4 ms·
>Without wanting to sound too snarky - no kidding, Sherlock. >Anyone who drives at rush hour in the summer months, when (UK, at least) schools are on holiday, w
by Arizhel 10y ago
>Without wanting to sound too snarky - no kidding, Sherlock.
>Anyone who drives at rush hour in the summer months, when (UK, at least) schools are on holiday, will know how much quieter the roads are.
The problem is, "everyone knows" is not scientific reasoning. After all, everyone knows that you only use 10% of your brain, that lightning never strikes the same place twice, and that Napoleon was short. However, all these things are absolutely wrong.
So we frequently see things like this where someone takes a "commonly known" hypothesis and uses scientific data to either refute it or support it.
- cortesoft 10y agoNapoleon was 5'6", and that is short. I don't care about 'average height for the time', that just means the average guy was short.
- Zenst 10y agoWhen 6' is classed as tall then is 5'6" really classed as short by standards, even for that time? Again that is based upon others in that country and average heights per country do vary greatly and in some countries Napoleon would be classed as average or indeed tall. Though personally I would not class him as short.
- mikeash 10y agoI can't find a single worldwide figure, but looking at the average heights per country here, I suspect that 5'6" is about average for a man at present: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_average_human_height_worldwide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_average_human_height_w...
- Arizhel 10y agoNo, he was 5'7" (after converting French feet to modern feet), and that was slightly taller than average for the time. If you don't care about "average height for the time", then you're just being intentionally obtuse. The average height of the time and place is the only thing that matters for defining "short" and "tall". (He was likely shorter than his Imperial Guards, who were chosen on the basis of height, which would have made him look short by comparison when seen in public, much like Arnold Schwarzenegger looks like a little person when he's seen next to Andre the Giant and Wilt Chamberlain.) By the standards of the Dutch, you're probably a short, tiny little person too. But by the standards of modern America, Napoleon was average: the average height of a man in America in 2017 is 5'7" (last time I checked). Standards vary from place to place and time to time. In modern Japan, he'd probably be considered a little tall. In modern Netherlands, most of us are short.
- cortesoft 10y agoIf you are shorter than me, you are short. If you are taller than me, you are tall. If you are the same height as me, you are average. Makes it very simple.
- pbhjpbhj 10y ago>the average guy was short // If we take the relatively safe assumption that people have been growing taller, largely, forever then Napoleon would rank amongst the tallest of his line. Or in other words you need a contextualising statement "was short compared to 21st Century men". Of course the whole thing about him being "short" is the "Napoleon complex" which concerns how he related in height to his contemporaries. So that's what most people care about when looking at this historical figures height. What do you gain by comparing his height to more modern men?
- pc86 10y ago> What do you gain by comparing his height to more modern men? The knowledge that he was short.
- pbhjpbhj 10y agoI don't consider the "table being under the book" to be more knowledge than the "book being on the table". Restating the same fact in a less precise and more biased manner isn't a gain.