Talk:Plutonism
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
University of Sydney edit
Contact: Frances Di Lauro, Associate Professor in Writing Studies, School of Literature, Art and Media in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, the University of Sydney; Toby Hudson, Senior Lecturer, Theoretical Materials Chemistry, School of Chemistry, at the University of Sydney.
At the University of Sydney, we teach two credit bearing Open Learning Environment (OLE) units that are part of the University of Sydney's new curriculum:
- Writing for the Digital World (Since S2, 2018) This 6cp unit runs for a full semester and is taught partly online, with 2 synchronous workshop hours per week for 12 weeks. Students create an article about an underrepresented topic in their disciplinary area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mechanised Phantom (talk • contribs) 07:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Note: the above USYD item is for the purpose of informing individuals that a specific user (Mechanised Phantom) worked on this stub due to participating in a course called OLE2129 where they were tasked with writing a Wikipedia article for a specific stub.
What theory succeeded Plutonism? edit
Would it be worth adding which theory (or theories) came after Plutonism? Right now the article says that after the 19th century, "the plutonist views on the origin of rocks prevailed" but it's listed under Obsolete Scientific Theories which seems to contradict that. 65.34.87.245 (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- I found a sentence on the article for Neptunism that answers your question, more or less, and added it here. Unfortunately, there was no source cited, but it seems pretty reasonable. ubiquity (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Given that both the articles igneous rock (in line with Plutonism) and sedimentary rock (in line with Neptunism) exist, it's safe to assume that the thing that both theories got wrong was thinking that the other theory was contradictory. The modern view is that there's more than one mechanism by which rocks can form, i.e. both of them proposed correct models for the formation of some rocks, but neither model explains all rock formation. - Alltat (talk) 10:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)