Myths and Marvels of Astronomy
The 'New Yorker' considered the discoveries 'of astounding interest,
creating a new era in astronomy and science generally.'[49]
In our time a trick of the kind could hardly be expected to succeed so
well, even if as cleverly devised and as well executed. The facts of
popular astronomy and of general popular science have been more widely
disseminated. America, too, more than any other great nation, has
advanced in the interval. It was about two years after this pamphlet had
appeared, that J. Quincy Adams used the following significant language
in advocating the erection of an astronomical observatory at Washington:
'It is with no feeling of pride as an American that the remark may be
made, that on the comparatively small territorial surface of Europe
there are existing more than 130 of these lighthouses of the skies;
while throughout the whole American hemisphere there is but one.' At
present, some of the finest observatories in the world belong to
American cities, or are attached to American colleges; and much of the
most interesting astronomical work of this country has been achieved by
American observers.
Yet we still hear from time to time of the attempted publication of
hoaxes of greater or less ingenuity. It is singular (and I think
significant) how often these relate to the moon. There would seem to be
some charm about our satellite for the minds of paradoxists and hoaxers
generally. Nor are these tricks invariably detected at once by the
general public, or even by persons of some culture. I remember being
gravely asked (in January 1874) whether an account given in the 'New
York World,' purporting to describe how the moon's frame was gradually
cracking, threatening eventually to fall into several separate
fragments, was in reality based on fact. In the far West, at Lincoln,
Nebraska, a lawyer asked me, not long since, why I had not described the
great discoveries recently made by means of a powerful reflector erected
near Paris. According to the 'Chicago Times,' this powerful instrument
had shown buildings in the moon, and bands of workers could be seen with
it who manifestly were undergoing some kind of penal servitude, for they
were chained together. It was clear, from the presence of these and the
absence of other inhabitants, that the side of the moon turned
earthwards is a dreary and unpleasant place of abode, the real 'happy
hunting grounds' of the moon lying on her remote and unseen hemisphere.
As gauges of general knowledge, scientific hoaxes have their uses, just
as paradoxical works have. No one, certainly no student of science, can
thoroughly understand how little some persons know about science, until
he has observed how much will be believed, if only published with the
apparent authority of a few known names, and announced with a sufficient
parade of technical verbiage; nor is it so easy as might be thought,
even for those who are acquainted with the facts, to disprove either a
hoax or a paradox. Nothing, indeed, can much more thoroughly perplex and
confound a student of science than to be asked to prove, for example,
that the earth is not flat, or the moon not inhabited by creatures like
ourselves; for the circumstance that such a question is asked implies
ignorance so thorough of the very facts on which the proof must be
based, as to render argument all but hopeless from the outset. I have
had a somewhat wide experience of paradoxists, and have noted the
experience of De Morgan and others who, like him, have tried to convince
them of their folly. The conclusion at which I have arrived is, that to
make a rope of sand were an easy task compared with the attempt to
instil the simpler facts of science into paradoxical heads.
I would make some remarks, in conclusion, upon scientific or
quasi-scientific papers not intended to deceive, but yet presenting
imaginary scenes, events, and so forth, described more or less in
accordance with scientific facts. Imaginary journeys to the sun, moon,
planets, and stars; travels over regions on the earth as yet unexplored;
voyages under the sea, through the bowels of the earth, and other such
narratives, may, perhaps, be sometimes usefully written and read, so
long as certain conditions are fulfilled by the narrator. In the first
place, while adopting, to preserve the unities, the tone of one relating
facts which actually occurred, he should not suffer even the simplest
among his readers to lie under the least misapprehension as to the true
nature of the narrative. Again, since of necessity established facts
must in such a narrative appear in company with the results of more or
less probable surmise, the reader should have some means of
distinguishing where fact ends and surmise begins. For example, in a
paper I once wrote, entitled 'A Journey to Saturn,' I was not
sufficiently careful to note that while the appearances described in the
approach towards the planet were in reality based on the observed
appearances as higher and higher telescopic powers are applied to the
planet, others supposed to have been seen by the visitors to Saturn when
actually within his system, were only such as might possibly or probably
be seen, but for which we have no real evidence. In consequence of this
omission, I received several inquiries about these matters. 'Is it
true,' some wrote, 'that the small satellite Hyperion' (scarce
discernible in powerful telescopes, while Titan and Japetus on either
side are large) 'is only one of a ring of small satellites travelling
between the orbits of the larger moons?'--as the same planets travel
between the paths of Mars and Jupiter. Others asked on what grounds it
was said that the voyagers found small moons circling about Titan, the
giant moon of the Saturnian system, as the moons of Jupiter and Saturn
circle around those giant members of the solar system. In each case, I
was reduced to the abject necessity of explaining that there was no
evidence for the alleged state of things, which, however, might
nevertheless exist. Scientific fiction which has to be interpreted in
that way is as bad as a joke that has to be explained. In my 'Journey to
the Sun' I was more successful (it was the earlier essay, however);
insomuch that Professor Young, of Dartmouth College (Hanover, N.H.), one
of the most skilful solar observers living, assured me that, with
scarcely a single exception, the various phenomena described
corresponded exactly with the ideas he had formed respecting the
probable condition of our luminary.[50]
But I must confess that my own experience has not been, on the whole,
favourable to that kind of popular science writing. It appears to me
that the more thoroughly the writer of such an essay has studied any
particular scientific subject, the less able must he be to write a
fictitious narrative respecting it. Just as those ignorant of any
subject are often the readiest to theorise about it, because least
hampered by exact knowledge, so I think that the careful avoidance of
any exact study of the details of a scientific subject must greatly
facilitate the writing of a fictitious narrative respecting it. But
unfortunately a narrative written under such conditions, however
interesting to the general reader, can scarcely forward the propagation
of scientific knowledge, one of the qualities claimed for fables of the
kind. As an instance in point, I may cite Jules Verne's 'Voyage to the
Moon,' where (apart, of course, from the inherent and intentional
absurdity of the scheme itself), the circumstances which are described
are calculated to give entirely erroneous ideas about the laws of
motion. Nothing could be more amusing, but at the same time nothing more
scientifically absurd, than the story of the dead dog Satellite, which,
flung out of the travelling projectile, becomes a veritable satellite,
moving always beside the voyagers; for, with whatever velocity the dog
had been expelled by them, with that same velocity would he have
retreated continually from their projectile abode, whose own attraction
on the dog would have had no appreciable effect in checking his
departure. Again, the scene when the projectile reaches the neutral
point between the earth and moon, so that there is no longer any gravity
to keep the travellers on the floor of their travelling car, is well
conceived (though, in part, somewhat profane); but in reality the state
of things described as occurring there would have prevailed throughout
the journey. The travellers would no more be drawn earthwards (as
compared with the projectile itself) than we travellers on the earth are
drawn sunwards with reference to the earth. The earth's attracting force
on the projectile and on the travellers would be equal all through the
journey, not solely when the projectile reached the neutral point; and
being equal on both, would not draw them together. It may be argued that
the attractions were equal before the projectile set out on its journey,
and therefore, if the reasoning just given were correct, the travellers
ought not to have had any weight keeping them on the floor of the
projectile before it started, 'which is absurd.' But the pressure upon
the floor of the projectile at rest is caused by the floor being kept
from moving; let it be free to obey gravity, and there will no longer be
any pressure: and throughout the journey to the moon, the projectile,
like the travellers it contains, is obeying the action of gravity.
Unfortunately, those who are able to follow the correct reasoning in
such matters are not those to whom Jules Verne's account would suggest
wrong ideas about matters dynamical; the young learner who _is_ misled
by such narratives is neither able to reason out the matter for himself,
nor to understand the true reasoning respecting it. He is, therefore,
apt to be set quite at sea by stories of the kind, and especially by the
specious reasoning introduced to explain the events described. In fine,
it would seem that such narratives must be valued for their intrinsic
interest, just like other novels or romances, not for the quality
sometimes claimed for them of combining instruction with amusement.
X.
_ON SOME ASTRONOMICAL PARADOXES._
For many years the late Professor De Morgan contributed to the columns
of the 'Athenaeum' a series of papers in which he dealt with the strange
treatises in which the earth is flattened, the circle squared, the angle
divided into three, the cube doubled (the famous problem which the
Delphic oracle set astronomers), and the whole of modern astronomy shown
to be a delusion and a snare. He treated these works in a quaint
fashion: not unkindly, for his was a kindly nature; not even earnestly,
though he was thoroughly in earnest; yet in such sort as to rouse the
indignation of the unfortunate paradoxists. He was abused roundly for
what he said, but much more roundly when he declined further
controversy. Paradoxists of the ignorant sort (for it must be remembered
that not all are ignorant) are, indeed, well practised in abuse, and
have long learned to call mathematicians and astronomers cheats and
charlatans. They freely used their vocabulary for the benefit of De
Morgan, whom they denounced as a scurrilous scribbler, a defamatory,
dishonest, abusive, ungentlemanly, and libellous trickster.
He bore this shower of abuse with exceeding patience and good nature. He
had not been wholly unprepared for it, in fact; and, as he had a purpose
in dealing with the paradoxists, he was satisfied to continue that quiet
analysis of their work which so roused their indignation. He found in
them a curious subject of study; and he found an equally curious subject
of study in their disciples. The simpler--not to say more
foolish--paradoxists, whose wonderful discoveries are merely amazing