When, in order to see further, one elevates oneself, there are three metrics by which to measure the increase in sight:

- How far one can now see, considered by itself.
- How far one can now see, compared to how far one could see before the elevation.
- How far one can now see, compared to how far that on which one stands can see (should one stand on a sighted entity).

It will easily be seen that any method of increasing the penetration of one's sight by standing will increase 1 and 2. However, the most popular current method, that of humerostation, can fail to increase 3—and, in so far as 3 is the metric most people consider important, this flaw is fatal.

Consider the common expression, "if I have seen further, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants". This is meant, of course, to compare oneself to one's ordinary abilities (that is, 1) and to one's peers of lesser status (that is, 2), but primarily in so stating one is explaining how one has managed to do better than those *who came before*, that is to say, the giants. "I am no giant", one says, "but nevertheless I have managed to see further than those giants".

But in fact more is said than just that! If one wishes to see further by this method, the giants cannot be *too* giant. The distance from my shoulders to eye level is about 8.5 inches, or 11.8% of my total height, and my eyes are about 68 inches high. Now, consider a giant, with my proportions, who stands 49 feet tall. The distance from his shoulders to his eyes would be about 69.4 inches—in other words, *even if I stood on his shoulders, he would still see further* than I would. The situation would worsen if the giant got taller (preserving proportions). Thus humerostation is not a fully-general solution to the problem of far sight! I propose, therefore, that we scrap it altogether and replace it with the practice of standing on *heads*, which should suffice until such time as people begin growing eye stalks.

## Recent Comments

Language, Proof and Logicproblems