return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Man of his time
By lioncell gmx.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 20:19:42 +0000
From: Akua Desta (lioncell gmx.net)
Subject: Re: Man of his time
Deborah wrote:
When I first became involved in the women’s health movement in the early
1970s, Margaret Sanger (who was born between the time of Steiner and
Hitler) was cast as some sort of heroine. Upon learning of Sanger’s
covertly eugenicist views, I asked the women with whom I worked how they
could admire such a person and the response was basically, “Well, you
have to understand that she was a woman of her time and that some of her
ideas are not appropriate today.”
Akua:
Makes one wonder why she and her work are celebrated then. In Germany
the gay community still celebrates the life and achievements of Magnus
Hirschfeld. Rosa von Praunheim, a well known German gay activist and
film director did a film on Hirschfeld's life depicting him as an early
victim of Naziism. Yet analyzing his life and works you'd notice
Hirschfeld shared many of the underlying sentiments of Nazi doctrine,
among others he was deeply committed to eugenic ideas admiring Ernst
Haeckel and his kind of social darwinism. Hirschfeld had been a
proponent of racial hygiene and consequently an active member of the
'Gesellschaft fuer Rassehygiene' (Society for Racial Hygiene) When
establishing his 'Insititut fuer Sexualwissenschaften' (naming on of the
halls in honour of Haeckel) he also offered family planning to poor
working class couples, his motivation not informed by sympathy for the
plight of endless pregnancies and the financial burden to feed more and
more mouths but by an inferior status accorded to what he deemed surplus
population, he simply did not want these people to spread what
Hirschfeld viewed as inferior genes. He frequently mutilated his
patients, interestingly not only one or both parties of straight couples
but also gay men who sought help at his institute, obviously no remorse
on Hirschfeld's part. This omission on behalf of von Praunheim is
telling, von Praunheim's family being of the same upper class background
as Hirschfeld's. Questioning gay appraisals of Hirschfeld's work you'd
get precisely the same answer you, Deborah, been told when asking about
Margaret Sanger. There are plenty of examples of similar incidents
within the women's movement over here as well which I do not consider an
accident.
Akua
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1522
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Man/Woman of "their time"
By aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 17:35:21 +0000
From: L G Clemens (aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Man/Woman of "their time"
Gideon Mills wrote:
)
)
)
) yarngal yarngal (yarngal webtv.net) wrote:
) "Hi Deborah and All, I have to agree that the "man or woman of their
) time" excuse for accepting knowledge from racists, etc. is FALSE!"
)
) I agree. So far, I have yet to evidence any sort of knowledge from
) Steiner, Blavatsky, Shockley, etal. that is of value at all to me, my
) children or my people. What has come through from all of the rhetoric
) and actions of the anthrops I have had direct contact with is: 1) the
) use of illegal drugs is okay, 2) placing several ounces or pounds of
) detritus on one's dashboard somehow communicates the vehicle owner's
) "spirituality," (hopefully, the deer ticks exited the pine cones and
) birch bark before being scooped up and placed several inches from the
) passenger and/or child's seat, and 3) one deserves what one receives,
) e.g. house fires, leukemia, vehicular homicide.
Deborah, the way you tell it, life in your community sounds like a cross
between "Twin Peaks" and "Deliverance".
) "If those people were alive now, perhaps they would believe the same way
) (ie. eugenics, racist)."
)
) Of course they would and they would receive far greater support for
) their beliefs than they did during their lifetimes. That they receive
) any overt support for their beliefs is evidence of that. Their beliefs
) have been aptly carried through to the present by their believer
) progeny.
This is complete nonsense. In the case of William Shockley, there's no
need to speculate. He was a contemporary figure. He was still teaching
at Stanford when I was a student at a nearby university. There's no
question but that he was a venerated scientist (winning the Nobel Prize)
who, as the more he shared his racial views, steadily alienated nearly
every one of his earlier supporters. It would be hard to find a guy who
inspired more contempt from his students, from colleagues, even his own
family.
You pretend as if it's odd to revere flawed historical figures. I'd
argue it would be unusual to find historical figures without any flaws.
Most of us (thankfully) realize it doesn't have to be "all or
nothing"--for example, we can admire Thomas Jefferson without getting
sucked in to supporting slavery.
) "Also, NOT everyone in their own times believed as Steiner, Sanger etc.
) believed."
)
) Certainly not their victims - their millions upon millions of victims.
Steiner has "millions upon millions of victims"?
) The "survival of the fittest" doctrine (a concept originated by Herbert
) Spencer) was not something that even Charles Darwin ascribed to but it
) is a concept that many of those who claim to be opposed to race-thinking
) do believe in.
Your argument is quite muddled.
a) Spencer's "survival of the fittest doctrine" (later described as
social darwinism) clearly argued to attach natural law to social and
political policy. Spencer's idea of natural evolution was Lamarkian,
not Darwinian. While Spencer acknowledged that those that can't do so
won't survive, he, like Lamark, believed that organisms DO evolve by
responding directly TO environmental conditions. Hence, in his mind, it
was an "injury" of sorts, akin to co-dependence or 'enabling', to rescue
less fortunates.
b) Darwin clearly did attach Spencer's term "survival of the fittest" to
his own term "natural selection", attempting, I believe, to help
illuminate his own arguments regarding natural evolution. In sharp
contrast to Lamark, Darwin came to disagree that organisms change
directly, in response to their environment, and instead believed that
evolution occurs because there is a natural variability from which
nature, via environmental conditions, favors some to survive and others
to be extinguished. Man had been selectively breeding plants and
animals for thousands of years--Darwin argued that natural selection and
"survival of the fittest" is Mother Nature selectively breeding plants
and animals over millions of years.
c) As a concept to describe evolution, Lamarkian or Darwinian, "survival
of the fittest" is so inarguable from a logical point of view that
endless waves of academic nitpickers have haggled over whether or not
it's a tautology (since "fitness" has no value, quality or meaning
EXCEPT as determined by the act of "survival").
d) What's especially problematic in terms of "social darwinism" is that
it isn't at all difficult to attach the Lamarkian idea of "adaptation"
to social evolution. Clearly, societies and cultures DO respond
directly to to environmental conditions, even though we no longer
believe our genes will. Societies and cultures DO respond, and this
response IS inherited.
e) Darwin most certainly believed in the existence of "races". He
declared "there is no doubt" but that the races differ from each other,
physically, emotionally, intellectually. He described the mental
characteristics of the various races as "very distinct". He denied they
represented separate species. He declared, however, that in terms of
human races, the category "sub-species" could be used "with propriety".
The lack of Mendelian genetics had nothing to do with either his use of
the term "race", nor with his classifying the races to a common species.
He acknowledged that the term "race" was more likely to persist over
the concept of "sub-species" due to "long habit". Those today arguing
that the degree of difference between the races is sufficient for them
to be categorized as separate sub-species (as Darwin did) are routinely
castigated as racists.
So Darwin was as much of what you'd call "a race thinker" as Spencer or
Steiner. Societies and cultures DO evolve in a somewhat Lamarkian
sense. And although it's both inarguable and frustratingly
insufficient, the evolutionary concept of "survival of the fittest"
hasn't caused problems because it's a lie, but because it's been a
pitiful excuse for self-serving men to play both God and Mother Nature
over other people.
I think its odd that while debating whether or not Steiner was a "man of
his time", you've raised these specters. You say "I cannot fathom how
anyone who cares about a child would deliberately subject her/him to
anything that came out of the mind such a person." Yet tens of millions
of public school children in this country are not only "subjected" to
ideas from people like these, they're forced to study their ideas
directly. Whether it's from Darwin (who CERTAINLY influenced more to
genocide than you can pretend to yourself Steiner has), or Abraham
Lincoln, or Woodrow Wilson or even Albert Einstein, --among countless
others--, children are deliberately subjected to ideas from imperfect
thinkers.
What I also find ironic is that compulsory education in this country has
been routinely and consciously used as a tool for a Lamarkian-style
"evolution" over the country's sociological and cultural spheres.
All this huff and puff comes across to me as so much play-acting, I'm
sorry. It conjures in my mind this image of a child looking for
boogeymen with his toilet-paper tube spyglass. I suppose we all suffer
our own kook ideas about who is and isn't scary. But if a genuinely
fretful child nervous of the boogeyman reaches for his toilet-paper tube
spyglass, it certainly ISN'T so he can get a better look at it.
Linda
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1523
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Linda and Brad's discreditation and disinformation campaign
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
flat earth
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Man/Woman of "their time"
By gideonmills yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 09:22:18 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Linda and Brad's discreditation and disinformation campaign
Hi Linda,
I think you may have missed my last post to you in this thread - from
10/08/04:
Previously, I asked:
Are you now saying that *you* do
) not see the many Steiner passages you have seen here and elsewhere as
being
) "racist?" The "purported racist passages" bit (above) makes me ask that
) question.
Linda replied:
"Walden, please reread the remarks made by Deborah and then perhaps you
can understand better my response to them."
Done. OK. But you still have not answered my direct question to you
regarding what I see as blatant racist comments from Steiner and how you
seem to see these quotes as "purported racist passages." The question was
not a trick question, Linda. I am curious as to your choice of the word,
"purported." I'm not pulling the occasional word and twisting it for any
agenda. It's an important point, imo.
Linda wrote:
"What I am saying, Walden, is you can't have it both ways. Is Steiner's
racism a secret that the "cult" is in denial over, and desperate to hide
away from?"
No, I don't think Steiner's racism (do we agree on this point now?) is a
secret. I do believe, however, Steiner's racism is certainly not front and
centre with the myriad of palatable Steiner quotes we see from
Athroposophists at Waldorf Schools. Recent edits of some books might help
to make those remarks a "secret" at some point down the road - only
available to a certain segment of Anthro society - i.e. those who lead the
Way. One does need to take the time to read books and lectures in order to
see not only the racist remarks but how those concepts help form the
foundation on which Anthroposophy stands as a
philoshophy/religion/spiritual path.
As for "denial," well, yes I have seen denial of the obvious on this list
and elsewhere for years now.
Linda wrote:
"Or is Steiner's racism the message by the "dominant elite"
that dupes and silences the powerless "inferiors".
Steiner's racism is Steiner's racism. I don't know about a "dominant elite"
but I do know of anthroposophists who refuse to discuss that topic. My
hunch is that as Anthroposophists seem to generally accept that Steiner was
clairvoyant and spiritually enlightened and/or an initiate... he was
infallible. He might have made comments that *sounded* racist but that is
not what he actually *meant.* The *what did he mean* bit is what interests
me as well as the idolatry of ideology.
Linda wrote:
"Weren't you the one that asked me what I thought about his works being
'cleansed' when translated and published?"
Yup. What do you think about that?
I wrote:
) I am willing to accept that you really and truly do not believe
) that anthroposophy is in the classroom and that Waldorf PR is just dandy
) as
) is (denial, imo, but you believe what you want to believe) ... but do
) you
) also believe that Steiner's racist ideas were a result of bad
) stenographers
) or translations? Were they taken out of context?
Linda replied:
"I have no earthly idea if they were poorly stenographed or translated.
I do know they are frequently taken out of context (which isn't helpful
if you're trying to build a case against him imho) - I do not pretend to
know that ALL of these comments are excusable."
OK - please point to a case or two where you "know" Steiner's racist ideas
have been "frequently taken out of context."
Linda wrote:
"This is probably the 10th time I've said this, but I don't give a big
whoop about Steiner's views on the subject - I care how the teachers in
the classroom behave. Do you have any realistic idea how much racist
baggage this culture and its various peoples come with? From EVERY
direction?"
I agree there is racist baggage elsewhere. Many fine people work to shine
light on the baggage and bring it out into the open. In this case, we are
talking about Rudolf Steiner and *his* racist baggage and how those ideas
might find their way into the Waldorf environment. Shall we simply ignore
this particular baggage because there is similar baggage elsewhere? I think
this is where we disagree, Linda. It might be at the centre of our
differences. You don't give a big whoop about it because there is racism
elsewhere, as well. I find that attitude rather sad, really. Have you ever
thought that Waldorf might be a better - far better, perhaps - place if more
people *did* give a big whoop about Steiner's racism? Imagine having Anthro
Central at AWSNA actually going on record as rejecting Steiner's racism.
Imagine a Waldorf environment where enrolment reflected the real cultural
diversity of the local community - where ALL families would feel welcome ...
even those of colour who had taken the time to read Steiner and his
racial/spiritual hierarchy and had felt repulsed by such concepts and would
NEVER have wanted their children to be part of such a "community"... in
denial. Imagine their reliefe when the baggage is dealt with. Why NOT deal
with the baggage? If you help Waldorf/Anthro to deal with the baggage in
the near future, Peter's Anthroposophy book might even have a happy ending.
Kinda gives you the warm fuzzies just thinking about it, huh?
Linda wrote:
"It's in the government. It's in the constitution. It's in
our religious institutions, as well as scientific, educational, medical,
philosophical, sociological, psychological, political, and countless
more. It's in the media. Literature. Music. Art. Politics. It's in
our holidays, for cryssakes. And we're not unique. Everyplace has it's
own racist garbage to deal with."
And it's in your Waldorf movement for spiritual renewal, Linda. By virtue
of having had my kids in a Waldorf school movement
that could not answer - deal with - questions of racism in Steiner's concept
of past, present and future... I was not dealing with my "own racist
garbage." The times they are a changin....
Linda wrote:
" But I've come to realize that
Waldorf supporters are frequently expected to just keep jabbering away
forever here--repeating the same things over and over and over."
No. I don't think anyone expects anything of you. If you choose to repeat
the same things over and over and over, I respectfully suggest you ask
yourself...why?
I'll speak from experience here because I can relate to this. I came to a
point where I realized I was talking without listening. I felt attacked and
I did not like the attackers... or so I chose to believe. So I talked alot.
Not on this list but IRL. Fact is, the ideas bothered me and I really
needed to work on that riddle - the people behind them were probably just
fine. Eventually my perspective changed and I felt no need to same the same
things over and over and over again. I have come to think of that response
as one of denial. Been there/Donethat.
Linda wrote:
"Don't each of these give and take exchanges between us feel a lot like
Bumper Cars to you, walden? They do to me. I just wanted to get your
read on it...see if we're on the same page here."
Not really. From time to time we seem to connect on some level. More like
a merry-go-round, maybe? One that goes up and down as it spins. I like the
ups.
I think it's wonderful that you take the time to share your views here.
Your "give and take" is appropriate, methinks. I actually try to take what
you give - thinking and trying to understand your intent, although this
medium is not the friendliest way to communicate. That's a problem (your
bumper cars) perhaps. I do wonder, though, how difficult is it for you to
really listen to what some of us are trying to communicate here? I wonder
if you have a hard time trying to "take" what I am trying to "give?" I know
you feel that Waldorf is a good thing for your kids and you could very well
be entirely correct - who am *I* to judge? But I wonder if those feelings
(Waldorf is good for your kids) might make it difficult to *grok* some of
what I am trying to communicate here with regards to research and
Waldorf-the-religious-program, Steiner's racism, etc? I hope that makes
sense....
- Walden
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 22:23:54 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: flat earth
I have been very busy for sometime so I hope it’s not too late to continue
the discussion Abd and I are having about what I continue to maintain are
Abd’s romantic notions about science and his claim that one can separate
observations from theory. Abd’s previous post on this issue may be found at
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N20016FA9. Abd accuses me of arguing from an
assumption that he is wrong. I plead guilty. I believe Abd is incorrect in
the claims of simplicity he makes. In this post I hope to demonstrate
further the complexity of the experiment Abd has proposed.
As we have discussed before, in ancient times Eratosthenes used measurements
of the lengths of shadows at two locations on the Earth’s surface, and the
measured distance between them to determine the approximate diameter of the
Earth assuming the Earth is a sphere. While some argument remains about the
conversion factor for Eratosthenes’ units of measurement to modern units, I
accept for the sake of argument that Eratosthenes obtained a value for the
earth’s diameter which is reasonably accurate. Of course, this did not
prove that the Earth was a sphere. It only gave an approximate dimension
over which the Earth would have to be examined to prove the Earth was
spherical. The fact is that Eratosthenes believed the earth to be spherical
for reasons other than this supposed observation that Abd claims. I do not
know why Eratosthenes believed the earth to be round. It may well have been
religious. In any case what he did was deduce from the knowledge that the
earth was spherical and his understanding of geometry a method for
determining the size of the earth.
Abd has been saying something similar to the following. The observation that
the change in angle that the direction to Polaris makes with the vertical
with movement towards Polaris is consistent with a spherical Earth, and not
consistent with a flat Earth, nor with any other geometry. This argument has
a number of flaws. Two simple examples which give rise to similar
observations are some regions on a toroidal Earth (doughnut) and an oblate
spheroid. In both of these cases, observations over an appropriately large
region will distinguish between competing theories. Another factor is more
important than purely geometric arguments that have so far been raised. This
is the notion of how one determines the direction of horizontal and
vertical. This will require a discussion of gravity.
Abd is of course absolutely incorrect to claim as he did that the Earth
appears flat. The Earth’s surface is bumpy. It has hills and valleys. It is
true that we know that the size of the largest of these is small compared to
the overall dimensions. If we try to perform Eratosthenes’ experiment in a
location where the surface is hilly, we need to prepare a surface which will
enable an accurate measurement before we can proceed. One possibility is to
cover some location with a sufficient depth of sand or something similar and
to use a spirit level or a plumb bob and a right angle and an appropriate
straight stick to produce a flat plane. The next step is to erect a straight
stick vertically in the centre of this plane and to measure the length of
its shadow on the surface of the constructed plane. The tools that I have
suggested we use to construct this plane and to erect the vertical require
gravity to work. One of Abd’s hidden assumptions is that the measured
vertical and horizontal are related to some macroscopic notion of vertical
and horizontal which is purely geometric. For the spherical Earth, this
means that vertical is parallel to the direction towards to the centre,
while a horizontal plane forms a tangent to the surface of the sphere. For a
non rotating, homogeneous, spherical Earth obeying Newtonian gravity,
vertical and horizontal as obtained by gravity are identical to the
geometric description of vertical and horizontal. Inhomogeneity and rotation
break this identity. Rotation in particular gives rise to a different
mathematical relationship between the apparent position of Polaris and
linear surface distance from the Pole to that which Abd claims as
approximately valid. The Earth’s rotation rate is not so great that it
disturbs the approximate relationship between distance and latitude very
much, but it is observable with modern measurements.
It is illustrative to consider a different geometry, a cylindrical earth. If
we assume Newtonian gravity holds, local notions of vertical and horizontal
no longer coincide with the macroscopic geometry of the cylinder. Even on
the flat surfaces of the cylinder (not the curved surface), one would
experience a change in the apparent direction of a pole star with respect to
local notions of vertical as one traveled from the centre of the flat
surface towards the outer rim. Something similar would happen on the curved
surface depending on the ratio of the height of the cylinder to its sides.
If one could only do experiments over a region small compared to the size of
the whole cylinder or the whole sphere, one might have to do very careful
and precise measurements in order to distinguish living on a cylindrical
earth from living on a spherical earth.
Newtonian theories of gravity provide excellent reasons for believing that
planets of reasonable size should be approximately spherical as opposed to
cylindrical or cubic or irregular. However what Abd was trying to tell us
was that he could separate observation from theory. Indeed Abd could make
complicated descriptions of positions of bubbles in spirit levels, distances
between locations, and the apparent position of stars in the sky. The
trouble is that theories of gravity, geometry, trigonometry and optics are
intertwined in all this in ways which are exceedingly subtle. I think Abd is
wrong in his romantic suggestions of simplicity.
See you, Peter
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 18:19:21 -0800 (PST)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Man/Woman of "their time"
L G Clemens (aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com) wrote:
"You pretend as if it's odd to revere flawed historical figures. I'd
argue it would be unusual to find historical figures without any flaws.
Most of us (thankfully) realize it doesn't have to be "all or
nothing"--for example, we can admire Thomas Jefferson without getting
sucked in to supporting slavery."
Are you implying that Steiner was "flawed?" And who outside of the dominant culture do you believe admires Thomas Jefferson? T. Jefferson did not just support slavery and, obviously, the sexual use of women, but he believed that "negroes" could never establish equity with those of european ancestry.
'Steiner has "millions upon millions of victims"?'
Yes. And with the ongoing proliferation of private and charter Waldorf schools, there is no end in sight of its victims.
"Your argument is quite muddled."
Ad hominem.
Your summary of Spencer's doctrine is not correct and/or is misleading. I think that the others on this list understand enough re: Spencer, Darwin and Lamark to not be taken in by what you portend their respective beliefs to be.
"Societies and cultures DO evolve in a somewhat Lamarkian
sense."
Which is what I was attempting to illuminate, i.e. Steiner was promoting the idea that aryans are the fittest and therefore will be the last to survive.
And although it's both inarguable and frustratingly
insufficient, the evolutionary concept of "survival of the fittest"
hasn't caused problems because it's a lie, but because it's been a
pitiful excuse for self-serving men to play both God and Mother Nature
over other people.
'You say "I cannot fathom how
anyone who cares about a child would deliberately subject her/him to
anything that came out of the mind such a person." Yet tens of millions
of public school children in this country are not only "subjected" to
ideas from people like these, they're forced to study their ideas
directly.'
Which clearly explains for me why public school boards have contractually welcomed the existence of publically funded Waldorf "schools." At base, the dominant culture shares the same belief infrastructure; how it manifests is simply a matter of style and/or cosmetics.
"children are deliberately subjected to ideas from imperfect
thinkers."
And as adults it is our responsibility to point to those imperfections. Also, there are more than a few "thinkers" whose ideas stand up to the most intense of scrutiny, e.g. Fannie Lou Hamer, Nelson Mandela, Bernice Reagan, Ralph Nader, Winona LaDuke, Audre Lorde.
"I suppose we all suffer
our own kook ideas about who is and isn't scary."
I don't recall anyone here speaking of being frightened (as implied by your assertion of "scary") by anything. Aside from you, no one has spoken of boogymen, which are as intangible as gnomes and fairies.
If you are, as you assert, the mother of First Nations children, then I have to wonder at the self-hatred you are passing on to those who are the carriers of your people's future. You can intellectualize Waldorf forever, but how can you look into the eyes of your children and not see what you are promulgating?
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com/a
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1524
-- Topica Digest --
Re: flat earth
By abd lomaxdesign.com
RE: Man/Woman of "their time"
By aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com
Re: flat earth
By feetapparel hotmail.com
RE: Linda and Brad's discreditation and disinformation campaign
By aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com
Re: Linda and Brad's discreditation and disinformation campaign
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
Re: Linda and Brad's discreditation and disinformation campaign
By awaldenpond shaw.ca
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 13:55:16 -0500
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: Re: flat earth
It is difficult for me to find time to respond adequately; however, I will
make a brief effort.
At 05:23 PM 11/2/2004, Peter Farrell wrote:
)I have been very busy for sometime so I hope it's not too late to continue
)the discussion Abd and I are having about what I continue to maintain are
)Abd's romantic notions about science and his claim that one can separate
)observations from theory. Abd's previous post on this issue may be found
)at http://makeashorterlink.com/?N20016FA9. Abd accuses me of arguing from
)an assumption that he is wrong. I plead guilty.
What sentence is appropriate for the crime?
) I believe Abd is incorrect in the claims of simplicity he makes. In this
) post I hope to demonstrate further the complexity of the experiment Abd
) has proposed.
First of all, what I've claimed is not utter and complete simplicity, nor
that every possible objection that could be raised would be answered.
Rather, what I have claimed is that a reasonable proof that the earth is
not flat and that it is of a certain approximate size is really quite
simple. Further, I consider that it would be pedagogically salutary.
What is most significant to me is the effect such a demonstration would
have on those who believe that the earth is flat, were they to participate
in the experiment. Flat-earthers are not very common now; but we are using
them as a stand-in for those who reject evolution on religious grounds.
Peter gives some alternate explanations of the altitude of Polaris
observations, I'll comment on them below. I could also think of some more.
But none of them that he proposes involve a flat earth; and none of them
are simple.
)As we have discussed before, in ancient times Eratosthenes used
)measurements of the lengths of shadows at two locations on the Earth's
)surface, and the measured distance between them to determine the
)approximate diameter of the Earth assuming the Earth is a sphere.
What Eratosthenes did, to my recollection, was to note that on a certain
day of the year, the sun passed directly overhead a certain location; that
is, the sun could be seen from the bottom of a well; or a tall vertical
pole would cast no shadow. Vertical is defined as the direction of a plumb
bob. Then he measured the angle of the sun at noon on that day (local noon
is defined as the time of minimum shadow, i.e., when the sun crosses the
meridian of the location.)
) While some argument remains about the conversion factor for
) Eratosthenes' units of measurement to modern units, I accept for the sake
) of argument that Eratosthenes obtained a value for the earth's diameter
) which is reasonably accurate.
There are a number of error sources in Eratosthene's measurement; I can
think of error in determining that the point of the second measurement was
due north or south of the first point, error in measuring the noon angle at
the second point, and error in measurement of the distance between the two
points. In addition, there is error in the assumption that the sun is
directly overhead on the same day each year, this is approximately but not
exactly true (because of the difference between the true solar year and a
certain number of days), resulting in a one day variation. The most serious
of these sources was probably the error in position of the second point.
Not so easy in Eratosthene's time.
) Of course, this did not prove that the Earth was a sphere. It only gave
) an approximate dimension over which the Earth would have to be examined
) to prove the Earth was spherical.
For that area of examination. It would only prove curvature of the surface
for that area. In this case, as described, it would only show curvature in
the north-south direction. However, in modern times, there is another very
easy way to determine curvature in all directions. It's called a telephone.
) The fact is that Eratosthenes believed the earth to be spherical for
) reasons other than this supposed observation that Abd claims. I do not
) know why Eratosthenes believed the earth to be round. It may well have
) been religious. In any case what he did was deduce from the knowledge
) that the earth was spherical and his understanding of geometry a method
) for determining the size of the earth.
Yes. However, his hypothesis (that the earth was spherical) was confirmed
by his measurement; and, I suspect, his measurement was really only a more
exact quantification of what was known to any sea-faring people. The
north-south curvature was known, I suspect, to be the same (within what
they could observe at the time) for all known locations.
But that's history. Whether or not it is true, a class undertaking the
effort could, in fact, measure the curvature in many directions, and they
could show that the curvature is equal in all directions, i.e., that the
surface, for the area measured, is spherical (until one gets accurate
enough at this to detect the oblateness of the earth, which is pretty
small). Yes, this would not prove that the whole earth is spherical: there
might be knobs projecting out. Occam's razor.
)Abd has been saying something similar to the following. The observation
)that the change in angle that the direction to Polaris makes with the
)vertical with movement towards Polaris is consistent with a spherical
)Earth, and not consistent with a flat Earth, nor with any other geometry.
There is, of course, an exception to that claim, which would require
additional investigation.
) This argument has a number of flaws. Two simple examples which give rise
) to similar observations are some regions on a toroidal Earth (doughnut)
) and an oblate spheroid. In both of these cases, observations over an
) appropriately large region will distinguish between competing theories.
The north-south measurement shows that the curvature is constant over the
region measured. Yes, there are alternate geometries which would produce
the same result with appropriate restriction of the measured region, and,
in fact, a regular torus (i.e., every cross-section normal to the surface
is a circle) will produce consistent results over the entire surface.
Eratosthenes perhaps would have rejected this shape as not being in accord
with his ideals; we might similarly rely upon Occam's razor. More to the
point, a torus will *not* show east-west curvature matching the north-south
curvature. The east-west measurement was much more difficult in
Eratosthene's day; it is made much easier by two modern inventions:
accurate clocks and means of communication over long distances with
negligible delay (and any delay is compensable). Essentially, if two
observers on the surface of the earth measure the direction and altitude of
a celestial object at the same time (easy if you've got a telephone), you
can determine the change in the horizontal plane between the two places. If
you can measure the distance between the two places, you can convert this
into a curvature.
But for the purposes of a class experiment, one could just do the
north-south measurement while noting that we can measure the east-west
curvature simply by knowing the difference in the timing of sunrise, noon,
or sunset.... (plus the distance).
But Eratosthenes pretty much had to be content with the north-south
issue... if the north-south curvature is the same wherever it is measured
(as it is), then one has reduced the potential shapes to some form of
toroid over the range of measurement. Other observations would further the
possibilities to a sphere or regular torus, and once one can measure
east-west, the issue would be completely settled. But flat it is not.
) Another factor is more important than purely geometric arguments that
) have so far been raised. This is the notion of how one determines the
) direction of horizontal and vertical. This will require a discussion of
) gravity.
Yes, however, it is not gravity, per se, which would need to be discussed, but
)Abd is of course absolutely incorrect to claim as he did that the Earth
)appears flat. The Earth's surface is bumpy.
Only where there are bumps.... :-) At sea one sees what could be called its
true shape. Likewise in any place where there is a large flat expanse.
) It has hills and valleys. It is true that we know that the size of the
) largest of these is small compared to the overall dimensions.
Indeed.
) If we try to perform Eratosthenes' experiment in a location where the
) surface is hilly, we need to prepare a surface which will enable an
) accurate measurement before we can proceed. One possibility is to cover
) some location with a sufficient depth of sand or something similar and to
) use a spirit level or a plumb bob and a right angle and an appropriate
) straight stick to produce a flat plane.
If you are measuring Polaris, you would use a level. Essentially, were I to
do this with a class and with Polaris, I'd mount a sextant on or with a
level. So, essentially, one would level the sextant and then observe Polaris.
Gravity confuses the issue, though. In order to address the problem, I'd
simply note that the horizon is only below level when observed from a
mountain (in which case the depression is small; my recollection of
navigation, however, is that it is enough to be considered; but even a tall
mountain is only a few miles elevated....), or above; or if the measurement
can be made close to sea level and the horizon is the sea, it is quite
precisely level. In all directions.
) The next step is to erect a straight stick vertically in the centre of
) this plane and to measure the length of its shadow on the surface of the
) constructed plane. The tools that I have suggested we use to construct
) this plane and to erect the vertical require gravity to work.
However, one can determine that a plumb bob is always normal to a level
surface (and level is defined as aligned with a clear horizon).
) One of Abd's hidden assumptions is that the measured vertical and
) horizontal are related to some macroscopic notion of vertical and
) horizontal which is purely geometric. For the spherical Earth, this means
) that vertical is parallel to the direction towards to the centre, while a
) horizontal plane forms a tangent to the surface of the sphere. For a non
) rotating, homogeneous, spherical Earth obeying Newtonian gravity,
) vertical and horizontal as obtained by gravity are identical to the
) geometric description of vertical and horizontal. Inhomogeneity and
) rotation break this identity. Rotation in particular gives rise to a
) different mathematical relationship between the apparent position of
) Polaris and linear surface distance from the Pole to that which Abd
) claims as approximately valid. The Earth's rotation rate is not so great
) that it disturbs the approximate relationship between distance and
) latitude very much, but it is observable with modern measurements.
Indeed, as can the oblateness of the earth. But, once again, the concern
here is with a gross consideration of shape and size. It would be
interesting, I'd think, to see what a class could do, discarding as many
assumptions as possible. At some point, clearly, there are assumptions. For
example, we assume that the earth is a constant shape. What if it were
modified according to how we look at it? It could be, perhaps, flat, but
distorts itself temporarily in order to delude us. My point here is that
there are common assumptions that, if they are not true, we are all
seriously deluded. Occam's razor is an assumption.
)It is illustrative to consider a different geometry, a cylindrical earth.
)If we assume Newtonian gravity holds, local notions of vertical and
)horizontal no longer coincide with the macroscopic geometry of the
)cylinder. Even on the flat surfaces of the cylinder (not the curved
)surface), one would experience a change in the apparent direction of a
)pole star with respect to local notions of vertical as one traveled from
)the centre of the flat surface towards the outer rim.
If the distance to the star is relatively small. This would be inconsistent
with other observations, most notably that the altitude would shift *also*
with east-west movement; further, there would be this anomaly called the
rim. Essentially, the shape described is a flat earth on the ends of the
cylinder. The cylinder would have to have a radius large enough that the
observer can't reach it.
I really did think of this before making my suggestion!
) Something similar would happen on the curved surface depending on the
) ratio of the height of the cylinder to its sides. If one could only do
) experiments over a region small compared to the size of the whole
) cylinder or the whole sphere, one might have to do very careful and
) precise measurements in order to distinguish living on a cylindrical
) earth from living on a spherical earth.
The cylinder on the curved surfaces is more reasonable. This is really
equivalent to a torus of infinite diameter. It would have zero curvature
when measuring from movement aligned with the axis of the cylinder, and
this is ruled out as soon as one knows that the sun rises at different
times when one is at different east-west positions. As soon as you can show
that the curvature is the same (within the accuracy of concern to us) in
the north-south and in the east-west directions, and, for that matter, in
any direction, one has determined that the shape is, at least locally, a
piece of a sphere. And if it is a sphere wherever measured, it is indeed a
sphere over the entire explored region.
)Newtonian theories of gravity provide excellent reasons for believing that
)planets of reasonable size should be approximately spherical as opposed to
)cylindrical or cubic or irregular. However what Abd was trying to tell us
)was that he could separate observation from theory.
I still claim that. Yes, Peter is technically correct, but he is
substantially wrong. Every observation does incorporate certain
assumptions, yes. I can tell you that I can see my computer. Maybe it is
not a computer, maybe it is some weird contrivance not even conceivable to
me, maybe I'm having a vivid dream. But, if I'm careful about how I express
my experience, I can bring it forth in such a way that my observation is
necessarily true. (If I think I saw John shoot Fred, I can report that I
saw a person point a gun at Fred, the gun discharged and Fred acted like he
was shot, and, yes, I'm familiar with John and Fred and I could see clearly
and it was the one who shot the other. In a trial, this will be presumed
true unless controverted. Note that what will be presumed true is that I
had the experience described. John's attorney is not actually impeaching my
evidence if he brings forth evidence that John has an evil twin. The twin
is merely an alternate *explanation* of my observation.
) Indeed Abd could make complicated descriptions of positions of bubbles
) in spirit levels, distances between locations, and the apparent position
) of stars in the sky. The trouble is that theories of gravity, geometry,
) trigonometry and optics are intertwined in all this in ways which are
) exceedingly subtle. I think Abd is wrong in his romantic suggestions of
) simplicity.
Essentially, if you are clever, you can think of possible problems with the
simple measurements proposed. But these problems are, in fact, introduced
by the cleverness. And every problem I've seen that could be raised can
also be fairly simply addressed; at least all the suggestions made by Peter
could be tested without difficulty. But one could place within the
experience of grade-schoolers hands-on knowledge, depending only upon
assumptions about space and time that are quite possibly built into us,
sufficient to determine the shape and size of the earth, almost as well as
we believe that we can determine the shape and size of an object that we
can directly see.
And a pedant could come along and point out some possible alternate
hypothesis which, to refute, would require some additional work. Or the
hypothesis, in some cases, might be unresolvable, though, generally,
Occam's Razor will apply.
To bring this back to the original matter, the teaching of evolution; there
are experimental observations that can and should be reported in the
teaching of evolution. My claim has been that it is the observations which
should be emphasized in the teaching; and that a distinction be made
between observation and explanatory theory. Evolution is taught and should
be taught as a *theory*. This is breaking down to some degree, but not yet
to the point that we can claim to directly observe cross-species evolution
-- with little or no exception. Still, the theory of evolution is,
essentially, the simplest explanation of what *can* be observed. It is an
organizing theory of such power that it has, indeed, become an assumption,
unquestioned outside of those who have strong motivation, such as religious
motivation.
Now, an opponent of the theory could, as has been done, claim that the
observations are such as they are because God made it look that way. The
geological record was created all at once, to make it appear that the
theory of evolution is true. Fine. I know of no way to refute this
proposal, beyond Occam's Razor, and Occam's Razor is not an absolute
principle. Sometimes the truth is more complicated than we expect. After
all, did Kerry vote for the war or didn't he?
But if that is the best that the creationists can come up with, creationism
is essentially doomed. Why? Because *God intended that we accept the theory
of evolution,* according to this theory, which would explain, indeed, why
creationism is losing out *even if the creationists are correct.* I can
imagine a creationist response: the test is whether or not we trust the
word of God or our senses. It's a phony choice, for how do we recognize
"the word of God?" How do we know what it says in the Bible? If there is
someone out there not using their senses -- and even more, their
interpretive faculties -- well, he or she is either psychic or crazy. Or both.
But it hasn't been tried, to my knowledge, the teaching of evolution as the
observations that underlie it, which should theoretically be acceptable to
even fundamentalists (who, if they've got any, could add their own
observations as well). Instead, we have opposing camps, dividing along
ideological grounds. My claim is that there *is* a middle ground, and that
exploration of the middle ground would bring about some interesting changes....
It would seem that Peter's position is that there no hope, except perhaps
through the utter defeat of the "other side." Fat chance. The U.S. just
reelected a President who blatantly and openly lied to them, and I'm not
talking about relatively controversial matters as the rationale for the
Irag war, but about matters easily within the ken of anyone who cared to
think and listen. Such as what I mentioned above. Did Kerry vote for the
war. Bush repeated this like a mantra. "He voted for the war and then
against it."
But Kerry was never given an opportunity to vote either for the war or
against it. Instead, the Senate, Kerry concurring, and after assurances
from the President that he would exhaust all other alternatives, voted to
authorize the President to make the determination, trusting the information
he was providing and his integrity in dealing with it. As I wrote to the
local paper, Kerry, and we, should not make the same mistake again.
However, I think that most people know that Bush was lying; but Bush
represented something important to them, and Kerry did not. Our system
requires, pretty much, that people accept party packages rather than
allowing much expression on individual issues. If you are, for example,
socially liberal but opposed to abortion, you are SOL. People *expect*
politicians to lie; what is new, however, is that the lies have become so
blatant. I just heard Chris Schaefer opine that a test is going on: how
much BS will the American people accept? It appears that it is quite a lot....
Vice President Cheney, in his debate with Edwards, pointed to factcheck.com
for confirmation of what he was saying. Anyone who actually went through
the process, and found that it was actually factcheck.org, factcheck.com
being an anti-Bush domain, also found that factcheck.org affirmed that
Edwards was basically correct. What Cheney was doing was asserting a
refutable fact, something that happened again and again in the campaign. If
the "fact" appealed to certain sensibilities, it didn't matter if it was
blatantly false.
.... but I diverge. :-)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 20:36:40 +0000
From: L G Clemens (aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Man/Woman of "their time"
Gideon Mills wrote:
)
)
)
) L G Clemens (aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com) wrote:
) "You pretend as if it's odd to revere flawed historical figures. I'd
) argue it would be unusual to find historical figures without any flaws.
) Most of us (thankfully) realize it doesn't have to be "all or
) nothing"--for example, we can admire Thomas Jefferson without getting
) sucked in to supporting slavery."
)
) Are you implying that Steiner was "flawed?"
I don't pretend to be an expert in Steiner, but even a dilettante like
me can find more than a few. Your question is a nice illustration of
how discussions on this board typically turn into tedious bickering for
the sake of bickering.
)And who outside of the dominant culture do you believe admires Thomas
)Jefferson? T. Jefferson did not just support slavery and, obviously,
)the sexual use of women, but he believed that "negroes" could never
)establish equity with those of european ancestry.
Oh, I think Thomas Jefferson has more than a few qualified admirers.
Including Dan Dugan, the owner of this board, who has adorned the
Waldorf Critics webpage with his portrait: "Thomas Jefferson kept
slaves, but I admire his ideas about most everything else," he said.
I'm not going to demand that Dan explain this statement. But perhaps
you will--I'm sure he'd welcome a chance to defend his membership in
"the dominant culture" to you.
)
) 'Steiner has "millions upon millions of victims"?'
)
) Yes. And with the ongoing proliferation of private and charter Waldorf
) schools, there is no end in sight of its victims.
I'm still unclear on this. Is or was your child a Waldorf student?
)
) "Your argument is quite muddled."
)
) Ad hominem.
I'm sorry to contradict you, Deborah, but no........it isn't. "Ad
hominem" means "to the man". I described "your argument". Let me
deconstruct your subsequent sentence to illustrate:
)
) Your summary of Spencer's doctrine is not correct and/or is misleading.
)
When you say "your summary is not correct and misleading", it is
essentially the equivalent of my saying "your argument is quite
muddled". Your comment isn't ad hominem either. So let's play on,
shall we?
) I think that the others on this list understand enough re: Spencer,
) Darwin and Lamark to not be taken in by what you portend their
) respective beliefs to be.
Since they're each historical figures from the 19th century, I must
assume you meant to say "what you PRETEND their respective beliefs to
be". If the others on this list understand Spencer, Darwin, and Lamark
they'll know immediately I was right.
Lamark, Spencer (the father of sociology, btw), Darwin AND Mendel were
perhaps the Most Powerful Philosophical and Scientific Influences of the
late 19th and early 20th century western culture. The eugenics movement
(which was not only supported by Margaret Sanger, but Winston Churchill,
Aldous Huxley, Alexander Graham Bell, and probably the majority of
Americans for a time as well) and genocide of the Third Reich were BORN
from ideas of these men.
)
)
) "Societies and cultures DO evolve in a somewhat Lamarkian
) sense."
)
) Which is what I was attempting to illuminate, i.e. Steiner was promoting
) the idea that aryans are the fittest and therefore will be the last to
) survive.
If he referred to "biological" survival, I think it's safe to say he's
losing that bet, or so population statistics would seem to suggest. If
he meant "cultural" survival, time will tell. Certainly the world is
more westernized now than when Steiner was alive.
)
) And although it's both inarguable and frustratingly
) insufficient, the evolutionary concept of "survival of the fittest"
) hasn't caused problems because it's a lie, but because it's been a
) pitiful excuse for self-serving men to play both God and Mother Nature
) over other people.
)
)
) 'You say "I cannot fathom how
) anyone who cares about a child would deliberately subject her/him to
) anything that came out of the mind such a person." Yet tens of millions
) of public school children in this country are not only "subjected" to
) ideas from people like these, they're forced to study their ideas
) directly.'
)
) Which clearly explains for me why public school boards have
) contractually welcomed the existence of publically funded Waldorf
) "schools." At base, the dominant culture shares the same belief
) infrastructure; how it manifests is simply a matter of style and/or
) cosmetics.
So you see why I don't waste much time wailing away about Steiner's
ideas about race. The public education system has FAR more historical
caca to deal with, as well as FAR MORE resulting catastrophic
repercussions than do the Waldorf schools, and even as a parent of
children in public schools I wasn't focusing myself on this miserable
past.
I have to say that I've frequently noted more energy put to talking
about potential racism HERE than is reported having taken place directly
with a teacher or school which is accused of it. I place the emphasis
differently--I care about what my children are taught and how they are
treated in the classroom, and I'm not reticent to respond directly.
)
) "children are deliberately subjected to ideas from imperfect
) thinkers."
)
) And as adults it is our responsibility to point to those imperfections.
)
I think it's our responsibility to point out imperfect ideas. I find
treasure hunting through history to "out" all the racists is about as
lucrative as hunting for all the sexists. Within the first ten minutes
looking, I'd have more booty than I could carry, and what the heck am I
going to do with it?
)Also, there are more than a few "thinkers" whose ideas stand up to the
)most intense of scrutiny, e.g. Fannie Lou Hamer, Nelson Mandela, Bernice
)Reagan, Ralph Nader, Winona LaDuke, Audre Lorde.
Fannie Lou Hamer was inspired by the Bible (which slave owners found
supported slavery) and patriotic songs written as paeans for "the
dominant culture". Nelson Mandela had innumerable influences, but
significant among them was an immersion in the classical western
canon--we can assume MOST of it written by men we'd find quite
objectionable on any number of levels today.
I think it's safe to say that the others on your list as well are all
empowered with grand ideas derived from persons who were disreputable at
some level.
Do you think it is important to pretend this isn't so?
)
) "I suppose we all suffer
) our own kook ideas about who is and isn't scary."
)
) I don't recall anyone here speaking of being frightened (as implied by
) your assertion of "scary") by anything. Aside from you, no one has
) spoken of boogymen, which are as intangible as gnomes and fairies.
)
) If you are, as you assert, the mother of First Nations children, then I
) have to wonder at the self-hatred you are passing on to those who are
) the carriers of your people's future. You can intellectualize Waldorf
) forever, but how can you look into the eyes of your children and not see
) what you are promulgating?
)
) Deborah
This isn't the first time you've done this. I make an objective,
rational and informed challenge to your attempted arguments, and you
launch a convulsive personal attack. This, Deborah, this not only IS ad
hominem but it is also rabid demagoguery. This isn't genuine concern
about my children or heritage. This is about your own enormously
swelled head. Get over yourself.
)
)
Linda
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 01:00:05 +0000
From: "Peter Farrell" (feetapparel hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: flat earth
Abd responded as below. Similarly I have limited time to make a full
response but there are one or two points which I would like to raise.
)
)It is difficult for me to find time to respond adequately; however, I will
)make a brief effort.
)
)At 05:23 PM 11/2/2004, Peter Farrell wrote:
))I have been very busy for sometime so I hope it's not too late to continue
))the discussion Abd and I are having about what I continue to maintain are
))Abd's romantic notions about science and his claim that one can separate
))observations from theory. Abd's previous post on this issue may be found
))at http://makeashorterlink.com/?N20016FA9. Abd accuses me of arguing from
))an assumption that he is wrong. I plead guilty.
)
)What sentence is appropriate for the crime?
It's not a crime. No sentence is necessary.
)
)) I believe Abd is incorrect in the claims of simplicity he makes. In this
))post I hope to demonstrate further the complexity of the experiment Abd
))has proposed.
)
)First of all, what I've claimed is not utter and complete simplicity, nor
)that every possible objection that could be raised would be answered.
)Rather, what I have claimed is that a reasonable proof that the earth is
)not flat and that it is of a certain approximate size is really quite
)simple. Further, I consider that it would be pedagogically salutary.
What Abd initially claimed was something which was false. Abd appears unable
to differentiate between a claim which involves quantity and which as a
result is testable using quantitative measures, and a purely qualitative
description. Abd's original description included numerical estimates of the
rate of change of the apparent height of polaris above the horizon. Such a
numerical estimate was NOT known to the ancients.
)
)What is most significant to me is the effect such a demonstration would
)have on those who believe that the earth is flat, were they to participate
)in the experiment. Flat-earthers are not very common now; but we are using
)them as a stand-in for those who reject evolution on religious grounds.
)Peter gives some alternate explanations of the altitude of Polaris
)observations, I'll comment on them below. I could also think of some more.
)But none of them that he proposes involve a flat earth; and none of them
)are simple.
A cylindrical earth on the flat surface is just about the archetypal image
of a flat earth. What can be shown mathematically is that such a flat earth
obeying newtonian gravity exhibits similar qualitative behaviour to that
which Eratosthenes described, albeit over a limited range.
)
))As we have discussed before, in ancient times Eratosthenes used
))measurements of the lengths of shadows at two locations on the Earth's
))surface, and the measured distance between them to determine the
))approximate diameter of the Earth assuming the Earth is a sphere.
)
)What Eratosthenes did, to my recollection, was to note that on a certain
)day of the year, the sun passed directly overhead a certain location; that
)is, the sun could be seen from the bottom of a well; or a tall vertical
)pole would cast no shadow. Vertical is defined as the direction of a plumb
)bob. Then he measured the angle of the sun at noon on that day (local noon
)is defined as the time of minimum shadow, i.e., when the sun crosses the
)meridian of the location.)
It is interesting to check the literature to see what is known about what
Eratosthenes and others of the time did. There is in fact considerable
argument about what is recorded, especially since Eratosthenes' original
writings on the matter have not survived. I recommend for a start the
following:
"The Ancient Measurements of the Earth" Aubrey Diller, Isis 40(1), 6-9,
1949.
"Eratosthenes' Geodesy Unravelled: Was There a High-Accuracy Hellenic
Astronomy?" Dennis Rawlins, Isis 73, 259-265, 1982
)
)) While some argument remains about the conversion factor for
))Eratosthenes' units of measurement to modern units, I accept for the sake
))of argument that Eratosthenes obtained a value for the earth's diameter
))which is reasonably accurate.
)
)There are a number of error sources in Eratosthene's measurement; I can
)think of error in determining that the point of the second measurement was
)due north or south of the first point, error in measuring the noon angle at
)the second point, and error in measurement of the distance between the two
)points. In addition, there is error in the assumption that the sun is
)directly overhead on the same day each year, this is approximately but not
)exactly true (because of the difference between the true solar year and a
)certain number of days), resulting in a one day variation. The most serious
)of these sources was probably the error in position of the second point.
)Not so easy in Eratosthene's time.
An additional interesting sourcesof error introduced by Eratosthenes is the
fact that for reasons of calculation all numbers were converted to
convenient rational approximations.
)
)) Of course, this did not prove that the Earth was a sphere. It only gave
))an approximate dimension over which the Earth would have to be examined to
))prove the Earth was spherical.
)
)For that area of examination. It would only prove curvature of the surface
)for that area. In this case, as described, it would only show curvature in
)the north-south direction. However, in modern times, there is another very
)easy way to determine curvature in all directions. It's called a telephone.
Eratosthenes' measurement did not show curvature at all. It was a two point
measurement. As Abd should be well aware a two point measurement is
incapable of demonstrating curvature.
)
)) The fact is that Eratosthenes believed the earth to be spherical for
))reasons other than this supposed observation that Abd claims. I do not
))know why Eratosthenes believed the earth to be round. It may well have
))been religious. In any case what he did was deduce from the knowledge that
))the earth was spherical and his understanding of geometry a method for
))determining the size of the earth.
)
)Yes. However, his hypothesis (that the earth was spherical) was confirmed
)by his measurement; and, I suspect, his measurement was really only a more
)exact quantification of what was known to any sea-faring people. The
)north-south curvature was known, I suspect, to be the same (within what
)they could observe at the time) for all known locations.
It was not confirmed by his measurement. Confirmation could have been
arranged by repeating the experiment at multiple, widely separated locations
on the earth's surface, and finding that the determined circumference of the
earth was the same for all measurements. Not only was this not done, but the
only additional measurement of which I am aware (see Diller above) gave a
very different answer. There is argument in the literature about whether
this was due to a lack of standardisation of the units of length among other
reasons. If we take these two measurements at face value one might say that
the available evidence disproved the spherical conjecture.
)
)But that's history. Whether or not it is true, a class undertaking the
)effort could, in fact, measure the curvature in many directions, and they
)could show that the curvature is equal in all directions, i.e., that the
)surface, for the area measured, is spherical (until one gets accurate
)enough at this to detect the oblateness of the earth, which is pretty
)small). Yes, this would not prove that the whole earth is spherical: there
)might be knobs projecting out. Occam's razor.
As I have said before I think this is a fine thing to study. What I
initially objected to was Abd's claim that this could be done simply with
some hand made instruments. I still object to that, and while Abd wants to
pretend that his current description of what is interesting and useful to do
is the same as his first suggestion, this pretense does not hold up to
scrutiny. This is a complicated measurement which involves lots of
theoretical considerations.
)
))Abd has been saying something similar to the following. The observation
))that the change in angle that the direction to Polaris makes with the
))vertical with movement towards Polaris is consistent with a spherical
))Earth, and not consistent with a flat Earth, nor with any other geometry.
)
)There is, of course, an exception to that claim, which would require
)additional investigation.
I don't understand this sentence.
)
)) This argument has a number of flaws. Two simple examples which give rise
))to similar observations are some regions on a toroidal Earth (doughnut)
))and an oblate spheroid. In both of these cases, observations over an
))appropriately large region will distinguish between competing theories.
)
)The north-south measurement shows that the curvature is constant over the
)region measured.
It does no such thing. As I have said before, multiple measurements would do
this. A single two point measurement does not.
Yes, there are alternate geometries which
)would produce the same result with appropriate restriction of the measured
)region, and, in fact, a regular torus (i.e., every cross-section normal to
)the surface is a circle) will produce consistent results over the entire
)surface. Eratosthenes perhaps would have rejected this shape as not being
)in accord with his ideals; we might similarly rely upon Occam's razor. More
)to the point, a torus will *not* show east-west curvature matching the
)north-south curvature.
Are you sure? You seem to be ignoring the gravitational model.
The east-west measurement was much more
)difficult in Eratosthene's day; it is made much easier by two modern
)inventions: accurate clocks and means of communication over long distances
)with negligible delay (and any delay is compensable). Essentially, if two
)observers on the surface of the earth measure the direction and altitude of
)a celestial object at the same time (easy if you've got a telephone), you
)can determine the change in the horizontal plane between the two places. If
)you can measure the distance between the two places, you can convert this
)into a curvature.
)
)But for the purposes of a class experiment, one could just do the
)north-south measurement while noting that we can measure the east-west
)curvature simply by knowing the difference in the timing of sunrise, noon,
)or sunset.... (plus the distance).
)
)But Eratosthenes pretty much had to be content with the north-south
)issue... if the north-south curvature is the same wherever it is measured
)(as it is), then one has reduced the potential shapes to some form of
)toroid over the range of measurement. Other observations would further the
)possibilities to a sphere or regular torus, and once one can measure
)east-west, the issue would be completely settled. But flat it is not.
Of course it's not flat. But Eratoshthenes' experiment by itself does not
demonstrate this.
)
)) Another factor is more important than purely geometric arguments that
))have so far been raised. This is the notion of how one determines the
))direction of horizontal and vertical. This will require a discussion of
))gravity.
)
)Yes, however, it is not gravity, per se, which would need to be discussed,
)but
)
))Abd is of course absolutely incorrect to claim as he did that the Earth
))appears flat. The Earth's surface is bumpy.
)
)Only where there are bumps.... :-) At sea one sees what could be called its
)true shape. Likewise in any place where there is a large flat expanse.
)
)) It has hills and valleys. It is true that we know that the size of the
))largest of these is small compared to the overall dimensions.
)
)Indeed.
)
)) If we try to perform Eratosthenes' experiment in a location where the
))surface is hilly, we need to prepare a surface which will enable an
))accurate measurement before we can proceed. One possibility is to cover
))some location with a sufficient depth of sand or something similar and to
))use a spirit level or a plumb bob and a right angle and an appropriate
))straight stick to produce a flat plane.
)
)If you are measuring Polaris, you would use a level. Essentially, were I to
)do this with a class and with Polaris, I'd mount a sextant on or with a
)level. So, essentially, one would level the sextant and then observe
)Polaris.
)
)Gravity confuses the issue, though. In order to address the problem, I'd
)simply note that the horizon is only below level when observed from a
)mountain (in which case the depression is small; my recollection of
)navigation, however, is that it is enough to be considered; but even a tall
)mountain is only a few miles elevated....), or above; or if the measurement
)can be made close to sea level and the horizon is the sea, it is quite
)precisely level. In all directions.
Only on a spherical earth. This is not true for other geometries. You are
assuming what you wish to show. Eratosthenes' had the excuse that he had
only an Aristotelaian notion of gravity. Abd does not have that excuse.
)
)) The next step is to erect a straight stick vertically in the centre of
))this plane and to measure the length of its shadow on the surface of the
))constructed plane. The tools that I have suggested we use to construct
))this plane and to erect the vertical require gravity to work.
)
)However, one can determine that a plumb bob is always normal to a level
)surface (and level is defined as aligned with a clear horizon).
Additional information. What would be the experience of a person on a
structure with a different geometry? Have you done any actual calculations
or made serious diagrams? Doesn't sound like it to me.
)
)) One of Abd's hidden assumptions is that the measured vertical and
))horizontal are related to some macroscopic notion of vertical and
))horizontal which is purely geometric. For the spherical Earth, this means
))that vertical is parallel to the direction towards to the centre, while a
))horizontal plane forms a tangent to the surface of the sphere. For a non
))rotating, homogeneous, spherical Earth obeying Newtonian gravity, vertical
))and horizontal as obtained by gravity are identical to the geometric
))description of vertical and horizontal. Inhomogeneity and rotation break
))this identity. Rotation in particular gives rise to a different
))mathematical relationship between the apparent position of Polaris and
))linear surface distance from the Pole to that which Abd claims as
))approximately valid. The Earth's rotation rate is not so great that it
))disturbs the approximate relationship between distance and latitude very
))much, but it is observable with modern measurements.
)
)Indeed, as can the oblateness of the earth. But, once again, the concern
)here is with a gross consideration of shape and size. It would be
)interesting, I'd think, to see what a class could do, discarding as many
)assumptions as possible. At some point, clearly, there are assumptions. For
)example, we assume that the earth is a constant shape. What if it were
)modified according to how we look at it? It could be, perhaps, flat, but
)distorts itself temporarily in order to delude us. My point here is that
)there are common assumptions that, if they are not true, we are all
)seriously deluded. Occam's razor is an assumption.
We are not deluded that the earth is approximately spherical. It is a good
thing to do Eratosthenes' experiments with children. It does not prove the
earth is a sphere. Rather a large set of interlocking observations and
theories does this.
)
))It is illustrative to consider a different geometry, a cylindrical earth.
))If we assume Newtonian gravity holds, local notions of vertical and
))horizontal no longer coincide with the macroscopic geometry of the
))cylinder. Even on the flat surfaces of the cylinder (not the curved
))surface), one would experience a change in the apparent direction of a
))pole star with respect to local notions of vertical as one traveled from
))the centre of the flat surface towards the outer rim.
)
)If the distance to the star is relatively small.
Not so. The variation of level due to gravity would give rise to the
apparent shift in the star's position even if the star was so far away that
no parallax was detectable.
This would be
)inconsistent with other observations, most notably that the altitude would
)shift *also* with east-west movement; further, there would be this anomaly
)called the rim. Essentially, the shape described is a flat earth on the
)ends of the cylinder. The cylinder would have to have a radius large enough
)that the observer can't reach it.
It may well be inconsistent with other observations. But Abd said that the
observation as originally described was inconsistent with a flat earth. This
is not so. One can construct a cylinder with appropriate dimensions such
that curvature as measured by Eratosthenes' techniques would not distinguish
between a sphere and a cylinder due to the effect of Newtonian gravity.
)
)I really did think of this before making my suggestion!
I find that difficult to believe.
)
)) Something similar would happen on the curved surface depending on the
))ratio of the height of the cylinder to its sides. If one could only do
))experiments over a region small compared to the size of the whole cylinder
))or the whole sphere, one might have to do very careful and precise
))measurements in order to distinguish living on a cylindrical earth from
))living on a spherical earth.
)
)The cylinder on the curved surfaces is more reasonable. This is really
)equivalent to a torus of infinite diameter. It would have zero curvature
)when measuring from movement aligned with the axis of the cylinder, and
)this is ruled out as soon as one knows that the sun rises at different
)times when one is at different east-west positions. As soon as you can show
)that the curvature is the same (within the accuracy of concern to us) in
)the north-south and in the east-west directions, and, for that matter, in
)any direction, one has determined that the shape is, at least locally, a
)piece of a sphere. And if it is a sphere wherever measured, it is indeed a
)sphere over the entire explored region.
I believe that I can construct a cylinder of appropriate dimensions such
that the apparent curvature over a limted range is the same in both
directions, and indistingushable from a sphere without high precision
measurements..
)
))Newtonian theories of gravity provide excellent reasons for believing that
))planets of reasonable size should be approximately spherical as opposed to
))cylindrical or cubic or irregular. However what Abd was trying to tell us
))was that he could separate observation from theory.
)
)I still claim that. Yes, Peter is technically correct, but he is
)substantially wrong. Every observation does incorporate certain
)assumptions, yes. I can tell you that I can see my computer. Maybe it is
)not a computer, maybe it is some weird contrivance not even conceivable to
)me, maybe I'm having a vivid dream.
I am saying something much more technically important than this kind of
solipsism. I am saying that it is not as simple as Abd describes it, but not
so complicated that we can't win.
But, if I'm
)careful about how I express my experience, I can bring it forth in such a
)way that my observation is necessarily true. (If I think I saw John shoot
)Fred, I can report that I saw a person point a gun at Fred, the gun
)discharged and Fred acted like he was shot, and, yes, I'm familiar with
)John and Fred and I could see clearly and it was the one who shot the
)other. In a trial, this will be presumed true unless controverted. Note
)that what will be presumed true is that I had the experience described.
)John's attorney is not actually impeaching my evidence if he brings forth
)evidence that John has an evil twin. The twin is merely an alternate
)*explanation* of my observation.
So what. I am happy to believe that you are attempting to tell me the truth.
Proof involves ruling out all alternate explanations. Sufficient evidence
for practical applications requires only that we rule reasonable alternate
explanations.
)
)) Indeed Abd could make complicated descriptions of positions of bubbles
))in spirit levels, distances between locations, and the apparent position
))of stars in the sky. The trouble is that theories of gravity, geometry,
))trigonometry and optics are intertwined in all this in ways which are
))exceedingly subtle. I think Abd is wrong in his romantic suggestions of
))simplicity.
)
)Essentially, if you are clever, you can think of possible problems with the
)simple measurements proposed. But these problems are, in fact, introduced
)by the cleverness. And every problem I've seen that could be raised can
)also be fairly simply addressed; at least all the suggestions made by Peter
)could be tested without difficulty. But one could place within the
)experience of grade-schoolers hands-on knowledge, depending only upon
)assumptions about space and time that are quite possibly built into us,
)sufficient to determine the shape and size of the earth, almost as well as
)we believe that we can determine the shape and size of an object that we
)can directly see.
)
For the sake of argument, I'll accept that every problem can be addressed,
but only at the expense of destroying the initial claim that the experiment
could be done simply using hand made instruments and that it proves the
spherical nature of the earth. Neither of these are true.
)And a pedant could come along and point out some possible alternate
)hypothesis which, to refute, would require some additional work. Or the
)hypothesis, in some cases, might be unresolvable, though, generally,
)Occam's Razor will apply.
Occam's razor only applies when the available data does not allow you to
distinguish between the models. If it does, you may be forced to accept the
more complicated model.
)
)To bring this back to the original matter, the teaching of evolution; there
)are experimental observations that can and should be reported in the
)teaching of evolution. My claim has been that it is the observations which
)should be emphasized in the teaching; and that a distinction be made
)between observation and explanatory theory. Evolution is taught and should
)be taught as a *theory*. This is breaking down to some degree, but not yet
)to the point that we can claim to directly observe cross-species evolution
)-- with little or no exception. Still, the theory of evolution is,
)essentially, the simplest explanation of what *can* be observed. It is an
)organizing theory of such power that it has, indeed, become an assumption,
)unquestioned outside of those who have strong motivation, such as religious
)motivation.
Of course it's not unquestioned.
)
)Now, an opponent of the theory could, as has been done, claim that the
)observations are such as they are because God made it look that way.
Omphalos by Gosse.
The geological record was created all at once, to make it
)appear that the theory of evolution is true. Fine. I know of no way to
)refute this proposal, beyond Occam's Razor, and Occam's Razor is not an
)absolute principle. Sometimes the truth is more complicated than we expect.
)After all, did Kerry vote for the war or didn't he?
)
)But if that is the best that the creationists can come up with, creationism
)is essentially doomed. Why? Because *God intended that we accept the theory
)of evolution,* according to this theory, which would explain, indeed, why
)creationism is losing out *even if the creationists are correct.* I can
)imagine a creationist response: the test is whether or not we trust the
)word of God or our senses. It's a phony choice, for how do we recognize
)"the word of God?" How do we know what it says in the Bible? If there is
)someone out there not using their senses -- and even more, their
)interpretive faculties -- well, he or she is either psychic or crazy. Or
)both.
)
)But it hasn't been tried, to my knowledge, the teaching of evolution as the
)observations that underlie it, which should theoretically be acceptable to
)even fundamentalists (who, if they've got any, could add their own
)observations as well). Instead, we have opposing camps, dividing along
)ideological grounds. My claim is that there *is* a middle ground, and that
)exploration of the middle ground would bring about some interesting
)changes....
It is essentially impossible to teach the supporting evidence in the way Abd
describes at high school level. The best evidence contains all sorts of
technical detail. It's essentially impossible to do it without a serious
grounding in genetics for a start.
)
)It would seem that Peter's position is that there no hope, except perhaps
)through the utter defeat of the "other side."
This is not my position. I think there is no hope trying to convince any
number of people that evolution is true. They are neither intellectually or
emotionally motivated to take sufficient notice of the arguments.
Fat chance.
)The U.S. just reelected a President who blatantly and openly lied to them,
)and I'm not talking about relatively controversial matters as the rationale
)for the Irag war, but about matters easily within the ken of anyone who
)cared to think and listen. Such as what I mentioned above. Did Kerry vote
)for the war. Bush repeated this like a mantra. "He voted for the war and
)then against it."
)
)But Kerry was never given an opportunity to vote either for the war or
)against it. Instead, the Senate, Kerry concurring, and after assurances
)from the President that he would exhaust all other alternatives, voted to
)authorize the President to make the determination, trusting the information
)he was providing and his integrity in dealing with it. As I wrote to the
)local paper, Kerry, and we, should not make the same mistake again.
)
)However, I think that most people know that Bush was lying; but Bush
)represented something important to them, and Kerry did not. Our system
)requires, pretty much, that people accept party packages rather than
)allowing much expression on individual issues. If you are, for example,
)socially liberal but opposed to abortion, you are SOL. People *expect*
)politicians to lie; what is new, however, is that the lies have become so
)blatant. I just heard Chris Schaefer opine that a test is going on: how
)much BS will the American people accept? It appears that it is quite a
)lot....
)
)Vice President Cheney, in his debate with Edwards, pointed to factcheck.com
)for confirmation of what he was saying. Anyone who actually went through
)the process, and found that it was actually factcheck.org, factcheck.com
)being an anti-Bush domain, also found that factcheck.org affirmed that
)Edwards was basically correct. What Cheney was doing was asserting a
)refutable fact, something that happened again and again in the campaign. If
)the "fact" appealed to certain sensibilities, it didn't matter if it was
)blatantly false.
)
).... but I diverge. :-)
Yes. American politics is a compete mystery to me.
See you, peter
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 01:58:31 +0000
From: L G Clemens (aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Linda and Brad's discreditation and disinformation campaign
walden wrote:
)
) Hi Linda,
)
) I think you may have missed my last post to you in this thread - from
) 10/08/04:
No.
)
)
) Previously, I asked:
) Are you now saying that *you* do
) ) not see the many Steiner passages you have seen here and elsewhere as
) being
) ) "racist?" The "purported racist passages" bit (above) makes me ask that
) ) question.
)
) Linda replied:
) "Walden, please reread the remarks made by Deborah and then perhaps you
) can understand better my response to them."
)
) Done. OK. But you still have not answered my direct question to you
) regarding what I see as blatant racist comments from Steiner and how you
) seem to see these quotes as "purported racist passages." The question
) was
) not a trick question, Linda. I am curious as to your choice of the
) word,
) "purported." I'm not pulling the occasional word and twisting it for
) any
) agenda. It's an important point, imo.
You're still confused. There WERE no specific comments from Steiner at
issue. Hence they're "purported".
Deborah claimed Steiner's racist messages were being carried by agents
in the "dominant elite" and thus so powerful it becomes the over-riding
consciousness of the dominated. I pointed out that this board was more
responsible for spreading these messages than Steiner agents. I haven't
come across Steiner racism in reading Steiner. I've only come across
Steiner racism in reading Waldorf critics. I'm not alone. This is true
for most of you here as well. Hence I concluded that Deborah
misunderstands who is actually making any use for this stuff.
) Linda wrote:
) "Or is Steiner's racism the message by the "dominant elite"
) that dupes and silences the powerless "inferiors".
)
) Steiner's racism is Steiner's racism. I don't know about a "dominant
) elite"
) but I do know of anthroposophists who refuse to discuss that topic. My
) hunch is that as Anthroposophists seem to generally accept that Steiner
) was
) clairvoyant and spiritually enlightened and/or an initiate... he was
) infallible. He might have made comments that *sounded* racist but that
) is
) not what he actually *meant.* The *what did he mean* bit is what
) interests
) me as well as the idolatry of ideology.
Fine. Haven't I already stated this explicitly a hundred times already?
I think that strict fundamentalism would be as unwise and unhealthy in
Rudolf Steinerism as it is in any other context. I certainly wouldn't
find this desirable in my children's Waldorf school. One shouldn't use
Rudolf Steiner as an excuse not to use his or her own head.
So please, walden. Why do you keep probing ME with these questions?
It's gets a little frustrating to realize that you didn't listen to my
answers the first dozen times you asked me.
)
) Linda wrote:
) "Weren't you the one that asked me what I thought about his works being
) 'cleansed' when translated and published?"
)
) Yup. What do you think about that?
)
Fine with me. See my earlier comment. I'm not treasure hunter
scavenging for long buried traces of racism.
) I wrote:
) ) I am willing to accept that you really and truly do not believe
) ) that anthroposophy is in the classroom and that Waldorf PR is just dandy
) ) as
) ) is (denial, imo, but you believe what you want to believe) ... but do
) ) you
) ) also believe that Steiner's racist ideas were a result of bad
) ) stenographers
) ) or translations? Were they taken out of context?
)
) Linda replied:
) "I have no earthly idea if they were poorly stenographed or translated.
) I do know they are frequently taken out of context (which isn't helpful
) if you're trying to build a case against him imho) - I do not pretend to
) know that ALL of these comments are excusable."
)
) OK - please point to a case or two where you "know" Steiner's racist
) ideas
) have been "frequently taken out of context."
Okay, let's take Deborah's remark earlier indicating that in Steiner's
"survival of the fittest", the Aryan race, being the superior, would
triumph over others. I assume she believes this came from Steiner's
Mission of Folk Souls since she's referred to that text to me several
times in these discussions. I do not have a published copy of this
text, but have read chapters of it on the internet. And what I read
differs from her characterization quite a bit. What I read indicated
Steiner predicting that there would be NO races in the future, that
differentiation into separate races was an archaic spiritual phase of
some sort that was already starting to fade away.
)
) Linda wrote:
) "This is probably the 10th time I've said this, but I don't give a big
) whoop about Steiner's views on the subject - I care how the teachers in
) the classroom behave. Do you have any realistic idea how much racist
) baggage this culture and its various peoples come with? From EVERY
) direction?"
)
) I agree there is racist baggage elsewhere. Many fine people work to
) shine
) light on the baggage and bring it out into the open. In this case, we
) are
) talking about Rudolf Steiner and *his* racist baggage and how those
) ideas
) might find their way into the Waldorf environment. Shall we simply
) ignore
) this particular baggage because there is similar baggage elsewhere? I
) think
) this is where we disagree, Linda. It might be at the centre of our
) differences. You don't give a big whoop about it because there is
) racism
) elsewhere, as well. I find that attitude rather sad, really. Have you
) ever
) thought that Waldorf might be a better - far better, perhaps - place if
) more
) people *did* give a big whoop about Steiner's racism?
Walden, you're looking at this from a somewhat rarified perspective.
Let me give you a picture of the real life influences on my children,
shall we? The chairman from their father's tribe, a prominent and
tremendously influential person in this community, has repeatedly
lectured them against having babies "outside the race". He says things
like "we don't want to see a lot of red-haired little babies running
around here". This man, mind you, has fathered several children with
different women, several with non-Native American women, so he's not
only trying to mess my with children's heads, but others as well,
INCLUDING his own. I want you to imagine how bitterly ironic it is to
hear Deborah lecturing me about this "self-hate" that my children are
supposedly given in the Waldorf school.
Would you like to hear another example? Native Americans often come
from reservations where more than one tribe were forced together,
sometimes bitter enemies. A hundred years later and they can still have
strictly segregated cemeteries. There's often a nasty battle over where
a deceased person is allowed to be buried. With several generations of
intermarriage, you'd think they'd be past this nonsense but you'd be
wrong. It's not unusual at all to have to provide "blood quantum"
evidence to settle the question.
Let's talk racial insults for a minute. Not only are racial insults
used in speaking of non-Native Americans, but often the names of Indians
from other tribes are treated as insults as well. It's much like
referring to someone as a "Jew" or "Jap".
As I said earlier, my children are often assumed by other Latinos of
being Latino, and have suffered sneers and insults because they don't
speak Spanish. And derisive comments are made about their father and I
for our negligence "to our culture" for not having taught them Spanish
in the home. This is close cousin to the similarly absurd and
condescending lectures here regarding my supposed responsibility to the
"carriers of our people's future", my children, to keep them out of the
Waldorf school. And the condescending lectures about doubts cast "on
their assertions re: their ancestry". And the condescending lectures
about what we're supposed to call ourselves. And other such presumptous
idiocy.
My public ed children were "encouraged" to participate in once or twice
yearly regional "Friendship Days" when they were in high school, and
were placed in Chicano workshops since there wasn't enough demand for
American Indian workshops and apparently organizers seemed to think this
was close enough. Which I don't have any real problem with except, as
it turns out, these workshops welcomed MEChA advocacy and Aztlan
literature and memorabilia. I don't know if you're familiar with these
influences. It was there that my children were told about the political
movement to unify “bronze” peoples in territories including all the
native people’s land in California. They were being told that they
belonged to the “bronze” peoples, that they have the duty to learn and
speak Spanish. They were told a little bit about the Aztlan legends,
which are tied with the Aztecs. We're in no way, shape or form related
to the Aztecs, and it's hardly welcome that my children were recruited
to join with Chicano advocates in a foreign political movement which
seeks to gobble us up yet again.
As a parent, my plate's pretty full with Real World issues to deal with
today. All this fuss-fuss over objectionable material that is
overwhelmingly ignored? You're obsessed with the gnats. Go ahead.
Indulge yourself. You're making ever so much progress.
Meanwhile, leave me to tackle the elephants. It doesn't leave me with
much enthusiasm for looking for dirt under the carpets or spider webs
behind the drapes. I'm not interested in battling problems that haven't
even materialized.
Linda
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 22:50:02 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Linda and Brad's discreditation and disinformation campaign
Linda wrote: (in response to my question about whether she sees racism in
various Steiner quotes):
"You're still confused. There WERE no specific comments from Steiner at
issue. Hence they're "purported".'
Actually, my question is based entirely on specific comments from Steiner -
not on your chat with Deborah.
Linda wrote: "Deborah claimed Steiner's racist messages were being carried
by agents
in the "dominant elite" and thus so powerful it becomes the over-riding
consciousness of the dominated. I pointed out that this board was more
responsible for spreading these messages than Steiner agents. I haven't
come across Steiner racism in reading Steiner. I've only come across
Steiner racism in reading Waldorf critics. I'm not alone. This is true
for most of you here as well. Hence I concluded that Deborah
misunderstands who is actually making any use for this stuff."
Yes, I see how it might be tempting to paint *me* as being confused but it
does nothing to help your argument. It could be an email thing....
Anyhooo, I see that you *have* come across Steiner racism and if it takes
this board to reflect the reality of that racism, so be it. Let's keep some
perspective here. In that this board has helped shed light on Steiner's
racism while "Steiner agents" have not should speak volumes to the issue at
hand. This revelation might also help the Waldorf/Anthroposophists
understand why most of their clientele are of the dominant white European
stock. If they sincerely wish to cater to all segments of society they will
need to deal with Steiner's racism and the nature of Waldorf education
itself. IMO.
Linda wrote:
"So please, walden. Why do you keep probing ME with these questions?
It's gets a little frustrating to realize that you didn't listen to my
answers the first dozen times you asked me."
If you feel frustrated, that is not my intent. I do not keep probing you
with questions - certainly not the same questions 12 times. Perhaps if you
answered questions, I would understand the answers. I have taken this
tactic with your questions to me - even off topic questions - and I have not
expressed frustration with your questions. I answer them directly. When
clarification is required - I try.
) Linda previously wrote:
) "Weren't you the one that asked me what I thought about his works being
) 'cleansed' when translated and published?"
I replied ) Yup. What do you think about that?
Linda wrote : "Fine with me. See my earlier comment. I'm not treasure
hunter
scavenging for long buried traces of racism."
You are fine with today's anthro presses re-writing Steiner. Interesting.
If only it were so simple that one would *need* to scavenge for long buried
traces of racism....
Linda previously wrote:
) I have no earthly idea if they were poorly stenographed or translated.
) I do know they are frequently taken out of context (which isn't helpful
) if you're trying to build a case against him imho) - I do not pretend to
) know that ALL of these comments are excusable."
Hold on. You're fine with modern re-writes of Steiner in order to clean the
racist quotes but are then concerned that someone might take Steiner out of
context. And I'm confused? How can one possibly build a case against
Steiner when one has no idea what the man actually said or wrote? In any
case, I am not interested in building a case against Steiner. I *am*
interested in understanding what he actually said and wrote and how those
ideas have been taken into the world of today - including Waldorf schools.
Understand that I do not think that everything Steiner ever said or wrote is
evil or nonsense but if I am to understand Anthroposophy and it's
initiatives (Waldorf, etc) I need to work with what Steiner -not the
revisionists- actually said and wrote. Which means, of course, reading
Steiner "in context."
Does this approach make sense, Linda?
- Walden
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 00:23:52 -0800
From: walden (awaldenpond shaw.ca)
Subject: Re: Linda and Brad's discreditation and disinformation campaign
Regarding Steiner's racist ideas, Linda previously wrote:
) "I have no earthly idea if they were poorly stenographed or translated.
) I do know they are frequently taken out of context (which isn't helpful
) if you're trying to build a case against him imho) - I do not pretend to
) know that ALL of these comments are excusable."
I previously wrote:
) OK - please point to a case or two where you "know" Steiner's racist
) ideas have been "frequently taken out of context."
Linda replied:
"Okay, let's take Deborah's remark earlier indicating that in Steiner's
"survival of the fittest", the Aryan race, being the superior, would
triumph over others. I assume she believes this came from Steiner's
Mission of Folk Souls since she's referred to that text to me several
times in these discussions. I do not have a published copy of this
text, but have read chapters of it on the internet. And what I read
differs from her characterization quite a bit. What I read indicated
Steiner predicting that there would be NO races in the future, that
differentiation into separate races was an archaic spiritual phase of
some sort that was already starting to fade away."
There is an assumption in your response and I don't want to speak for
Deborah. I need to point out, however, that as you state here you have not
read Mission of Folk Souls, you are in no position to accuse anyone of
taking Steiner out of context. You previously claimed to know that
Steiner's racist comments are "frequently taken out of context." I asked
you to cite a couple of examples and you did not. From the myriad of
Steiner racist quotes available from Steiner lectures and books or from the
critics web site, I again invite you to demonstrate how they are "frequently
taken out of context."
Linda wrote: "Walden, you're looking at this from a somewhat rarified
perspective."
Well, as this is a Waldorf Critics list where people talk about Waldorf,
Steiner and Anthroposophy, my particular perspective should not seem off bas
e. Here's another angle: Blavatsky, Steiner, Crowley and others are part
of the *impulse* behind much of today's New Age movement - a growing
movement that is of interest to me in a very personal way. If I am to
understand the New Age movement (including social/political consequences) I
need to understand turn of the century occultism. While Steiner was not
necessarily *the* major player, his "initiatives" are still around and to be
honest - I find them interesting and at times disturbing. And as I said -
there is a personal interest, as well. Speaking of which...
Linda wrote:
"Let me give you a picture of the real life influences on my children,
shall we? The chairman from their father's tribe, a prominent and
tremendously influential person in this community, has repeatedly
lectured them against having babies "outside the race". He says things
like "we don't want to see a lot of red-haired little babies running
around here". This man, mind you, has fathered several children with
different women, several with non-Native American women, so he's not
only trying to mess my with children's heads, but others as well,
INCLUDING his own."
(snip personal story for brevity)
And Linda wrote:
"As a parent, my plate's pretty full with Real World issues to deal with
today. All this fuss-fuss over objectionable material that is
overwhelmingly ignored? You're obsessed with the gnats. Go ahead.
Indulge yourself. You're making ever so much progress.
Meanwhile, leave me to tackle the elephants. It doesn't leave me with
much enthusiasm for looking for dirt under the carpets or spider webs
behind the drapes. I'm not interested in battling problems that haven't
even materialized."
I am sorry to hear your story, Linda. Really. Context: I have read too
many "real life" tragic Waldorf stories, too. Real World issues. Very tragic
Waldorf stories involving real life children and their parents. While I am
grateful that you shared your family experience with me and I feel
sincerely sad for you and your children I must ask that you try not to
trivialize what some of us have gone through with Waldorf. Of this I have
no doubt:
The "objectionable material" is part of the problem as it and the level of
denial I have experienced within the Waldorf "community" have contributed to
needless pain for too many families. This needs to change. The first step
is open, honest communication.
I now have some understanding of your personal struggle and I thank-you for
expressing yourself so eloquently in this post. Perhaps I now
see you trying to tackle your particular elephants and can only ask that you
might consider that many parents share similar struggles. Different
elephants. But they are just as big and heavy and painful when they sit on
us. One only understands the extent of the pain when it actually happens.
I believe that your plate is pretty full. I believe you feel frustrated
with your own non-Waldorf elephants and are "not interested in battling
problems that have not materialized".. for you. I also believe that while I
have enjoyed reading some of your posts here, your bitterness, anger and
sarcasm add very little to our discussion and as you have expressed
frustration with my posts in the past, I will not further contribute to your
malaise with further questions or comments.
I wish you and your family well. I sincerely mean it.
- Walden
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics topica.com digest, issue 1525
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Linda and Brad's discreditation and disinformation campaign
By gideonmills yahoo.com
Re: flat earth
By abd lomaxdesign.com
Re: flat earth
By feetapparel hotmail.com
native american rituals down under
By feetapparel hotmail.com
Anthroposophy and the Re-Election of the Bush Administration
By realwaldorf hotmail.com
Re: Anthroposophy and the Re-Election of the Bush Administration
By powerofjoy2004 yahoo.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 13:09:22 -0800 (PST)
From: Gideon Mills (gideonmills yahoo.com)
Subject: RE: Linda and Brad's discreditation and disinformation campaign
L G Clemens (aesopo_aeternus yahoo.com) wrote:
"Deborah claimed Steiner's racist messages were being carried by agents
in the "dominant elite" and thus so powerful it becomes the over-riding
consciousness of the dominated."
If I am the "Deborah" of whom you speak, what you wrote does not sound like anything I would have stated; I don't even understand what it states and so would not have said it. Who are the "agents?" Contemporary anthroposophists?
"I've only come across
Steiner racism in reading Waldorf critics. I'm not alone."
Well, of course, anthroposophists are not going to point out Steiner's race-thinking and, by extension, theirs. Overt and public bigotry is considered to be in poor taste.
"What I read indicated
Steiner predicting that there would be NO races in the future, that
differentiation into separate races was an archaic spiritual phase of
some sort that was already starting to fade away."
What I interpreted from Steiner's writing on the subject, is that the non-aryan races were destined to die out because they are inferior. I suppose when there is only one race remaining in the sixth epoch, then there will no longer be separate races.
"Walden, you're looking at this from a somewhat rarified perspective.
Let me give you a picture of the real life influences on my children,
shall we? The chairman from their father's tribe, a prominent and
tremendously influential person in this community, has repeatedly
lectured them against having babies "outside the race". He says things
like "we don't want to see a lot of red-haired little babies running
around here". This man, mind you, has fathered several children with
different women, several with non-Native American women, so he's not
only trying to mess my with children's heads, but others as well,
INCLUDING his own. I want you to imagine how bitterly ironic it is to
hear Deborah lecturing me about this "self-hate" that my children are
supposedly given in the Waldorf school."
There is nothing uncommon with this story. In fact, it may be the norm. The so-called "Black leaders" touted by the news media, are as corrupt as those they disparage and claim to be better than. There is a lot of self-hatred taught within the communities I grew up in, which is all the more reason to not subject children to further instruction in it. As for you other comments, they reinforce what I referred to as the reason why Waldorf/anthroposophy has been so welcomed and appears non-threatening. A pedagogy based on race-thinking will, of course, find a home within a society based on it.
Deborah
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com/a
--
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 16:05:00 -0500
From: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax (abd lomaxdesign.com)
Subject: Re: flat earth
From my point of view, the essence of what Mr. Farrell is doing is to
nitpick the concept, by claiming that there is this or that complicated
possibility that might also explain the experimental data. In fact, his
objection could be made to *any* theory. "Scientific proof" is a bit of a
misnomer, outside of mathematics. Rather, what is generally accepted
(provisionally) as proof of a theory is that (1) it explains the evidence,
(2) predictions can be made from it that turn out to be accurate, and (3)
proposed alternative theories are more complex and not more successful at
prediction.
Mr. Farrell has noted that Eratosthenes' measurement was a two-point
measurement and therefore did not show curvature. That is partially true.
However, it does, in fact, show net curvature, i.e., angular change in the
normal to the surface between the two points. It is like a derivative; a
derivative based on the slope of two points in a curve does not provide
information about the points in between. However, if we have some knowledge
about the points in between, such as, in this case, having walked the line
between the two cities, one would know that there was no abrupt
discontinuity. Therefore any change in the angle of the surface would have
to be gradual. And the most gradual change would be even, that is, so much
angle per surface distance. I.e., so much curvature.
Further, Mr. Farrell seems to have assumed that Eratosthene's measurements
took place in a vacuum. However, the change in the altitude of Polaris was
known, as I mentioned, to seafaring peoples. The altitude of Polaris was
used as a navigational guide, probably long before Eratosthenes. I forget
the name of the device which was commonly used, but it was essentially a
stick with a rope tied to its middle and a knot in the rope at a certain
distance from the stick. The knot was held in the teeth and the stick held
out so that the rope was in tension and the stick was at a right angle to
the rope. There were notches in the stick corresponding to the latitude of
a desired destination city. So a ship at sea desiring to reach that city
would sail north or south as necessary until the altitude of Polaris
matched the notch on the stick. Then they would sail east or west, again as
appropriate -- hopefully they knew!, if the city was, say, on the eastern
coast bordering the Mediterranean -- until they reached the city. I haven't
used one of these devices, but if the accuracy of the measurement were +/-
one-half degree, it would bring them to within roughly thirty miles of the
city.
It would be astonishing if the ancients had not noticed that the distance
between notches on the stick corresponded roughly to the north-south
distance between the cities. And thus they would have an idea of a roughly
constant change of the vertical over the distances involved.
Eratosthenes would have been aware of this and would have been interested
in making a more precise measurement, and apparently he hit upon the device
of using the altitude of the sun at noon on a given day of the year, which
had been observed to be relatively constant at a given location.
At 08:00 PM 11/3/2004, Peter Farrell wrote:
))However, one can determine that a plumb bob is always normal to a level
))surface (and level is defined as aligned with a clear horizon).
)
)Additional information. What would be the experience of a person on a
)structure with a different geometry? Have you done any actual calculations
)or made serious diagrams? Doesn't sound like it to me.
What the experience of a person would be on a different geometry is an
open-ended question. What would be the experience of a person if all we see
is a dream in the mind of an inhabitant of a planet revolving around Arcturus?
We have an instinctive geometry, which might be, as I mentioned,
hard-wires, and it is, in fact, accurate until one gets into the
refinements of space-time warping and string theory. Suffice it to say that
these are outside the matters being discussed here.
I haven't done calculations in the sense of picking some alternate geometry
and working out the exact consequences. However, what I did do was to
consider some shapes proposed by Mr. Farrell and anticipate the
consequences. A cylinder, for example, would essentially be a flat surface
if we were on the end. The behavior of the altitude of Polaris would be
that of a flat earth, until one reached the discontinuity at the edge of
that surface.
Now, I mentioned that the Earth appears flat. Mr. Farrell essentially
denied this; this is what I mean by nitpicking. What I mean is more than
the appearance of the ocean surface or of wide expanses. On examination,
what I'm really saying is that our natural intuition is that if we were,
say, floating on the ocean, and we had a mast 10 feet high, and we sailed
about, the top of our mast would trace out points all within one plane. If
we travelled in a constant direction, i.e., perhaps by keeping a fixed
place at our back, as long as we could see it, our mast would trace a
straight line.
But the experience of mariners contradicts this. In fact, the line so
traced curves. And this was known.
Our intuition of a flat earth is directly contradicted by the observation
of Polaris. Yes, there are alternate explanations. Perhaps the atmosphere
warps light in some unknown way. Indeed, it does warp light, but not in
such a way as to have much effect on the observation of Polaris until one
gets near the equator.
Essentially, our intuition allows us to understand that if an object which
we can continuously see changes its position in the sky as we move, and if
we move back to our original position, it returns to its orginal position,
that the *sky* is shifting, but since we, again intuitively, sense that it
is unlikely that the sky is moving to follow us -- and since our friends
who are not travelling tell us that the sky did not move for them (I.e.,
Polaris did not change its altitude) -- we can conclude that what has
changed is our own position, that, relative to our original attitude, we
have tilted. And thus the horizon and the vertical have shifted.
Essentially, to come to this conclusion based on personal experience rather
than report and theory, is what I'd like to make possible for students. In
order to do that, they need to have some experience of how the sky and its
objects shift as one moves about the earth. If that experience is
quantified, they, in addition to having a general idea about it, they can
actually measure the curvature and thus the size of the earth.
In my concept, they would indeed make measurements at more than two places.
As I noted in the last message, they would not only make the north-south
measurements by Polaris, they would also do noon sightings, which are
actually easier to do -- I've done them with home-made equipment, basically
a ladder, piece of cardboard with a pinhole in it, plumb bob, and a tape
measure. The piece of cardboard was mounted on a board fixed to the top of
the ladder. A plumb bob was suspended with its string through the hole in
the cardboard to mark on a piece of paper below the ladder the position of
vertical from the hole. Then the plumb bob was removed. Then the position
of the image of the sun formed by the pinhole was marked on the paper at
recorded times before and after local noon. I won't go into the exact
details here, but this measurement determines latitude and longitude if one
assumes that nautical almanacs give the correct position of the sun.... I
was within a couple of miles, as I recall.
The key to this, as far as longitude measurement is concerned, is accurate
time. That was not possible in Eratosthene's day. For this purpose,
however, "time" means an understanding of what the position of the sun will
be at another location on the earth. It allows simultaneous measurement of,
say, solar position. Thus it can be replaced by telephone contact, which
takes us away from an instrument (a clock) and toward something much more
solid, i.e., our own experience of simultaneity. And thus you can measure
the net change in attitude between quite a few different points, and if you
can determine the distance between the points, measured over the surface of
the earth, you can then determine the size of the earth and, as well,
confirm that the curvature is a constant change in attitude per unit
distance, which shows that the surface is that of a sphere over the range
measured.
Yes, there might be some other part of the surface that is not so curved.
But flat earth, no. Not possible. Not without totally violating our very
solid instincts -- which we might call axioms -- about space.
)We are not deluded that the earth is approximately spherical. It is a good
)thing to do Eratosthenes' experiments with children. It does not prove the
)earth is a sphere. Rather a large set of interlocking observations and
)theories does this.
A single instance of Eratosthene's experiment, i.e., a single measurement
involving two points, indeed does not "prove" that the earth is a sphere.
However, it does set up a pretty good presumption about that (simply add
the assumption that the change in attitude is constant with distance,
which, as I mentioned, was already known to be at least approximately
true). But if the measurement is done repeatedly, it *will* establish a
spherical surface over the region examined. ("surface" here means what we
consider "level"; as Peter pointed out, it is established by gravity, but
complex concepts of gravity, such as the inverse square law, etc., are not
really necessary for the purposes of this measurement. We understand
"level." Small children understand it. Objects roll consistently down if a
floor is not level....)
By the way, Peter might recall that I spent a fair amount of time in the
company of Richard Feynman. One of the characteristics of great physicists
is that they know how to look at things so that they become intuitively
simple....
So, sure, you *can* complicate things,
)))It is illustrative to consider a different geometry, a cylindrical
)))earth. If we assume Newtonian gravity holds, local notions of vertical
)))and horizontal no longer coincide with the macroscopic geometry of the
)))cylinder. Even on the flat surfaces of the cylinder (not the curved
)))surface), one would experience a change in the apparent direction of a
)))pole star with respect to local notions of vertical as one traveled from
)))the centre of the flat surface towards the outer rim.
))
))If the distance to the star is relatively small.
)
)Not so. The variation of level due to gravity would give rise to the
)apparent shift in the star's position even if the star was so far away
)that no parallax was detectable.
Ah, yes. That is true -- at least I think it would be --, I was not
considering gravity. But, for this very reason, the surface would be
patently and plainly not level. Rather, I was dealing with what would have
been a more simple concept, that "down" is normal to the surface, as it
*is* on the earth, when the surface is "level". Basically, the cylinder
doesn't work. Notice that if the surface were an ocean, the water would
*flow* to the middle of the end cap, so that its surface, I intuit, would
form a spherical surface. That is, the surface of the ocean is a
gravitational isocline.
By introducing a concept of gravity that differs from our intuitions about
the surface of the planet, Peter managed to introduce a completely
unnecessary confusion. The torus possibility is much more interesting,
though I think it also produces some serious problems with gravity. And
none of these are consistent with some rather ordinary observations, as
I've noted.
)It may well be inconsistent with other observations. But Abd said that the
)observation as originally described was inconsistent with a flat earth.
)This is not so. One can construct a cylinder with appropriate dimensions
)such that curvature as measured by Eratosthenes' techniques would not
)distinguish between a sphere and a cylinder due to the effect of Newtonian
)gravity.
The more I think about it, the more I think this is pure bosh. It would
require neglecting the relationship of gravity to the surface itself.
Wherever you are on the earth, if you can see a great distance, what is at
a great distance is close to horizontal. Peter's cylindrical earth would
violate that. Suppose that one were close to the edge of one of the caps of
the cylinder. First of all, there would have to be no body of water about,
or, as I mentioned, it would flow toward the center of the cap; if there
were enough water, it would flow until the shape of the cap were, in fact,
spherical. So Eratosthene's measurements, if performed, say, in cities
close to sea level, would indeed produce spherical results, because the
surface would be spherical!
If there were no water, then we would still notice that the land would be
falling continually toward the center of the cap. Travel from the center to
the edge would be harder than travel from the edge to the center. Further,
though one could see, for example, a mountain at the center, from the edge
(presuming not enough haze...), the direction to that mountain would be
depressed from the horizontal.
))I really did think of this before making my suggestion!
)
)I find that difficult to believe.
Mr. Farrell, again, is partly correct. I did not think specifically of the
gravitational details. But I did think of alternate shapes and promptly
rejected them. Perhaps someone else can think of something better....
But it does not seem to me that Mr. Farrell has...
)I believe that I can construct a cylinder of appropriate dimensions such
)that the apparent curvature over a limted range is the same in both
)directions, and indistingushable from a sphere without high precision
)measurements..
Perhaps Mr. Farrell means something different by "cylinder" than what I'd
expect. But the whole thing is a red herring. It neglects "sea level" and
it is "sea level" which is spherical. In other words, one might create a
dry cylinder or cylindroid that gravitationally over a portion of the
surface would duplicate Eratosthene's measurements of the noon angle, but
this surface would have blatant anomalies in the behavior of gravity with
respect to the surface. Essentially, the surface would be tilted to an
observer standing upon it.
I'm suggesting that these are all introduced complications. We don't need a
complex concept of gravity, all we need to know is that there is a
direction called down, that water flows in that direction, that a plumb bob
indicates it. We need to know that the surface of a body of water is
"level". That is, that "down" is always normal to the surface. We then have
a definition of the surface of the earth, i.e., of "sea level." We also
then have a concept that the surface may rise above that, or below that in
a place where there is not enough water, and the sea water can't flow to it
because of barriers. We can understand that some bodies of water, not
connected with others, can be at different "heights." And when there is a
path between them where the water can flow, it will, from the higher to the
lower. All of this works with a flat earth, and our easy assumption that
"down" is everywhere the same direction, not only as measured by a plumb
bob, but also in our concept of absolute space. And then that assumption
can meet contrary evidence, that "down" rotates as one moves about the
surface; we can get to this because there are objects that can be observed
simultaneously from widely separated positions across the surface; i.e.,
the celestial bodies.
)I am saying something much more technically important than this kind of
)solipsism. I am saying that it is not as simple as Abd describes it, but
)not so complicated that we can't win.
The complications -- in this case -- are artificially introduced by Peter.
There was never any serious competition for shapes of the earth, beyond
flat and spherical. What I've said is that flat is most obvious as a first
hypothesis; when one observes the rotation of the vertical -- a simple way
to say it -- with movement about the surface, with rotation varying
directly as the distance moved, one has essentially refuted the flat
surface and determined a spherical surface. There is no other surface which
shows this behavior *together with other obvious characteristics of the
earth's surface.* That is, the surface of the earth must approximate a
sphere, and one can easily make observations to confirm this in the regions
one can reach.
Yes, one needs a bit more complicated a concept of "surface" than just how
the ground is arrayed. That's where "sea level" comes in.
The cylinder or cylindroid that Peter proposes only would work if "sea
level" cannot be established, and this surface would be contradicted by
ordinary experience in other ways....
)Proof involves ruling out all alternate explanations. Sufficient evidence
)for practical applications requires only that we rule reasonable alternate
)explanations.
Yes.
)For the sake of argument, I'll accept that every problem can be addressed,
)but only at the expense of destroying the initial claim that the
)experiment could be done simply using hand made instruments and that it
)proves the spherical nature of the earth. Neither of these are true.
Peter has pulled a sleight-of-hand trick here. The simple experiments
described would, indeed, not "prove" that the surface was spherical. They
would merely rule out "reasonable alternate explanations."
Essentially, the north-south experiments would show north-south curvature
matching that of a circle. This is the Eratosthenes experiment; but Polaris
was suggested instead because Polaris is observable on every clear day, and
one does not need to get into complications introduced by variations in the
observed solar position due to the inclination of the earth's rotation.
Still, if one wants more accuracy without precision instruments, solar
observation would be the way to go.
Then the east-west experiments, possible for us but not for Eratosthenes,
because of the problem of determining simultaneity, solved for us by the
telephone and solved earlier by accurate clocks, will show -- I will
confidently predict -- that the east west curvature is also that of a
circle. If you have circular curvature both east and west over a region,
you have a spherical surface. Nothing else.
))And a pedant could come along and point out some possible alternate
))hypothesis which, to refute, would require some additional work. Or the
))h