tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post5590383486110577221..comments2024-03-23T12:05:13.464-07:00Comments on Ideas: Did Carl Sagan Libel Christiaan Huygens?David Friedmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06543763515095867595noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-41482253890201850792009-09-30T22:10:47.571-07:002009-09-30T22:10:47.571-07:00Huygens does argue from the existence of moons aro...Huygens does argue from the existence of moons around Jupiter that there must be many mariners there. He says that the multiplicity of moons would enable the Jovians to have attained seafaring knowledge---with more mastery, in fact, than we have, with our solitary moon. He concludes that the Jovians will have developed sails and ropes and become accomplished seafarers.<br /><br />At this point, Sagan is already done. He has shown that the scientific arguments of three centuries ago may seem foolish today, and from there he can argue that our contemporary scientific arguments may come to seem equally foolish from a similar perspective.<br /><br />Why Sagan added that Huygens reasoned directly from Jovian rope to Jovian hemp is a jovial mystery to me.<br /><br />But Huygens argues that Jupiter will sport a great variety of plants, having forms very similar to those on Earth, and designed specifically by God for the use of his Jovians, who will have forms very similar to ours.<br /><br />From this general conclusion, a Jovian hemp-like plant follows, because God would provide for his human-like seafaring Jovians as he did for his seafaring Terrans. I would say the corollary was left as an exercise for the reader.<br /><br />So Huygens would not have considered himself libeled. He would have readily agreed with Sagan about hemp on Jupiter.Scrvpvlvshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01991741856700926128noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-14181785863095677112009-09-29T15:11:17.752-07:002009-09-29T15:11:17.752-07:00David, have you ever lied, or misrepresented someo...David, have you ever lied, or misrepresented someone?<br /><br />What's your obsession with this?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-77037415043557227002009-09-27T08:46:14.139-07:002009-09-27T08:46:14.139-07:00One of the great things about the net is that such...One of the great things about the net is that such thinks can be hunted down. Compare with the way the ancient Chinese curse "may you live in interesting times" has been used & reused by writers & journalists criss crossing the world since Robert Kennedy first said it.neil craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09157898238945726349noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-20416115253878813322009-09-22T20:09:38.592-07:002009-09-22T20:09:38.592-07:00Someone online, responding to a post of mine, poin...Someone online, responding to a post of mine, pointed at something else Sagan wrote in which he misrepresented Huygens in a somewhat similar fashion, and explicitly cited <i>Cosmotheoros</i>. <br /><br />I think it's a fair conclusion that Sagan was referring to that treatise here as well and either didn't bother to make sure what he said was correct or didn't care, since his version made a good story.David Friedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06543763515095867595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-77918244777532690282009-09-22T18:35:12.936-07:002009-09-22T18:35:12.936-07:00In the 1980 hardcover edition of Cosmos, on page 9...In the 1980 hardcover edition of <i>Cosmos</i>, on page 92, Sagan writes a similar statement about the 17th-century argument for swamps on Venus:<br /><br />"The absence of anything to see of Venus led some scientists to the curious conclusion that the surface was a swamp, like the Earth in the Carboniferous Period. The argument--if we can dignify it by such a word--went something like this:<br /><br />'I can't see a thing of Venus.'<br />'Why not?'<br />'Because it's totally covered with clouds.'<br />'What are clouds made of?'<br />'Water, of course.'<br />'Then why are the clouds of Venus thicker than the clouds on Earth?'<br />'Because there's more water there.'<br />'But if there is more water in the clouds, there must be more water on the surface. What kind of surfaces are very wet?'<br />'Swamps.'"<br /><br />I'm not sure if the excerpt from Scientific American came before or after <i>Cosmos</i>, but it's possible Sagan was doing a creative copy-and-paste job somewhere...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-26703288120783966092009-09-22T16:44:15.699-07:002009-09-22T16:44:15.699-07:00I saw the reference on p. 56, because I searched f...I saw the reference on p. 56, because I searched for hemp. I misssed the one on page 52. <br /><br />But it doesn't justified Sagan's story, although it may explain where it came from. Huygens doesn't argue, as Sagan is claiming, that the sailors provide the explanation for the moons. Huygens doesn't claim that people on other planets have hemp, only that they, like us, have useful plants and animals, hemp for rope being offered as an example of one of our useful plants. And he doesn't say anything at all about hemp on Jupiter.<br /><br />So Sagan, either deliberately to make a better story or inadvertently through trusting to his memory of something he once read, is making Huygens out to be foolish by attributing to him things he didn't say and treating what's obviously speculation as if it was intended to be serious science.David Friedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06543763515095867595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-26780250350532994342009-09-22T16:13:20.323-07:002009-09-22T16:13:20.323-07:00Mr Huber—
On page 52, he suggests that they would...Mr Huber—<br /><br />On page 52, he suggests that they would have <em>rope</em>; on page 56 he says that <em>we</em> have hemp. Could you direct us to where he says that the Jovians have rope made of hemp? (Or anything else made of hemp, or just hemp lying around?) Certainly none of the rope that <em>I</em> personally have is made of hemp.Daniel [oeconomist.com]https://www.blogger.com/profile/06763094285750736837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-72647734892264640632009-09-22T15:18:10.644-07:002009-09-22T15:18:10.644-07:001: You missed the entries in Cosmotheoros on pages...1: You missed the entries in Cosmotheoros on pages 52 and 56.<br /><br />The original statement by Sagan may have been in "Broca's Brain", page 178.<br /><br />That took me all of 5 minutes, thanks to your excellent link. I simply searched for "rope".Mike Hubenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01371469964446567690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-15157875319491491922009-09-22T14:23:03.192-07:002009-09-22T14:23:03.192-07:00I find it interesting that what is deduced, of all...I find it interesting that what is deduced, of all things, is hemp. Not wood to make ships, or iron to make anchors, but hemp to make ropes.<br /><br />...especially in the context of Sagan being a noted marijuana smoker.<br /><br />I certainly don't argue that there's anything to this juxtaposition, but I do wonder if Sagan was more likely to remember a story if it involved hemp.TJIChttp://tjic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-42468948723881346012009-09-22T13:15:49.700-07:002009-09-22T13:15:49.700-07:00I too would like to think 3b is most probable, but...I too would like to think 3b is most probable, but Sagan's advocacy of <em><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan#Scientific_advocacy" rel="nofollow">Nuclear Winter</a></em> makes me wonder.BobWnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19727420.post-31939800572732901102009-09-22T12:53:06.048-07:002009-09-22T12:53:06.048-07:00Although I'm not a fan of Sagan, I impute grea...Although I'm not a fan of Sagan, I impute greated probability to 3b ("never bothered to check") than to 3a ("lying").<br /><br />But certainly I think 3b most probable. And I see Aristoteles similarly abused by authors who haven't themselves read his work.Daniel [oeconomist.com]https://www.blogger.com/profile/06763094285750736837noreply@blogger.com