5 ms·

It's interesting how deeply wrong we were at that time, while we precedently knew all the dimensions and distance of most parts of the globe with pretty high a

by hirako2000 5y ago

It's interesting how deeply wrong we were at that time, while we precedently knew all the dimensions and distance of most parts of the globe with pretty high accuracy.

ethbr0 5y ago
We "did." [0] What we did not know was an accurate way to determine longitude, specifically on a ship, until 1761. [1] [2] Consequently, any voyage before 1761 knew its latitude exactly, but dead-reckoned its longitude. 33 days of speed-estimated dead reckoning in 1492, plus having no idea of the speed or orientation of the underlying current you're in, leaves a lot of room for error. [0] For values of "did" that include "the correct answer had been derived and was documented (Eratosthenes, within ~2.5% in ~240 BC, working at the Library of Alexandria), but it wasn't broadly accepted as the correct answer." Thus leading to Columbus believing an incorrect value instead https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_circumference#Columbus's_error https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_circumference#Colu... [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harrison#H4 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harrison#H4 [2] Except via some very complicated planetary transits that were pre-calculated and could only be used as they occured. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_longitude#Satellites_of_Jupiter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_longitude#Satelli...
- hirako2000 5y ago
  So we knew the right answer but we didn't accept it as correct so most people followed suit. It's fascinating. We are on the same track today. We know the truth but most of us jump on the same entirely wrong band wagons. One could argue that ignoring the truth is worse than pure ignorance.
  - ethbr0 5y ago
    I guess my perspective (from watching struggles with public health & vaccine development information during early COVID-19) is that modern intellects aren't well exercised with respect to uncertainty. Our predecessors lived in a culture suffused with unreliable information. There weren't even "alternate" facts, because there were few accepted ones to have alternatives to. On the one hand, we know more than they did (stronger & longer mandatory education + post-primary + informal access). On the other hand, we've forgotten how to responsibly handle uncertainty. Or, as I sum it all up: science should be a verb (aka process), not a noun (result).
    - hirako2000 5y ago
      We don't know more than we did. We have a strong belief that our cumulated knowledge, tools and infrastructure are leading to more accurate knowledge. We accomplish technological advancements that comfort us in the idea we know better. That's all. Science could be made a verb, but like wisdom, calling something science doesn't de facto make it so.
      - B1FF_PSUVM 5y ago
        It's a new theology ...
      - ethbr0 5y ago
        Not sure if you're arguing from an epistemological or objective basis, but I'll assume the latter. We know that our knowledge better describes the results we reliably reproduce in the world around us. We have knowledge about things that our ancestors did not. If that doesn't constitute "knowing more than they did," I'm not sure what does.
        hirako2000 5y ago
        We don't know that. All we know is that we have further knowledge that at certain points in time. We have a tendency to assume we know more than at any other time before on the basis that we know more than our rather recent ancestors.
        CRConrad 5y ago
        > All we know is that we have further knowledge that at certain points in time. What does that mean, if not "we know more than they did"?
      - Beldin 5y ago
        We actually do know more. Sure, physics is basically modelling and observations. Our current models might be completely wrong - even if their predictive power is far greater. But we've also made some genuine proofs. For example, we know that Fermat's last theorem is correct. That was suspected, but not known. Yes, this applies basically to all of maths - and even to other disciplines that produce proofs. Another example: we know that one model of gravity permits black holes, wormholes, and warp drives. Sure, the model might not accurately reflect reality. But still: this is something we know nowadays, that we didn't know 105 years ago. Not to mention all the things we collectively have done - we know it's possible to leave Earth, to live in orbit for a while, to convert sunlight directly into electricity, that it is (barely) possible to run the 100m in under 10 sec, what the earth looks like from a distance, how to make fusion bombs, how to fly... we know a lot more than folks from even the early 1900s, let alone further back.
- simonebrunozzi 5y ago
  > Consequently, any voyage before 1761 knew its latitude exactly, but dead-reckoned its longitude. Correct. This is key to understand most of the issues at play in these past events.

It's interesting how deeply wrong we were at that time, while we precedently knew all the dimensions and distance of most parts of the globe with pretty high accuracy.

ethbr0 5y ago

We "did." [0] What we did not know was an accurate way to determine longitude, specifically on a ship, until 1761. [1] [2] Consequently, any voyage before 1761 knew its latitude exactly, but dead-reckoned its longitude. 33 days of speed-estimated dead reckoning in 1492, plus having no idea of the speed or orientation of the underlying current you're in, leaves a lot of room for error. [0] For values of "did" that include "the correct answer had been derived and was documented (Eratosthenes, within ~2.5% in ~240 BC, working at the Library of Alexandria), but it wasn't broadly accepted as the correct answer." Thus leading to Columbus believing an incorrect value instead https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_circumference#Columbus's_error https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_circumference#Colu... [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harrison#H4 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harrison#H4 [2] Except via some very complicated planetary transits that were pre-calculated and could only be used as they occured. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_longitude#Satellites_of_Jupiter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_longitude#Satelli...

hirako2000 5y ago
So we knew the right answer but we didn't accept it as correct so most people followed suit. It's fascinating. We are on the same track today. We know the truth but most of us jump on the same entirely wrong band wagons. One could argue that ignoring the truth is worse than pure ignorance.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  I guess my perspective (from watching struggles with public health & vaccine development information during early COVID-19) is that modern intellects aren't well exercised with respect to uncertainty. Our predecessors lived in a culture suffused with unreliable information. There weren't even "alternate" facts, because there were few accepted ones to have alternatives to. On the one hand, we know more than they did (stronger & longer mandatory education + post-primary + informal access). On the other hand, we've forgotten how to responsibly handle uncertainty. Or, as I sum it all up: science should be a verb (aka process), not a noun (result).
  - hirako2000 5y ago
    We don't know more than we did. We have a strong belief that our cumulated knowledge, tools and infrastructure are leading to more accurate knowledge. We accomplish technological advancements that comfort us in the idea we know better. That's all. Science could be made a verb, but like wisdom, calling something science doesn't de facto make it so.
    - B1FF_PSUVM 5y ago
      It's a new theology ...
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      Not sure if you're arguing from an epistemological or objective basis, but I'll assume the latter. We know that our knowledge better describes the results we reliably reproduce in the world around us. We have knowledge about things that our ancestors did not. If that doesn't constitute "knowing more than they did," I'm not sure what does.
      - hirako2000 5y ago
        We don't know that. All we know is that we have further knowledge that at certain points in time. We have a tendency to assume we know more than at any other time before on the basis that we know more than our rather recent ancestors.
        CRConrad 5y ago
        > All we know is that we have further knowledge that at certain points in time. What does that mean, if not "we know more than they did"?
    - Beldin 5y ago
      We actually do know more. Sure, physics is basically modelling and observations. Our current models might be completely wrong - even if their predictive power is far greater. But we've also made some genuine proofs. For example, we know that Fermat's last theorem is correct. That was suspected, but not known. Yes, this applies basically to all of maths - and even to other disciplines that produce proofs. Another example: we know that one model of gravity permits black holes, wormholes, and warp drives. Sure, the model might not accurately reflect reality. But still: this is something we know nowadays, that we didn't know 105 years ago. Not to mention all the things we collectively have done - we know it's possible to leave Earth, to live in orbit for a while, to convert sunlight directly into electricity, that it is (barely) possible to run the 100m in under 10 sec, what the earth looks like from a distance, how to make fusion bombs, how to fly... we know a lot more than folks from even the early 1900s, let alone further back.
simonebrunozzi 5y ago
> Consequently, any voyage before 1761 knew its latitude exactly, but dead-reckoned its longitude. Correct. This is key to understand most of the issues at play in these past events.