Talk:Edward Stone (natural philosopher)

Untitled

Tried to improve the sentence on Aspirin, which was phrased in a manner that I found slightly misleading. Uttenthal, Salamanca.83.35.147.254 (talk) 17:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is this article entitled Edmund Stone, when his name was Edward Stone? The name Edmund is incorrect, dating from the incorrect printing as such above his letter on willow bark in the transactions of the Royal Society. The error has been much perpetuated, but it is still an error. Bruern Crossing (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Even more: There was a contemporary mathematician named Edmund Stone: see this paper Edward Stone (1702–1768) and Edmund Stone (1700–1768): confused identities resolved, published by Royal Society in 1997.--Ferran Mir (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, see reference 3 in the article.Bruern Crossing (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Parenthitical disambiguation

This article has had the following titles during its existence: Reverend Edward (Edmund) Stone; Edmund Stone; Edward Stone (discoverer of the active ingredient of Aspirin); Edward Stone (clergyman); Edward Stone (cleric); Edward Stone (priest)

Edward Stone is only notable due to willow bark, which contains the active ingredient of Aspirin. Of the above titles, only "discoverer of the active ingredient of Aspirin" (the wording on his blue plaque) enables disambiguation, but is not concise. He was indeed a clergyman (or cleric, or priest - the distinction is too subtle for me) but as such was not notable. My view is that "scientist" or "natural philosopher" (since the term "scientist" was not invented until after his lifetime) would be preferable. Bruern Crossing (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Reversion of E Wusk edits

After careful consideration I have reverted E Wusk's edits which removed all mention of Aspirin from the page, with the exception of an unreferenced sentence "There is a modern myth that Stone's experiment contributed to the discovery of Aspirin". On E Wusk's user page we find the statement: "One thing that I have been interested in lately is the use of willow (bark and leaves) for pain relief. There is a widespread belief that willow is the same as aspirin, which I think is just completely invented. It's an interesting challenge to find ways of getting rid of an oft-stated and popular belief. Other editors seem to think that a unreferenced and frankly fanciful claim in a book review in BMJ is somehow a solid source, while the actual text of Hippocrates is not. But who would publish a paper saying, "did you know, willow bark does nothing for pain relief at all"? Wikipedia is not the place to try and get rid of oft-stated and popular beliefs. Wikipedia collates information from verifiable published sources. In this case, fifty years of such publications, includeing the Dictionary of National Biography, have been ignored in favour of a reference to the "Skeptoid Blog". I also find little evidence of a myth that Stone's work led to the development of Aspirin. Most sources are clear the two are not connected and as Edward Stone's blue plaque says, he "discovered the active ingredient in Aspirin" The views of E Wusk and the Skeptoid Blog should not be ignored however so I have replaced his paragraph apart from the unreferenced sentence. Bruern Crossing (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you're saying, Bruern. Do you mean you can find little evidence that it is a myth, or little evidence that Stone discovered aspirin? How can we write about what actually happened (Stone's cure didn't actually cure malaria and he was ignored) whilst documenting the popular myth that his paper led to the discovery of aspirin. E Wusk (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I can find no evidence of a myth that Stone's discovery contributed to the discovery of Aspirin. If there is evidence of such a myth, fair enough it should go in the article with a referenced source. Stone discovered salicylic acid in 1757. Felix Hoffman invented Aspirin in 1899. It seems likely he was at least aware of Stone's work. In his letter, Stone makes no mention of attempting to treat malaria. His five years of experiments were done on the local Oxfordshire population suffering from the ill-defined "Ague". In treating that, he reported some success.

In Wikipedia we can't give our own views and theories. We are limited to collating the already-published views of others. It is a hard thing to come to terms with when writing and editing Wikipedia.

Edward Stone is notable, as it says on his blue plaque, for "discovering the active ingredient of Aspirin" but he didn't invent it. Bruern Crossing (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. The myth, I think, is that Stone's discovered salicin. Stone didn't say he had discovered it - he just said that powdered willow bark cured the ague, just like Peruvian bark. To claim he discovered salicin is odd, because he wasn't a chemist. If his cure worked (and there is no suggestion that anyone else could replicate it) and if someone else chose to look for the active ingredient (and there is no evidence that anyone did) then perhaps you could say that his observations led to the discovery of salicin. But no scientific paper at the time referenced Stone, and MacLagan (who did discover that highly concentrated salicin cured rheumatic fever) didn't mention Stone at all. I think Stone was added to the aspirin story much later, when his obscure letter re-emerged (possibly only after the internet made it possible to find such things). I love the idea of the blue plaque, but it's hardly a credible source on it's own; it just means someone read the aspirin myth and lobbied for one with the local authority. E Wusk (talk) 08:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)