Offline Mysfit

  • *
  • Posts: 115
    • View Profile
Wiki - John Hampden
« on: October 08, 2018, 06:35:18 PM »
Hello,
I came across something important while looking for a preserved copy of the book. The 100 proofs one. Written by WM Carpenter.
You can get it on kindle and 99p is a steal.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/100-Proofs-That-Earth-Globe/dp/1523463317
Just going to copy and paste it here.
I found it.
https://archive.org/details/onehundredproofs00carp/page/n1

I like how the front pages of such old science-y books are written. "A challenge to the Johns Hopkins University"
*zooms in to front page*
"Referee for John Hampden, Esq. in the Celebrated Scientific Wager, in 1870"
The first link that comes up is the one for the flat earth wiki for John.
The wiki says "the referee, John Henry Walsh". I'll make a new topic.
Okee. So was there a team of referees, with John Henry Walsh casting the deciding vote, or was there another great wager by John Hampden in 1870. I can't find another wager.
(long pause here)
I have looked into it further (I am adding and reading as I go).
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/rosetta-stones/wallace-8217-s-woeful-wager-how-a-founder-of-modern-biology-got-suckered-by-flat-earthers/
John Hampden had asked for a second referee, after they had agreed on Mr Walsh. Wallace agreed
"Your wish to have a second referee is quite reasonable, and I accede to it at once, only stipulating that he shall not be a personal acquaintance of your own, and shall be a man in some public position as Editor, Author, Engineer, &c."
Skipping over how they knew each other very well, Wallace also got another referee, for when he wasn't there. That referee, Coulcher, and Hampden's referee, Carpenter did something astounding.
"This experiment showed curvature, as it could not fail to do. Hampden's mentor and referee Carpenter signed the sketch of the results produced by Mr. Coulcher, affirming it indeed showed what they both had seen."
I'll keep reading in case this gets ripped up... Ah, yes. It was debated and Hampden gave specifications for how it could be done correctly. Which Wallace followed.
"Wallace, being at pains to ensure that there would be no doubt about the results, proceeded to recalibrate the experiment to Carpenter's specifications, and ran it again."
The wiki contradicts it there. I am excited now though... how did that go. Oh.
"Mr. Hampden declined to look through either telescope, saying he trusted to Mr. Carpenter; while the latter declared positively that they had won, and that we knew it; that the fact that the distant signal appeared below the middle one as far as the middle one did below the cross-hair, proved that the three were in a straight line, and that the earth was flat, and he rejected the view in the large telescope as proving nothing for the reasons already stated."
I can see why the money still changed hands.
"They were at an impasse. At first, Hampden refused an umpire to decide between the referees. Eventually, he agreed to have Walsh review the results, and both sides sent in sketches and reports. Walsh weighed the evidence, decided it did indeed prove the earth was spherical, and published both materials and his conclusion in the Field."
Apparently this caused more strife, with Hampden sending complaints to everyone. Even Wallace's wife.
(I'm not gonna copy that here. Suffice it to say - not nice.)
Ah, my source might be faulty!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_wager Wikipedia has it as the first thing...
Newspaper https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3665172/Flat-out-unbelievable.html
Okee. The source would not seem to be at fault. It was possible, so I had to check.

There was a lot more to that wager than I thought. All I knew of it was from the wiki and this all stemmed from me needing to find a preserved copy of the 100 proofs book.
Pete is my inspiration once again, though I worry it will upset him.
I am unsure how to apologize to make this all better. Sorry for the help?
Oh, and Pete was right about the book not being in FES' library. I was wrong. I could not reply to him as someone locked the thread.

This'll take me a long while to look at with the wiki to try and get more bits added/changed. So, please bare with me. It still has to support flat earth theory, so the signed sketch and repeated experiment with Hampden's input won't help. But leaving it out may lead to more forum questions... I don't know how to proceed.
It is assumed as malice, but can someone from the FES inform me whether the wiki is best served by adding this info or... omitting it. I'm upset to omit anything, but the current wording on the wiki page could be looked into to make it less... contradicted and more... Just the salient points. I think.
Anyways, I need help with it.

Edit: I spelled one word wrong. Even with spellchecker.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2018, 09:02:30 PM by Mysfit »

*

Online Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8118
  • (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Wiki - John Hampden
« Reply #1 on: October 09, 2018, 02:56:16 PM »
I can see why the money still changed hands.
But we know that it didn't - the bet was nullified by a court of law.

Your objection appears to be that Wallace and his friend asserted that they followed through with Hampden's requests. I do not see why an unproven assertion should be given any time of day. What we know is that the bet took place, Hampden rejected the results, and a bitter court battle led to the bet's nullification.

As always, your fabrication fails - you attempt to use circular referencing to suppress information. That simply won't do.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we've already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Facebook and Twitter!


*mic stays stationary and earth accelerates upwards towards it*

Offline Mysfit

  • *
  • Posts: 115
    • View Profile
Re: Wiki - John Hampden
« Reply #2 on: October 09, 2018, 07:37:30 PM »
Your objection appears to be that Wallace and his friend asserted that they followed through with Hampden's requests. I do not see why an unproven assertion should be given any time of day. What we know is that the bet took place, Hampden rejected the results, and a bitter court battle led to the bet's nullification.
I have not made an objection, I have found evidence from multiple sources, to indicate more to the story. I have not suggested that the wiki is lying. I am stating it is lacking information.
I worry that, with holes in information on the wiki, people will call the FES out on it on the forum. Wasting everyone's time over and over again.
The fix is to fill it in more, but it has to be done in a way to not fault theory.

I am confused by your bit about the ensuing court battle. What court can revert the outcome of a bet? I'm not sure that's within law... so I will check.
The UK Gambling commission does have a bit for gambling companies:
"This means that you have a right to take a gambling transaction to court if you do not think the outcome meets the terms and conditions of the contract.
Gambling businesses must offer a complaints procedure, including access to an alternative dispute resolution (ADR) provider free to the consumer, which you should follow before deciding whether to take a matter to the courts."
It's very loosely worded and I'm unsure a gentleman's wager would even slightly come under it, but I'll check when it was formed in case it somehow counts. 2007. Okee.

The court battles, and restraining orders etc. apparantly put Wallace back £700 (unsure if this counts the £500), but bankrupted Hampden. That does not sound successful.
If you're to include that bit, it might be best to at least not include the threatening/insulting letters. It's old-timey gentleman talk, but it is still not wiki-worthy.

As always, your fabrication fails - you attempt to use circular referencing to suppress information. That simply won't do.
I am not fabricating these articles etc. I am not trying to suppress information. I am requesting that YOU add information, I am even trying to help word it.
You can ignore my request for all I care. I was merely asked to try by Tom and the Wiki's front page.
I'm unsure what can convince you of good intent, so I'll just ignore your skepticism from now on.