As a teenage lad, I ventured off to study the "great books" program at St John's College in Santa Fe, surveying the history of Western civilization from the beginning, starting with Homer and Plato and Greeks in general. In the math tutorials, they start with Euclid. Then came the part of the whole deal that made the least sense at the time: Ptolemy.
Ptolemy was a critically important Greek astronomer. We spent about half a year of math classes studying The Almagest. Ptolemy plotted the positions and movements of planets and stars, recorded them carefully and explained the movements of the celestial bodies to account for all these scrupulous readings.
The result was the top classic astronomy book of antiquity. It was accurate enough that ships at sea used it to guide themselves across the world for 1,000 years and more.
Thing was, Ptolemy was completely, all wrong. His whole system was geocentric. His whole system was based on the premise that the Earth was the center of the universe, and everything revolved around us.
As a young grasshopper, I was most puzzled by why we were spending so much time learning details of theories that we now know were all wrong. We're studying his wrong stuff for months why exactly?
In retrospect, the Ptolemy study was one of the best couple of sections of my time at St John's. I didn't realize it then, but over time the idea of Ptolemy has been highly significant to me. He's been a big influence on parts of my thinking that might be described as "conservative," but not just in a simple political sense. It's a bit difficult to explain in a sentence or two, but Ptolemy has been a critical lesson in the limits of human knowledge.
I take it as something of a lesson in humility, as Ptolemy was a greater man than me and by all appearances a scrupulous scientist. This guy was smart and honest and had good, reasonable explanations for his data. Take Ptolemy as a warning to epistemological modesty. Ptolemy represents the limits of even the best, smartest and most careful scientific mind.
But that's not what we came here to talk about. We're here to talk about the limits of the venal human spirit. We're here to talk about global warming, Manbearpig, and his creator Al Gore. In South Park episode 1006, the former vice president shows up totally obsessed with a made-up Bigfoot-type monster from which he is desperate to save the world. Naturally a lot of misery, death and destruction result from his efforts- far more than a real Bigfoot monster could have ever caused even if they were real.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - methuselah
Too bad you stopped following science with Ptolemny: a lot has changed in 2000 years. For one thing, there is almost no controversy in science about global warming, but there's a lot of controversy in the Popular Press, sometimes called the MSM.
2 - Al Barger
Methusalah, it's simply not true when you say that there's no controversy among scientists about global warming. You're lying perhaps even to yourself on the topic- much like Al Gore, I suspect. Even the title of his movie implies the kind of smug self-satisfaction and unwillingness to serious consider dissenting opinions that will tell you the content is not intellectually credible.
In fact, the commercial press are just ridiculous in pimping the global warming hysterics, as per that ABC News fishing spot I cited in the article.
It's going to take a lot more than a snide remark and an invocation of the authorita of SCIENCE ie the judgments of the human beings who currently conduct science, to establish the truth value of these big overarching claims. It will take a lot of ACTUAL science- PROOF, which simply isn't there so far as I can see.
3 - todd yarling
These same scientists also beleive in silly stuff like evolution and the big bang.
So this appeal to authority doesn't work on me man.
4 - Al Barger
Al Gore sez, "I did it. I killed ManBearPig. I’ve saved the earth from certain destruction. Everyone is super-stoked on me, even if they don’t know it."
5 - El Bicho
"Why were temperatures higher 500 years ago?...Perhaps they had global warming caused by dinosaur flatulence."
There were dinosaurs in 1506? I wonder if that's what killed Columbus. Sorry I couldn't resist.
I do agree that there's not enough data over the Earth's lifetime to be able to see any type of pattern, although I am okay with trying to live a life with less pollution.
"I find it unlikely that gases floating in the atmosphere are really that significant."
You are wrong about this from what I have read. It's the greenhouses gases in the atmosphere that trap some of the Sun's radiation, keeping the planet warm enough to sustain life. Now if you were getting philosophical about whether or not life on the planet is signifigant, I might not disagree with you.
6 - Al Barger
Howdy Bicho, glad to hear from you. Gases in the atmosphere are certainly significant. I probably should have written something more like, 'I find it unlikely that extra co2 from my car is that significant to our atmosphere.' But that would have detracted from the simpler point at hand in that closing paragraph.
I'm generally in favor of less pollution. Everybody wants to breath clean air and drink clean water. But how much cleaner in what ways at what expense are significant questions that need to be addressed rationally, rather than through some apocalyptic quasi-religious fervor that brooks no dissent.
However, I don't think Christopher Columbus would have had much problem handling the dinosaurs, being a tough Italian stallion and all- though perhaps some French explorers might have been eaten here and there.
7 - Altogether
Robert Anton Wilson is dying. He has an auction posted on eBay that you might enjoy that only has 24 hours left. If he lives others will be posted too. I see him often and know that in this critical time in his life he has much wisdom to relay to us. He is calling himself "not not" right now. Check it out:
8 - troll
since when has rationality been a guiding force in history and change - ?
shit - the whole point of consumptive capitalism is to subjugate the complex nature of reason to the more simple notion of profit
so don't hold your breath waiting for questions to be addressed and plans made rationally
troll
troll
9 - Clavos
Great article, Al!
One of the problems I have with global warming advocates is their projections for what to expect in the future. Most (if not all) base their forecasts on what is happening today, and begin their predictions with a phrase like "If the current rate of increase of (insert favorite negative here) continues over the next xx years..."
Scientists have made such predictions for a long time--you mention those who in the seventies predicted global cooling (wonder how many of THEM are now on the GW bandwagon?), Malthus' dire warnings of the earth running out of food are another classical example of scientific forecasts not panning out, in his case because he didn't have sufficient information to foresee the rapid advances in agricultural techniques that came after him.
The inconsistency of forecast A when compared to B or C is another problem area for me. Predictions in re the rise of sea levels, for example, vary widely, from a few inches over the next fifty years to dozens of feet.
Another questionable area in the controversy is the motives of the alarmists. Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT has an interesting article
on this point. Admittedly, there are those who question the motives of the debunkers as well, but as you said, Al, there's a lot more to the whole debate than the public sees in the MSM.
10 - Al Barger
Thanks Clavos. As a religiously skeptical skeptic of religion, my antennae are tuned for those signs of religious fervor. But of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that they're wrong. Blind disbelief can be as bad as blind belief.
The trick is trying to figure out as best as possible what's really going on, rather than just going with what I'm pre-disposed to believe or being railroaded into buying some hoakum.
11 - Dave Nalle
Interesting and amusing observations, Al.
My favorite thing about global warming is that even freak cold snaps, snowstorms and hail are touted as signs of it.
If the summer continues to be below average in temperature just like this spring was, those abnormally cool temperatures will presumably be a critical sign of global warming too.
Because it's a belief driven by faith rather than reason, all things are possible under the holy umbrella of global warming.
Take comment #1 by Meth. Because he doesn't agree with global warming theory, hundreds of scientists automatically either don't exist (must be a big shock to them) or else those scientists have to be religiously motivated. Of course, nothing could be farther from the truth. They just have questions about a theory - and it IS still a theory - which so many are accepting uncritically as if it were proven fact.
Dave
12 - Al Barger
Altogether, it'll be a danged shame to have to let go of ol' RAW, but it seems like he's been knockin' on heaven's door for awhile now. Heck, he wasn't looking that healthy when I met him near to 10 years ago.
In the meantime, that's one appropriately freaky auction you've got going there. He's SO not right.
If you think it might give him a spot of entertainment in his last days, you might share with him my casting of him as yin/yang with Ayn Rand as a voice in my head HERE.
Please send him my love. XOX
13 - Dave Nalle
For those wanting to check out the RAW auction, both URLs previously posted are incorrect. Try this link instead.
Dave
14 - Clavos
My favorite thing about global warming is that even freak cold snaps, snowstorms and hail are touted as signs of it.
It IS funny, isn't it?
My particular peeve on the subject is the constant invoking of the disaster of Katrina as evidence of what the effects of global warming will wreak. In point of fact, Katrina was only a moderate storm--the disaster came from a variety of factors having nothing whatever to do with the climate, other than the fact of the storm itself.
15 - methuselah
About RAW: Even Daves offer of a link doesn't work, but I found this interesting sentence in wikipedia:
"He is known for his work as a novelist, essayist, philosopher, psychologist, futurist, anarchist, and conspiracy researcher."
But nothing about any scientific research that would contribute to RAW having an informed opinion on global warming. But he may be an interesting dinner companion.
16 - Allonourown
Robert Anton Wilson is dead. He had an auction posted on eBay that you might have enjoyed but its too late. Since he is dead no more will be posted. I saw him often and knew that in this critical time in his life he has much wisdom to relay to us. By the way we are going to auction off his clothes, show and bicycle on ebay!
17 - Al Barger
Methuselah- I'd think you'd get a little more sense being so old, but you're just determined not to get the point. You don't need to agree, but it'd be nice if you acknowledged that you understood my honest skepticism.
Specifically, I was not invoking RAW as an expert in climatology. I have no idea what his opinions on global warming might be. That's not the point.
The point of invoking Wilson and really of this whole article is philosophical, or pre-scientific. Scientific philosophy would be a general range of ideas in which RAW would have top expertise, theories of knowledge and epistemology.
But yes, RAW would be a hell of a dinner companion. Cocktail hour at a linguistics conference in NYC circa 1997 with Robert Anton Wilson was certainly one of the more entertaining evenings of my life. Get a couple of drinks in him and start swapping conspiracy theories. Good times.
18 - Bliffle
"Methusalah, it's simply not true when you say that there's no controversy among scientists about global warming. You're lying..."
And you're misrepresenting The Ancient One, who said "...almost no controversy..". Amazing that you would attempt such a bald lie when the rebuttal is so handy.
Nevertheless, while one is hardpressed to discover the scientific credentials of RA Wilson, the science and math of Ptolemny is more interesting and more powerful. While Ptolemny was wrong about the nature of planetary movement, he was quite right about the math. For many years navigators successfully got from one place to another without problems employing his tables and 'epicycles'. And the modern science student would recognize Ptolemnys epicycles as coefficients in a McLauren series, as indeed it is. You DO remember Fourier from your Analytic Function Theory courses, don't you Al? You know, LaPlace transforms, Taylor series, etc. Or were you dozing that day, content to know that the cheat sheets in the frat house would allow you to ace the test without the distracting bother of having to actually study and understand the material?
19 - Dave Nalle
Damn, I wish we'd had cheat sheets in our frat house instead of 24 hour beer on tap. I guess that's why I took psychology instead of physics.
Dave
20 - Al Barger
Bliffle, was there supposed to be any other point to your diatribe other than childish one-upsmanship? Were any of these other names you dropped relevant to the discussion at hand? Was there some point to this that I missed?
21 - JR
A little defensive are we?
It's only one-upsmanship because you put in your stake with your Ptolemy and your Euclid.
And it points up something that some of us think is important: the difference in knowing something from reading and knowing something from experience. The thing is, you like to pay lip service to objectivity and empiricism, and you particularly like to deride those who you believe are making judgements based on their emotions or faith. But you don't seem to have engaged in much of the actual nuts and bolts of science, math and logic yourself. I would argue that there is a deeper level of knowledge and ability you get from the experience of trying to solve problems, looking in the back of the book and having going back through your calculations to figure out why your answer doesn't match theirs. There's an almost physical sense of understanding you get from grinding different sets of numbers through equations, a sense that won't come from just reading off the "right" answer.
You make statements like this: "Ptolemy had far better basis for his theories than do modern global warming advocates", when you clearly have little idea of what climatologists base their theories on. Okay, you read about Ptolemy. Did you try to duplicate his work? Have you tried to duplicate the work of modern climate scientists? How do you know what you just professed to know?
In my opinion you are more vulnerable to "emotional mammalian inaccuracies" entering your thinking than the next guy (at least if the next guy is a half-decent scientist or engineer) if you haven't practiced scientific reasoning. It's like shooting a gun or driving a car: all the reading in the world isn't going to make you an expert, or even competent at it.
Objectivity, and particularly the lack of it in those who disagree with you, is a running theme in your posts. You do something similar in music: you like to talk about absolute standards. But can you read a note? Have you even played an instrument? What makes you think you can make credible claims about something you haven't actively experienced?
You're an entertaining writer and all, and you have reasonably catholic tastes; but you come off a bit like the 40-year-old virgin of quantitative reasoning.
22 - Al Barger
No JR, I'm not particularly defensive. I don't claim to know much. As Lonesome Rhodes would say, "Shoot, I'm just a country boy."
But I do try to understand reality as best I can, and you and Bliffle with your pointless little pissing contests are contributing nothing to the discussion but cheap ego. Was there some point to Bliffle's comment other than name dropping to prove how smart he is?
It's as if you two are determined to illustrate for us the kind of low level egotism of the South Park version of Al Gore. You're not answering any of my questions or offering a counter explanation, but merely invoking your supposed expertise, and I need to respect your authorita.
I had a specific explanation for why I thought Ptolemy was more rigorously scientific than global warming science. You've not said anything to contradict that or any particular argument I've made, other than just a general smear that I'm a big dummie.
OK, you win. I'm a big dummie- but this global warming theory still looks like BS. So dumb it down for a Kentuckian, will you- where am I wrong?
23 - Bliffle
" So dumb it down for a Kentuckian, will you- where am I wrong?"
You started with a predetermined political answer and then sought contrived science to support your position. That's where you went wrong.
24 - NF
In the next century, it is likely that enough of the world's above sea level ice packs will melt to flood much of the Netherlands, Bangladesh, and other parts of the world. If you think that only a 50% chance of that happening is too low to care, don't try telling that to the leaders of those nations who are trying to do something about it.
Also:
"Why were temperatures higher 500 years ago? It obviously wasn't because of evil white American men driving SUVs. Perhaps they had global warming caused by dinosaur flatulence. That temperatures were higher than this perhaps as recently as a few hundred years ago looks to me like evidence AGAINST the theory of man-made global warming. Perhaps it's just totally run of the (very slow cosmic) mill that temperatures will fluctuate a couple of degrees per century. I'd find that very easy to believe- which is the reason that I would take my own explanation here with a grain of salt. Still, that seems reasonable to me."
If you had read your excerpt:
"The Earth is warmer today than at any point the last 400 years, and likely, the last millennium, a committee convened by the National Academy of Sciences concluded in a report released Thursday.
Congress sought the 155-page analysis of Earth's past temperatures after a dispute erupted a year ago, when Texas Congressman Joe Barton sharply questioned the methods of Michael Mann and two other researchers, who had published scientific papers stating the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the late 20th century than at any time in the past 1,000 years.
[...]
As for the period from A.D. 1000 to 1600, North said many, but not all locations where temperatures were measured support Mann's research."
25 - Clavos
You're an entertaining writer and all, and you have reasonably catholic tastes; but you come off a bit like the 40-year-old virgin of quantitative reasoning.
Patronizing and condescending.
You DO remember Fourier from your Analytic Function Theory courses, don't you Al? You know, LaPlace transforms, Taylor series, etc. Or were you dozing that day, content to know that the cheat sheets in the frat house would allow you to ace the test without the distracting bother of having to actually study and understand the material?
Ditto.
It doesn't take a scientific background to recognize Ad Hominem arguments.
What horseshit.