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

Job Board

About RF Cafe™

Sitemap

>10,000 Unique Pages!

RF Cafe Software

RF Cascade Worbook
 RF Cascade Workbook 2005 - RF Cafe
Calculator Workbook
RF Workbench
Smith Chart™ for Visio
Smith Chart™ for Excel
RF & EE Symbols Word
RF Stencils for Visio

Your RF Cafe
Progenitor & Webmaster

Click here to read about RF CafeKirt Blattenberger
BSEE
KB3UON
EIEIO

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

  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. 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
Greetings:

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.

http://sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=00028C98-6F5C-152E-A9F183414B7F0000&pageNumber=1&catID=2

_________________
- Kirt Blattenberger :smt024
RF Cafe Progenitor & Webmaster





Posted  11/12/2012

SEARCH More Than 10,000 Pages Indexed on RF Cafe

Copyright 1996 - 2016
Webmaster:  Kirt Blattenberger, BSEE - KB3UON
Family Websites:  Airplanes and Rockets | Equine Kingdom

All trademarks, copyrights, patents, and other rights of ownership to images
and text used on the RF Cafe website are hereby acknowledged.