Thomas Sprat – Scientist of the Day
Thomas Sprat, an English cleric and writer, died May 20, 1713, at about age 78; his date of birth is unknown.
read more...

seen from Malaysia
seen from Uzbekistan
seen from India
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from China
seen from Canada
seen from Saudi Arabia
seen from United States

seen from Germany

seen from Brazil
seen from Georgia
seen from China
seen from Pakistan
seen from Philippines
seen from China
Thomas Sprat – Scientist of the Day
Thomas Sprat, an English cleric and writer, died May 20, 1713, at about age 78; his date of birth is unknown.
read more...
What you dislike in another take care to correct in yourself.
Thomas Sprat
http://www.tshirtadvice.com/thomas-sprat-t-shirts-a-great-wisdom-tshirts/ Thomas Sprat T-shirts - A great - Wisdom Tshirts A great proportion of the wretchedness which has embittered married life, has originated in a negligence of trifles.-Thomas Sprat This type of quotes t shirt doesn’t go out of style. We provide you with time honored quote t-shirts , words of wisdom tees , beliefs tee shirts , and ...
What you dislike in another take care to correct in yourself.
Thomas Sprat
If there can be a true character given of the universal temper of any nation under heaven, then certainly this must be ascribed to our countrymen: that they have commonly an unaffected sincerity; that they love to deliver their minds with a profound simplicity; ...that they are more concerned what others will think of the strength than of the fineness of what they say...
Thomas Sprat, The History of the Royal Society of London, for the Improving of Natural Knowledge; Section 20. Their Manner of Discourse
In Thomas Sprat’s piece, he calls for keeping scientific knowledge available and seeing things as they are. By section 20, Sprat focuses on the need for simplicity and transparency as opposed to eloquence, which he believes is fatal in maintaining peace and proper manners. He praises the countrymen (and artisans and merchants) for their genuineness and modesty, for the ease at which they communicate simply. He accuses the Englishmen of the Royal Society of the opposite, who refine their speech and seek to persuade rather than inform. He hopes for this to be reformed. He stresses the importance of improving the presentation of knowledge that it may allow for purer and stronger widespread understanding.
I believe that there is truth in what he writes: that simplicity in speech and language can serve its purpose in purely educating and enlightening; that rhetoric and persuasiveness doesn’t have a place in the acquisition of knowledge, but rather in the consumption of literature, which glorifies artistic uses of rhetoric; and that knowledge is to be embraced for its gains of rational discovery, available for everyone.
[...] Concluding that eloquence ought to be banished out of all civil societies as a thing fatale to peace and good manners.
Thomas Sprat, The History of the Royal Society of London: Section 20.
**Note, this is live blogged and shameful
This quote and the sentences that follow caught my attention quite quickly, in that Sprat talks about the power of eloquence, written or perhaps spoken, and the dangers it presents when in the hands of some less savoury but well educated figures. He finds the power that words possess to be INTIMIDATING, even frightening, and certainly destructive.
Oddly enough, the tone of his writing concerning the misuse of eloquence is borderline vehement; he disapproves so strongly of verbal eloquence that he himself has to becomes literarily eloquent in order to demonstrate how utterly dangerous the power of proper rhetoric is. I mean, it’s gotten to the point where I can’t really tell if he’s being a sarcastic little shit or if he’s genuinely angry that philosophers abuse eloquent speech.
Of course, as one continues to read, Sprat comes to commend the Royal society for their utterly glorious way of simplifying and ‘dumbing down’ philosophical language, so that it has no pomp, no amplification, no nothing, thus making it less misleading.
now hold up you cheeky lil shit
are you seriously commending the royal society for the use of plain, simple, and basic language?
I mean, it took me a second to wrap my head around this sick burn (if indeed it is, a sick burn, and i have not grossly misinterpreted this text) but, isn’t he basically dissing the Royal Society of London for debasing the beauty of the English language and it’s capacity for eloquence? Is this what’s happening? Because if it is, well shit -- ten points to ravenclaw for the fancy shmancy diss, like you go glen coco, flaunt that eloquence, damn.
What you dislike in another take care to correct in yourself.
Thomas Sprat
What you dislike in another take care to correct in yourself
Thomas Sprat