Talk:On Growth and Form

Less ?

The work is widely admired by biologists, anthropologists and architects among others, but less often read. Does this mean that it is less often read than admired? Or that more people admire it than read it? Or that more people admire it than have read it? Could someone clarify and provide a reliable source for the clarified statement? --Ettrig (talk) 11:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The first, which is the plain meaning. I've added a ref from Philip Ball's article in Nature, 2013: the lead summarizes a statement made by Ball in that article, and quoted in the Reception section. Doubt we'll get a clearer statement than that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Influence on Leopold Kohr, Ivan Illich, E.F. Schumacher, Jane Jacobs and other Decentralist

I know from reading "Ivan Illich: In Conversation" by David Cayley that Illich considered this text as well as Haldane's "On Being the Right Size" as influences on both his own and Leopold Kohr's understanding of social size. Should this be included in this article at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.129.233 (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

No reason why not. Feel free to add a statement under the "Influence" heading with the reference and page number. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Wolfram quote

A sock, now blocked and his/her works all now undone, added the following cited text:

Computer-scientist and physicist, Stephen Wolfram, writes:

In Thompson's time – as still to a large extent today – the dominant form of explanation in biology was Darwinism: essentially the idea that things are the way they are because they've somehow evolved to be that way, in order to maximize some kind of fitness.

Thompson's book is an important inspiration for the concept that even though biological forms may at first look complicated, there can still be theories and explanations for them. In modern times, there's a crucial new idea that Thompson did not have; the idea of using not traditional mathematics and physics, but instead computation and simple programs as a way of describing the rules by which things grow. It's remarkable to what extent that idea lets us understand the mechanisms by which complex biological forms are produced, and lets us finish the bold initiative that Thompson began a century ago in On Growth and Form.

I feel that this is actually rather a good and thought-provoking quotation that materially improves the article (which I brought to GA some years ago). If people agree, then perhaps, despite the doubtful way it got into the article first time around, we might add it back in. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

References