[johnforbes]

His Elements dated to 300 BC. It consisted of 13 books.

It endured as a standard source from 300 BC to the early years of the 20th Century when non-Euclidean geometry became more known.

It was the most influential textbook ever written, and was supposedly the first math book printed after Gutenberg.

It was second only to the Bible in the number of printings.

[Clownkicker]

And amazingly, not a single mathematician ever considered him "the last word" in geometry.

To the contrary, mathematicians kept adding to and increasing the scope of Euclid's geometry over the centuries precisely because he WASN'T "the last word" on the subject. Not even close.

But thanks for clearing that up for us, johnny. I didn't think you could grow intellectually from your ossified mental state.

[johnforbes]

Of course, he was considered the eminent source, and his work was the primary source for centuries from 300 BC until the early part of the 20th Century.

No textbook ever has held such a position.

Like Newton, Euclid's work stood at the apex.

Alexander Pope's famous lines about Newton showed that intellectuals associated him with -- almost -- the voice of a deity explaining the clockwork mechanics of the universe.

My point has been amply made, and is correct, and anybody who has ever read a history of science would never have questioned it to begin with.

To explain my reaction to climate assertions for the millionth time:

Anthropogenic global warming may be correct, but it is prudent and reasonable to question claims put forward by politicians for their own gain.

Read back over that sentence, which any rational person would concur with.

[Clownkicker]

"Of course, he was considered the eminent source,..."-johnfibs

But that's not what you said, is it, you dishonest weasel.

You said Euclid was considered "the last word" in geometry, which he never was. You made it up and now you are trying to slither out of your lie instead of just admitting you were wrong about it the way anyone with any integrity would do at this point.

"Like Newton, Euclid's work stood at the apex."-johnflubs

It still does, dummy. In plane geometry his text hasn't been substantially altered in all that time, up to the present day. It has merely been added to.
Your point has been repeatedly made, and is still as wrong as the first time you made it, and anybody who has ever read a history of science would never have said such a foolish thing to begin with.

"Anthropogenic global warming may be correct, but it is prudent and reasonable to question claims put forward by politicians for their own gain."-johnfoibles

Of course people should question the motives of POLITICIANS. But that isn't the issue with climate change.
There is an overwhelming consensus oamong CLIMATE SCIENTISTS about anthropomorphic climate change, and to question THAT when you admitted you aren't a climate scientist simply makes you a moron.

By all means, question the sleazeball politicians you keep electing, johnny, but to refuse to listen to the science until it is too late simply makes you a fool without a relevant point. You can't say we shouldn't act on the conclusions of science to remedy anthropomorphic climate change just because you don't trust politicians. You simply check a politician's proposals against the science and then go with them when they appear reasonable. Doing anything else is neither prudent nor reasonable.

You keep trying to use your ignorance as an excuse to do nothing at all, and you call that being "prudent". No, it's stupidity because you refuse to listen to those who aren't ignorant like you.

[johnforbes]

Look, I understand that most people have never read a history of science and math.

But Euclid was as close as anybody, from 300 BC to 1900, to being the final word on geometry.

Newton was such an intellectual giant that Alexander Pope wrote credibly about him as articulating some divine plan of the mechanics of the cosmos.

Yet both Euclid and Neewton turned out to be either wrong or incomplete.

My point is obvious -- that climate "science" today is nothing by comparison.

Also, the force of numbers argument -- x percent of this or that type of scientist says this or that -- is extremely weak if you know anything at all about the history of science.

Neither Elkin nor Clown seem intellectually able to absorb a point with such minimal sophistication.

[Clownkicker]

"Yet both Euclid and Neewton turned out to be either wrong or incomplete."-johnfool

But they were not "wrong". They were incomplete, as they themselves would have told you, and as mathematicians over the centuries told you. It's exactly what climate scientists today would tell you; their work is incomplete.

You would have been an idiot to read Euclid and then decide you weren't going to do anything with his geometry because he might be "incomplete." That's what a short-sighted idiot would do.

No, you should have and would have used his work to improve your life while keeping an eye out for errors and adjust accordingly. Only an idiot would refuse to use Euclid's work until it could be determined it was "complete" (which is a meaningless statement to anyone who has read anything at all about science, let alone a history of science.)

johnforbes is pretending we should do nothing about the disaster bearing down on us as a species because we already KNOW the work of climate scientists is incomplete, (as all science and all math at all times in human existence is incomplete.) johnforbes is a frightened dimwitted child cowering under his bed because he doesn't understand the big scary world and doesn't want to. He would rather huddle in ignorance and wait to see if he is one of those who survives the holocaust because he couldn't be bothered to face reality and do something about it.

It's what conservatives do: nothing, because they hate to face change of any sort.

[johnforbes]

Look, I've explained my position over and over and over and over.

You can't comprehend it because you have never read a history of science.

Elkin hasn't either, of course.

Most people have never read a history of science and math.

But Euclid was as close as anybody, from 300 BC to 1900, to being the final word on geometry.

Newton was such an intellectual giant that Alexander Pope wrote credibly about him as articulating some divine plan of the mechanics of the cosmos.

Yet both Euclid and Neewton turned out to be either wrong or incomplete.

My point is obvious -- that climate "science" today is nothing by comparison.

Also, the force of numbers argument -- x percent of this or that type of scientist says this or that -- is extremely weak if you know anything at all about the history of science.

Neither Elkin nor Clown seem intellectually able to absorb a point with such minimal sophistication.

[Clownkicker]

johnforbes believes if he keeps droning on long enough he will magically become 'right' in his specious argument.
He thinks that because he personally would have 'reasonably' refused to use the work of Euclid until it could be proven 'right' or 'complete' then nobody else in their right mind would recognize the value of his work, be grateful, and then change their lives accordingly. johnforbes would have been there blandly arguing to everyone in the forum "But it is all based on AXIOMS that no one can prove, so what value does it have? We should not do anything with it until we have more facts and can prove that a straight line can be drawn between any two points."

It's the same with johnny's belief that blathering on long enough while misunderstanding the meaning of words is somehow going to get Webster to redefine them to suit his wishes. "capitalism" means what it means and "socialism" means what it means.

It's not going to happen, johnny. Webster has dealt with pea-brained pedants like you for over two hundred years.

[johnforbes]

Look, I've explained my position over and over and over and over.

Neither Elkin nor Clown can understand it because it involves a slight nuance, and isn't pitched at the comic book level.


But Euclid was as close as anybody, from 300 BC to 1900, to being the final word on geometry.

Newton was such an intellectual giant that Alexander Pope wrote credibly about him as articulating some divine plan of the mechanics of the cosmos.

Yet both Euclid and Newton turned out to be either wrong or incomplete.

[elklindo69]

So Johnnie do you think it's just a coincidence that CO2 levels shot out of the long term trend of some 800,000 years when humans starting consuming hydrocarbons.

Maybe you should calculate the probability of it being a random event...

[johnforbes]

For the zillionth time, I'm not a climate scientist, nor is anybody else here.

Wasn't it just in the 1970s that Time Magazine had a "New Ice Age" cover story?

My point is utterly rational, and one which Elkin and Clown doubtless agree with, and that is:

Be skeptical when some politician who never studied science (e.g., Al Gore) says give him money for a theory.

You can add up the science degrees earned by AOC and Bernie and Gore and Pelosi and Trump and Pence and the result is?

Zero.