tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21999805.post2956416286413293759..comments2024-03-28T19:56:32.848-05:00Comments on Anecdotal Evidence: `One Goes Up, the Other Goes Down'Patrick Kurphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08436175583386298032noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21999805.post-31321472118687127752012-07-20T09:30:43.597-05:002012-07-20T09:30:43.597-05:00Dear Anonymous,
My comment was based on an assump...Dear Anonymous,<br /><br />My comment was based on an assumption that has been proven false. I read your comment as just another example of drive-by pedantry fueled by Wikipedia. From this assumption sprung my appeal to sarcasm. Please accept my apologies.<br /><br />I suppose you're correct that if he had been born in France his birthday would have been on July 28th. But I wonder (and perhaps you know this) whether Hooke would have counted the year as starting from January 1, or if would have ascribed to the Julian calendar's premise that the first year of the year was March 24?<br /><br />Regardless, I do apologize for my earlier assumption, and the insult it gave.<br /><br />Best,Jonathannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21999805.post-77572610102864879652012-07-19T15:48:34.617-05:002012-07-19T15:48:34.617-05:00Jonathan approaches the question from an obtuse an...Jonathan approaches the question from an obtuse angle. The fact that for the whole of Hooke's life, his birthday was July 18th would have been immaterial to Hooke the astronomer though perhaps not the sentimental man. He would have insisted that he had been born on the 209th day of the year, not the 199th and in this he would have had to concur with Newton. Had his mother crossed the channel from the Isle of Wight and given birth in France, his birthday would have been July 28th. If this is 'Wikipedia sarcasm' then so be it. It is an expression I don't understand. As far as I can see it has nothing whatsoever to do with Wikipedia and nothing to do with sarcasm.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21999805.post-6231165691773172302012-07-19T14:27:48.667-05:002012-07-19T14:27:48.667-05:00No Jonathan, I am referring to my own 1986 edited ...No Jonathan, I am referring to my own 1986 edited by J.S.Finch edition of Sir T.B.'s library NOT Wikipedia.Kevin Faulknerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15482886706239506749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21999805.post-12955305198290286282012-07-19T08:57:50.577-05:002012-07-19T08:57:50.577-05:00God Bless Wikipedia *sarcasm*
"Great Britain...God Bless Wikipedia *sarcasm*<br /><br />"Great Britain and the British colonies, changed from Julian to Gregorian Calendar at midnight on Wednesday 2 September 1752,"<br /><br />Fifty years after Hooke's death.<br /><br />Sure, we can go back and change all British dates prior to 1752 to conform to the Gregorian calendar, but the reason most biographies list his DOB as July 18, is because for Hooke's entire life it was.Jonathannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21999805.post-45119455025983775882012-07-19T05:57:21.105-05:002012-07-19T05:57:21.105-05:00Astronomer Hooke would be the first to point out t...Astronomer Hooke would be the first to point out that 377 years ago he was still in his mother's womb and with over a week to wait to see the light of day.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21999805.post-32751151615183944612012-07-19T03:15:49.110-05:002012-07-19T03:15:49.110-05:00Robert Hooke's 'Lectures and Collections&#...Robert Hooke's 'Lectures and Collections' dated 1678 is listed as once in Sir T.B.'s library. Browne not only conducted his own 'elaboratory' investigations but wrote to, and encouraged others. He wrote to Boyle, uncertain whether there is a letter or two extant to Hoooke.Kevin Faulknerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15482886706239506749noreply@blogger.com