The injustice of John Hampden

Even back in the 1900's the British government was up to their usual globe biased antics as poor John Hampden lost a court battle against Alfred Russel Wallace over the debate of the shape of the earth thanks to the judgement of the British court. Had John had the adequet ammount of backing, support and unbias he would have surely have won this case without question. This leads me to believe that the British government has been conspiring well before the supposed space race.

Given the prominent role payed by Britain in map-making at the height of the Empire, I find it highly probable.

So you believe that Wallace's use of a Spirit level for the experiment was unfair of him?

The question here is the impartiality of the legal system.

The question here is the impartiality of the legal system.

No, we should look at Wallace's argument and decide whether it was unfair of the justice system to rule in his favor.  Hampden argued that Wallace's use of a Spirit Level to ensure that the telescope was exactly level to the ground was cheating, the courts disagreed, do you think that was unfair?

What I am questioning is whether the British legal system was impartial in making its decision. Please stop trying to derail this thread; I have no doubt there are others where you have discussed the experiment itself.

What I am questioning is whether the British legal system was impartial in making its decision. Please stop trying to derail this thread; I have no doubt there are others where you have discussed the experiment itself.

I apologize, I am really not trying to derail the thread, the reason why I am going this direction is because of what the OP said here:

Had John had the adequet ammount of backing, support and unbias he would have surely have won this case without question.

Assumption that Hampden would have won the case given and impartial judge is the assumption by the OP that Wallace did in fact cheat, I am only defending Wallace.  This statement also shows that the OP is not impartial him/herself, so how could it be argued that the Judge was not impartial?  You cannot call a Judge biased just because he didn't rule in your favor.  You have to look at the arguments of both sides, and determine whether the judge made the correct decision.  That is what I was attempting, not derailment.

I suggest to the OP that this be re worded so as to not confuse anybody to the subject of this debate.  If you want, I will create a separate thread for the debate I started.  Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Peace 

I might have been hastey in my opinion in the origonal post but I'd assume the judge of that current time and political influence would not be impartial due to the impression he'd have of the ludacrisy of such an idea as the Earth being flat.

I might have been hastey in my opinion in the origonal post but I'd assume the judge of that current time and political influence would not be impartial due to the impression he'd have of the ludacrisy of such an idea as the Earth being flat.

How can we judge his impartiality without examining the arguments made by each side?

Because one can question the impartiality of a legal system without reference to the arguments. For example: did the British Empire have any vested interests in preserving the globularist model? Was British society inherently conservative and opposed to change or opposition? Did the British authorities regard FE groups as a threat to the state, for whatever reason? If any one of these scenarios were the case, it would instantly cast doubt upon the impartiality of the British system.

Good questions, probably some of them are true or partially true.  Do you have any evidence to examine?

The first is probably tough to prove. Certainly one could argue that there was cultural an political credibility at stake, something very prized by imperial powers. However, I feel that any such 'vested interest' could be known only to a few, and hence not be significant enough to direcly influence procedings.

The second point is without doubt the case, as can be seen by the reaction to almost all forms of social change at or around that time. The third option would be difficult to substantiate, but I have no doubt that flat earth societies would have been perceived as radical, and hence a threat- remember, this is a time when belief in social 'normativity' is a truly all-conquering force.

On the second point, I could understand the desire to prevent change if it were the scientific community making the ruling, but what stakes did the courts have in the roundness or flatness of the earth?

On the second point, I could understand the desire to prevent change if it were the scientific community making the ruling, but what stakes did the courts have in the roundness or flatness of the earth?

It is not a question of 'stakes'. The British legal system, like many other aspects of British society at this time, was highly resistent to social change of any type. You need to remember, this is nearly 50 years before women got the vote: we are talking about a conservative society here, and that would be reflected in a conservative judiciary.

I understand, but what social change would be brought upon the general community if a case of libel went in favor of the guy who believed in a flat earth?

I understand, but what social change would be brought upon the general community if a case of libel went in favor of the guy who believed in a flat earth?

A lack of support in the suggestion of a conspiricy.

Quote from: ragnarr on December 09, 2008, 10:09:22 AM

I understand, but what social change would be brought upon the general community if a case of libel went in favor of the guy who believed in a flat earth?

A lack of support in the suggestion of a conspiricy.

what conspiracy?

I understand, but what social change would be brought upon the general community if a case of libel went in favor of the guy who believed in a flat earth?

Had the case not gone against Hampden, his challenge would not have been ridiculed, and the debate might have seriously entered the pubic domain.

Hmm,

According to this article it was decided by jury.  Maybe we should be looking at their impartiality.  Also interesting in this article, it states that Hampden was satisfied with the result originally and agreed that Wallace was to be paid the money.  It wasn't until later that he started the defamation.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=3&res=9C00EFDF113EEE34BC4852DFBE66838A669FDE&oref=slogin

Because one can question the impartiality of a legal system without reference to the arguments. For example: did the British Empire have any vested interests in preserving the globularist model? Was British society inherently conservative and opposed to change or opposition? Did the British authorities regard FE groups as a threat to the state, for whatever reason? If any one of these scenarios were the case, it would instantly cast doubt upon the impartiality of the British system.

So you are saying the court should not have considered the technical merits of the experiment to determine if any cheating occurred?

This is what Hampden wrote to Wallace's wife.  Yikes:

"Mrs. Wallace,--Madam, if your infernal thief of a husband is brought home some day on a hurdle, with every bone in his head smashed to pulp, you will know the reason. Do tell him from me he is a lying infernal thief, and as sure as his name is Wallace he never dies in his bed.

     "You must be a miserable wretch to be obliged to live with a convicted felon. Do not think or let him think I have done with him.

"John Hampden."

The whole idea of judging the Legal System of a country as if it was a single person with a single mind is preposterous.

Every legal system has its partial views and not all of them are biased in one direction. Furthermore, many judges are partial towards some issues and some towards others.

Just one example: some judges in India were partial towards Mahatma Gandhi and some against. Some Governors pushed the legal system into jailing Gandhi, some towards keeping him free.

One court decision in one libel case did not stop the millions of astronomers from using their telescopes and from calculating the forces and accelerations of every planet in the Solar System. Millions of those astronomers did not even live in the same country as Hampden.

Quote from: ragnarr on December 09, 2008, 11:23:45 AM

This is what Hampden wrote to Wallace's wife.  Yikes:

Quote

"Mrs. Wallace,--Madam, if your infernal thief of a husband is brought home some day on a hurdle, with every bone in his head smashed to pulp, you will know the reason. Do tell him from me he is a lying infernal thief, and as sure as his name is Wallace he never dies in his bed.

     "You must be a miserable wretch to be obliged to live with a convicted felon. Do not think or let him think I have done with him.

"John Hampden."

Exactly, and it was these kinds of actions Hampton was judged on, not whether the earth was round. Therefore the question is rather, what benefit could have been gained or lost by having a man found guilty of libel and slander?

The usual answer is aah but teh conspiracy.

and don't forget teh money! 

Causation vs Correlation applies here I think.   

1) It is reasonable to assess most reasonable people including judges at that time found the idea of a Flat Earth rather unreasonable, and would have trouble swallowing claims that it was flat.

2) It's reasonable to assess he lost the case for reasons other than his Flat Earth claims, or any bias of those judging him. 

That letter actually rings home for me.  One time at work I was accused by building management of making calls outside of the country.  I denied it all I could but they were about to actually discipline me for it.  One night I set up a web cam at my cube, the next day I found that one of the Janitors was using my phone to call people out of the country.  I presume Mexico or South America buy I never cared to check.  I turned in the evidence and the guy got fired.

For months he sent letters to me and would wait for me outside work to abuse me and call me a criminal, with some other choice words.  Saying I framed him somehow.  Hampden reminds me of this man with the language that he uses.

Hmm,

According to this article it was decided by jury.  Maybe we should be looking at their impartiality.  Also interesting in this article, it states that Hampden was satisfied with the result originally and agreed that Wallace was to be paid the money.  It wasn't until later that he started the defamation.

It's wrong. Christine Garwood tells us that Hampden walked away from the experiment claiming that he had won. Pick up her book.

Quote

Hmm,

According to this article it was decided by jury.  Maybe we should be looking at their impartiality.  Also interesting in this article, it states that Hampden was satisfied with the result originally and agreed that Wallace was to be paid the money.  It wasn't until later that he started the defamation.

It's wrong. Christine Garwood tells us that Hampden walked away from the experiment claiming that he had won. Pick up her book.

Christine Garwood was not there, I will trust the accounts of those who were there.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 09, 2008, 10:56:15 PM

Quote

Hmm,

According to this article it was decided by jury.  Maybe we should be looking at their impartiality.  Also interesting in this article, it states that Hampden was satisfied with the result originally and agreed that Wallace was to be paid the money.  It wasn't until later that he started the defamation.

It's wrong. Christine Garwood tells us that Hampden walked away from the experiment claiming that he had won. Pick up her book.

I'll only pick the book up if I can throw it at your head Tom.

Quote from: Walsh, Editor of Field

Mr A. R. Wallace... has proved to my satisfaction the cuvature to and fro, of the Bedford Level Canal between Welney Bridge and Welches Dam (six miles) to the extent of five feet more or less. I therefore propose to pay Mr Wallace the sum of ?1,000 ... unless I have notice to the contrary from Mr Hampden

Walsh was Wallace's judge in the experiment. We already knew that he supported Wallace after the experiment.

Quote

Hmm,

According to this article it was decided by jury.  Maybe we should be looking at their impartiality.  Also interesting in this article, it states that Hampden was satisfied with the result originally and agreed that Wallace was to be paid the money.  It wasn't until later that he started the defamation.

It's wrong. Christine Garwood tells us that Hampden walked away from the experiment claiming that he had won. Pick up her book.

Tom, we ahve already covered this. If I walk away form this thread claimig that RET has won, does that mean that RET has won? No.

Just because someone walks away saying that they won, does not make them the winner. If we allowed this, the the Olympics would be a complete shambles.

Actually Zetetic Philosophy doe snot allow this. You are not allowed to make assumptions. So assuming that because someone walked away saying hey won means that they actually won, is an assumption that the person who walked away was telling the truth. As a Zetetic, Tom, you are obliged to reject this statement of Hampden as unZetetic.

Just because someone walks away saying that they won, does not make them the winner.

It doesn't make them the loser, either.

So I'm not sure how you guys can claim that Wallace won the experiment (or that this experiment disproves Rowbotham's results somehow) when both sides claimed that they had won after the experiment took place.