Alfred Russel Wallace

Outstanding!  Nice work.

For the record, I do respect Tom Bishop, but you have convinced me beyond any doubt that we still have no evidence that Wallace was ever anything other than a sphericist. 

Thank you.  It's nice that we actually agree on something. 

I respect the points you make here.  I think the reason he deeply regretted having gotten involved with the Bedford Level Experiment was the grief it caused him afterwards.

Wallace was neither driven to bankruptcy nor ordered by a court to write humiliating letters of apology. Exactly what grief did Wallace derive from his complete destruction of John Hampden?

Hampden sued first. He would not relent, what was Wallace supposed to do?

Hampden sued first. He would not relent, what was Wallace supposed to do?

Don't try and paint Wallace as a victim here. He clearly intended to humiliate Hampden as well as get all his money - him bribing Walsh to corroborate his experimental lying in the first place was the first step. Hampden's lawsuit in this light was justified. The demands made by Wallace in subsequent ones clearly were not.

There is no evidence of them lying. Just because it goes against your beliefs proves nothing. Of course, if someone accused me of lying and sued, I would destroy them.

Quote from: The Great God Roundy on January 19, 2008, 07:51:57 PM

I respect the points you make here.  I think the reason he deeply regretted having gotten involved with the Bedford Level Experiment was the grief it caused him afterwards.

Wallace was neither driven to bankruptcy nor ordered by a court to write humiliating letters of apology. Exactly what grief did Wallace derive from his complete destruction of John Hampden?

Your opinion is clouding your appraisal of the facts.

Regardless, we do seem to be straying a little to close to ad hominem fallacy. Wallace may have been a plagiarizing, greedy, spiritualist jerk - but that seems somewhat irrelevant to the fidelity of his observational skills. One might argue that Wallace did have a financial benefit to faking the experiment, but considering that it was a competition (judged by a third party) it seems highly unlikely that Wallace's character would be a problematic factor.

As for the plagiarism, one would think that Darwin would be Wallace's harshest critic if your claims are true. However, evidence from Darwin's writing seems to state quite clearly the exact opposite. Also, Dogplatter, you keep stressing that Wallace claims he discovered in a hallucination what it had taken 20 years for Darwin to develop. You seem to forget that Wallace had been studying nature in Brazil and other locations for 10 years before his 'hallucination' - and that Darwin used some of Wallace's publications in his research!

And regarding the original line of discussion: one single, vague reference to an FE book by Wallace is hardly definitive evidence (especially when vast amounts of RE evidence are so easily written off as nothing).

Regardless, we do seem to be straying a little to close to ad hominem fallacy. Wallace may have been a plagiarizing, greedy, spiritualist jerk - but that seems somewhat irrelevant to the fidelity of his observational skills. One might argue that Wallace did have a financial benefit to faking the experiment, but considering that it was a competition (judged by a third party) it seems highly unlikely that Wallace's character would be a problematic factor.

The whole thread was about Alfred Russel Wallace, so it's been a little hard to avoid assessments of his character. We shouldn't forget that the "third party" (John Walsh, media mogul) was in cahoots with Wallace long before the experiment took place, representing the first recorded modern convergence of the mass media and globularist interests for profit - the proto-Conspiracy. Both Wallace and Walsh had a fiscal vested interest, Wallace had an additional vested interest stemming from his desire to validate his quack Copernicanism (I've no doubt the globbies will have no qualms in pointing out that Hampden could have been motivated by the exact mirror of this, so I believe it's safe to accuse Wallace of the self-same).

The important thing is, Wallace and Walsh's financial vested interest goes far deeper than the £500 originally offered. By goading Hampden into a mire of legal skullduggery, the proto-Con realised it stood to gain far larger amounts of money.

As for the plagiarism, one would think that Darwin would be Wallace's harshest critic if your claims are true. However, evidence from Darwin's writing seems to state quite clearly the exact opposite. Also, Dogplatter, you keep stressing that Wallace claims he discovered in a hallucination what it had taken 20 years for Darwin to develop. You seem to forget that Wallace had been studying nature in Brazil and other locations for 10 years before his 'hallucination' - and that Darwin used some of Wallace's publications in his research!

I'm pretty sure Darwin just bought Wallace's "I discovered it too!" story. Darwin probably didn't suspect the plagiarism, because Darwin, unlike Wallace, was a decent and honest man.

And regarding the original line of discussion: one single, vague reference to an FE book by Wallace is hardly definitive evidence (especially when vast amounts of RE evidence are so easily written off as nothing).

Yeah - Carpenter published it tongue-in-cheek during the legal battle.

Dogplatter,

Are you per chance making some kind of case against evolution?
I was curious if you as an atheist were an evolutionist.

I do subscribe to the theory of natural selection, and am not making a case against its validity. Rather, I am making a case against Wallace's claims to its discovery, which are in my opinion completely fallacious.

In any event, I confess I have never seriously researched the source of Wallace's views of evolution.  If you come across anything that shows the source of his particular evolutionist views, I would be interested.  I have never come across anything (but I have not had the time to look either), but I reckon what would be the most sensational thing is if someone could prove that Wallace got the "survival of the fittest" doctrine (which Darwin adopted) from his spiritualist experiences.

In line with what I've said in this thread, Wallace's evolutionist views are completely synonymous with Darwin's, because the former copied the latter.

I think both parties thought they were right. And I really don't blame Wallace for destroying Hampden after the latter's claims of cheating and what not.

I think both parties thought they were right. And I really don't blame Wallace for destroying Hampden after the latter's claims of cheating and what not.

Are you sure you aren't letting dogmatic globularism (and hence natural empathy with Wallace) cloud your judgement of Wallace's actions? What Wallace, Walsh and Airy's conspiracy did was completely out of order, flat Earth or round.

The important thing is, Wallace and Walsh's financial vested interest goes far deeper than the £500 originally offered. By goading Hampden into a mire of legal skullduggery, the proto-Con realised it stood to gain far larger amounts of money.

I just thought I'd note that accounting for inflation, £500 in 1870 is equivalent to £32,886.37 in 2006.

Converting pounds to dollars, £32,886.37 is equivalent to $63,904.80.

So the wager was actually for quite a bit of money - a years pay, in fact.

Quote

The important thing is, Wallace and Walsh's financial vested interest goes far deeper than the £500 originally offered. By goading Hampden into a mire of legal skullduggery, the proto-Con realised it stood to gain far larger amounts of money.

I just thought I'd note that accounting for inflation, £500 in 1870 is equivalent to £32,886.37 in 2006.

Converting pounds to dollars, £32,886.37 is equivalent to $63,904.80.

So the wager was actually for quite a bit of money - a years pay, in fact.

Precisely. The fact that they shamelessly milked him for far more reveals an avarice of epic proportions.

Are you sure your empathy hasn't caused you to side with Hampden? Hampden sued first. If someone did that to me, I would destroy them. However, this is only how I feel on the subject. I can not definitively say that they didn't cheat him, just like you can't definitively say he did. All we have are our own feelings on the subject, which are brought about by our different views of the earth.

Are you sure your empathy hasn't caused you to side with Hampden? Hampden sued first. If someone did that to me, I would destroy them. However, this is only how I feel on the subject. I can not definitively say that they didn't cheat him, just like you can't definitively say he did. All we have are our own feelings on the subject, which are brought about by our different views of the earth.

And we'd both like to think that we're being objective about it.

I don't really see how we can ever reach a conclusion on this.

We'll never reach a conclusion on this entire forum, because humans are naturally stubborn.

TBH, this whole discussion is pointless. Personally, I have nothing in the way of sympathy for either of them. IMO, one of them was a maniac who wanted to prove the world was flat, regardless of mere trifles like facts, and the other wanted to make a quick buck at the other's expense. They both deserved what they got.

That said, we all are biased, so the only thing to do is to acknowledge that we are all biased, and objectivity is impossible.

Character asassination of a national hero just because he proved your theory wrong? Truly, the Flat Earth is a dirty business.

If I did that experiment, and found the same results as Wallace, would you call me a cheat and a liar as well?

I would

Don't listen to Gayer... actually she would simply disagree with you is all. Then go tell everyone *else* you are nothing but a rotten filthy lying cheating bastard. amiright or amiright?

actually I'll help him do the experiment. Then call myself a liar

We could get a mention on wikipedia!

oooo excitement

I must avenge myself on Wikipedia after they removed those changes I made to the Happy Days entry. There will be a reckoning!

those changes weren't exactly factually correct...

You can't prove that the stuff I added didn't happen though. Which in Flat Earth logic means it definitely did happen.

Character asassination of a national hero just because he proved your theory wrong? Truly, the Flat Earth is a dirty business.

Globs have no qualms about assassinating Rowbotham's character just because he proved their theory wrong. Or Hampden. Or Shenton. Or Johnson. Or Dowie.

If I did that experiment, and found the same results as Wallace, would you call me a cheat and a liar as well?

I'd give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were mistaken.

That's awfully decent of you, old chap. Not very scientific of course, but decent all the same.

That's awfully decent of you, old chap. Not very scientific of course, but decent all the same.

Wait, science is based on character assassination now?

No, he means the fact that Dogplatter said he would dismiss his evidence if he turned it up. You know, he automatically went to the explanation that he would be mistaken, rather than thinking he could actually have gotten the right results

I'd say that a scientist has a theory, and then gathers evidence and conducts experiments to discover if his theory is true.

You flat earther chaps seem to have a different approach though. You have a theory, and then try to discredit any evidence which supports rival theories.

You're anti-scientists more than anything else.