Science – Page 4 – The View From Sari's World

Charles Hoy Fort (August 6, 1874 – May 3, 1932)

Fortean: Adjective – pertaining to extraordinary and strange phenomenon and happenings

Fortean: Noun – One who investigates anomalous phenomena

It’s no secret that ever since the first person claimed knowledge to how the natural world worked, there was someone right behind him saying, “You’re wrong”. From natural philosophers to today’s scientists, arguments over theories abound. This often leaves the general public confused and distrustful of those who claim higher authority. Who’s right and who’s wrong? Because of this, most lay-people go with their gut feeling or continue to hold true to old beliefs.

On top of arguing over theories, science sometimes ignores what it can’t explain. Did you know the reason it took so long for the theory of Plate Tectonics to be accepted by mainstream scientists is because they couldn’t figure out how it worked? “Yeah, yeah, we admit it, the continents look like giant broken jigsaw puzzle pieces, but come on, how would that have happened?”

All this leaves a wide-open space for those who distrust conventional science to come up with their own theories and “facts’. Unfortunately, this open space has been widened of late, by those who ignore proven theories and solid facts. We call these people “cranks”. Yes, I’m looking at you Ken Ham.

When we think about others whom we can label “agnostic skeptics”, we should start with Charles Fort. For those of you who may be unfamiliar with Fort he is the author of a series of four books that look at strange and anomalous phenomena as reported in newspapers and journals from around the world. Fort wrote these books during the 1920’s. They are: The Book of the Damned, Lo!, Wild Talents, and New Lands. In the first, The Book of the Damned, Fort introduces his subject matter thusly:

A procession of the damned.

By the damned, I mean the excluded.

We shall have a procession of data that Science has excluded

The reports vary wildly, from falling fish and tadpoles to strange lights in the sky. From missing people, to people who seem to appear out of nowhere (Fort introduced the world to Kasper Hauser’s story). But Fort doesn’t stop there. In the pages of these titillating books are Fort’s own “theories”. Take for instance the odd occurrence of falling gelatinous substances that happened in the late 1800’s. Scientific America looked into the subject and took the stand of Dr. Hamilton, who said he studied some specimens and declared them to be “lung tissue” from flying buzzards, who after eating a goodly amount of rotten meat, threw up so violently during flight that one or two coughed up a lung. You read that right, Scientific America endorsed the idea that the mystery jell was nothing more than violently ill buzzard organs. Fort had his own idea; “I think to myself that it would be absurd to say that the whole sky is gelatinous; it seems more acceptable that only certain areas are”. Come on, be honest, which theory sounds plausible from the viewpoint of early 20^th century readers?

Fort’s unconventional ideas and dedicated research into the subject of the unexplained and the poorly unexplained, led to the self-titled, Fortean Society/movement. Those who consider themselves Forteans are highly skeptical of science’s assertion that it has all the answers and of its view that there are many things that do not quality as answerable. This movement is a big tent. In it we have people who look at UFOs, not as alien space craft, but as of yet unidentified flying objects and to the theories that ancient aliens built everything before 2000 B.C.E.

I’ve read all of Fort’s books and though I don’t believe his theories, do find them appealing for their outrageousness. This is why I picked up Jim Steinmeyer’s Charles Fort, the man who invented the supernatural. The title is a misnomer as the supernatural’s golden years were taking place while Charles was growing up. Fort didn’t invent anything (other than his many wild theories) what he did mange to do with these four books was to lift the veil of authority from religion and science. Fort questions everything!

Steinmeyer’s work is well researched. He was granted access to Fort’s personal notes and correspondences. This should have given his readers a pretty clear view on Fort’s personality and writing, yet somehow we are left with many unanswered question. How did Fort go from an adventurous young man who, for two years, traveled the world on a monthly allowance of only $25.00, to a middle aged man who could scarcely leave his house except to visit the library? What happened in between? Why would a man, who couldn’t bear to be away from his wife, neglect to have her accompany him to dinner parties that included other literary figures of the day? Was he self absorbed or was she truly a glorified servant as some of his friends suggested? While these questions may be unimportant, they do offer as examples of Steinmeyer’s lack of interest into Fort’s personality and personal life. Steinmeyer instead, focuses on the story of how Fort’s work came to be published.

This too is a problem as the title of the bio includes the hyperbolic claim of invention. It is not until the latter half of the book does Steinmeyer refer to his claim, and then only offers a brief definition of what supernatural was before Fort.

“To Understand Fort’s legacy, it’s important to remember that before The Book of the Damned, the supernatural was, by definition, special and unique. For thousands of years, supernatural events were used as evidence of a larger system-a mysterious force that could take control of our lives”.

I am confident that this definition still applies. No, what Fort did was open the door for other writers and thinkers to unabashedly share their views with the world.

The biggest take away for this reader was the realization that Fort believed none of what he wrote! This is evident in a letter to his brother Raymond:

What do you know but that I’ve heard some about taking my stuff seriously. Somebody may organize an expedition to the Moon, to find out what there is on the things I write about, and I’ll have to go along-how can I get out of it?

Knowing he didn’t take his theories seriously tells us Fort was no crank, but was he someone who just wanted to peel back the layers of conventional wisdom or was there more to him? Steinmeyer admits he is not sure, but is adamant that Fort’s main aim was to make fun of science. After reading the book, I’m not sure this is completely accurate. I think the real genius of Fort was in his making fun of everyone, including cranks and those who would blindly believe his words.

From the letters between Fort and his friends it is clear he was no fan of any society named after him. Fort refused to join the first Fortean Society and remarked that it was unsuccessful because it attracted those who took him seriously. His good friends refused to join a second society, started right after his death, for the same reason. Too many people used the name Fortean to expound conspiracy claims, including Tiffany Thayer, the founder of the second Fortean Society .Steinmeyer admits without Fort we would not have Erich von Daniken, Ivan Sanderson and John Goodwin to name a few. After reading the book I have to question how Forte would feel about this. Fort may have been distrustful of scientific answers, but I can only image he would howl at the idea of a show titled Ancient Aliens.

References

Dictionary.com

Charles Fort, Book of the Damned

Jim Steinmeyer, Charles Fort the man who invented the supernatural

In 1996, during a meeting of the American Astronomical Society astronomer Peter Usher presented a usual paper titled “A new reading of Shakespeare’s Hamlet”. In the paper Usher argued that Hamlet was written as an allegory about competing cosmological models. It is always a little alarming whenever someone announces they’ve peered into Shakespeare’s mind and unlocked its secretes, but in this case Usher’s paper begged a very good question: what, if any influence did science have on Shakespeare’s work?

Dan Falk tries to answer this question in his tour de force, The science of Shakespeare. Falk reminds us that,“William Shakespeare lived at a remarkable time—a period we now recognize as the first phase of the Scientific Revolution. New ideas were transforming Western thought, the medieval was giving way to the modern, and the work of a few key figures hinted at the brave new world to come: The methodical and rational Galileo, the skeptical Montaigne”. The obvious question is, did any of this have an impact on Shakespeare’s writing? If so can we find hints of scientific ideas in Elizabethan pop culture?

From the very start Falk admits to be walking a thin line. It’s one thing to analyze Shakespeare’s work in order to form an opinion on what he might have thought; it is another to conjecture based on one’s own thoughts. That an astronomer thinks Hamlet is some sort of scientific thesis should gives us pause. Yet Falk is open to the idea that Shakespeare was indeed influenced by the events and people around him and that this influence is peppered through out the plays.

Does Falk present a convincing argument? I think so. First, we have to admit that it is not unusual for a writer to be influenced by current events and public figures. Shakespeare would not have such a lasting impact on us if he had not commented on society. Yet this idea of science in Shakespeare shows us that there is more going on than just simple acknowledgment of the changing times. Drawing on new ideas and discoveries, Shakespeare may be telling us how they affected society. After all, his audience would have to have some basic understanding of them in order to understand his words.

Falk makes his case by introducing us to some of history’s most compelling thinkers. Men like Thomas Digges, the publisher of the first English account of the “new astronomy” and who just happened to live in the same neighborhood as Shakespeare; Tycho Brahe, whose observatory-castle stood within sight of Elsinore and whose family crest happened to include the names “Rosencrans” and “Guildensteren (did you know that? I didn’t) and my favorite (I have to thank Falk for introducing him to me) Michel de Montaigne, a skeptical thinker whose motto Que sais-je? (What do I know), mirrors my own. Falk shows us how each of these men and others, in one way or another influenced Shakespeare’s work.

Take for instance, Montaigne. His essays on his thoughts on life and the universe clearly show up in Shakespeare’s The Tempest. Montaigne talks about a group of Tupinamba people who were brought to France by French explorers. He writes:

It’s a nation….that hath no kind of traffike, no knowledge of Letters, no intelligence of numbers, no name of magistrate nor politke superiorite; no use of service, or riches or of poverty…”

Now take Gonzalo’s view of a utopian society:

I’th’ commonwealth I would by contraries

Execute for all things, for no kind of traffic

Would I admit; no name of magistrate;

Letters should not be known; rich, poverty

And use of service none.

This does not prove Shakespeare argued for a utopian society, but it does show us that he was reading and thinking about recent publications and events. As I read this I wondered if The Tempest was indeed a critical allegory to colonization, and if so, was it Montaigne who planted the seed of doubt in Shakespeare’s mind?

Around 1610, Galileo’s book, The Starry Messenger was a hot topic in English intellectual society. The book sold out. Thomas Hobbes had a hard time getting his hands on a copy. Galileo’s observation of Jupiter’s four “satellites” showed that Copernicus’ model of a heliocentric universe just might be right after all.

This had to be big news and to ignore it would be to ignore the changing views of our place in the universe. Shakespeare could have written a play about this had it not been controversial and a little boring for two hour play, but instead seems to have planted the idea in a convoluted scene in Cymbeline. In the scene, Posthumus, finds himself jailed. In his cell Posthumus has a dream in which four ghosts visit him and move around him in a circle. They call upon the god Jupiter to help him. Humm.. four satellites and the god Jupiter? This is either an odd coincidence or Shakespeare’s way of introducing his audience to idea of this discovery.

Of course we will never know. Though the book is filled with more examples, some more convincing than others, Falk never makes the claim that these are proof that Shakespeare used science. We are left to form our own opinions. This is one of many reasons this is a compelling read. Falk explores many theories on Shakespeare and science, yet rarely comments on them. The one exception may be his agreement that Prospero may be based on Thomas Digges rather than John Dee. I do not agree, for the simple reason Dee was both a man of science and a magician who claimed to talk to the angel Uriel (just as Prospero talked to Ariel).

If nothing else this is a wonderful look at the history of science and the men who brought about the scientific revolution. It had me questioning some of the modern assumptions about Shakespeare’s work. It just might be my choice for best read of 2014.

Tag: Science

Be careful when you say Fortean

The Science of Shakespeare, a review

Share this:

Share this: