Talk:James Burnett, Lord Monboddo

"Evolutionary theorist"

This is not very WP:NPOV. Monboddo does not make the cut in any of the books on the history of evolutionary thought written by historians. All of the references except one are from the 1920s and 1930s, when knowledge about the history of evolution was very poor and still wrapped up in the fact that they were still forming the modern synthesis. I'm not opposed to saying that some people attribute Monboddo a high status, but it should be noted very early on that this is not the standard historical opinion. The fact that his ideas about the relation of primates to humans were not, by any standards, similar at all to Darwin's (the whole "tail" thing, which has gotten placed at the very end of the article instead of in the discussion of his views) should be front and center as well.

I don't want to degrade the guy in the slightest, but he is simply not regarded as a precursor to Darwin by any modern historians. --Fastfission 04:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

There are presently references from several different eras in history from the 1700s to present times. The tail story is something Monboddo himself acknowledged was not a belief he held but something he used in order to taunt his critics. It's interesting that some present day wikipedia editors are drawn into the trap he set for his contemporaries. Anlace 19:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yet Charles Dickens thought differently in 1834, and thought at least some of his readers might also; I've spliced the reference in. It's not a scientific reference, but to be an ancestor, maybe the primary ancestor, of the popular belief that humanity is descended from monkeys is surely significant, though naturally in a different way. Scutigera (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Vowel-rich vs. vowel-starved?

"He also was apparently the first to establish that primitive languages are generally vowel rich; correspondingly, very late advanced languages such as German and English are in the opposite sense vowel starved."

O rly? Look at Italian, which is advanced yet still singable. For an even clearer example, look at the cognate pair "angst" vs. "anxiety"; is German more "advanced" than French? Do mainstream linguists still believe Monboddo's assertion? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 12:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

good observations dy. yes he was the first to distinguish vowel rich vs vowel starved...probably worth inclusion in the article. as far as i know mainstream linguists still hold to this theory...at least that is the impression i got from reading the cloyd book which is a 1970s publication.

regarding your comparisons among european languages, i believe monboddo thought them more similar than different in regard to vowel richness, in the sense that they all have far more vowels than polynesian languages for example. on the other hand i think he made some allusion to english and german being somewhat farther evolved than italian. ill try to see if i can find the exact text in his works. Anlace 15:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The whole notion of primitive vs advanced language is ridiculous. English has, depending on the dialect, up to 20 monophthongal and diphthongal vowels. Spanish, Modern Greek and Japanese have 5 vowels. Arabic has 3. Ju|’hoan, from Botswana has 40 vowels. Which languages are "advanced"? I don't know why this ruffled my feathers, since anyone with a serious interest in linguistics isn't going to be approaching this guy with anything more than historical curiosity. But there you go. Anyone curious about the idea of "primitive language" might want to have a look at the Oldest_language article for a bite size refution.

POV and Disputed

The entire coverage of the "evolutionary theorist" issue is still not satisfactory. It is full of conjecture (i.e. whether Charles Darwin was influenced by Monboddo, something with no support at all), and an over-quotation of relatively fringe sources for the history of evolutionary thought at the detriment of mainstream historians, with the overt and explicit intention of "proving" that Monboddo had a strong (and unrecognized) influence on evolutionary thought. This is simply incorrect, frankly, and a blantant violation of WP:NPOV's undue weight clause. I am happy to try and edit this over when I get the time and make it NPOV and reflective of current historical opinion on this subject (which, agree with it or not, is what Wikipedia is supposed to reflect in cases like this -- the mainstream, modern opinion first, not one from 1929 which nobody paid much attention to even then). --Fastfission 17:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• I do agree with you, but since I presume that is the only part that is disputed, I moved the tags to that section. - Skysmith 18:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

i have performed some editing to respond to the above and feel its rather bland now. most of the material is simply direct quotes from verifiable sources. thank you for your interest in this article Anlace 20:41, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I've tweaked some of the references to make it clear that he was one of the evolutionary thinkers of the time and it was his hints about natural selection that are claimed as preceding Darwin's theory. I've emphasised Erasmus's writings, since Chas never met his granddad, though his is thought to have read his poem which scarcely hints at natural selection. It should be noted that Darwin credited others with having the idea in principle first, his fame lies in developing his idea into a well supported theory and publishing it rather than in being the first to hint at the concept which he clearly wasn't. ...dave souza, talk 18:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Tenor of the Article

First off, this is generally a very good article - well informed, full of judicious detail (although I might be tempted to add Dr Johnson's comment - "Dr. Monboddo does not know that he talking nonsense"). Echoing somewhat the above, this article seems to be written as if under the unfluence of a source that is making a scholarly effort to reclaim the subject from historical obscurity, with a highly motivated review of his thought and ideas that may not necessarily be historically accurate and may also far short of an encyclopedic treatment. This article should not be about salvaging Lord Monboddo's reputation (which is why I think this has POV issues), as much as a basic exposition of the facts and particulars pertinent to his life. Eusebeus 14:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Monboddo/Burnett

It should be decided whether to refer to the subject as Monboddo or Burnett. As it stands, he is called Monboddo up to the paragraph preceding the section on metaphysics, after which he is referred to as Barnett (and indication itself of a number of sources for the article that have not yet been "digested" enough :-) CCooke 13:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

are you referring to picking the article title or treatment in the text? as far as treatment in the text goes, this name ambiguity is actually a reflection of the name variation of how others referred to Burnett during and after his life. i think the article reads best by referring to him using each of the terms. Why dont we address your question in terms of specific locations in the article you might think of altering? regards Anlace 19:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It's the treatment in the text I'm on about. Alternating between one and the other name would be fine. However, the fact that the one name is used exclusively in the first half of the article, up to the paragraph preceding Metaphysics, and the other exclusively after that makes the article just adds to how disjointed the article currently reads. CCooke 10:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

well you seem to have answered your own question. that break in nomenclature generally corresponds to the point in Monboddo's life at which he assumed the title "monboddo". Anlace 16:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

A joke?

Charles Neaves, Lord Neaves, one of Monboddo's successors on the high court of Scotland believed that proper credit (Neaves, 1875) was not given to Monboddo in evolutionary theory development. Neaves wrote in poetic form:

Though Darwin now proclaims the law

And spreads it far abroad, O!

The man that first the secret saw

Was honest old Monboddo.

The architect precedence takes

Of him that bears the hod, O!

So up and at them, Land of Cakes,

We'll vindicate Monboddo.

Er, don't you think this sounds somewhat tongue-in-cheek? --91.148.159.4 (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

A contradiction?

In fact, Monboddo was deeply religious and pointed out that the creation events were probably simply allegories and did not dispute that the universe was created by God.

I'm not sure I see how these two statements complement each other, or how they don't exclude each other, for that matter. Either the creation of the universe by God really occurred, or it was "simply an allegory", but how can both be true? If "the creation events" is supposed to mean the creation of things such as man, animals, and language, while simply "the creation" is supposed to mean the creation of things such as space and planets, that should be stated more clearly. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Lord??

He can't just be a Lord! HE must be one of the following: Baron, Viscount, Earl, Marquess or Duke. --Camaeron (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No, Lord is an honorary title given to Court of Session judges. Charlie Tango (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Court of Session

I have removed some nonsense claiming that The Court of Session was the supreme criminal court of Scotland, also known as the High Court of Justiciary. This is complete nonsense, they are separate institutions. Whoever wrote this was confused by the fact that HCJ judges are also members of the Court of Session. Charlie Tango (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Court of Session Seal.jpg

The image Image:Court of Session Seal.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

New file Image:Henry Home, Lord Kames; Hugo Arnot; James Burnett, Lord Monboddo by John Kay.jpg

Recently the file Image:Henry Home, Lord Kames; Hugo Arnot; James Burnett, Lord Monboddo by John Kay.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 10:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, and thank you for your help. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Pop "culture"

The "In popular culture" section is of doubtful value.Lestrade (talk) 19:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Lestrade

I think the Dickens reference is important, as it shows Monboddo was associated with at least the enduring popular caricature of human evolution twenty-five years before Darwin published in 1859. Even granting Darwin primacy in the fully-developed idea, prior public familiarity surely made it easier for Darwin to state his ideas fearlessly and find a publisher: would On the Origin of Species have been written for a popular audience, had that audience been unprepared? Might Darwin not have otherwise joined Lyell and Wallace as one who prepared the ground for some later writer who ended up with the credit? Scutigera (talk) 22:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)