Estimated reading time at 200 wpm: 10 minutes
Oh well, it’s a Sunday morning here very north of the UK (but I do not need to be stalked, many thanks). Where I am is of no importance – except that stupidity has followed me again via the internet. What now – you may wonder.
Whether or not you agree our Fat Disclaimer applies
The Main Story
Well, I just came across a true story from Scientific American “Indiana’s House of Representatives Once Voted Unanimously to Change the Value of Pi”. In case some don’t know Pi is not pee (like in piss). It is a mathematical constant in the Universe. It is pronounced like ‘pie’. If you’re so dim that you never heard of it go here and do not return.
The story is historical in 1897. The article recounts a peculiar incident in 1897 when the Indiana House of Representatives nearly passed a bill that would have legally redefined the mathematical constant pi (π) to 3.2. This bizarre event was rooted in an age-old mathematical problem known as “squaring the circle,” which involves constructing a square with the same area as a given circle using only a compass and straightedge. For over 2,000 years, mathematicians had tried—and failed—to solve this problem.
The story centers on Edward J. Goodwin, an amateur mathematician who mistakenly believed he had solved the problem. In his flawed proof, he claimed that pi was equal to 3.2, rather than its true value of approximately 3.14159. To promote his “discovery,” Goodwin drafted a bill for the Indiana legislature to enshrine his proof into law, offering the state exclusive rights to use his method without royalties. Despite major red flags—such as the absence of any precedent for legally ratifying mathematical theorems and the fact that his proof was mathematically incorrect—the bill passed unanimously in the Indiana House of Representatives.
The article highlights the confusion among lawmakers, who likely didn’t understand the bill’s technical details. They shuffled it between committees, and Goodwin’s work even appeared in a reputable journal, lending him unwarranted credibility. The situation became increasingly absurd, with media outlets mocking the attempt to legislate a mathematical constant. One editorial sarcastically noted that circles entering Indiana would have to adjust their proportions to comply with the new law.
Derailed
Fortunately, the bill was derailed at the last moment by Clarence A. Waldo, a mathematics professor from Purdue University, who happened to be visiting the statehouse. Waldo educated the senators about the errors in Goodwin’s claims and the impossibility of squaring the circle—a fact proven in 1882 by German mathematician Ferdinand von Lindemann. Lindemann had shown that pi is a transcendental number, meaning it cannot be expressed using basic algebraic operations or constructed geometrically with a compass and straightedge.
Ultimately, the Indiana Senate postponed the bill indefinitely, avoiding what would have been a catastrophic misstep in mathematical history. The article underscores the importance of scientific literacy and peer review, while also illustrating how misunderstandings and hubris can lead to near-disastrous outcomes—even in legislative bodies. Today, the phrase “squaring the circle” remains a metaphor for attempting the impossible.
Absurdity
The absurdity of attempting to legislate a change to the value of a mathematical constant like pi (π) should have been obvious even without deep mathematical expertise. How?
- Pi is not an arbitrary number; it is a fundamental constant derived from the geometry of circles. Its value is based on centuries of rigorous mathematical study and real-world application. Changing its value by legislative fiat is akin to declaring that gravity no longer exists or that water freezes at 50°C—it defies both logic and reality.
- Non-mathematicians might not know the exact value of pi, but they could reasonably understand that constants like pi are not subject to opinion or legislation.
- By 1897, pi had already been calculated to hundreds of decimal places, and its value was widely accepted as approximately 3.14159. Even basic arithmetic or physical measurements would confirm that pi cannot be 3.2. For example:
- Legislators didn’t need advanced math skills to recognise that the claim was inconsistent with observable reality.
Some might say, “Well stupidity did not win on this occasion.” But that’s not my point. What is my point? Here it is:
- Individuals can be stupid.
- Groups of people can become exponentially more stupid.
- Stupidity’s influence knows no limits in its reach.
One swallow?
Some will argue that the above was only a single story – and on its own does not prove that stupidity knows no limits. Those types are in search of single exceptions to score a point, without doing the research. Well it wasn’t one swallow making a summer. Read on or not – for other examples of monumental stupidity.
There are other instances throughout history where laws or regulations have attempted to redefine or mandate aspects of objective reality, often with similarly absurd results.
1. The French Metric System Reforms (1790s)
- What Happened: During the French Revolution, the National Assembly sought to standardise measurements by creating the metric system. However, in their zeal to impose rationality, they initially proposed dividing the day into 10 hours, each hour into 100 minutes, and each minute into 100 seconds. This “decimal time” was intended to replace the traditional 24-hour clock.
- Why It Was Stupid: While not as mathematically flawed as redefining pi, this attempt ignored centuries of human experience with timekeeping. The reform failed because it clashed with deeply ingrained cultural and practical habits. People simply refused to adopt it, and the idea was abandoned within a few years.
- Outcome: The metric system succeeded for weights and measures, but decimal time was quietly dropped.
2. Tennessee’s Butler Act (1925) – The Scopes Monkey Trial
- What Happened: Tennessee passed the Butler Act in 1925, which made it illegal to teach evolution in public schools. The law essentially tried to legislate a religious interpretation of human origins (creationism) over established scientific theory.
- Why It Was Stupid: Evolution, like pi, is a fundamental principle supported by overwhelming evidence. Attempting to outlaw its teaching was an effort to suppress scientific truth in favor of ideology.
- Outcome: The law led to the infamous Scopes “Monkey Trial,” where teacher John Scopes was convicted of violating the act. Although the conviction was later overturned on a technicality, the trial exposed the absurdity of legislating science. The law remained on the books until 1967.
3. North Carolina’s Sea-Level Legislation (2012)
- What Happened: In response to concerns about rising sea levels due to climate change, North Carolina lawmakers passed a bill (HB 819) that effectively banned the use of advanced climate models in coastal planning. Instead, they mandated that predictions be based only on historical data, ignoring projections of accelerated sea-level rise.
- Why It Was Stupid: By rejecting scientifically validated models, the law attempted to legislate away the reality of climate change rather than addressing it. Critics mocked the move as an attempt to “outlaw” rising sea levels.
- Outcome: After widespread ridicule and pressure from scientists and environmental groups, the bill was watered down and eventually allowed some consideration of future projections.
4. Kansas’ Attempt to Redefine Science Education (2005)
- What Happened: The Kansas State Board of Education adopted standards that redefined how science should be taught, allowing the teaching of “intelligent design” alongside evolution. Intelligent design, a pseudoscientific alternative to evolution, lacks empirical support and has been widely discredited.
- Why It Was Stupid: This attempt to inject non-scientific ideas into science curricula undermined the integrity of education and ignored decades of research supporting evolutionary theory.
- Outcome: The decision was reversed in 2007 after public backlash and changes in the composition of the board.
5. California’s Proposition 65 and Overregulation of Chemicals
- What Happened: California’s Proposition 65 requires businesses to warn consumers about exposure to chemicals known to cause cancer or reproductive harm. While well-intentioned, the law has led to absurdities, such as warnings on coffee (due to trace amounts of acrylamide) and even Disneyland tickets.
- Why It Was Stupid: While not directly comparable to redefining pi, the law often misrepresents risk by failing to distinguish between negligible and significant exposures. This creates confusion and undermines the credibility of legitimate health warnings.
- Outcome: The law remains in effect, though courts have occasionally stepped in to curb its more extreme applications.
6. Russia’s Ban on LGBTQ+ “Propaganda” (2013, Expanded in 2022)
- What Happened: Russia passed a law banning so-called “gay propaganda,” which effectively criminalised any public discussion or representation of LGBTQ+ identities. In 2022, the law was expanded to include restrictions on “non-traditional” relationships.
- Why It Was Stupid: This legal effort to suppress identity and expression ignores the fundamental realities of human diversity and sexuality. Like redefining pi, it attempts to impose a subjective belief system onto an objective aspect of human existence.
- Outcome: The law has drawn international condemnation and contributed to widespread human rights abuses, but it remains in force.
7. Louisiana’s Creationism Law (2008)
- What Happened: Louisiana passed the “Louisiana Science Education Act,” which encouraged teachers to present “critical thinking” on topics like evolution and global warming. In practice, this allowed the inclusion of creationist materials and climate change denial in classrooms.
- Why It Was Stupid: Like Kansas’ attempt, this law undermined science education by promoting pseudoscience and ideological agendas over established facts.
- Outcome: Efforts to repeal the law have failed, and it remains a contentious issue in Louisiana’s education system.
Common Themes:
- Ignoring expertise: Many of these laws disregard expert knowledge in favor of political, ideological, or economic interests.
- Misunderstanding reality: Just as the Indiana Pi Bill ignored the immutable nature of pi, these laws often fail to account for objective truths, whether in science, mathematics, or human behaviour.
- Public ridicule: Each of these examples attracted significant criticism and mockery, highlighting the importance of informed policymaking.
Conclusions
While no example perfectly mirrors the absurdity of the Indiana Pi Bill, the closest equivalents involve attempts to legislate scientific truths (e.g., banning evolution, denying climate change) or redefine natural phenomena (e.g., regulating sea-level projections). These cases demonstrate humanity’s occasional tendency to prioritise ideology over evidence, leading to decisions that range from misguided to outright laughable.
Human stupidity has very long reach over thousands of years. It’s like a tentacled monster from the past reaching into the present and future. It may not win on most occasions but its reach leaves the potential for profound suffering. While humanity has made incredible progress in science, technology, and understanding, the persistence of irrationality and hubris continues to pose challenges.
The story of the Indiana Pi Bill is a microcosm of this phenomenon. It reflects how even in an era of growing knowledge, misunderstandings and overconfidence can lead to absurd outcomes. The “tentacles” of this particular episode reached into the legislative process, nearly codifying a mathematical falsehood into law. Thankfully, it was stopped by the intervention of reason (Clarence A. Waldo) and scientific literacy. However, the potential for harm—both symbolic and practical—was significant.
Lessons for the Future
- Promote critical thinking : Education systems must emphasise skepticism, logic, and evidence-based reasoning to inoculate individuals against pseudoscience and misinformation.
- Value expertise : Society needs to respect and consult experts in relevant fields before making decisions on complex issues.
- Encourage humility : Recognising the limits of our knowledge is crucial. As the saying goes, “The more you know, the more you realise you don’t know.”
- Guard against hubris : Whether in politics, science, or everyday life, unchecked confidence in flawed ideas can lead to disaster.
Final Thoughts
While the “tentacled monster” of human stupidity may never be fully vanquished, its reach can be shortened through collective effort. By learning from past mistakes, fostering a culture of inquiry, and prioritising truth over ideology, we can mitigate its impact and build a better future. Humanity’s capacity for growth and self-correction gives hope that even the longest-reaching tentacles can eventually be reined in.
