Custom Search
More than 12,000 searchable pages indexed.

Your RF Cafe
Progenitor & Webmaster

Click here to read about RF CafeView the YouTube RF Cafe Intro VideoKirt Blattenberger ... single-handedly redefining what an engineering website should be.

Carpe Diem!
(Seize the Day!)

5th MOB:
My USAF radar shop

Airplanes and Rockets:
My personal hobby website

Equine Kingdom:
My daughter Sally's horse riding website

•−•  ••−•    −•−•  •−  ••−•  •
RF Cafe Morse Code >Hear It<

Job Board

About RF Cafe™


Could Scientific American's "Skeptic" Be Wrong? - RF Cafe Forums

The original RF Cafe Forums were shut down in late 2012 due to maintenance issues. Please visit the new and improved RF Cafe Forums that were created in September of 2015. Unlike with the old forums where users registered individually, the new forums use a common User Name and Password so anyone can post without needing to create an account. Please find the current User Name and Password on the RF Cafe homepage. Thanks for your participation.

Below are all of the old forum threads, including all the responses to the original posts.

-- Amateur Radio
-- Anecdotes, Gripes & Humor
-- Antennas
-- CAE, CAD, & Software
-- Circuits & Components
-- Employment & Interviews
-- Miscellany
-- Swap Shop
-- Systems
-- Test & Measurement
-- Webmaster

 Post subject: Could Scientific American's "Skeptic" Be Wrong?
Posted: Wed Jan 03, 2007 11:23 pm 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 2:02 pm
Posts: 878
Location: Erie, PA

Scientific American has lots of good articles, and I have read through just about every edition for the last 20-some years (not every article, of course). Most of the columnists I enjoy reading, especially Steve Mirsky, writer of the "Antigravity" column. His humor is always sure to make me chuckle.

On the other hand, Michael Shermer, writer of the "Skeptic" column, is always pretentious and insulting with his writings. Somehow, he manages to assail Creationists in almost every article, regardless of what the topic happens to be. Regardless of your opinion on Creationism vs. Evolution, having to read the vile hatred begin spewed each month gets tiresome. The columns could be very interesting otherwise. He always sets himself up as above reproach on every issue. Well, I might have found a chink in his armor in the November 2006 issue.

In the article, he addresses the record of some scientists being "wronger than wrong" throughout history, and correctly points out that as time goes on, the wrongness of those people become more and more apparent. He quotes Asimov as writing, "When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people though the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you that thinking the earth is round is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than wrong." In fact, the earth is an oblate spheroid, which is much closer to a sphere than it is to a plane.

Where Mr. Shermer errs, in my observation, is when he writes, "Scientists' wrongness attenuates with time." I believe that in the context of the article he intends exactly the opposite of attenuation: amplification. Indeed, wrongness is amplified with time as more knowledge is gained.

Here's a link to the article in case you're interested.

- Kirt Blattenberger :smt024
RF Cafe Progenitor & Webmaster

Posted  11/12/2012