Odds and Ends #1

1.  In a gratuitous but mistaken nod to "Muslim technical accomplishments", a British "science news" article lists the top 20 "islamic" inventions.  It was quickly lauded and reprinted by Islamic News organizations.  This is a revealing example of how a seemingly uncontroversial, technical, "factual" "science" article can actually be completely false and yet be quickly parroted and quoted without questioning.  Fortunately, a scathing rebuttal to this article was published by someone in a wiki article titled "How Islamic Inventors Did Not Change the World".  Lies never serve any good purpose.

2.  There are so many controversial issues related to ethics and morality.  Our perspective on these issues can change depending on how close we are to the issue, or on whether it affects us or our friends personally, or depending on how we view the circumstances.  These issues typically pit competing historical, scientific, aesthetic, cultural or moral judgments or values against each other in a way that makes the issue complex or convoluted.  The ancient Sophists prided themselves on being able to persuasively argue either side of an issue.  Perhaps someday I will have clear answers to all of life's most vexing dilemmas, but alas, as I get older, I seem to be getting less quick to make a judgement...or maybe it's just my brain slowing down.  :-)
   Do you sometimes get the feeling that the more rules and laws we enact, the less moral our society becomes?  Perhaps it's the type of "bureaucratic regulations" that get passed, that just open up more loop holes for bad people to find while technically not breaking the law.  What if, instead, we passed vague-sounding laws like, "you shall not lie, cheat or steal" and "you treat others as you would be treated"?  Or better yet, like Google, "You shall do no evil."  Yeah, yeah, I know, it would be lawyer heaven.  Ya just can't legislate good behavior.

3.  Incidentally, here are some more articles that fit under the subject of "unintended consequences":
     a)  The Drug War is responsible for more violence than perhaps anything else in our society
     b)  The Biggest Dope Dealer on Planet Earth is the pharmaceutical industry, with more deaths from narcotic pain pills than from heroin and cocaine combined
     c)  Forced Unionization (versus right-to-work) correlates to higher unemployment, larger state government debt, and migration out of state.  (Obviously not a big surprise.)

4.  Earlier this Summer I hiked and camped in the Grand Canyon.  Note that I am not a geologist, I have only a rudimentary laymen's understanding of evolutionary geology and tectonic plate theory, and I am not promoting any particular viewpoint.  Nevertheless, I couldn't help wondering if some of the formations I saw in the Grand Canyon--contrary to traditional explanations--were actually the result of catastrophic processes.  Here's an intriguing presentation that argues the Grand Canyon is actually the poster child for a catastrophic flood.  The presenter argues from the view of a Recent Earth Creationist, a view that even I do not have.  Nevertheless, see for yourself whether or not you find the presenter's "cataclysmic flood based" explanation for the interesting strata and formations more convincing than the conventional explanation of sedimentary deposits over many millions of years.  Certainly, I don't think evolutionary geology does a very elegant job of explaining a lot of geologic anomalies.  However, after doing a little research on my own, it became evident that many of the specific arguments in this clip have fairly reasonable counter arguments.  So we're back to square one.  Experiences like this have made me more careful not to trust science that's intermingled with either religious or atheistic dogma...unfortunately, it seems that science often becomes the bruised and battered victim of competing world views, rather than some pristine, inexorable path to ultimate truth.  As such, it has taken on a split personality, each of which detests the other.
   Another example of world views influencing science, are the competing and contradictory positions taken between our own scientists in the U.S. who postulate a marine fossil origin for petroleum, versus the Russian explanation of  "abiotic oil", which is still widely subscribed to by Russian experts.  This difference of opinion has persisted for many years, and it even affects the techniques for prospecting of new petroleum deposits.  I tend to discount the Russians' abiotic explanation, not only on scientific grounds (as do most U.S. experts), but also because I believe it's perpetuated by national pride, a disregard for environmental stewardship, and a refusal to acknowledge that our global reserves of oil may be limited.

5.  Have you heard of the American Taliban?  I don't necessarily agree with everything this author says, and I believe that only a small minority of Americans are truly "radicals" or "wackos", but his comparison of some far right religious radicals to the Taliban is nevertheless thought-provoking.  After all, the Taliban in the Middle East also represent a small minority, but they have had an out sized influence because of their violent tactics.  One has to ask whether these people could also be compared to the Jewish Zealots and Sicarii of AD 66-70, who declared themselves on the side of God, presided over a reign of terror over the Jews, revolted in an ethnic, nationalistic holy war against their Roman occupation and effectively sealed the grisly fate of the Jews in 70 AD.

Who REALLY Discovered America First?

(The following post is not meant to be disrespectful to the native peoples of the Americas, who are acknowledged to be the true first discoverers of the North and South American continents.)

Who (beside the native peoples) really discovered America first? The answer to this is more interesting than you might think.

The most common answer you'll hear is Christopher Colombus; however, in 1492 AD he actually discovered only a few small islands in the Caribbean, neither the North nor South American mainland.

So who actually discovered North America? The conventional answer used to be Giovanni Caboto (also known as John Cabot), who in 1497--in a virtual race against against other explorers--discovered Newfoundland, and later the coast of North America. This allowed England to lay claim to the entire continent. Of course, later on, the conventional wisdom changed to Leif Erikson, who in 1001 AD discovered Baffin Island and Newfoundland. Actually, he may have duplicated an earlier trip apparently made by Bjarni Hergelfson, who became lost at sea, drifted to North America where he described the coastline of what was likely Newfoundland, but refused to land his ship there. Leif witnessed his return a year later and undoubtedly was inspired by his account.  Based on archaeological evidence, later expeditions ventured further into Canada and the U.S.

Who discovered the South American mainland? The conventional answer is Amerigo Vespucci who, while undoubtedly not the first person to set foot on the continent, was known for his travel accounts and who had done his research and recognized this was indeed a new continent.

Another (albeit unlikely) discoverer of America who told of his experience is St. Brendan the Navigator, an Irish abbot who may have lived in the 6th century AD, but his fantastical account makes it seem rather unlikely that he actually sailed to America.

Oh, and there's Jean Cousins, a Normand navigator who claimed to have discovered the new world (Brazil)  in 1488, 4 years prior to Columbus.  One of his captains, Alonzo Pinzon, is claimed to have later left for Spain, from where he advised Columbus on his Westward sail.  Pinzon is known to have displayed a remarkable confidence in guiding Columbus in his discovery of the New world.  The disagreements and drama that occurred between Columbus and Pinzon caused biographers to paint either the willful Pinzon or Columbus as a nasty villain depending on their point of view, but the most likely lesson we can learn from this is the need for a detailed written agreement prior to the commencement of any business partnership.  The only thing that can be said for sure, is that Columbus would definitely not have discovered the new world had it not been for Pinzon, who provided the ships, the crew, the navigational expertise, and the courage to press on when the going got tough.  He even contributed an amount of money towards the venture that was equal to half the amount of money Ferdinand and Isabella had contributed.

But is this the whole story? I originally thought so...at least, until the other day, when I happened to be reading Herodotus' Histories and noticed his comment regarding the Phoenicians, who were the most well-known and intrepid sailors and traders of ancient times. Around 600 BC, they actually sailed all around the continent of Africa. Herodotus comments that he has trouble believing this account, because it was claimed that as they traveled around the perimenter of the African continent, they observed the sun to be in the northern part of the sky. This was an incredible and ridiculous claim in his estimation (but a confirmation to modern readers that it was indeed a credible account.) This is amazing enough in and of itself, considering that no Europeans accomplished this feat until Vasco de Gama in 1497 AD, nearly 2100 years later.

More amazing yet, are ancient writings, circumstantial evidence, and retrieved artifacts that suggests the ancient Phoenicians may have also discovered America. For instance, the Greek historian Dioderus claimed that the Carthaginians had a "large island" which was located "far out in the Atlantic ocean" - on which there were "many mountains" and "large navigable rivers". The land was rich in gold, gems, spices, etc. He stated that the Phoenicians had found it "by accident" while founding colonies on the west coast of Africa when some ships got lost. The Carthaginians were famously secretive about their trade routes and trading partners, and they did not allow foreign ships to pass through the straits of Gibraltar. When Carthage was completely destroyed by the Romans, most of this knowledge--assuming it existed--may have been lost.
    However, one of Plutarch's (2nd century AD) lesser known works cites a document which was supposedly found in the ruins of the old city of Carthage. He said the Carthaginians knew of a "true continent" which was located far to the west of Britain. He added that "Greeks" had gone there and intermarried with the local peoples. The "Greeks", who may have lived there several hundred years BC, laughed at the people in Europe, which they said was a mere island by comparison - while they lived on the true continent which bordered the whole west side of the Atlantic. This story may reference a theoretical or mythical land and is thus rather weak "evidence", but it is nevertheless intriguing. It reminds one somewhat of Plato's dialogue which describes the great continent "Atlantis" that lay beyond the Western horizon.
    The famous Waldseemuller Map of 1507 has an inscription on the top left corner that proclaims the discovery of South America by Columbus and Vespucci fulfilled a prophecy of the Roman poet, Virgil. "Many have regarded as an invention the words of a famous poet that "beyond the stars lies a land, beyond the path of the year and the sun, where Atlas, who supports the heavens, revolves on his shoulders the axis of the world, set with gleaming stars", but now finally it proves clearly to be true. For there is a land, discovered by Columbus, a captain of the King of Castile, and by Americus Vespucius, both men of very great ability, which, though in great part lies beneath "the path of the year and of the sun" and between the tropics, nevertheless extends about 19 degrees beyond the Tropic of Capricorn toward the Antarctic Pole, "beyond the path of the year and the sun". Here a greater amount of gold has been found than of any other metal."
    Aristotle mentioned that the Carthaginians had once attempted a colony in their "secret land" but later withdrew it, blocking others from attempting it including their allies the Etruscans and even the Tyrians fleeing the wrath of Alexander.

What is most intriguing of all, however, is the circumstantial evidence, artifacts and inscriptions found in both North and South America that show the Phoenicians may have visited, temporarily settled, and possibly even made trading expeditions to North America. This source and also this source present some fascinating propositions and supporting evidence. Also, it has been speculated that the gold coins minted in the Punic/Phoenician city in North Africa of Carthage between 350 and 320 BC may show a world map that includes North America. While all this circumstantial and artifactual evidence still does not positively prove the presence of ancient Phoenicians in North and South America, it does give one pause.

Here is another list of some artifacts and inscriptions that point not only to Phoenicians, but also possibly to Greeks & Romans, Egyptians, Hebrews and Asians all having possibly visited North and South America in ancient (or very ancient) times.  The book, Indians in the Americas--The Untold Story also appears to provide a much more exhaustive list of evidence and cultural similarities to these and other possible ancient visitors to the Americas, but I have not yet read this book.  In any case, it is most likely that such sailors strayed off course, accidentally discovered North or South America, and never made it back across the Atlantic to tell about it, whereas there is a bit more reason to believe the Phoenicians may have made the return journey at least once, if not many times.  Also, the Phoenicians had, at different times, very close political, commercial, religious and cultural ties with all these peoples as well as the Iberian Celts, so some of the evidence may also point indirectly to the Phoenicians.

How likely is it that a ship could run off course from the African or European coastline and end up in South America with its passengers surviving the trip?  Consider this article.  These two inexperienced young men rowed across the Atlantic in 73 days.  And the return trip?  Consider this article--this guy sailed across the Atlantic in a 10 foot sailboat in 54 days.  Even pilotless boats have drifted across the Atlantic.  The boats mentioned are all tiny, even compared to ancient sailing ships.  Today, sailing yachts as small as 30-40 ft routinely cross the Atlantic.  The Atlantic trade winds are also favorable to this being achieved.

While all of this conjecture and evidence is not strong enough to prove beyond all doubt that the Phoenicians (or some other ancient peoples) sailed to America--we don't know how many of the supposed artifacts are forgeries--I would nevertheless argue that the evidence indicates a very reasonable likelihood.