In issue #9 we learn that John White believes that Charles Hapgood's conclusions about ancient Antarctic maps were effectively demolished by an article in The Skeptical Inquirer (Fall 1986) by David Jolly.
The central thesis of Hapgood's ancient map work is the fact that they depict accurate longitude at a time in European history when the technology required (marine chronometers) did not exist. The mystery is: how did people in the sixteenth century possess maps that could only be drawn using eighteenth-century technology? But nowhere in Jolly's article is the word longitude even mentioned. Hapgood's central claim is completely ignored.Jolly ignores the real issue and instead resorts to personal attack quoting an anonymous expert who labels Hapgood goofy. Jolly pursues his argument with the following questionable logic:
"To gauge his influence on mainstream science, I scanned Science Citation Index from 1961 through 1983 for references to Hapgood. I found eight works citing Hapgood. One was a popular article, one a book review, two were unrefereed comments or letters, and the remaining four made passing references to Hapgood, mostly of the some even claim variety."So what exactly is this supposed to prove? Because scientists ignore Hapgood he must be wrong? Mr. Jolly reveals his complete ignorance of the history and philosophy of science. Because Mendel's theory of genetics was ignored didn't make it wrong. Babbages work on computers lay dormant for nearly a century and of course we all know how Wegener was ridiculed by his contemporaries. Jolly seems to think that if no academic is taking Hapgood seriously then neither should the rest of us.As a Librarian I must point out that Jolly should have extended his search for relevant articles to include the Social Science Citation Index. Cartography is, after all, sometimes considered a social science. I happen to know that there is a publication listed in this index which treats Hapgood's ideas seriously because I wrote it. "A Global Model for the Origins of Agriculture" appeared in the Fall of 1981 issue of The Anthropological Journal of Canada (and is reprinted in our book When the Sky Fell: In Search of Atlantis). Why didn't Jolly mention it? Is he a sloppy researcher or did he just decide not to include it? To keep Hapgood isolated, Jolly misrepresents the scientific literature.
He writes:
Hapgood didn't convince himself. He was convinced by the evidence. And that evidence was examined and confirmed by experts in the field. In 1954, the Hydrographic Office of the US Navy confirmed Captain Arlington Mallery's conclusion that parts of the Piri Re'is Map accurately depicted sub-glacial features of Antarctica. Hapgood confirmed the Navy's results in 1960 with the help of cartography experts working for the U.S. Air Force."Hapgood convinced himself that a portion of the South American coast was really a misplaced section of Antarctica, shown without ice."Jolly also tries to diminish Albert Einstein's important support of Hapgood:
"In Earth's Shifting Crust and its revised edition, The Path of the Pole, he (Hapgood) argued that the ice ages are an artifact of rigid slippage on the earth's crust. Albert Einstein supplied a foreword to this work and appeared to take a courteous and relatively favorable attitude
toward Hapgood's work without explicitly endorsing it."
This attempt to belittle Einstein's role doesn't cut it. Albert Einstein wrote that Hapgood's idea "electrified me;" Does this reflect simply a courteous and relatively favorable attitude? On the eighth of May, 1953, the great scientist wrote to Charles Hapgood:"I find your arguments very impressive and have the impression that your hypothesis is correct. One can hardly doubt that significant shifts of the crust of the earth have taken place repeatedly and within a short time."
Jolly's prejudiced attempt to diminish Einstein's support by trying to paint him as just a nice guy who threw a bone to Hapgood is just plain wrong. Einstein wrote ten letters to Hapgood and, indeed, directed much of the research.Mr. Jolly attacks the man, ignores the very real scientific problem of accurate longitude depicted in the ancient maps and misrepresents history. Is this John White's idea of a demolishing argument? Back to Voices of the Rocks