp Category:Scopes Trial Category:Doubleday (publisher) books
Article Evaluation
editThe Robert Boyle article is not ranked as a good article, and viewing the talk page shows that it was actually rejected for the label.Having checked a few of the links, they do lead to appropriate sources that back up claims, generally. Viewpoints appear to be properly represented, and no aspect of his life seems over or under represented. One issue I noticed, though is that the leading paragraph contains several unverifiable or unsourced claims, such as "He is best known for Boyle's law", and " Boyle is largely regarded today as the first modern chemist", which seem very similar to the "many agree that" types of claims that our tutorial recommended against. Also, under the talk page it can be seen that there was a heated argument over whether Boyle's nationality should be listed as Irish(It currently is), with those arguing against this stating that Boyle himself did not consider him to be Irish.
Royal Society is marked as a good article. The language in it is appropriately neutral, as Wikipedia requests. The links work, and are relevant. The subject matter gives an even balance of the history of the Royal society with appropriate levels of representation given based on relevance. The statement in the opening paragraph "is possibly the oldest such society still in existence.", whilearguably an unverifiable claim, at least has a tag that clarifies and gives an opposing point of view. Looking at the talk page, although there has been some disagreement, such as over the sentence just discussed, on the whole, the discourse on the talk page is much more civil than that on the talk page of the Robert Boyle Society. As is to be expected of Wikipedia, the article is not attempting to make the kinds of value statements that we often discuss in class.
Research
editI would consider adding a section to the article scientific consensus discussing the history of the notion of scientific consensus. I would intend to discuss, among other things, how the Royal Society viewed and shaped the notion of consensus. I would also consider Integrating this section with the current section "How consensus can change over time", or integrating the part of that section about Kuhn into my section.
The last sentence in the lead paragraph is tagged citation needed, so I would attempt to find a source for it, and if I am unable, I would remove it. I would also add to the reception section. In particular I would add details of appraisal and criticism of the work by Kirtley F Mather, who was involved in the trial and comments on some of the inaccuracies relating to his involvement in the book, and praise by H.L Mencken, who is the one who coined the term "Monkey Trial". The entire content of the article can be found at [1], I believe that page is taken from Wikipedia, as opposed to Wikipeda plagiarizing that page, but I would look into this further to make sure that this is he case.