Talk:Thomas Jefferson Jackson See

Reply to Gostkowski
A user Gostkowski with no home page on Wikipedia has asked on my talk page for a link to the bookshelf at Cal Tech. Sorry - I don't know of one. I wrote on my own talk page:

"Sorry - "I was there" and was directed to that bookshelf by a math research associate - several others and I had a good laugh. The books have images engravings of the Reverend (William) Whewell with a quote something like "Those having seen the Truth, let them carry a banner for it on high".  At least some of the volumes had fanciful diagrams of gravity working by cones boring into the Earth.  If you don't like it - axe it out.  Who are you? Carrionluggage 18:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)" [ [User:Carrionluggage|Carrionluggage]] 18:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply and retort regarding the legitimacy of and contributions to Astronomy and other sciences by Dr.( Captain Thomas Jefferson Jackson See, USN, Mare Island, The sage of Mare Island, One Who Made A Difference:

This historian has invested 10 years in confirming that many of the attacks upon See's Theories and other Scientific publications resulted from causes which hold no relation to his scientific work but reflect both the overt attempts of other scientists and of one dimissed and disgruntled employee who would not tolerate an speculative articles and theories outside of the main stream.

Capt. See, in writing both across the many scientific disciplines while incorporating his Classical Studies knowledge of Greek, Latin and other non western religions, caused these narrow specialists who had expertise in only one scientific field to attack him or any one would who be classified as a "Renissance Man".

See's Theories on gravity, 3-sun systems, earthquakes, lunar oribit as contributing to earthquakes, the mathematical explanations of natural phenomena and is  rare ability to document astronomical events referenced in the Bible enraged the conservatives and embarrassed the other experts who simply could not respond to nor accept any "open dialogues".

AS a historian, I must state that "History is not what occurred by what others have stated occurred which is colored by their own prejudices and personal dislike of See and anyone who would challenge the Status Quo.

Capt. See snubbed the social pressures to be accepted as part of the conforming network of scientists, since if he conformed , he would have given up the basic right of freedoms to discuss, to argue and to agree to disagree as an academic.

While still living and writing while stationed at Mare Island, CA, See was repeatedly attacked by persons with a person axe to grind:

1. See while coordinating his studies and research with Hubbell, Washington, D.C. had to dismiss his assistant for alleged unethical conduct and for making sexual overtures to See and other males on the staff.

That assistant, then, spent the next 50 years attacking See , attacking his work and soiling his reputation. That assistant finally committed suicide , but not before he has tarnished the reputation of See in the eyes of the scientific community.

2. Capt. See as many other scientists of his era did not automatically accept Einstein's Theories since Einstein had no "UNIFYING THEORY".

See attempted to enter into a series of public debates before the major scientific associations with Einstein, but Einstein refused to meet or to debate.

With the coming of WW II, Einstein became focused on the Manhattan Project and the resulting dangers presented by the Atomic Bomb.

Into the 21st century, it has been established that Einstein's most commonly known Theory of Relativity lacked a Unifying Theory.

Quantum Phyics ,today, is till trying to resolve this lack of continuity.

3. Capt. See proposed a Theory, not a dogma, of the "Ether Theory", or that "as of yet identified unifying force for light, time, energyy and gravity."

The laying out of a theory in which gravity will be the unifying force was radical and never disproven into this new century.

4. All scientists propose theories to open up discussions and discourse between others so that this sharing will lead to a refinement of that theory or adoption of a new theory.

5. In both the 19th and 20th centuries, Scientists, even great scientists, have crucified and destroyed the reputations of other working scientists out of "ego motivated revenge and ego motivated need to be the one and only expert in their field."

This type of pettiness, lack flexibility in thought lead to a life long series of attacks on See and other scientists who continued to propose theories and demanded that a discourse be opened and continued as being in the best interest of scientific study.

6. Those practical applications of Laws of Physics which See documented to support his Unifying Theory of Gravity did support his theory but caused an uproar of the Camp Followers of Einstien and Hubbell.

7. See's work and experiments have been repeated in the late 20th Century and this new century by other scientists who have takened credit for findings which should have been given to See. For example, the fact that the luna orbit does cause a higher likehood of earthquakes, the fact that the angle of velocity of a meteor entering the earth's atmosphere will determine the ground pattern of destruction to form the shape of a butterfly's wings, the fact that gravity operates at across deminisions -- all of the facts established for the first time by See have been ignored and claimed by this new generation of scientists seeking their own "15 minutes of Fame."

In Closing:

If one likes or does not like See, that remains irrelevant to his scientific work, studies, theories and the longevity of his work into this new century.

Some persons are easy to embrace and to love; some persons are not easy to embrace, to love which results in attacks on their personality components in order to diminish their accomplishments and to create both an unfair and unrealistic image of their character.

It remains truly remarkable that See during his life and after, has been so critically attacked due to his posture of a person not afraid to propose radical and new theories which would not be confirmed until the technology of humanity could really measure the worth of his work. Even now, that measure has not been taken.

If one tosses out these character attacks on See or other non conformists, and if one careful studies their work, that work will establish itself as competent and even remarkably ahead of its time.

Time and again, I have discoursed with scientists and othe Astronomers about See's work vs. See as a person. Even at a seminar sponsored by our Foundation, I had to remind the visiting scientists that if they have allowed the character attacks on See to color their opinions, they need to stand back and consider the mitigating and extentuating facts and not accept the opinion's of others who had a personal axe to grind or special interest/theory to hold as written on Moses's Tablet.

Dr. J. Clemes


 * These are nice opinions, but you need reliable sources; "I'm a historian" is insufficient. If you have reliable sources which support your view, by all means add them. TricksterWolf (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

bias
why is the tone of this article so biased against this guy? --187.40.214.237 (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It does seem unencyclopaedic. POV warning added.--207.188.93.48 (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The article does seem to explain at length why See didn't succeed and became unpopular. Please provide more detailed criticism than "seem[s] unencyclopaedic" if you want to slap a warning tag on an article.
 * Peter Isotalo 18:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * We can start with the introduction "an American astronomer of high potential who ended a colorful life with no real accomplishment in astronomy or physics." "High potential" is unmeasurable, and usually we mention what they did do, not "no real accomplishment". A line saying "is remembered for" is usually included, and no judgment is made on whether their accomplishments were "real" or not.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with this. My first reaction upon reading that intro was "this does not at all sound neutral". I suggest readding the tag. 68.102.86.156 (talk) 16:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * In my opinion the guy was a crank, but when I first read the sentence of this article my reaction was and is that this is unacceptable non-neutral language.  There is NEVER justification for this in Wikipedia.  68.97.11.73 (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * i agree, that opening sentence is ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3BD8:4D90:0:0:0:49 (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have re-added the tag. Let's clean this article up. I am Quibilia. (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The thing is....everyone hated him. When he suggested Pluto be named Cronus, that name immediately became out of the running purely because See suggested it. Everyone hated him. The universally accepted POV is that he was, to put it bluntly, batshit crazy. Not a single reputable astronomer has defended him, not a one has stated his ideas on physics were true. DN-boards1 (talk) 17:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * beware, when the consensus of reliable sources are negative, it is not "neutral" to soften them to reflect your bias that all astronomers must have some redeeming features. best to reflect the consensus, and consider what the consensus of reliable sources is about wikipedia. Duckduckstop (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Confusing quotation
There is a paragraph in the middle of the article which reads as follows:


 * The Nation published a review of the book poking fun at its extraordinary hyperbole, which included such material as: "The infant See, we are told, first saw the light on the 393rd anniversary of Copernicus's birth, ...[and] showed himself "every inch a natural philosopher" by speculating on the origins of the sun, moon and stars at the age of two, never so much as dreaming that he should grow into a little boy with "methodical methods", and one day become "the greatest astronomer in the world".

There seems to be some confusion as to which part or parts are quoted from the book review, due to poor punctuation. Please could someone take another look at this and add or remove quotation marks where necessary.  nagual  design   16:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The original quote had seven unbalanced double quotes, the first introducing The Nation quote which includes three phrases (presumably) quoted from the book, lacking an ending quote to match the introductory quote. The book itself is available on-line; but, as for the review, The Nation Digital Archive has back issues to 1865 but requires subscription. -- Naaman Brown (talk) 11:49, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 08:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)