Bedford Level?

Quote from: Cartesian on September 07, 2013, 12:18:08 PM

At that time, it may be called wager but nowadays, that is called challenge like this one for example. But regardless that libel case, the work done by both men in relation to prove the shape of the earth remains valid nonetheless.

XPrize is not a wager. The contestants don't lose their homes if they lose.

It's true it's not exactly a wager but you loose your investment if you don't win. But as I said, regardless that libel case, you cannot deny that the method used by both men to determine the shape of the earth is valid.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 07, 2013, 11:36:08 AM

Are you still arguing that a wager for a large sum of money is a proper and valid form of scientific inquiry?

How shameful and embarrassing. I wonder what your high school science teachers would think.

Tom, stop the Ad Hominem attacks.  You are trying to disqualify actual results based on a philosophical question of ethics.  You cannot show that the experiment was invalid on any substantial grounds.  You cannot show that Wallace cheated or defrauded Hampden.  You basically have nothing to say on the matter at hand, and so you try and make me feel bad.  It is interesting though that you do not condemn Hampden for framing scientific inquiry as a wager.  Do you think that Hampden was unethical for proposing the bet in the first place?

I don't care to discuss the details. It doesn't matter who hosted it. The fact that this was a wager for a year's pay makes this experiment invalid and non-impartial.

You should feel bad for continuing to insist that this is a proper, valid, or impartial experiment, because it is a reflection on your intelligence.

You should feel bad for accusing someone of cheating when there is no evidence for it. And for all the times you have insulted people today. You are very rude. Maybe he did want to make a buck. It looks like he did it by winning an honest bet honestly. Sorry if the truth was not delivered in an ethically choice manner, but the truth it remains. You should go cool off or something mate.

So what's your point then?

The point is, clearly, that lots of things are published in scientific journals. Your defense that an academic publisher must be a reliable source by merits of authority is hogwash.

See this article on the subject: http://scholarlyoa.com/2012/12/13/publishing-pseudo-science/

And why do you leave out the rest of my comment? Can you not answer it?

I've already discussed Oldham. Please see my earlier comments in this thread on the matter if interested.

The irony of the source you used to discredit scientific journals is astounding. It offers zero in the way of substantial criticism, and just resorts to calling one particular paper "bunkum" and "hogwash". That was the most trite attack on the peer review process I could reasonably imagine.

It doesn't matter who hosted it. The fact that this was a wager for a year's pay makes this experiment invalid and non-impartial.

As far as I can see, both parties had equal reason to want this to come out in their favour, so while you insist that Wallace had motivation to win, you must keep in mind that Hampden had equal, if not greater, motivation to stop him from winning. The simple fact is that both referees declared Wallace the winner, and a court ruled that accusations of fraud were false and libelous.

Tom has no time for facts and evidence!  He is morally outraged!

I don't care to discuss the details. It doesn't matter who hosted it. The fact that this was a wager for a year's pay makes this experiment invalid and non-impartial.

Interesting you should note that it was impartial, because it was. There were two parties, and both wanted to win. The refs of both parties agreed upon the ultimate setup as being fair. The refs of both parties drew the same diagram as to the results of the experiment. The refs of both parties signed off the others' diagram as being correct. These diagrams show the Earth is curved.

If there was foul play involved, why did the FE ref accept the experiment and sign off on the RE's drawing as accurate?

Quote from: Cartesian on September 07, 2013, 01:26:09 PM

So what's your point then?

The point is, clearly, that lots of things are published in scientific journals. Your defense that an academic publisher must be a reliable source by merits of authority is hogwash.

See this article on the subject: http://scholarlyoa.com/2012/12/13/publishing-pseudo-science/

Quote from: Cartesian

And why do you leave out the rest of my comment? Can you not answer it?

I've already discussed Oldham. Please see my earlier comments in this thread on the matter if interested.

Obviously you can still discredit Oldham. Go ahead. Repeat his experiment and prove him wrong. It only involves three poles and a theodolite. Show us that the earth is flat Tom.

Quote from: Rama Set on September 07, 2013, 11:08:56 AM

Wallace

Once again, it was a WAGER, not an experiment. It was a wager for an amount which was about equal to an average year's pay at the time, no less. Impartial experiments do not result in one scientist going broke and having his home repossessed.

I would suggest you and the other RE'ers in this thread refrain from posting about the Wallace wager in the future, to save yourselves from further embarrassment.

Tom, you keep forgetting that that Hampden is the one who proposed the wager.  It seems to me that if a major FE historical figure deems a wager to be valid evidence, then who are you to dispute him?

Also, how does wagering on the results of a scientific experiment invalidate the results of that experiment?

Tom, you keep forgetting that that Hampden is the one who proposed the wager.  It seems to me that if a major FE historical figure deems a wager to be valid evidence, then who are you to dispute him?

It simply does not matter if Hampden proposed the wager. It is invalid as an proper, valid, or impartial experiment.

Also, how does wagering on the results of a scientific experiment invalidate the results of that experiment?

The results may be affected when one of the scientists is at risk of losing their savings, their home, and becoming homeless as a result.

Kindly cease this stupid argument. The wager makes this experiment totally invalid, and shame on you, Alex, and Rama Set for being so blatantly ignorant.

Every single sporting event or event that has ever been bet on must have been rigged because people bet on them. Ok.

Every single sporting event or event that has ever been bet on must have been rigged because people bet on them. Ok.

False analogy. It is difficult to rig a sporting event when so many refs and coaches and inspectors are involved. But if a quaterback were to lose his life savings and become homeless if he lost a game, he would probably try to rig the game if he knew how, and could get away with it.

Quote from: rottingroom on September 08, 2013, 08:48:22 AM

Every single sporting event or event that has ever been bet on must have been rigged because people bet on them. Ok.

It is difficult to rig a sporting event when so many refs and coaches and inspectors are involved. But if a quaterback were to lose his life savings and become homeless if he lost a game, he would probably try to rig the game if he knew how, and could get away with it.

The point is that it doesn't invalidate the results. If you want to start an investigation based on your suspicions then go ahead but until you can actually provide some evidence and then successfully show that the evidence is conclusive then there is no reason for anyone else to think the results are invalid.

The point is that it doesn't invalidate the results. If you want to start an investigation based on your suspicions then go ahead but until you can actually provide some evidence and then successfully show that the evidence is conclusive then there is no reason for anyone else to think the results are invalid.

Your assumption that cheating does not occur in sports is wrong, anyway. Many players try to cheat with fouls by pushing, striking, charging, or any number of other infractions. It's a very regular occurrence.

Quote from: rottingroom on September 08, 2013, 08:55:06 AM

The point is that it doesn't invalidate the results. If you want to start an investigation based on your suspicions then go ahead but until you can actually provide some evidence and then successfully show that the evidence is conclusive then there is no reason for anyone else to think the results are invalid.

Your assumption that cheating does not occur in sports is wrong, anyway. Many players try to cheat with fouls by pushing, striking, charging, or any number of other infractions. It's a very regular occurrence.

I said no such thing. If someone cheats in a sport by fouling then you or me or anyone else shouldn't think anything has happened until we spot it on camera or someone actually see it. If someone simply thinks that foul play occurred then they are more than welcome to think so until they actually prove it. We can assume cheating goes unnoticed. What is your point? Its everyone's job to pay attention and call it out if its been spotted. Not to just blindly accuse people of something based on motives alone. Especially when the motives you've mentioned are not enough to assume a thing. All you've effectively done here is demonstrate the paranoia that RE advocates accuse you and FE'ers like you of propagating.

I said no such thing. If someone cheats in a sport by fouling then you or me or anyone else shouldn't think anything has happened until we spot it on camera or someone actually see it. If someone simply thinks that foul play occurred then they are more than welcome to think so until they actually prove it. We can assume cheating goes unnoticed. What is your point? Its everyone's job to pay attention and call it out if its been spotted. Not to just blindly accuse people of something based on motives alone. Especially when the motives you've mentioned are not enough to assume a thing. All you've effectively done here is demonstrate the paranoia that RE advocates accuse you and FE'ers like you of propagating.

There were no high definition cameras on the Wallace event with hundreds of people watching for infractions. Your analogy is bunk.

Quote from: rottingroom on September 08, 2013, 09:08:52 AM

I said no such thing. If someone cheats in a sport by fouling then you or me or anyone else shouldn't think anything has happened until we spot it on camera or someone actually see it. If someone simply thinks that foul play occurred then they are more than welcome to think so until they actually prove it. We can assume cheating goes unnoticed. What is your point? Its everyone's job to pay attention and call it out if its been spotted. Not to just blindly accuse people of something based on motives alone. Especially when the motives you've mentioned are not enough to assume a thing. All you've effectively done here is demonstrate the paranoia that RE advocates accuse you and FE'ers like you of propagating.

There were no high definition cameras on the Wallace event with hundreds of people watching for infractions. Your analogy is bunk.

There were no high definition cameras at sporting events during 85% of the last century. Have all the victors of those events fooled us? Can you make any topic about anything on these forums at all that is supported by ANY SOLID evidence. All I've seen so far is your laughable rock that sorta/kinda looks like a squirrel (if you have no observational sense) picture. It's pretty pathetic how much you pander to what you want to believe.

There were no high definition cameras at sporting events during 85% of the last century. Have all the victors of those events fooled us? Can you make any topic about anything on these forums at all that is supported by ANY SOLID evidence. All I've seen so far is your laughable rock that sorta/kinda looks like a squirrel (if you have no observational sense) picture. It's pretty pathetic how much you pander to what you want to believe.

Without multiple high definition cameras at multiple angles and instant playbacks it's pretty likely that many fouls in historic games were not caught. I don't know why you would assert that players would have been more honest without high definition cameras around.

Your leaps of logic are transparent and desperate.

Quote from: rottingroom on September 08, 2013, 09:37:30 AM

There were no high definition cameras at sporting events during 85% of the last century. Have all the victors of those events fooled us? Can you make any topic about anything on these forums at all that is supported by ANY SOLID evidence. All I've seen so far is your laughable rock that sorta/kinda looks like a squirrel (if you have no observational sense) picture. It's pretty pathetic how much you pander to what you want to believe.

Without multiple high definition cameras at multiple angles and instant playbacks it's pretty likely that many fouls in historic games were not caught. I don't know why you believe that players would have been more honest without high definition cameras around.

Again I didn't say that. I didn't even imply that. I'm just stating that you, the fans of sporting events, the referees and the people who monitored Bedford have no reason to assume foul play. It can be considered but unless you can provide any evidence then I suggest you keep your baseless accusations to yourself.

It is illogical to think that everything should be discarded because of the possibility of foul play. By your logic we should just start all research from scratch for every new life that wants to enter a field of study. By all means, old results should be retested (and they are) but by none should they be simply discarded out of suspicion alone.

Quote

Also, how does wagering on the results of a scientific experiment invalidate the results of that experiment?

The results may be affected when one of the scientists is at risk of losing their savings, their home, and becoming homeless as a result.

This is a pathetic argument Tom. The referee signed the result that showed the curvature of the earth. Wallace demonstrated the earth was curved. Hampden proposed the wager. He knew the risk. Wallace took the same risk and he won. As simple as that.

The libel case itself has nothing to do with the result of that experiment.

Again I didn't say that. I didn't even imply that. I'm just stating that you, the fans of sporting events, the referees and the people who monitored Bedford have no reason to assume foul play. It can be considered but unless you can provide any evidence then I suggest you keep your baseless accusations to yourself.

It is illogical to think that everything should be discarded because of the possibility of foul play. By your logic we should just start all research from scratch for every new life that wants to enter a field of study. By all means, old results should be retested (and they are) but by none should they be simply discarded out of suspicion alone.

This is a pathetic argument Tom. The referee signed the result that showed the curvature of the earth. Wallace demonstrated the earth was curved. Hampden proposed the wager. He knew the risk. Wallace took the same risk and he won. As simple as that.

The libel case itself has nothing to do with the result of that experiment.

The continued nativity displayed in this thread is disturbing. A wager is not a proper form of scientific inquiry. Not in any possible way. The "referees" in the event were chosen by the participants, not assigned by a neutral source like the NFL.

No science teacher would agree that the results of a large wager for a year's pay would be admissible as evidence of a terrestrial phenomenon. It is an affront to reason to suggest otherwise.

The entire class gets a failing grade.

Look Tom, the earth cannot be flat simply because of a moral value. This is a scientific experiment. Anyone can repeat it anytime. If you disagree with the result of the experiment then either you do explain why the scientific approach and methodology used by Wallace/Oldham is not valid or simply, repeat the same experiment and prove the earth is flat.

And as I said, the libel case itself has nothing to do with the result or methodology of that experiment.

Tom, the way you put it seems to make the challenge look like some intentional straw man then doesn't it? Hmmm. See, I can make baseless accusations too.

You know damn well that if the challenge had supported your beliefs then you would turn it into an argument in favor of a FE in these debates.

As Alex said, if there was foul play, then Hampden's referee, who was a disciple of Rowbotham had every opportunity to protest. There were checks against this supposed corruption you are asserting. Now stop being merely indignant and show something that indicates Wallace did anything in the experiment that makes it invalid. Tom, physical facts do not change depending on a moral point if view. If anyone fails in this ethics class it is Tom since he is mistaking the result of the experiment with the ethics of the situation.

I agree that Wallace did not perform the experiment was undertaken in a less than ideal situation.

I see no evidence that, in this case, it made a difference. Both referees agreed upon the results. Wallace already had a reputation as a surveyor, which you fail to mention as a mitigating factor, which would severely damage his future if he were found to be cheating; perhaps more damaging than missing a years pay. Upon being called a cheater by Hampden, it was found that this characterization of Wallace was a damaging misrepresentation. The abstract ethical principle you are pushing aside, Tom, there is no good evidence to suspect the experiment's integrity.

Ad Hominem attacks are also unethical debating tactics, so stop using them.

I'd love to perform this experiment myself at Bedford just for the heck of it.  HD pictures and video of it all too.

As Alex said, if there was foul play, then Hampden's referee, who was a disciple of Rowbotham had every opportunity to protest. There were checks against this supposed corruption you are asserting. Now stop being merely indignant and show something that indicates Wallace did anything in the experiment that makes it invalid. Tom, physical facts do not change depending on a moral point if view. If anyone fails in this ethics class it is Tom since he is mistaking the result of the experiment with the ethics of the situation.

I agree that Wallace did not perform the experiment was undertaken in a less than ideal situation.

I see no evidence that, in this case, it made a difference. Both referees agreed upon the results. Wallace already had a reputation as a surveyor, which you fail to mention as a mitigating factor, which would severely damage his future if he were found to be cheating; perhaps more damaging than missing a years pay. Upon being called a cheater by Hampden, it was found that this characterization of Wallace was a damaging misrepresentation. The abstract ethical principle you are pushing aside, Tom, there is no good evidence to suspect the experiment's integrity.

Ad Hominem attacks are also unethical debating tactics, so stop using them.

I would suggest you get your facts straight. Hampden's referee, Mr. Carpenter, did protest the results of the experiment.

http://www.vanuatu.usp.ac.fj/courses/LA313_Commercial_Law/Cases/Hampden_v_Walsh.html

"Mr. Walsh being unable to act as referee, a Mr. Coulcher was substituted for him. Certain tests having been agreed on, the experiment was tried on the Bedford Level Canal. The referees differed; Mr. Coulcher being of opinion that Mr. Wallace had proved, Mr. Carpenter, that he had not proved, the convexity of the canal. Thereupon it was proposed that the referees should exercise their power of appointing an umpire; but Mr. Carpenter declined to act further in the matter."

Tom!  You submitted a fact to this debate!  A positive step!  I was referring to Alex saying that both referees signed each other's diagrams of the experimental set-up. So if the cheating did not occur in the set-up where did it occur?

Hampden's referee, Mr. Carpenter, did protest the results of the experiment.

http://www.vanuatu.usp.ac.fj/courses/LA313_Commercial_Law/Cases/Hampden_v_Walsh.html

"Mr. Walsh being unable to act as referee, a Mr. Coulcher was substituted for him. Certain tests having been agreed on, the experiment was tried on the Bedford Level Canal. The referees differed; Mr. Coulcher being of opinion that Mr. Wallace had proved, Mr. Carpenter, that he had not proved, the convexity of the canal. Thereupon it was proposed that the referees should exercise their power of appointing an umpire; but Mr. Carpenter declined to act further in the matter."

Indeed he did, showing complete ignorance of what his own sketches showed:

...
Mr. Coulcher looked at it, and then Mr. Carpenter, and the moment the latter did he said "Beautiful! Beautiful!" And on Mr. Hampden asking him if it was all right, he replied that it was perfect, and that it showed the three points in "a perfect straight line;" "as level as possible!" And he actually jumped for joy.
...

These two views, as seen by means of the inverting telescope, are exact representations of the sketches taken by Mr. Hampden's Referee, and attested by Dr. Coulcher as being correct in both cases: first, from Welney Bridge; and secondly, from the Old Bedford Bridge.

Source: Wallace account of Bedford Level, posted by Thork.