OGB Podcast #24 – Euclid & The Shape of Modern Science with Emmet Penney
Online Great Books founder Scott Hambrick and seminar leader Emmet Penney tackle the first scientific work on the podcast, Euclid’s Elements. The Elements are a collection of treatises, postulates, and propositions that ultimately drive toward important mathematical concepts such as the Pythagorean theorem and the theory of numbers, i.e. integers, divisibility, prime numbers.
Everyone who has attended American public school has heard of these concepts, and their mention likely dredges up memories of endless, boring, rote work about triangles and algebra. Indeed school teaches the formulas, but it does not teach Euclid, who compiled numerous propositions form earlier mathematicians and weaved them into a thoughtful, cogently argued work about the nature of geometry and mathematics. Studying Euclid prompts the question: are these concepts discovered or invented? Does mathematics represent a fundamental truth of the universe, or does it merely describe the truth?
And that’s why we study Euclid and other formative scientists and mathematicians at Online Great Books; they prompt us to consider the nature of truth and how the things we are taught in school came to be. It’s quite a philosophical exercise. Yet philosophy and science exist in diametric opposition, at least in today’s age. Emmet points out a difference between the practice of science (and the technological fruit it bears) and scientism, the faith in science as a diviner of absolute truth. Reading Euclid, he argues, shows us the deep interconnection between science and philosophy, and leads us to a deeper understanding of the truth.
- Online Great Books Euclid Seminar
- Discussion of the Pythagorean theorem
- Why is it so important for popele to study Euclid
- Relation between math and figurative language
- Euclid’s ideas of the infinite
- The seminar experience
- Why we need to study math and philosophy
- Aristotle’s geometric ideas in Nicomachean Ethics
- Discussion of how science is social
- Emmet’s upcoming projects
Resources/Articles/People Mentioned In The Podcast
- Euclid’s Elements
- Puebla use Pythagorean Theorem
- Thomas Friedman
- The Crisis Of European Sciences
- Meditations On First Philosophy
- Bill Nye, why study philosophy
- Niels Bohr
- Aristotle’s Organum
- Emmet Martin Penney Twitter
- “Smoke Break” by Emmet Penney
- Ghost Proposal article
Scott Hambrick: Welcome to the Online Great Books podcast I’m Scott Hambrick and I have Emmet Penney with me.. Emmet runs some seminars for us, and he has most recently concluded running a section on Euclid’s Elements. You guys did all of Book One. Is that right?
Emmet Penney: Yeah, all of Book One. The penultimate proof of which is the famous Pythagorean theorem.
Scott Hambrick: Yeah I love that you wanted to do this. Originally we left out all of this out of our program because frankly, I didn’t know how we would address geometry in an online seminar format. We just pulled out all of the math/science stuff from what people would normally call the great books. You contacted me and said, “hey, I have an idea, I just want to run it by you.” So, tell people what that idea is, what you wanted to do there.
Emmet Penney: Well, I was never a math or science person, when I was growing up. Now that I tutor high school kids, I’m reminded daily why I was not interested in that when I was a kid. But when I was in grad school at St. John’s I decided to challenge my preconceived ideas of myself and both of the STEM subjects and take an intellectual history on math and science segment. The major portion of that was on Euclid, and a guy with the last name of Lobachevsky who made some interesting maneuvers around Euclid later on in the 19th century. So, one thing that I did know, is that it was possible, indeed, to engage with some of the stuff in a seminar setting like we do Socratically in Online Great Books. That’s what I wanted to do. I wanted to share with people the great fun I had (surprisingly to me) and working through Book One of Euclid, and that’s what I proposed.
Scott Hambrick: So, we sent a thin little volume of just this first forty-six proofs. Is that right?
Emmet Penney: Yeah, it’s just under fifty, I think.
Scott Hambrick: Yeah, so it’s this slim little book, maybe seventy-five pages. We sent that to all of our members who signed up for this additional work in addition to reading Plato or whatever else they were doing. You guys met once a week, at seven o’clock on a Thursday night, and we started off with some definitions, and then you assigned a proof or maybe two to each of the members, and then they would demonstrate them for their peers next week. Right?
Emmet Penney: Yes
Scott Hambrick: And In doing that you guys got to rediscover what Euclid discovered. By the time somebody walks through all of those proofs and gets to the Pythagorean theorem then you own it! You don’t just memorize it like a magical formula: a2+b2=c2. You know where it came from.
Emmet Penney: Yeah, and you know that it wasn’t pronounced algebraically back then. The Greeks didn’t have algebra so, all of the stuff is done, in sometimes, in a way that feels tedious. You don’t get to use algebraic symbols to write this stuff out. It makes you appreciate what an incredible life hack for math how algebra proves to be. But you also understand why things that are just given to you in high school as true: why those things are, how they came to be, at least in the west. There is evidence that some of the native tribes in the Southwest of America, I think the Puebla or something like that, had something like the Pythagorean theorem which is interesting. We have shared rational insights as human beings, proved in different ways. You get to see why that is the case: side angle side, wait, now I know why that is, it’s not just somebody telling me. If we think that these rational pursuits are the activities of free people, you are then free to understand in your own terms how this works.
Scott Hambrick: Why do you, you told me on the phone once why you thought it was so important for people to study Euclid. Do you remember that?
Emmet Penney: I do remember that conversation.
Scott Hambrick: There are probably people thinking, gosh, I’m not a mathematician, I’m not an engineer, I’m not even a carpenter, I don’t have to construct trusses. Why do I care about these angles and sides and all of that? You make a good case for why everybody should care.
Emmet Penney: Yeah, look, this is a process of thinking, this is about honing your insights. When we talk about the great books and the liberal Arts traditionally, these are not siloed sectors of human investigation. These things have a relationship with each other and if you are skeptical of the fact that this might be something for you, or not or how capable you are, one of my hot takes is that if you have read the Iliad you are prepared to think geometrically: to think like Euclid. I’m going to provide an example, this is from the Caroline Alexander translation of the Iliad, and it’s at the end of Book Five. When Pan is healing Aries after a battle and here’s a nice piece of figurative language, “ As when fig juice hastens the curdling of white milk which is liquid but instantly thickens as one stirs”, so then he instantly healed furious Aries. Why do I bring that up and what does it have to do with geometry? What I’m going to say is that that piece of figurative language has a rational process of understanding it. You start to understand that the wound is open, the blood is liquid, that part of Aries has been made unwhole. It is now goopy, and as this stuff is mixed in with him his body becomes whole again “thickens like curdling milk” that’s the visual. Now, when you go to Euclid and you see a line as a “breadthless length” you understand that that is not indeed literal. That that is not the phenomenal world that you engage in everyday, but you understand it metaphorically to represent exactly or as close as possible to what you’re looking at. This is part of how the maths, and sciences are related to the humanities, is that they can be rationally understood and have similar criteria for whether or not they meet a mimesis in imitation or proximation of what we experience in everyday life.
Scott Hambrick: When I worked through these first 46 I thought, “Holy crap, this is science fiction”! This isn’t really what’s happening. There is no figure of “breadthless width”. It depends on what translation you see, but some of the translations we’ll see: “a point is that with no dimension”. Some of them will say indivisible dimension. Those clearly are not true; those are figments and they’re just strictly ideas. So, we take these ideas that Euclid defines which don’t really exist. You can’t go point to a Euclidean-type line. We just use these ideas and a simple something, very beautiful that has huge explanatory power from figments. It’s fascinating and the story telling that happens…did the story actually happen? Did he actually heal, did that all actually take place? I don’t know. But we’re able to parse out a lot about what Homer wants us to know from his language there and we’re able to do that with Euclid. Is that what you’re getting at?
Emmet Penney: Yeah, I have a similar thought process. That’s what I’m getting at. It’s that these pursuits are open to all, the maths and sciences do not solely belong to a vanguard of experts. Now that isn’t to say that there aren’t such actual important things as vocational expertise, but to engage thoughtfully in discussion of them and to try and understand them is not unlike trying to do the same thing with the work of literature. Provided, you can apply yourself in a democratic setting. That’s what I would argue.
Scott Hambrick: There’s always room for an expert to focus in and become an expert, to go to a depth of understanding that us other folks don’t have time or need for but this is available for us to dig into far beyond where Mrs. Gwen had me dig into in geometry in tenth grade.
Emmet Penney: The other thing is when we start to take a look at this relationship between rationality and figurative language. I bring that up because most people assign to poetry this frou-frou, irrational ephemeral, something on the par of useless mysticism provided you’re willing to buy in that there’s a useful mysticism to differentiate it from. I just don’t think that’s the case with poetry or literature at large. I think it’s a surprising comparison to make but it helps you understand how important it is to look seriously at things like the truth of language and how it’s being presented to you because most of what you’re getting in Euclid is language. The drawings you see in the book weren’t actually in the original transcripts of The Elements. Those have been given to us scholars over long periods of time. I know we’re not supposed to bring in current political stuff so I won’t, but I will bring up a writer that I think is chronically guilty of bad figurative language. You see through how unimportant it is to pay attention to this person: Thomas Friedman is the guy and he recently wrote some op eds for the New York Times. And I don’t know what it was, and I don’t know what his political stances are, but he tried to compare the GDP of America to a pie and different parts of a political faction’s relationship to the pie. So, a certain type of conservative wants to grow the pie well, we’re already in trouble here because you don’t try to grow a fucking pie. That’s just not what happens, it’s already breaking down. By the time you get to it (I’m not going to bore you with the details) you are now confused. Well that’s not the role of metaphor or rationality in life. It is supposed to bring a kind of clarity which is not the same thing as simplicity, by the way. So, this is what I mean when I say we think there’s something important about engaging in the world with these books. They give us the tools to be more thoughtful actors in the polis, the political realm, with each other.
Scott Hambrick: I always say that doing this work installs a…In your example there, I can’t believe you said Friedman (you zigged where I thought you were going to zag) I think you probably know what I thought you were going to say.
Emmet Penney: Maybe, yeah.
Scott Hambrick: He smuggled in a lot there. The GDP’s not a pie and then everything after that gets pretty…
Emmet Penney: Right, and you might be willing to grant him it’s not a pie but let’s say for the sake of this example, I’m going to get something clarifying out of it. There’s the leap of faith with any sort of metaphor which is going to ask you to compare things that are going to surprise you. That’s just not what happened here.
Scott Hambrick: Right, and when you walk step by step, hand in hand with Euclid, starting with “a point is that which has no part” and that builds on that and shows you that a line is a “breadthless length” and shows you that the ends of the line are in fact points. He defines all his terms very, very carefully and then walks you through all of this and then reveals, or together you reveal, this Pythagorean theorem. You see how arguments are to be made. So, if Friedman wants to do a better job he needs to be a little more Euclidian in how he makes his points. That’s a high standard. We’re talking about economics as a social science and you think about these softer sciences, and it’s a high standard to be Euclidian in that but you’ve got to have standards and I think that’s a pretty good one. In walking through all this geometry, it instills that in us and it’s just so beautiful. We read Shakespeare…and I love the literature that is in Plato. The arguments are wonderful and the ideas he tells are amazing, but this work of writing is fantastic. The economy and the clarity of writing is unbelievable.
Emmet Penney: Absolutely, and one of the things that I like about it is it pushes you to the limits of language. How much can you express in language about this abstract term, and how does that correspond with the real world? Which, those are always great questions to ask of a piece of writing. How much justice does it do “reality” is a great question. Another thing that I love about Euclid, and sitting in seminar, is that people start to understand and, myself included, why certain things are assumed or presumed and which things have to be proved, manufactured, demonstrated, all of that, and what the difference between those things are. Where it gets fuzzy and grey, Lobachevsky who wants to do things with Euclid’s idea of parallelism thousands of years later, ends up having some insights by rejecting some of what Euclid assumes that gives way to the theory of relativity later on. It’s important to realize the maths and sciences are their own debate and not necessarily a sight of transhistorical ideal truth.
Scott Hambrick: One of the things that irritated me the most about Euclid is that pretty early on you see that he’s bumping up against the ideas of the infinite and typically on the small end of the infinite scale (not the big end) and language fails, he’s talking about these figments and I’m kind of a big “T” truth type of guy. That I was like, “he’s skating on some really thin ice here”. I’ve always been skeptical of non-Euclidian systems but after delving into this more on my own I can see how people are bumping and running with this for thousands of years and whether they’re going to continue to do that. But it’s there and it’s clear and it’s there for everybody. I hope some people listen to this and want to try it out and go pick up a Green Lion Press copy of Euclid and get their pens and paper and their straight-edge and their compasses out.
Emmet Penney: Absolutely.
Scott Hambrick: How did our readers fare? I didn’t stick with Euclid.
Emmet Penney: Very well. You run into the normal problems you would run in, after you start a group endeavor some people drop off before the end or early on because their lives change or it’s not exactly what they expected in terms of workload. We’re all busy adults, but the crew that stuck with it ended up developing a very savvy relationship with the work and with the text. It started to help them reconsider perceived notions that they had or produced new questions about the truths in the maths and sciences. I think everybody did very well and was very courageous because it can get overwhelming to try to memorize something to the best of your ability and reproduce it in front of a group of people even if it’s over something as mediated as Zoom.
Scott Hambrick: We did the electronic equivalent in front of the classroom and doing the stuff on the chalkboard for the rest of the class it gets a little nerve wracking. You’ve got all these people watching you and they’ve got the book in front of them and you’re trying to reproduce it from memory. Hopefully not even memory. Hopefully they actually prove the postulate organically. That’s even better than memorizing it and coughing it up. Hopefully they’re actually able to do the thing, to recreate that process but either way we’ll take it. That’s nerve wracking, you’re thinking in front of people.
Emmet Penney: It’s difficult. So, I think the workaround for that, in seminar, is that you try to create an environment where it’s not just a bunch of silent spectators but participants in your success. If you get lost it’s not wrong to ask for help or for someone to volunteer so you’re not suffering in front of a bunch of people. Often times when that happens people are more willing to admit that there are places where they also got stuck or they also had a hard time understanding the proof and then you have a Socratic conversation on your hands about what actually is going on in the proof.
Scott Hambrick: It’s nerve-wracking and it’s a naked experience to go up there and think in front of those people but like you say there in it with you and they’re rooting for you and the thing that you have trouble with is probably the thing they had trouble with too. I ended up with a scheduling conflict and couldn’t go to all the sessions with you guys and ended up doing the stuff on my own.
Emmet Penney: It’s also a lot of fun because another thing you start to realize I had a faculty member at St. John’s say this that doing Euclid was experiencing beauty without feelings. I brought that up when we were going through because some people would reproduce a proof and the rest of us would be smiling because it was so slick and orderly and tidy and thoughtful or nuanced and tricky. There is a kind of wiliness to the way that other things got invoked. That ended up being a source of great fun and excitement when you got through it because you could appreciate it philosophically and aesthetically which, I think is a surprising thing to feel based on how we’re taught the maths and sciences throughout our lives.
Scott Hambrick: There’s nothing beautiful or elegant about eleventh grade algebra.
Emmet Penney: No, there’s supposed to be a great deviation between these two things like The Crisis Of European Sciences. At some point science became philosophy’s master and then they started to deviate from each other. He tries to reground science and philosophy for him that’s phenomenology. I’m not going to get into that but what I will say that’s at least culturally true especially in America. I remember watching an interview with Bill Nye and he’s like, why study Philosophy. You’re reading Descartes and he’s like, “is that a chair in front of you”? It’s an incredibly embarrassing display of ignorance for a man who’s so smart otherwise because he owes his whole career to Descartes’ insights. His whole tradition comes out of those insights, he would not be able to do anything he does without Descartes’ Meditations On First Philosophy. I think what’s important is to remember most scientists, until very recently, had favorite philosophers or philosophical systems. Niels Bohr was basically a Platonist. That greatly informed how he went about his own work. I think it makes us less condescending to the ancients. Aristotle in his physics says a rock’s natural place is the ground and if you don’t believe me, throw a rock up in the air a thousand times. Guess where it’s going to land? The Goddamned ground. There you go- qed. A tutor of mine at St. John’s said, “How different is that from our own scientific method”? He went out and demonstrated it empirically and somebody got really huffy and was like well, “there’s gravity”. This tutor had a science background and he said, “what’s gravity?” And the guy recites the equation. And he’s like, no, no, no, “that’s an equation to express gravity. What is gravity?” And the whole class was silent.
Scott Hambrick: There’s a respect now for phenomenology. There’s an experience being on the ground that’s undeniable, but science is not practical about that. And then somebody just gives you this 9.8 meters per sec2 thing which doesn’t really mean anything. But the fact rocks belong on the ground is meaningful to regular people. I think that having a philosophical underpinnings behind scientific endeavor was one of the reasons that we had so many earth-shattering scientific revelations in the 19th and early 20th centuries. In getting away from that, science has moved to a positivism thing where we click more and more data, and through observing and analyzing data we iterate into more accurate models. But it’s hard to shatter a model through iteration. It’s hard to make the quantum leap an understanding through iteration. You have to be an outsider looking in often-times to see the shortcomings in a model and be able to break that model and come up with something completely unique with better explanatory power. The positivism, this 20th century big data and 21st century positivism, I think is less than or maybe not good.
Emmet Penney: I think positivism has some other philosophical connotations that I don’t feel equipped to tarry with here, but I think what we’re both talking about, to use a different term that feels more specific is scientism. A belief in science is the clearinghouse of all human truth. Plenty of people love this, Sam Harris loves this, which is amazing because he hates metaphysics and theology. Yet I have a hard time understanding anything as mythical or self-deluded as believing you could just aggregate all the data ever done into a coherent story of human in universal life. That’s insane. Also, it’s a complete naivety about the institutions that create science and like all of their own intermeshing problems. I don’t want to get too far into that but what I will say is that I very much agree with your point When science understood itself to not as arbiter of the other parts of human life it seemed to generate a lot of surprising and revolutionary ideas.
Scott Hambrick: I’ve got a friend who’s a professional bassist, you may have heard his work on the Simpsons and other Fox television shows. He says that jazz lost its way when New York City instituted cabaret laws and they would charge tax to night clubs based on the size of the dance floors so they started getting rid of their dance floors and when they did that jazz stopped being about movement and it stopped being about people interacting with each other. I became an exercise in and of itself that the musicians did for themselves. Jazz lost its way and science has done that in my opinion where it applies less to explain phenomenology and making our lives better in a lot of ways. I enjoy my penicillin…
Emmet Penney: I’m into nuclear power and stuff like that. I’m not anti-science. I’m anti-scientism in the same way I am not against expertise, I’m against arrogance.
Scott Hambrick: The scientism is the ordinate coalman of investigating. I don’t like it and that’s why I like when normal folk dig into Euclid. You said about Aristotle’s and his physics…we reviewed this Euclid work and then we pick up Aristotle. He makes these geometric and Euclidean arguments for ethical behavior and I first read Euclid’s Aristotle’s ethic before I did this, and I remember some of that stuff zinging past me. Some of it’s very basic, you’ve got this mean but I’m looking forward to picking it back up again having wrestled with…
Emmet Penney: Absolutely. He has these geometric ideas and the Nicomachean Ethics about different types of justice, and redistribution, and restoration and stuff like this. As happens in Aristotle, it can get pretty harry in there and a little bit difficult to parse so it helps to be initiated into the logic system that a lot of great thinkers were a part of back then which is Euclid, and also Aristotle’s Organum the way the west thinks of logic for the next thousands of years after it’s written. People are engaging with it so there’s that too an all of that’s built on top of Euclid. It all comes out of that.
Scott Hambrick: Is Euclid pointing to, in this first book, is he pointing to a bunch of a priori stuff? Is that Pythagorean theorem out there?
Emmet Penney: Is it out there in the world. I don’t know if I have an answer to that question, I’m very interested in the debate around that question. Another thing that the seminars…
Scott Hambrick: That’s some crafty shit right there.
Emmet Penney: Look, if you get schooled in Socratic seminars you also get schooled in sophistic seminars. I will say I personally don’t know; I think about that all the time. Obv. a point is that which has no part, I’m not going to find it amongst my pocket lint in the morning when I’m getting ready for the day. There is an important discussion with others and with yourself about whether or not you believe these things are created or discovered because there are two very different metaphysics and ideas about truth that come along with that. They’re going to have consequences for a lot of your other thinking. I’m not saying you have to make a decision about that. The Socratic seminar police aren’t going to come to your apartment and wake you up and say, “Is math found or created?” But it’s well worth spending time with and debating with others because you’ll find that you’ll have a lot of received notions about the nature of truth that you probably didn’t know you had until you sit down and try to hash that out with some other people.
Scott Hambrick: Everyone does. You go to school, then ring a bell and sit down, and you have a seating chart and you sit in that chair and then they proceed to tell you how it is. Then you read Euclid and start working through these problems. Like you said, I can’t find a line here anywhere let alone in my pocket lint. Where the hell did this line come from? What is this line? What kind of castle am I going to build on this? And then like you said, there seems to be some evidence that some of these Indians in Southwest U.S and maybe some peoples in South America in parallel used some tools like this as well.
Emmet Penney: What we want to talk about what civilization means and how it is to live together. Science is social. That doesn’t mean it’s a political game of polemics. That’s a facile point but it’s a human pursuit which means humans have participated in trying to understand it in their own ways. This is shared. These books, these ideas are for everyone just like Algebra, developed by the Muslim world, was for everyone as well, we use it all the time. It’s incredibly powerful and it’s interesting after you do Euclid, that you can take a look at Algebra moving westward was terrifying for people who for generations had inherited this whole-cloth interconnected Euclid world that didn’t have the idea of zero or the really intense abstraction of algebra. It takes a long time in Euclid before you’re going to talk about discrete quantities of things. You have to justify the existence of number in Euclid.
Scott Hambrick: Which is only right to do, I think. That’s one of the things we get to learn. Learn why it’s appropriate to do that because like I said. They rang the bell, we sat in our assigned seat and they commenced to tell us, and we’ve got to go resurrect this and reconstruct it when we do this. I’m not part of this world but I wonder how many people graduate from college with a Bachelor’s in mathematics would have done this work. And I say would have, if somebody’s graduating in May right now, I wonder how many of them would have actually worked through all of these propositions…
Emmet Penney: I don’t think they have. This is a niche endeavor for the self-selected. That’s how it is right now which is one of the beauties of online great books is that it provides a community and system for people who are the self-selected to engage in these ideas. These are the activities of more or less free people. It’s an exercise in human freedom to try to understand these.
Scott Hambrick: I know that when you say self-selected you mean us weirdos. What do you want to do next?
You said you called me up and said hey Rick I sure would like to try this.
Emmet Penney: What would be cool? Honestly I’d like to do Euclid more I’d like to do it over the summer. I’d like to offer more of that once I’m done with the finals crush here and also train up some other seminar hosts that we can provide this to more and more of our clientele. But I would love to go into the tumeas. And that’s going to have some relationship to this stuff, and I’d like to do a little Ptolemy or more importantly do some Aristotle Sussex. And the organot. That’s four things but I mean who knows but they’re things that we could do. I think we’ll get to the Aristotle in time, no need to rush to it but I think those are well worth spending time with.
Scott Hambrick: Let’s do it. We’ll run Euclid for our members again as soon as your able. Kick that off late May.
Emmet Penney: We’ll talk about it. Like I said, I’m gearing up for finals right now which is going to swallow my time but I have also just recently done the Euclid so I will not have as much upfront study time as I needed this last time we did it.
Scott Hambrick: We’ll kick that off soon and I’ll add Ptolemy in there and the people that first signed up with us are going to be wading off into Aristotle in a couple of months so, those folks will be primed and ready for that soon. So exciting! Thank you for being brave enough to try this in an online setting and offering that to the first group of people. I look forward to having more and more people to walk through this. I think the world will be a better place if we all worked through…
Emmet Penney: I think that the world would be a better place if we all had the time an opportunity to walk through these things together. Absolutely!
Scott Hambrick: Is there anything you want to plug? I know that you do some freelance writing and you have all kinds of irons in the fire. Is there anything that want to…
Emmet Penney: You can find me on twitter, you can google my name, Emmet Martin Penney Twitter. If you participate in the ongoing mind virus that is twitter, I’m there. More hot takes there. Scott’s seen some of my hot takes when I’ve used Homer to skewer a couple people. I’m there, I just had a piece on art in relation to politics come out in a publication called Popula. A piece called “Smoke Break” I don’t know if you have show notes for this stuff, I can send you the links, Scott. I should have some stuff forthcoming later. I don’t need to get into that now because it’s not guaranteed yet. I do have, and I don’t know when it publishes, a piece on using Euclidean and Lobachevsky ideas on parallelism to think about mourning and loss and that should be coming out in a literary journal called Ghost Proposal. If anybody’s interested I could write a longer little polemic about the relationship between Euclid and figurative language and it’s uses and abuses for the Online Great Books blog. People can reach out to me and let me know if they’d like that and I’ll try to carve out some time to make that happen.
Scott Hambrick: Do that, I want to read that. Well thank you for recording a session with us. Thank you for breaking the ice on the sciences for us at Online Great Books and thanks for supporting me. You’ve been encouraging and had your hand on my back and pushed me here and there and it’s been a good help to me.
Emmet Penney: Well, the Feeling’s mutual.
Scott Hambrick: I appreciate you very much.
Emmet Penney: You would have done the same for me. This has been a great thing. I told Scott when I did my first interview for Online Great Books of the back office for a job I was working while I was on the clock, I had wished in grad school I wished there was something like Online Great Books so that I didn’t have to go to grad school to read these things. I was very excited to see that’s what was kicking off. It’s been a pleasure to be a part of this.
Scott Hambrick: Well, thanks, we couldn’t have done it without you.