On Fundamental Rights, Common Law Principles, and Abortion:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
[Prefatory Note: For a prologue of sorts to the material to be covered in this posting, please see this thread. -ISM]
In the usual round of calls for "celebration" of a legal case that directly violates one of the three fundamental rights of man, the predictable "stare decisis" canard was brought out in some circles to justify the decision of the Supreme Court in 1992's Planned Parenthood vs. Casey decision upholding Roe vs. Wade. This is in essence an indirect appeal to common law to justify this stance as that is where stare decisis has its legal foundation. A problem with this premise is that it ignores certain key factors which went into proper common law interpretation. To explain this a bit, a consideration of where common law originated would be a good idea so I will sketch it out briefly before picking up this thread on the other side with the assistance of a short online chronology:
Until the 12th century, law in the western world consisted of written laws, called Civil Laws, all traceable to Roman Law. This basic system still prevails in many countries as well as in the state of Louisiana.
However, after the Norman conquest of Britain in 1066, a legal tradition called the "common law," different from that of civil law, began to develop in England. In the 1100s during the reign of the legal reformer, Henry II, court decisions were written down and catalogued according to the types of cases. When the courts were called on to decide similar issues later, they reviewed the earlier decisions and if one was found that covered the earlier decision, they applied the principle of the earlier decision. They called this doctrine, "stare decisis," a Latin term meaning "to stand by the decision."
Under this rule of stare decisis, once a legal issue has been resolved as it applied to a particular set of facts, a court did not reconsider that legal issue in a later case where the factual circumstances were substantially similar. But this did not mean that every decision stood forever. However, the principle of stare decisis was a strong one, and judges were reluctant to discard well-established rules, and took great pains to explain a significant departure from a precedent.
During America's colonial period, most of the English common law tradition did not change, and the new country continued to follow English common law. When the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1789, the Constitution, based upon the common law inherited from England, became the new foundation on which the American legal system was built. [From Understanding Common Law (circa 1994)]
We know of course that the Founding Fathers of America were men of a high degree of education and were thoroughly familiar with common law -most of them either being born in Great Britain or first generation removed from Great Britain. And roughly thirty-five of the fifty-five odd participants of the Constitutional Convention either were experienced barristers or otherwise had training in the law. I outlined some of the more significant figures here and believe me, they are far from the only ones I could mention. And when you consider the predominately English background of so many of the Founding Fathers, it is only logical to conclude that so many educated barristers would have a solid understanding of what common law did and did not involve would it not???
Now then, if stare decisis is a core principle of the common law, than one has to look to how that principle was understood in common law and not merely say it applies without providing any evidences. A good place to start is to ask what the foundational principles that under girded common law actually were. According to a certain Richard J. Maybury, they were as follows:
Do all you have agreed to do;
Do not encroach on other persons or their property. [From Understanding Common Law (circa 1994)]
The first premise would form the fundamental point of reference of what is called "contract law" as that branch of jurisprudence deals with what people have agreed to do amongst one another and the myriad of ways this is signified both explicitly and by logical inference. The second premise ("[d]o not encroach on other persons or their property") is perhaps the fundamental point of reference for all criminal and tort law.
Now then, if the interpretation of the above premises is correct{1}, then common law involves protection of the fundamental rights of man which are life, faculties, and production. Or to quote Claude Frederic Bastiat's magnum opus The Law on these matters:
We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life-physical, intellectual, and moral life. But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course. Life, faculties, production-in other words, individuality, liberty, property this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: The Law (circa 1850) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa October 3, 2002)]
Now then, consider the theory{2} of fundamental rights which I have reiterated at this weblog not to mention developed further{3} in light of contemporary realities and applied to a whole plethora of issues in years past. The premise is that there is a gift from God given to us which encompasses the physical (life), intellectual (faculties), and moral (production) spheres of existence. This gift precedes all human laws and was the basis on which all human laws were constructed to begin with -whether those who constructed them realized it or not. From there a need to know what law actually is comes into play since to argue anything on the basis of stare decisis requires knowing what the function of law is. And again, let us consider Bastiat's synthesis on that subject before getting to the whole stare decisis issue:
What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. Each of us has a natural right - from God - to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force-his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right-its reason for existing, its lawfulness-is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: The Law (circa 1850) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa October 3, 2002)]
Think about that for a moment: the common force of law has the same purpose as the individual one. The logic behind this should be obvious but often it is not. Moving on...
Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force for the same reason-cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups. Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces? [Claude Frederic Bastiat: The Law (circa 1850) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa October 3, 2002)]
Those who wonder why true conservatives worthy of the name{4} have an abhorrence of the federal government intervening everywhere and anywhere this is the reason in a nutshell even if those conservatives have never stopped to crystallize their instinct into a coherent principle before. The reason is an instinctive understanding that law is made for man not man for law: the understanding that law's purpose is to protect legitimate rights not to grant them and not to revoke them.{5}
The Founding Fathers had such a fear of putting too much power into the hands of a limited few that they created the "checks and balances" system we are aware of because of their knowledge of history and what power can do when it is abused. They may not have explicitly formulated their understanding in the manner that Bastiat did but certainly Bastiat had as a source of his inspiration the United States as it existed in his day.{6} But to sum up the purpose of law, it can be seen in the following way:
If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: The Law (circa 1850) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa October 3, 2002)]
By this understanding, any action by the law that goes beyond these boundaries is a perversion of law. And not only is any law that is contrary to the Constitution invalid but any active resolution taken by the judiciary likewise is invalid. Or as Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist #78 on the powers of the judiciary as embodied in the Constitution that at the time of his writing still awaited ratification by a majority of states to become the law of the land:
The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments...
The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution...Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing. [Alexander Hamilton: Excerpt from Federalist Paper #78 as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa July 1, 2003)]
In other words, the judiciary under the Constitution has the duty to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution as void. That includes so-called "right to privacy" which however nice it would be to have in the federal Constitution{7} nonetheless is not there in any way, shape, matter, or form.
As far as the common law understanding goes, if part of the understanding is not to encroach on persons or their property, than common law statutes such as stare decisis then we have an issue here that touches on the very heart of the issue in question. We need to know where life begins or at least have a consensus on a certain point of origin as the starting point before we can legitimately invoke stare decisis. Consider though what the court itself said in the majority decision handed down on January 22, 1973 on the matter of when life begins:
Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. [Supreme Court: Roe vs. Wade (circa January 22, 1973)]
In other words, the decision was to be made without concern for a key element of what the common law was intended to do: not encroach on persons or their property. In order to determine whether common law (on which the Constitution is heavily based) is efficaciously fulfilling its role or not means that one has to determine if they are dealing with a life or not because a life is a person and common law is intended to protect persons.
We know of course that there is dispute over when life begins but if we do not try to resolve that inquiry to the best of our knowledge, then common law risks being misapplied. The very Declaration of Independence on which this nation was founded -and on which the Constitution properly understood would have to presume apriori for its own legitimization- had this to say about the issue at hand:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. [Excerpt from The Declaration of Independence (circa July 4, 1776)]
Now is not the time to point out that this principle was not always consistently applied in our Republic -indeed despite the Fifth Amendment in the Bill of Rights, there were still some people who were denied the right so outlined. The purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment itself was in part to remedy this with regards to persons previously denied these rights for reasons other than disenfranchisement for serious crimes committed against others. But just because a principle is not always applied consistently does not therefore make the principle itself suspect -something I have noted before on a few occasions and which bears recalling whenever issues such as this are discussed.
When Texas urges that a fetus is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection as a person, it faces a dilemma. Neither in Texas nor in any other State are all abortions prohibited. Despite broad proscription, an exception always exists. The exception contained in Art. 1196, for an abortion procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, is typical. But if the fetus is a person who is not to be deprived of life without due process of law, and if the mother's condition is the sole determinant, does not the Texas exception appear to be out of line with the Amendment's command? [Supreme Court: Roe vs. Wade (circa January 22, 1973)]
This whole supposed "dilemma" is easily overcome by taking into account an ancient moral and ethical principle which the Founding Fathers would have with the greatest of likelihood had some familiarity with if not by virtue of it being a longstanding moral and ethical principle then arguably by virtue of the principles they used in crafting the Constitution itself.{8} I refer here to the moral and ethical principle of double effect.
But even if they were not explicitly familiar with it, it is not debatable that these men of uniformly high intelligence for not only their era but any other era would have the intellectual capabilities of understanding and appreciating the principles involved. As to whether or not the Supreme Court in 1973 would have had these capabilities is (of course) controverted to say the least but they sure betray a lack of familiarity in the words used to formulate the decision of their majority.
If we take seriously (i) Claude Frederic Bastiat's theory on the fundamental rights of man as well as (ii) the words of the Declaration of Independence on which the American Republic was founded on, not to mention (iii) the proper understanding of common law as a check against encroaching upon other persons or their property, then the idea of applying stare decisis to the Roe vs. Wade court interpolation of a presumed "right" to abortion is too ludicrous to be taken seriously.
For one thing, if the matter does involve life -and it seems more than a mere hypothesis to this writer that life is involved at some point between conception and birth- than it is important to ascertain as best we can and apart from personal agendas where we can determine life to begin and at that point, it is inviolable without due process. The question then becomes when does life begin??? Would one say it begins with a heartbeat??? With evidence of brainwave activity??? With the ability to feel pain??? If you have said yes to all three of these things, then we are looking at life beginning before the third month of pregnancy if not earlier.
Think about that for a moment: if the latter is the case, then abortion in at least the time frame where the latter three factors are in effect acts as a death sentence for a life which was denied due process: a violation of a fundamental God-given right (cf. The Law) and a right that the Founders saw as self-evident (cf. Declaration of Independence). On either standard alone it is to be rejected but the idea that the Constitution of the United States could be based on a premise contrary to the Declaration of Independence, and that the aforementioned Constitution could have a presumed "right" to take the life of anyone without the very due process which the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution{9} requires- it does not add up folks.
That is right, Roe vs. Wade is not only unconstitutional but also unconscionable. It does not matter that judicial whores and termites play with words and semantics: the taking of life without due process is not morally acceptable. And that the judges singing onto the majority decision of Roe vs. Wade claimed that it was not necessary to know when life begins in order to make a ruling is itself heinous because one must know when life begins if one is going to avoid taking it without due process. That those judges did not care to try and do this -and furthermore showed that they do not care about ruling in accordance with the Constitution but instead sacrificing lives on the altar of utility- is something that anyone who claims to respect people should find noxious to their very core.
It is illogical to presume that stare decisis as a principle of common law can be wielded to oppose the very intention of common law to begin with. And the idea of that the Founding Fathers who founded this nation and established its rule of law -most of which were well-educated in the field of law including common law- would have provided for such a heinous so-called "right" that contradicted the very foundation of the common law that they took for granted is more than just a little problem that the supporters of Roe vs. Wade have to deal with. They also have to deal with the argument that Roe vs. Wade violates the Constitution's Fifth Amendment right to not be deprived of life without due process,{10} it violates the right to life that the signers of the Declaration of Independence asserted was "self-evident", and it violates one of what Claude Frederic Bastiat called the "three fundamental rights of man."
Those who would take issue with any of these theses and claim that life is not involved have an obligation to provide a hypothesis of their own on when life does begin. Otherwise, they cannot complain when their position is opposed by people who do respect the right to life and who have taken a public stand (rightly or wrongly) on where life does begin -and use that stand as a foundational presupposition for how they approach the issue of abortion and other potentially life-related issues thereof.
Notes:
{1} And for those who would claim it is not, they are challenged to propose a counter-hypothesis or there is no need to take them seriously.
{2} [W]hen one is dealing with a theory, they are dealing with both abstract notions as well as coordinating dynamic principles of action. One of the author's intellectual mentors once defined a theory as "a set of non contradictory abstract ideas (or as philosophers like to call them 'principles') which purports to be either a correct description of reality or a guideline for successful action."...
Having established a working meaning of the term theory, it is worth noting also that the word thesis according to the Merriam Webster Thesaurus is related to the word theory. (Both of them having a foundation in the term assumption.) A good way of looking at this in the current context is to view a thesis as "an abstract principle or proposition to be advanced and maintained by argument" and a theory as incorporating a thesis -or a series of theses -with a guideline for successful action. The reason for this is because a theory by its nature must involve either (i) a correct description of reality or (ii) a guideline for successful action. For this reason, any viable theory involves several principles if you will which work together.
Or another way of looking at it would be to consider that a theory is being conceived of a series of non contradictory coordinative theses or points of presupposition. When viewed in this light, a theory clearly is only as strong as the theses which support it. [Excerpt from the Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG (circa January 14, 2004)]
{3} Now is not the time to go into how I did this but basically I explicated a premise that was heavily implied in Bastiat's work and added a non-normative verifying principle to the mix to assist in objective application thereof.
{4} Do not get me started on how few of these there are -particularly in politics.
{5} Part of the reason I developed Bastiat's theory further is to deal with the situations where it can be argued that someone can be deprived of one or more of their fundamental rights -but that is a subject for another time perhaps.
{6} As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose-that it may violate property instead of protecting it-then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious. To know this, it is hardly necessary to examine what transpires in the French and English legislatures; merely to understand the issue is to know the answer. Is there any need to offer proof that this odious perversion of the law is a perpetual source of hatred and discord; that it tends to destroy society itself? If such proof is needed, look at the United States [in 1850]. There is no country in the world where the law is kept more within its proper domain: the protection of every person's liberty and property. As a consequence of this, there appears to be no country in the world where the social order rests on a firmer foundation. But even in the United States, there are two issues-and only two-that have always endangered the public peace. [Claude Frederic Bastiat: The Law (circa 1850) as quoted in aRerum Novarum posting (circa October 24, 2002)]
{7} I actually favour this as a right but as it is not in the Constitution itself, an amendment would have to be proposed and accepted by three quarters of all the states (in this case, 38 states) in order to become a Constitutional provision thereof.
{8} This is a hypothesis admittedly but one which if time allowed for it I believe I could viably argue for the favour of.
{9} The Fourteenth Amendment is not mentioned here because it essentially remedied an inconsistency in the application of the Fifth Amendment clarifying the applicability of the right to due process being one for "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
{10} See footnote nine.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
"Lions and Tigers and 'Neo-Cons', Oh My!!!" Dept.
After listening to a fellow blather on and on about certain parties being "definitive 'neo-cons'" on a radio show yesterday -coupled with the standard refusal to explain the meaning of this term and how it is properly applied- I decided to renew the so-called "neo-con" challenge reissued in October of last year. Once again, I request of those who froth at the mouth over this term to show proper respect for reason and logic and define what they mean by this term and how these so-called "neo-cons" are able to be identified. I have been running this feature unofficially since first sketching out the questions I have in October of 2005{1} and officially with a more systematical presentation since December of that year.{2} Here is that challenge as reissued last October:
"Tracking the Ever-Elusive So-Called 'Neo-Con'" Dept. --A Rerum Novarum Challenge Revisitation/Reiussuance Thread (circa October 2, 2006)
Some might find this challenge to be cute but I am doing it for a reason: to point out the problem with using terms that are not defined or not explaining how one who uses a term understands that term to be applicable. It is too commom for people to use terms as lazy expedients to avoid having to utilize the gray matter between their ears and that is a problem that is only increasing it seems as time goes by. The problem was summed up rather tersely in the following statement by one of our early{3} intellectual mentors:
[W]e are living in a new Dark Ages, we really are. Most people have no concept of logic and how to use it. How to use their intellectual faculties to distinguish between truth and falsehood. Most people are intellectually dependent. [Mike Mentzer (circa 1993) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa February 12, 2006)]
This is a serious problem we face in society and it is one reason I see value in the challenge I am proposing here. So as definitions are the tools of thought,{4}, it would be nice if those who have a bug up their hind quarters about these supposed "neo-cons" actually explain what I have requested in the threads above. This is not that difficult to do actually but doing so would hold those who kvetch about these supposed beings to a certain standard. Thus far, only one party who has frequent recourse to this term has taken the time to formulate a definition of the term{5} but even they were trying to go beyond the boundaries they set down in applying it.
Notes:
{1} Miscellaneous Morning Musings on Blogging, the So-Called "Neo-Cons", and the Miers Nomination--An Audio Post (circa October 27, 2005)
{2} "Tracking the Ever-Elusive So-Called 'Neo Con'" Dept. (circa December 4, 2005)
{3} I touched on this a bit in the following post:
Responding to the Blogosphere Book Meme (circa June 14, 2005)
{4} Points to Ponder as posted to Rerum Novarum (circa December 17, 2004)
{5} That party for those who are interested was Dale Vree. Mr. Vree's proposed definition and application were addressed in a March 2006 posting to Rerum Novarum which is viewable HERE.
After listening to a fellow blather on and on about certain parties being "definitive 'neo-cons'" on a radio show yesterday -coupled with the standard refusal to explain the meaning of this term and how it is properly applied- I decided to renew the so-called "neo-con" challenge reissued in October of last year. Once again, I request of those who froth at the mouth over this term to show proper respect for reason and logic and define what they mean by this term and how these so-called "neo-cons" are able to be identified. I have been running this feature unofficially since first sketching out the questions I have in October of 2005{1} and officially with a more systematical presentation since December of that year.{2} Here is that challenge as reissued last October:
"Tracking the Ever-Elusive So-Called 'Neo-Con'" Dept. --A Rerum Novarum Challenge Revisitation/Reiussuance Thread (circa October 2, 2006)
Some might find this challenge to be cute but I am doing it for a reason: to point out the problem with using terms that are not defined or not explaining how one who uses a term understands that term to be applicable. It is too commom for people to use terms as lazy expedients to avoid having to utilize the gray matter between their ears and that is a problem that is only increasing it seems as time goes by. The problem was summed up rather tersely in the following statement by one of our early{3} intellectual mentors:
[W]e are living in a new Dark Ages, we really are. Most people have no concept of logic and how to use it. How to use their intellectual faculties to distinguish between truth and falsehood. Most people are intellectually dependent. [Mike Mentzer (circa 1993) as quoted in a Rerum Novarum posting (circa February 12, 2006)]
This is a serious problem we face in society and it is one reason I see value in the challenge I am proposing here. So as definitions are the tools of thought,{4}, it would be nice if those who have a bug up their hind quarters about these supposed "neo-cons" actually explain what I have requested in the threads above. This is not that difficult to do actually but doing so would hold those who kvetch about these supposed beings to a certain standard. Thus far, only one party who has frequent recourse to this term has taken the time to formulate a definition of the term{5} but even they were trying to go beyond the boundaries they set down in applying it.
Notes:
{1} Miscellaneous Morning Musings on Blogging, the So-Called "Neo-Cons", and the Miers Nomination--An Audio Post (circa October 27, 2005)
{2} "Tracking the Ever-Elusive So-Called 'Neo Con'" Dept. (circa December 4, 2005)
{3} I touched on this a bit in the following post:
Responding to the Blogosphere Book Meme (circa June 14, 2005)
{4} Points to Ponder as posted to Rerum Novarum (circa December 17, 2004)
{5} That party for those who are interested was Dale Vree. Mr. Vree's proposed definition and application were addressed in a March 2006 posting to Rerum Novarum which is viewable HERE.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
More From Moriel Ministries:
This text constitutes a slightly abridged version of my response to an email sent from one of their representatives regarding the material blogged HERE. The emailer's words will be in dark yellow font.
On 1/12/07, XXXXX XXXXXXXX wrote:
Plainly we regard your counter arguments as faulty.
I am not surprised. But anyone can say this of course. Assertions by themselves do not constitute proof.
Hoc Est Corpus Meum is merely the Vulgate translation of 'This Is My Body", I said nothing other. Neither did I assert that Aquinas initiated transubstantiation as a doctrine. He merely defined it in the form of Aristotelian alchemy accepted by the psapacy as its official explanation.
Fair enough but you raised it in the context of the liturgy (mass) and that is why I mentioned the liturgical wording of the phrase. As far as one theologian's explanation goes, Catholic theology is not monolithic in this area as you implied it was. The core issue here is your attempt to set the issue up as one that is either "proved" or "disproved" by science or reason alone. The ways in which a dogma is explained are always subject to improvements but truths are often explained by what is at one time viewed as adequate but at future times is viewed otherwise.
It is important when dealing with matters which are considered "revealed" to recognize that you will to some extent have an imperfection in natural language in trying to explain them. The same is the case for Jesus being "one in sameness" (Gk. homoousian, Lat. consubstantialem) with God the Father: an explanation that also relies on imperfect Greek physics to outline (in this case Platonic concepts). I do not see you rejecting the idea of Jesus as the Son of God and also as God (or the whole trinitarian concept as defined at Nicaea) which shows me that you are being arbitrary in rejecting one proposed dogma on this basis while accepting another.
Your revisionism re the condemnations of science as something that had to be done is frankly too ludicrous to warrant serious comment,
The difference between us is that I have read up on the cases and also reviewed papal statements in question with due care while you obviously have not. Because if you had at least reviewed them, then you obviously did not read very carefully. There is a serious danger in certain scientific approaches leading to a form of "empericism" which is intrinsically contrary to revealed truth. To the extent that this is the case, there is a requirement to proscribe them the same way it was with modernism in the early twentieth century which effectively denied the capabilities of man to know anything with certainty by the natural lights of reason.
You prefer it seems to write it off as ludicrous because it is a expedient way to not have to challenge your own foundational presuppositions. In that way, you act like the non-Christian who thinks that the idea of Jesus as saviour is too ludicrous to warrant serious comment. The subject is different but the principles involved are the same: one party refusing to re-assess the lenses by which they filter all information that comes before them. Benjamin Franklin called it "questioning one's own infallibility" and evidently you have no interest in doing that which is a pity.
Of course you passed over my comments about Copernicus and Galileo because you were caught with your hand in the cookie jar there and would rather say nothing than have me repeat my previous point. You said the Catholic Church condemned Copernicus and Galileo as heretics for postulating and proving the earth revolved around the sun and this assertion is a bald faced lie. Neither of them were condemned as heretics and Copernicus was not even censured. He in fact gave lectures on his heliocentric hypothesis at the great universities of his day and in the presence of a few popes none of whom censured him. (One of those popes -Paul III- was actually mentioned in Copernicus' book dedication.) It was the Protestants who were anti-science, not the Catholics though the latter at times did have to pronounce against certain scientific excesses as I noted earlier.
One of those was the attempt to infringe upon the realm of theology with scientific hypotheses presented as anything but a hypotheses but instead, as certain fact which is what Galileo did. But even so, Galileo was never condemned as a heretic but he did get in trouble for presuming to move the subject from the realm of science to that of theology. As one of the links I sent to you earlier noted, high ranking members of the Catholic Church (including Cardinal Bellarmine who was at one time prefect of the Holy Office) were more than willing to consider Galileo's hypothesis within its proper bounds. The problem is when scientists go beyond their limits and move into the realm of the theological. That is where every clash between the Catholic Church and science has taken place.
And you noted that Copernicus and Galileo prov[ed] the earth revolved around the sun when there has been no actual proving of the heliocentric theory. As Dr. Sippo noted in one of the links I sent you:
We must remember that none of the proofs for heliocentrism proposed by Galileo was convincing either then or now. His heliocentric model had as many epicycle problems as the standard geocentric model and failed to make accurate predictions of planetary movement. The one model that made accurate predictions was proposed by Kepler based on Tycho Brahe's measurements. This view was specifically ridiculed and rejected by Galileo. Furthermore, we now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that according to Einstein's theories of relativity there is no absolute point of geometric centrality to the universe so that wherever the observer stands is the center for him. In essence the humanistic, phenomenological, and biblical approach to the question of the universe has won out after all.
The testimony of history is that Galileo got it wrong both in his own day and in retrospect. [LINK]
The problem with what you say about what Galileo supposedly prov[ed] is that it blatantly contradicts Einstein's theory of relativity which -while not endorsing a geocentric model is nonetheless much closer to it than a heliocentric one. If Einstein is right now, Galileo was wrong then and if Galileo was right then, Einstein is wrong now. Which is it???
I am interested in seeing if you are going to adhere to these areas where you obviously erred or if you are going to acknowledge that you were wrong in the examples you chose to give. Whether or not there can even be a good dialogue depends on how you respond to these points.
I have to say it but what is really too ludicrous to warrant serious comment is the shoddiness of the "scholarship" your site uses to substantiate its viewpoints. I noticed you did not comment on this part of the note. I have to ask if you have any interest in actual history or will any propaganda-piece that advances your cause (however full of lies) be considered an ally to you??? Inquiring minds want to know.
and your defense of Roman Catholic involvement with Fascism and The Third Reich is rather hideous.
I am always amazed at how many people can live in some kind of Gnostic fairytale land pretending that it is never necessary to deal with odious governments or odious people. To some extent, it was necessary to deal with the Fascists of Italy and the Nazis of Germany because failing to do so would put lives at risk. On a diplomatic level, some things were done which one could question the prudence of; however, what should the Catholic Church have done, stand back and do nothing to try and attain guarantees of religious freedom and the safety of her own???
I realize in this fairytale view of a "purely spiritual Christianity" that is what things should supposedly be like but reality is another thing altogether. Jesus counseled the Apostles when he sent them out as "sheep amongst wolves" that they were to be "wise as serpents and guileless as doves." To be "wise as serpents" involves having cleverness, prudence, discernment, and a kind of practical wisdom. It involves having a proper presence of mind, understanding, and a soundness of judgment in striving to act properly.
The problem is, so many of those who are critical of the Catholic Church's relationship at times during the twentieth century to Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy in toto do not show that they have any understanding of the reality of those times or the difficulties that were faced. That is not to say that the clerics of the Catholic Church always did everything in the best possible way of course, only that a proper criticism requires by its very nature an understanding of actual history and the difficulties faced, not criticism for criticisms sake by those who have such an agenda against the Catholic Church that they will stoop to any shoddy "scholarship" to substantiate their views. To say that I am less than impressed with your historical revisionism would be to put it too nicely. History is to be respected, not treated with contempt. Unfortunately, that is what your site has done.
It would require ages for an exchange of exhaustive polemics by e mail. If you wanted to meet sometime for a private discussion on these matters however, that would be possible.
That might work fine though a targeted correspondence by email would be a good place to start. Targeted meaning each deal with a particular point or two to get a feel for where to begin. It takes too long to unpack longer exchanges but focusing on a few basic points at a time could be a good basis for starting a dialogue. I am interested in dialogue with those who will willingly challenge their foundational presuppositions as I regularly do -to "challenge one's own infallibility" as Benjamin Franklin liked to say. If you are up for the latter, let me know.
Where are you based? Can we touch base some time?
I am in the Seattle area. Where are you at???
PS Though the rest of the text was written about ten days before today (and just reviewed prior to being sent), I found this article on the Pius XII "anti-semite" assertions in my email dated to January 25, 2007 from National Review. I already knew or otherwise strongly suspected a lot of what is in the thread but you may find its contents to be of interest.
This text constitutes a slightly abridged version of my response to an email sent from one of their representatives regarding the material blogged HERE. The emailer's words will be in dark yellow font.
On 1/12/07, XXXXX XXXXXXXX wrote:
Plainly we regard your counter arguments as faulty.
I am not surprised. But anyone can say this of course. Assertions by themselves do not constitute proof.
Hoc Est Corpus Meum is merely the Vulgate translation of 'This Is My Body", I said nothing other. Neither did I assert that Aquinas initiated transubstantiation as a doctrine. He merely defined it in the form of Aristotelian alchemy accepted by the psapacy as its official explanation.
Fair enough but you raised it in the context of the liturgy (mass) and that is why I mentioned the liturgical wording of the phrase. As far as one theologian's explanation goes, Catholic theology is not monolithic in this area as you implied it was. The core issue here is your attempt to set the issue up as one that is either "proved" or "disproved" by science or reason alone. The ways in which a dogma is explained are always subject to improvements but truths are often explained by what is at one time viewed as adequate but at future times is viewed otherwise.
It is important when dealing with matters which are considered "revealed" to recognize that you will to some extent have an imperfection in natural language in trying to explain them. The same is the case for Jesus being "one in sameness" (Gk. homoousian, Lat. consubstantialem) with God the Father: an explanation that also relies on imperfect Greek physics to outline (in this case Platonic concepts). I do not see you rejecting the idea of Jesus as the Son of God and also as God (or the whole trinitarian concept as defined at Nicaea) which shows me that you are being arbitrary in rejecting one proposed dogma on this basis while accepting another.
Your revisionism re the condemnations of science as something that had to be done is frankly too ludicrous to warrant serious comment,
The difference between us is that I have read up on the cases and also reviewed papal statements in question with due care while you obviously have not. Because if you had at least reviewed them, then you obviously did not read very carefully. There is a serious danger in certain scientific approaches leading to a form of "empericism" which is intrinsically contrary to revealed truth. To the extent that this is the case, there is a requirement to proscribe them the same way it was with modernism in the early twentieth century which effectively denied the capabilities of man to know anything with certainty by the natural lights of reason.
You prefer it seems to write it off as ludicrous because it is a expedient way to not have to challenge your own foundational presuppositions. In that way, you act like the non-Christian who thinks that the idea of Jesus as saviour is too ludicrous to warrant serious comment. The subject is different but the principles involved are the same: one party refusing to re-assess the lenses by which they filter all information that comes before them. Benjamin Franklin called it "questioning one's own infallibility" and evidently you have no interest in doing that which is a pity.
Of course you passed over my comments about Copernicus and Galileo because you were caught with your hand in the cookie jar there and would rather say nothing than have me repeat my previous point. You said the Catholic Church condemned Copernicus and Galileo as heretics for postulating and proving the earth revolved around the sun and this assertion is a bald faced lie. Neither of them were condemned as heretics and Copernicus was not even censured. He in fact gave lectures on his heliocentric hypothesis at the great universities of his day and in the presence of a few popes none of whom censured him. (One of those popes -Paul III- was actually mentioned in Copernicus' book dedication.) It was the Protestants who were anti-science, not the Catholics though the latter at times did have to pronounce against certain scientific excesses as I noted earlier.
One of those was the attempt to infringe upon the realm of theology with scientific hypotheses presented as anything but a hypotheses but instead, as certain fact which is what Galileo did. But even so, Galileo was never condemned as a heretic but he did get in trouble for presuming to move the subject from the realm of science to that of theology. As one of the links I sent to you earlier noted, high ranking members of the Catholic Church (including Cardinal Bellarmine who was at one time prefect of the Holy Office) were more than willing to consider Galileo's hypothesis within its proper bounds. The problem is when scientists go beyond their limits and move into the realm of the theological. That is where every clash between the Catholic Church and science has taken place.
And you noted that Copernicus and Galileo prov[ed] the earth revolved around the sun when there has been no actual proving of the heliocentric theory. As Dr. Sippo noted in one of the links I sent you:
We must remember that none of the proofs for heliocentrism proposed by Galileo was convincing either then or now. His heliocentric model had as many epicycle problems as the standard geocentric model and failed to make accurate predictions of planetary movement. The one model that made accurate predictions was proposed by Kepler based on Tycho Brahe's measurements. This view was specifically ridiculed and rejected by Galileo. Furthermore, we now know that the sun is not the center of the universe and that according to Einstein's theories of relativity there is no absolute point of geometric centrality to the universe so that wherever the observer stands is the center for him. In essence the humanistic, phenomenological, and biblical approach to the question of the universe has won out after all.
The testimony of history is that Galileo got it wrong both in his own day and in retrospect. [LINK]
The problem with what you say about what Galileo supposedly prov[ed] is that it blatantly contradicts Einstein's theory of relativity which -while not endorsing a geocentric model is nonetheless much closer to it than a heliocentric one. If Einstein is right now, Galileo was wrong then and if Galileo was right then, Einstein is wrong now. Which is it???
I am interested in seeing if you are going to adhere to these areas where you obviously erred or if you are going to acknowledge that you were wrong in the examples you chose to give. Whether or not there can even be a good dialogue depends on how you respond to these points.
I have to say it but what is really too ludicrous to warrant serious comment is the shoddiness of the "scholarship" your site uses to substantiate its viewpoints. I noticed you did not comment on this part of the note. I have to ask if you have any interest in actual history or will any propaganda-piece that advances your cause (however full of lies) be considered an ally to you??? Inquiring minds want to know.
and your defense of Roman Catholic involvement with Fascism and The Third Reich is rather hideous.
I am always amazed at how many people can live in some kind of Gnostic fairytale land pretending that it is never necessary to deal with odious governments or odious people. To some extent, it was necessary to deal with the Fascists of Italy and the Nazis of Germany because failing to do so would put lives at risk. On a diplomatic level, some things were done which one could question the prudence of; however, what should the Catholic Church have done, stand back and do nothing to try and attain guarantees of religious freedom and the safety of her own???
I realize in this fairytale view of a "purely spiritual Christianity" that is what things should supposedly be like but reality is another thing altogether. Jesus counseled the Apostles when he sent them out as "sheep amongst wolves" that they were to be "wise as serpents and guileless as doves." To be "wise as serpents" involves having cleverness, prudence, discernment, and a kind of practical wisdom. It involves having a proper presence of mind, understanding, and a soundness of judgment in striving to act properly.
The problem is, so many of those who are critical of the Catholic Church's relationship at times during the twentieth century to Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy in toto do not show that they have any understanding of the reality of those times or the difficulties that were faced. That is not to say that the clerics of the Catholic Church always did everything in the best possible way of course, only that a proper criticism requires by its very nature an understanding of actual history and the difficulties faced, not criticism for criticisms sake by those who have such an agenda against the Catholic Church that they will stoop to any shoddy "scholarship" to substantiate their views. To say that I am less than impressed with your historical revisionism would be to put it too nicely. History is to be respected, not treated with contempt. Unfortunately, that is what your site has done.
It would require ages for an exchange of exhaustive polemics by e mail. If you wanted to meet sometime for a private discussion on these matters however, that would be possible.
That might work fine though a targeted correspondence by email would be a good place to start. Targeted meaning each deal with a particular point or two to get a feel for where to begin. It takes too long to unpack longer exchanges but focusing on a few basic points at a time could be a good basis for starting a dialogue. I am interested in dialogue with those who will willingly challenge their foundational presuppositions as I regularly do -to "challenge one's own infallibility" as Benjamin Franklin liked to say. If you are up for the latter, let me know.
Where are you based? Can we touch base some time?
I am in the Seattle area. Where are you at???
PS Though the rest of the text was written about ten days before today (and just reviewed prior to being sent), I found this article on the Pius XII "anti-semite" assertions in my email dated to January 25, 2007 from National Review. I already knew or otherwise strongly suspected a lot of what is in the thread but you may find its contents to be of interest.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Points to Ponder:
Every one knows on any given day that there are energies slumbering in him which the incitements of that day do not call forth, but which he might display if these were greater. Most of us feel as if we lived habitually with a sort of cloud weighing on us, below our highest notch of clearness in discernment, sureness in reasoning, or firmness in deciding. Compared with what we ought to be, we are only half awake. Our fires are damped, our drafts are checked. We are making use of only a small part of our possible mental and physical resources.[William James (circa 1906)]
Every one knows on any given day that there are energies slumbering in him which the incitements of that day do not call forth, but which he might display if these were greater. Most of us feel as if we lived habitually with a sort of cloud weighing on us, below our highest notch of clearness in discernment, sureness in reasoning, or firmness in deciding. Compared with what we ought to be, we are only half awake. Our fires are damped, our drafts are checked. We are making use of only a small part of our possible mental and physical resources.[William James (circa 1906)]
Correcting a Post Number Numerical Miscalculation:
The counter on this humble weblog as of today registered a supposed "post number" of 2432. Though I have used the counter to note post approximations from time to time -almost always in passing- it was not until the new beta software was installed on the weblog where I have been able to verify the actual number with precision.{1} I knew that up to October 1, 2005 I had posted 1700 threads but it did not seem that I had actually published over 700 threads since that time -though I used the counter figure because I did not have another point of reference. Well, as I can now go back more than 300 posts with the new platform, I did a quick check and my assumption was correct: the actual post number is significantly less.
By official tallying, we hit the 2100 post mark with the publishing of the brief biographical bits on some Founding Fathers back on January 23, 2007. The official tally including this post and the one that will follow it will be 2110. The discrepency in numbers between the stated total at that time (2434) and what will be the actual number (2110) is that the software was adding to the published post total the various draft texts which number 324.{2} Anyway, I apologize for the misrepresentation of the post tallies at Rerum Novarum which have on occasion occured in the past year plus. And though it was an unintentional mistake, it was one nonetheless and therefore the present posting notes the required correction to the same extent that the previous numerical miscalculations were made.
Notes:
{1} Stricly speaking, I could have figured it out if I had lots of time and nothing better to do with it but I presumed blogger's number was accurate.
{2} While about two thirds of the drafts are posts in various stages of completion for future posting to this humble weblog -some of which go back as far as March of 2005 incidentally- about a third of them are versions of posts already completed and published. (I have not had time to weed those duplicates out of the system yet and do not know when I will find the time to do this frankly.)
The counter on this humble weblog as of today registered a supposed "post number" of 2432. Though I have used the counter to note post approximations from time to time -almost always in passing- it was not until the new beta software was installed on the weblog where I have been able to verify the actual number with precision.{1} I knew that up to October 1, 2005 I had posted 1700 threads but it did not seem that I had actually published over 700 threads since that time -though I used the counter figure because I did not have another point of reference. Well, as I can now go back more than 300 posts with the new platform, I did a quick check and my assumption was correct: the actual post number is significantly less.
By official tallying, we hit the 2100 post mark with the publishing of the brief biographical bits on some Founding Fathers back on January 23, 2007. The official tally including this post and the one that will follow it will be 2110. The discrepency in numbers between the stated total at that time (2434) and what will be the actual number (2110) is that the software was adding to the published post total the various draft texts which number 324.{2} Anyway, I apologize for the misrepresentation of the post tallies at Rerum Novarum which have on occasion occured in the past year plus. And though it was an unintentional mistake, it was one nonetheless and therefore the present posting notes the required correction to the same extent that the previous numerical miscalculations were made.
Notes:
{1} Stricly speaking, I could have figured it out if I had lots of time and nothing better to do with it but I presumed blogger's number was accurate.
{2} While about two thirds of the drafts are posts in various stages of completion for future posting to this humble weblog -some of which go back as far as March of 2005 incidentally- about a third of them are versions of posts already completed and published. (I have not had time to weed those duplicates out of the system yet and do not know when I will find the time to do this frankly.)
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Points to Ponder:
(From Those With Limited Visions)
"Drill for oil? You mean drill into the ground to try and find oil? You're crazy." [Drillers who Edwin L. Drake tried to enlist to his project to drill for oil (circa 1859)]
"Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction." [Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse (circa 1872)]
"The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon." [Sir John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria (circa 1873)]
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." [Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, (circa 1895)]
"Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value." [Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre]
"Professor Goddard does not know the relation between action and reaction and the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react. He seems to lack the basic knowledge ladled out daily in high schools." [1921 New York Times editorial about Robert Goddard's revolutionary rocket work]
"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us." [Western Union internal memo, (circa 1876)]
"The wireless music box has no imagineable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?" [David Sarnoff's associates in response to his urgings for investment in the radio in the 1920's]
"Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" [H.M. Warner, Warner Brothers (circa 1927)]
"I'm just glad it'll be Clark Gable who's falling on his face and not Gary Cooper." [Gary Cooper on his decision not to take the leading role in "Gone With The Wind"]
"Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau." [Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University (circa 1929)]
"Everything that can be invented has been invented." [Charles M. Duel, United States Patent Office (circa 1898)]
"You want to have consistent and uniform muscle development across all of your muscles? It can't be done. It's just a fact of life. You just have to accept inconsistent muscle development as an unalterable condition of weight training." [Response to Arthur Jones, who solved the "unsolveable" problem by inventing the Nautilus Exercise Equipment]
"The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to earn better than a 'C', the idea must be feasible." [A Yale University management professor in response to Fred Smith's paper proposing reliable overnight delivery service. Smith went on to found Federal Express Corp.]
"If I had thought about it, I wouldn't have done the experiment. The literature was full of examples that said you can't do this." [Spencer Silver on the work that led to the unique adhesives for 3-M "Post-it" Notepads. (And in fact, his experiment failed. He was looking for a super glue... )]
"A cookie store is a bad idea. Besides, the market research reports say America likes crispy cookies, not soft and chewy cookies like you make." [Response to Debbi Fields' idea of starting Mrs. Fields' Cookies]
"We don't like their sound and guitar music is on the way out." [Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles (circa 1962)]
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." [Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM (circa 1943)]
"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons." [Popular Mechanics, 1949, forecasting the relentless march of science]
"I have travelled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won't last out the year." [The editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall (circa 1957)]
"So we went to Atari and said, 'Hey, we've got this amazing thing, even built with some of your parts, and what do you think about funding us? Or we'll give it to you. We just want to do it. Pay our salary, we'll come work for you.' And they said, 'No.' So then we went to Hewlett-Packard and they said, 'Hey, we don't need you. You haven't got through college yet.'" [Apple Computer Inc. founder Steve Jobs on attempts to get Atari and H-P interested in his and Steve Wozniak's personal computer]
"[B]ut what....is it good for?" [Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM circa 1968, commenting on the microchip]
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." [Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp (circa 1977)]
"640K ought to be enough for anybody." [Bill Gates (circa 1981)]
The next time you hear anyone tell you something cannot be done -and for those who wonder why we at Rerum Novarum do not place much stock in the unsubstantiated opinions of so-called "experts", consider some of the examples above to understand our reasons for doing what we do here.
Oh and for those who wonder, the Arthur Jones referred to in the above examples is the one quoted in the side margin of this weblog.
(From Those With Limited Visions)
"Drill for oil? You mean drill into the ground to try and find oil? You're crazy." [Drillers who Edwin L. Drake tried to enlist to his project to drill for oil (circa 1859)]
"Louis Pasteur's theory of germs is ridiculous fiction." [Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse (circa 1872)]
"The abdomen, the chest, and the brain will forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon." [Sir John Eric Ericksen, British surgeon, appointed Surgeon-Extraordinary to Queen Victoria (circa 1873)]
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." [Lord Kelvin, president, Royal Society, (circa 1895)]
"Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value." [Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure de Guerre]
"Professor Goddard does not know the relation between action and reaction and the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react. He seems to lack the basic knowledge ladled out daily in high schools." [1921 New York Times editorial about Robert Goddard's revolutionary rocket work]
"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings to be seriously considered as a means of communication. The device is inherently of no value to us." [Western Union internal memo, (circa 1876)]
"The wireless music box has no imagineable commercial value. Who would pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?" [David Sarnoff's associates in response to his urgings for investment in the radio in the 1920's]
"Who the hell wants to hear actors talk?" [H.M. Warner, Warner Brothers (circa 1927)]
"I'm just glad it'll be Clark Gable who's falling on his face and not Gary Cooper." [Gary Cooper on his decision not to take the leading role in "Gone With The Wind"]
"Stocks have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau." [Irving Fisher, Professor of Economics, Yale University (circa 1929)]
"Everything that can be invented has been invented." [Charles M. Duel, United States Patent Office (circa 1898)]
"You want to have consistent and uniform muscle development across all of your muscles? It can't be done. It's just a fact of life. You just have to accept inconsistent muscle development as an unalterable condition of weight training." [Response to Arthur Jones, who solved the "unsolveable" problem by inventing the Nautilus Exercise Equipment]
"The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to earn better than a 'C', the idea must be feasible." [A Yale University management professor in response to Fred Smith's paper proposing reliable overnight delivery service. Smith went on to found Federal Express Corp.]
"If I had thought about it, I wouldn't have done the experiment. The literature was full of examples that said you can't do this." [Spencer Silver on the work that led to the unique adhesives for 3-M "Post-it" Notepads. (And in fact, his experiment failed. He was looking for a super glue... )]
"A cookie store is a bad idea. Besides, the market research reports say America likes crispy cookies, not soft and chewy cookies like you make." [Response to Debbi Fields' idea of starting Mrs. Fields' Cookies]
"We don't like their sound and guitar music is on the way out." [Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles (circa 1962)]
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." [Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM (circa 1943)]
"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons." [Popular Mechanics, 1949, forecasting the relentless march of science]
"I have travelled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won't last out the year." [The editor in charge of business books for Prentice Hall (circa 1957)]
"So we went to Atari and said, 'Hey, we've got this amazing thing, even built with some of your parts, and what do you think about funding us? Or we'll give it to you. We just want to do it. Pay our salary, we'll come work for you.' And they said, 'No.' So then we went to Hewlett-Packard and they said, 'Hey, we don't need you. You haven't got through college yet.'" [Apple Computer Inc. founder Steve Jobs on attempts to get Atari and H-P interested in his and Steve Wozniak's personal computer]
"[B]ut what....is it good for?" [Engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM circa 1968, commenting on the microchip]
"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." [Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp (circa 1977)]
"640K ought to be enough for anybody." [Bill Gates (circa 1981)]
The next time you hear anyone tell you something cannot be done -and for those who wonder why we at Rerum Novarum do not place much stock in the unsubstantiated opinions of so-called "experts", consider some of the examples above to understand our reasons for doing what we do here.
Oh and for those who wonder, the Arthur Jones referred to in the above examples is the one quoted in the side margin of this weblog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)