toward a scientific theory of girth measurement...
A rule of scientific inquiry is that theories, even the greatest ones, must be consistently assessed and challenged. We must consistently test even those theories that have become structural walls and lodestones of our understanding of the world. Think of where we would be if Einstein had not taken us past Newton's physics. Or if Galileo and Copernicus had not taken us past the Ptolomaic system. This being the case, I have decided to offer a series of posts that shall allow interaction on a number of theories in several scientific and historical disciplines. I invite the reader to enter the conversation; to improve, to challenge, or to add to these theories in order to finally use the blogosphere to better Western civilization in a very real and lasting way. I only humbly ask that you engage these theories strictly in a scientific and rational way.
Since the time of classical Athens, great thinkers have dashed themselves upon the rocks of a great philosophical problem. How can aesthetics be reconciled rationally?
In recent years, one aspect of this great challenge was tackled (how successfully I will let the reader judge) by a sort of thinktank comprised in the main of a number of great minds, and in a merely incidental manner by the present author. If memory serves, the greatest service was rendered by one NB.
The problem at hand: There are nearly as many body types as there are bodies. The variety in human form seems nearly endless. And a simple statement of the girth of an individual: "He is fat", "She is thin", even given the seemingly scientific ratio of height to weight, simply does not properly quantify the aesthetic quality which these esteemed scientists chose to call 'girth'. The simple height to weight ratio does not address several important realities such as build that can render two persons of the same height and weight significantly different in aesthetic quality. So, essentially, how can the aesthetics of girth be properly discussed?
Being that those involved were rational men, they chose to attempt to apply a truly scientific method to this distressing aesthetic problem.
This congress of minds occurred at a chalet in the northwoods of Canada. And a story had recently been relayed regarding a group of camp counselors at Lake Michigan, a story that seemed to offer a possible point of departure. It seems that a number of camp counselors had been boating on one of the Great Lakes, and their watercraft had capsized. All aboard had proper flotation devices, but given the extremely cold water temperature, all but one succumbed to the elements. The survivor was a young lady who, fortunately for her in this situation, had an excess of internal personal insulation. So this hypothesis was submitted:
Relative girth can be assessed by the duration of time that a person can be immersed in freezing cold water without experiencing severe hypothermia.
What was then needed was a test case. Obviously, it would have been quite unethical to utilize human experiments to establish such theories. But, fortunately, there was a test case already at hand. There was a young woman, there at the chalet, who had that very week capsized a watercraft in freezing cold water. She was quite physically God-glorifying in a decidedly... well... shall we say voluptuous way. Having been in the water for approximately nine minutes, she was decidedly hypothermic. So they had their upper baseline. And there was a sort of informed group consensus that they could establish a lower baseline at say, three minutes. If she had succumbed after only three minutes of exposure, she would have been dangerously past established extremes of waifish supermodeldom.
And so the theory: Girth can be measured by the above-stated method. And reasonable aesthetic parameters would be three to nine minutes submersion with marginal hypothermia.
Since the time of classical Athens, great thinkers have dashed themselves upon the rocks of a great philosophical problem. How can aesthetics be reconciled rationally?
In recent years, one aspect of this great challenge was tackled (how successfully I will let the reader judge) by a sort of thinktank comprised in the main of a number of great minds, and in a merely incidental manner by the present author. If memory serves, the greatest service was rendered by one NB.
The problem at hand: There are nearly as many body types as there are bodies. The variety in human form seems nearly endless. And a simple statement of the girth of an individual: "He is fat", "She is thin", even given the seemingly scientific ratio of height to weight, simply does not properly quantify the aesthetic quality which these esteemed scientists chose to call 'girth'. The simple height to weight ratio does not address several important realities such as build that can render two persons of the same height and weight significantly different in aesthetic quality. So, essentially, how can the aesthetics of girth be properly discussed?
Being that those involved were rational men, they chose to attempt to apply a truly scientific method to this distressing aesthetic problem.
This congress of minds occurred at a chalet in the northwoods of Canada. And a story had recently been relayed regarding a group of camp counselors at Lake Michigan, a story that seemed to offer a possible point of departure. It seems that a number of camp counselors had been boating on one of the Great Lakes, and their watercraft had capsized. All aboard had proper flotation devices, but given the extremely cold water temperature, all but one succumbed to the elements. The survivor was a young lady who, fortunately for her in this situation, had an excess of internal personal insulation. So this hypothesis was submitted:
Relative girth can be assessed by the duration of time that a person can be immersed in freezing cold water without experiencing severe hypothermia.
What was then needed was a test case. Obviously, it would have been quite unethical to utilize human experiments to establish such theories. But, fortunately, there was a test case already at hand. There was a young woman, there at the chalet, who had that very week capsized a watercraft in freezing cold water. She was quite physically God-glorifying in a decidedly... well... shall we say voluptuous way. Having been in the water for approximately nine minutes, she was decidedly hypothermic. So they had their upper baseline. And there was a sort of informed group consensus that they could establish a lower baseline at say, three minutes. If she had succumbed after only three minutes of exposure, she would have been dangerously past established extremes of waifish supermodeldom.
And so the theory: Girth can be measured by the above-stated method. And reasonable aesthetic parameters would be three to nine minutes submersion with marginal hypothermia.
posted by yonderincarp at 11:11
4 Comments:
it would be worthy to note my observations of a smaller segment of the population...those pregnant with child. granted my case studies are limited; however, i believe they bear merit. fact: pregnant women tend to run a bit 'hotter', and i am concerned that this may skew the findings. to detail, the added mass of two bodies in one may qualify the women to be assigned a position on larger end of the girth-scale, leading to the obvious conclusion that hypothermia would take hours, instead of minutes, to set in. this conclusion would be correct, maybe even days for those whose internal furnaces are working abnormal overtime. however, i believe that this hypothermia mark would falsly classify the pregnate woman in the girth category of 'especially enormous' precisely due to the aforementioned fact that she is now running 'hotter'. this false classification would then lead to the false conclusion of ascetic failure, so i urge this factor to be accounted for in this theory of girth measurement.
Excellent observation Tim. I think capsizing in freezing cold water sounds delightfully refreshing. I might even go so far as to say that once I was in the water for a few minutes it would no longer pose a threat to anyone prone to hypothermia.
Is this what you have been doing for the past several weeks of school in P-State? Brilliant!
However, there is a potential flaw in your rationale. Did you happen to include California as part of this study... As you know CA is ridiculously consumed with outward beauty, fashion and girth... Now my question is this, how can we measure hypothermia when we have no frozen lakes or streams? There are so many Californians to throw into freezing cold water, but not enough freezing cold water! What can we do?! What can we do?!
tim - this is certainly a noteworthy exception to a general theory of girth measurement. there are a number of factors that would seem to create a special situation for judging the girth-aesthetics of expectant mothers. perhaps you would be willing to postulate a corollary that could be added to the theory at hand in order to account for this occasional variation. I would also like to note that the very fact that she has become pregnant might also in some way speak to aesthetics.
Heidi - that is a good point. in any experimental situation, controls must be maintained to make sure that factors such as a change in water temperature do not skew the scientific data.
Joey - You cannot even begin to imagine the depth of intellectual stimulation in these here parts. And you certainly bring up a good point. While this theory adequately describes the aesthetics of girth, the practical application of the theory to everyday girth measurement is still not completely practical in some instances.
I would maintain that California has two sources of extremely cold water, mountain streams and the ocean. Mountain streams speak for themselves. The ocean, though certainly not freezing, may at certain times of the year provide a cold yet stable environment for testing aesthetic girth. This is evidenced by the abundance of wetsuits on the beach throughout all but the warmest days of summer.
Given the general impracticality of applying this theory of aesthetic girth, say, on State Street (or Main Street if you happen to be in beloved San Buenaventura)... might someone suggest a decidedly scientific, but more practically applicable and universal means of assessing aesthetic girth?
Post a Comment
<< Home