Skip to content

Talk:Benjamin Franklin

From the Quicksilver Metaweb.

We should list his written works, his love of odd punning in creating psuedonyms, and misstresses. I heard he enjoyed 'air baths' also. Should we have a separate section for Deism?

Yes, yes, yes, yes. Franklin is a really interesting character and perhaps more one who belongs on the list of notable Baroque figures since he is kind of pre-Englightenment in some important attitudinal ways. More of a contemporary of Voltaire ideologically.

  • Especially in terms of how both seem to be intolerant to Jews.

I don't think there is any evidence of this. On the contrary, Franklin was in the forefront of religious tolerance. Although not a churchgoer or even a Christian he donated funds for the building of every place of worship in Philadelphia, including 5 pounds (a not inconsiderable sum) for the synagogue of the Mikvah Israel congregation. Because of his tolerant Deist beliefs he had opposed religious oaths and tests in both the federal and Pennsylvania consituions. In 1788 he oversaw the arrangements for the fourth of July parade in Philadelpia which for the first time had clergy from various Christian denominations and Jewish rabbis walk arm in arm down the street.

Thanks for pointing me to the fraud. - Sparky 16:24, 2004 Jan 30 (PST)

“This article, which thoroughly documents the history of the transparent fraud known as the Franklin "Prophecy", appeared almost forty-five years ago in the April-May 1954 issue of Facts, a publication of the Anti-Defamation League. At the time, the authors wrote "This 20-year-old anti-Semitic hoax is circulating again." Today, more than sixty-five years after it was manufactured, the "Prophecy" it is still circulating, a staple of anti-Semitic propaganda. It can be found on a number of web sites maintained by haters and hate-groups. The article is, therefore, still timely and instructive. …”

Timberbee's tanning article is oddly relevant to Ben Franklin's father who is a candle maker.

The terms "positive" and "negative" were first proposed by Franklin. As a professional physicist, I would not consider them "wrong," although it is true that a negatively charged object is the result of there being an excess of electrons within or on that object. It could also be said that such an object has too few protons!

Since the protons don't move near as much, and could be said to be simply the figments of a physicist's imagination anyway, I think that argument is bogus.

You would have to include the "chemist's imagination," as well. Chemists talk quite often about protons moving (protonation, etc.); just consider what an acid is: a bunch of protons. And they are all moving, all right, just like electrons.

It's more the concept that a proton has anything in common with an electron that's questionable... that they are comparable in any way other than charge.

The fact that Franklin's convention for positive and negative charge resulted in the yet-to-be-discovered electron being negative is of no true consequence at all since charge flow can be due to the flow of electrons or positive ions (or, in the case of p-type semiconductors, positive "holes"). It's just a convention and thus arbitrary.

  • Excesses usually are marked with a "+" - your longer explanation, well, its fair to include it, but, if you have to explain "holes" moving, well, that's a bit of a reach.

OK, I'm willing to admit being a bit pedantic here. I am really reacting to the word "wrong" and the thoughtless repetition of quirky little factoids such as "Franklin, genius that he was, got the charge of the electron wrong" (no one knew from electrons or protons back then anyway) or "Einstein wasn't very good at math." These short little conversation starters are wrong (that is, factually wrong).

Fine, so, it's fixed in the entry. Next time you can rephrase it yourself.

I actually really like the way you rephrased it! I couldn't have done as well, but in the future, I'll be more proactive about it... I'm still getting used to this whole metaweb idea. In addition, I liked the back and forth, since you helped illuminate for me your thinking. This is important for me, as I'm a teacher and I'm always trying to figure out how people are thinking as well as what they are thinking. Thanks!

Any time. If you like this kind of back and forth you should check out http://wikipedia.org and especially http://simple.wikipedia.org (more focused on teaching things). See especially Being snarky as a way to deal with the problems of empathizing with "users who are nothing like you".

It's fairly obvious that relevance to Stephenson's work, and, related entries that only matter because of Stephenson's work, need to be treated in a somewhat different fashion than actual facts about the person, or related entries on the historical background. Possibly two more elements of the Metaweb:intermediate page, Metaweb:Stephenson related entries and Metaweb:Stephenson refers perhaps? For now this is in italics, the same convention as used in list of notable Baroque figures to mark a fictional character.