Scientific Blunders

What scientific blunder is the most comical?

I think that a lot of people did dissertations on the Piltdown Man.

Depends on what you mean by 'scientific blunder'... but the whole Pons/Fleischmann debacle was pretty funny... especially after they kept defending it, long after everyone knew it was incorrect...

[MRC_Hans]

The Piltdown Man was not a scientific blunder. It was a deliberate hoax. The scientific community is generally built on trust; that is, scientists are trusted not to commit forgery, they are not trusted to be right. The truth value of any scientific finding will be challenged by other scientists until verified or disproved. It was this peer review that in the end blew open the Piltdown hoax, and disproved cold fusion.

Scientists are generally honest; mistakes are made, but deliberate fraud is quite rare. This is because honor and recognition is such an important part of the reward system for scientists. It's not that many scientists won't prefer dollars to honor, but the good jobs, the fat grants, all depend on your recognition. And once a scientist has been caught in scientific fraud, he/she is effectively dead for the community: No jobs, no grants, no co-writers, no publishing. Talk about shunning.

Hans

[Brian the Snail]

Quote:

Originally posted by Whodini
I think that a lot of people did dissertations on the Piltdown Man.

Well, actually, no. Not according to this page anyway....

And regarding the original question, I think N-rays was a pretty funny one.

Quote:

Wood suspected that N-rays were a delusion. To demonstrate such, he removed the prism from the N-ray detection device, unbeknownst to Blondlot or his assistant. Without the prism, the machine couldn't work. Yet, when Blondlot's assistant conducted the next experiment he found N-rays. Wood then tried to surreptitiously replace the prism but the assistant saw him and thought he was removing the prism. The next time he tried the experiment, the assistant swore he could not see any N-rays. But he should have, since the equipment was in full working order.

[c0rbin]

The Witch Scene from Python's The Holy Grail.

[Andonyx]

I enjoy it every time someone claims to have found the fundamental particle.

Of course this goes all the way back to Lucretius and Democritus.

http://www.vce.com/history.html

[Mercutio]

I gotta go with Rene Blondlott and N-rays. Hundreds of papers published before deciding it was all essentially wishful thinking. Of course, I wouldn't really call it a blunder so much as science at work, recognizing a dead end and moving on.

N-ray story

[arcticpenguin]

There was the Holy Roman Catholic Church's insistence on the geocentric model of the solar system.

Well, after watching part one of the Horizon program on homeopathy last night, I would say that Benveniste and his team were pretty stupid. I would love to know more about how they arrived at their conclusion: attributing the effects of sample contamination and/or operator subjectivity to something as preposterous as homeopathy is more than a blunder.

Looking forward to part two (although I think I can guess the ending).

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Quote:

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
The Piltdown Man was not a scientific blunder. It was a deliberate hoax. The scientific community is generally built on trust; that is, scientists are trusted not to commit forgery, they are not trusted to be right. The truth value of any scientific finding will be challenged by other scientists until verified or disproved. It was this peer review that in the end blew open the Piltdown hoax, and disproved cold fusion.

Scientists are generally honest; mistakes are made, but deliberate fraud is quite rare. This is because honor and recognition is such an important part of the reward system for scientists. It's not that many scientists won't prefer dollars to honor, but the good jobs, the fat grants, all depend on your recognition. And once a scientist has been caught in scientific fraud, he/she is effectively dead for the community: No jobs, no grants, no co-writers, no publishing. Talk about shunning.

Hans

Another Hoax: the "Piltdown" chicken displayed by National Geographic. The Chinese farmer who did the hoax must have busted his sides laughing at the acceptance of his hoax by scientists.

The confusion of hoax with scientific blunder may be that creationists use these 2 hoaxes as ammo against evolution and scientists. Their conclusions: scientists lie

one of many articles the creationists write to attack


http://www.highschoolscience.com/conf/enemy.pdf


one of many Christian sited dedicated to showing scientists lie to protect their emotional and intellectual investment

http://www.christiancourier.com/penp...fossilFlub.htm

[Ove]

Here are some of my favourites:

"There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will". -- Albert Einstein, 1932

"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers" -- Thomas Watson, Chairman of IBM, 1943

"There will never be a bigger plane buildt" -- A Boeing engineer after the first flight of the 247, a twin prop engined machine carrying 10 passengers

And the best:

"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1,5 tons" --Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949

[MRC_Hans]

Didn't Bill Gates at some point say something like "I can't imagine anybody needing more than 640KB of memory"?


Hans

[neutrino_cannon]

Quote:

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe


\intellectual investment
\

Dishonest yes, but I would not call it intelectual. And certainly not scientific either.

Spontaneous Generation (the idea that life could arise spontaneously from inanimate materials).

Pasteur conclusively disproved the theory of Spontaneous Generation, despite its widespread acceptance in the scientific community at the time, through a series of now famous experiments. Several of his contemporaries initially laughed at his ideas, but through sound experimental planning, and well-founded conclusions, he proved his "germ theory," and at the same time, invented biotechnology.

It's just a shame that Creationism survived.

Mr. Turquoise

[Ove]

Quote:

Didn't Bill Gates at some point say something like "I can't imagine anybody needing more than 640KB of memory"?

No, that's an urban legend but a fun story anyhow.

[Brian the Snail]

Quote:

Originally posted by Mercutio
I gotta go with Rene Blondlott and N-rays. Hundreds of papers published before deciding it was all essentially wishful thinking. Of course, I wouldn't really call it a blunder so much as science at work, recognizing a dead end and moving on.

N-ray story

Wow! There must be an echo in here

Quote:

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe
one of many Christian sited dedicated to showing scientists lie to protect their emotional and intellectual investment

Just wasted an hour of my life surfing the articles on the site, and I thought it was pretty hilarious. Are you sure that it's not a satire? I mean, it's basically saying: "scientists sometimes cheat, so that means that all scientific research that disagrees with our literal reading of the Bible is completely wrong. On the other hand, whenever we think that science agrees with our literal reading of the Bible, then it's okay. Then we'll quote it in support of our arguments..."

[Iconoclast]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ove
"There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be shattered at will". -- Albert Einstein, 1932

I don't think that this statement was a "blunder", Einstein was using the scientific method as we would expect him to. He simply stated that there is no evidence that we will be able to obtain energy from the nucleus of an atom. And he was right, there was no evidence at the time that this was possible.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Quote:

Originally posted by Brian the Snail




Just wasted an hour of my life surfing the articles on the site, and I thought it was pretty hilarious. Are you sure that it's not a satire?



Unfortunately no, there are many books in print and web sites dedicated to debunking evolution and scientific discoveries and they use these hoaxes as evidence to support their claims that scientists are liers, blind to the truth.

I mean, it's basically saying: "scientists sometimes cheat, so that means that all scientific research that disagrees with our literal reading of the Bible is completely wrong. On the other hand, whenever we think that science agrees with our literal reading of the Bible, then it's okay. Then we'll quote it in support of our arguments..."

exactly, convenient huh.

[Crossbow]

My favorite scientific duping was the one that involved Bob Guccione (of Penthouse magazine) where he spent some $20 million of his own money to some clod who claimed that he could develop a way to produce vast amounts of electrical energy for very few natural resources and no pollutants.

Of course any person reasonably versed in energy production could have told him that such a thing is impossible, but Bob G. would hear none of that because he was so deperate for respectabilty, so he latched on to this guy and he planned to make the device his gift to the world and thereby be thought of someone other than the publisher of a sex magazine.

Ugh!

[c0rbin]

Quote:

My favorite scientific duping was the one that involved Bob Guccione (of Penthouse magazine) where he spent some $20 million of his own money to some clod who claimed that he could develop a way to produce vast amounts of electrical energy for very few natural resources and no pollutants.

Crossbow, I have heard of the device Bob G. was funding. It is a personal power generator that produces a charge through actuated motion. It is attached to the elbow and power is created via a simple pumping motion.

There are right and left hand models available, and of course, a free year-long subscription.

[metacristi]

Whodini

Yes science is not extempted from doing mistakes,whatever their origins,hoaxes-the most often-or real blunders.However the intersubjectivity requirement of the scientific method prevent such mistakes to 'propagate' too far.
The real danger in my opinion is when we do not have sufficient objective data to settle a problem beyond reasonable doubt [for a long amount of time] and though the majoritiy of scientists in a scientific field embrace a certain hypothesis 'proclaiming' it the 'winner' or at least 'forever superior' to the other existing hypotheses,based solely on the greater number of its 'confirmations' for the moment.The other danger in such cases is the use of fame and authority to make something look more probable.If,let's say,the most famous scientists in a certain field uses his authority to impose a certain view...
Hence these 'winner hypotheses' are used as true premises to build new hypothesis...
I have nothing to prefer the most 'confirmed' and simpler hypothesis as the main 'working hypothesis',the most promising one,for the moment,but I hardly see here a proof that this superiority is eternal if the other hypotheses are still valid logically and compatible with all objective data at our disposal.
Unfortunately this happen enough often in science in the sense that the currently 'most promising hypothesis' is idealized and postulated to be the only hypothesis acceptable,among the existing hypothesis,to explain a certain fact beyond all reasonable doubt.Consequently all other hypotheses,competing with the main view,are often discarded as nonsense 'in the light of the observed evidence of the time'.I'm not at all sure that the inference to the best evidence [IBE],used in such situations when there is no conclusive objective data,is enough to 'prove' something or at least to conclude that it is superior to all alternative views.Besides,as I argued many times before on this board,there is no necessity to conclude that IBE compels us to believe in the [unobserved directly] entities posited in the axioms of a very succesfull otherwise scientific theory...metaphysics cannot be totally ruled out from science.
That kind of approach lead to real comical predictions where have fallen even some of the most prestigious scientists and engineers of the past,in different contexts:

"...My personal desire would be to prohibit entirely the use of alternating currents. They are unnecessary as they are dangerous...I can therefore see no justification for the introduction of a system which has no element of permanency and every elements of danger to life and property."
"...I have always consistently opposed high-tension and alternating systems of electric lighting...not only on account of danger, but because of their general unreliability and unsuitability for any general system of distribution."

Source: Edison, Thomas A. The Dangers of Electric Lighting, North American Review, November, 1889. pp.630, 632, 633.


"The public may rest absolutely assured that safety will not be secured by burying these wires. The condensation of moisture, the ingress of water, the dissolving influence of coal gas and air-oxidation upon the various insulating compounds will result only in the transfer of deaths to man-holes, houses, stores, and offices, through the agency of the telephone, the low-pressure systems, and the apparatus of the high-tension current itself."

Source: Edison, Thomas A., "The Dangers of Electric Lighting." North American Review, November 1889. p.629.



"...I do not think there is the slightest chance of its [electricity] competing, in a general way, with gas. There are defects about the electric light which, unless some essential change takes place, must entirely prevent its application to ordinary lighting purposes."

Source: Remarks of Mr. Keates, Minutes of Evidence Taken before the Select Committee on Lighting by Electricity in Report from the Select Committee on Lighting by Electricity. London, House of Commons, 1879. p. 146.



The famed surgeon Alfred Velpeau wrote in 1839:

"The abolishment of pain in surgery is a chimera. It is absurd to go on seeking it today. 'Knife' and 'pain' are two words in surgery that must forever be associated in the consciousness of the patient. To this compulsory combination we shall have to adjust ourselves."

Source: Gumpert, Martin. Trail-Blazers of Science. New York, Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1936. p. 232.



Some might argue 'well these examples are depicting a 19-th century type of doing science'.Indeed but I am not at all sure that we are at a different level of knowledge in understanding consciousness,for example,than were the scientists of the 19-th century with electricity...Beware then of hasty predictions,presented as being 'true beyond all reasonable doubt'...

[Blarg]

There are many examples of scientific errors in The Museum of Questionable Medical Devices.

[boooeee]

Quote:

And the best:

"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1,5 tons" --Popular Mechanics, forecasting the relentless march of science, 1949

Hey, they were right, weren't they?

[Tez]

metacristi were those edison quotes before or after the discovery of tungsten as a filament?

If before, I can kind of understand them. If after, well...

[Jeff Corey]

If one were to consider psychiatry a science, or an apllied science, surely the half century Freudian domination of that area constituted a massive error with iatrogenic repercussions.

[Tez]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
If one were to consider psychiatry a science, or an apllied science, surely the half century Freudian domination of that area constituted a massive error with iatrogenic repercussions.

If a then surely b?

a = false -> I dont have to worry about big words in b I dont understand....

[Jeff Corey]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tez


If a then surely b?

a = false -> I dont have to worry about big words in b I dont understand....

You're no fun anymore.

Maybe it was a sorities with the disappearing middle parts.

[Ladewig]

Depending on how you define comical, the Hubble Space Telescope error.

Aristotle claiming that women have fewer teeth than men and people believing it for hundreds of years.

[metacristi]

Quote:

metacristi were those edison quotes before or after the discovery of tungsten as a filament?

If before, I can kind of understand them. If after, well...

Tez they are made well before the invention of tungsten filament [Coolidge 1910] indeed.However this aspect is irrelevant for my argument,it does not make my argumentation less valid.
We do not have the right to [safely] discard hypotheses that seem 'inferior' for the moment based on 'all observed evidence' when in fact this is not at all clear [as in the case of consciousness for example].This is valid not only for scientific hypotheses but even in the case of metaphysical entities such God for example.
I suggest a more cautious approach such 'from all evidence we have now we believe the hypothesis X as the most plausible to be correct'.
This entirely eliminate the possibility that,let's say in a few hundred years from now,a lot of people to laugh at reading our allegedly 'scientific certitudes=pronouncements'.Future might be full of surprises...We must be open to all competing hypotheses,this type of approach is fully compatible with the discovery that the 'most plausible hypothesis' is in fact correct 'beyond all reasonable doubt'.

[Ove]

Quote:

I don't think that this statement was a "blunder", Einstein was using the scientific method as we would expect him to. He simply stated that there is no evidence that we will be able to obtain energy from the nucleus of an atom. And he was right, there was no evidence at the time that this was possible.

You're quite right and IMO the greatest difference between woo-wo and science is that scientists opnenly admits they COULD be wrong.

[QUOTE"...My personal desire would be to prohibit entirely the use of alternating currents. They are unnecessary as they are dangerous...I can therefore see no justification for the introduction of a system which has no element of permanency and every elements of danger to life and property."
"...I have always consistently opposed high-tension and alternating systems of electric lighting...not only on account of danger, but because of their general unreliability and unsuitability for any general system of distribution."
[/quote]

He then invented, and strongly advocated the use of, : The electric chair......... Just to demonstrate to the public how dangerous alternating current could be.


The compagny i work for (Bang & Olufsen) was founded by two young engineers back in the 20's. Their first product was called an "Eliminator" it was in short a power supply. Back then radioes used batteries and it was rather unpredictable when the batteries ran dry and had to be recharged/replaced.

When the "Eliminator" started to sell the no.1 battery manufactor back then (Hellesen) started an advertizing campaign to convince people that it was WAY to unsafe to plug your radio into a mains connection. One of their ads compared such a radio to the electric chair with the title "You wont sit in that chair woluntarily. Why then take the risk, connecting your radio to the mains supply? Use Hellesens radio patteries for safety"

Bang & Olufsen answered back with an ad describing the humility experienced by the radio owner when he had invited guests to listen to his radio and the batteries then went flat.

And it's only 80 years ago.

But as far as i have been able too research the main reason for Edisons "War" against alternating current was that it would rob him of considerable incomes since he was the owner of a lot of DC powerstations and manufactured DC equipment.

[Brian the Snail]

metacristi,

Any chance of shortening you sig?

[Iconoclast]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ove
But as far as i have been able too research the main reason for Edisons "War" against alternating current was that it would rob him of considerable incomes since he was the owner of a lot of DC powerstations and manufactured DC equipment.

That's my understanding as well, that Edison was simply trying to make the public fearful of Westinghouse's competing AC system.

Quote:

From "Made in America", Bryson ISBN 07493 9739X
"When George Westinghouse's novel and, in retrospect, superior alternating current electrical system began to challenge the direct current system in which Edison had invested much effort and money, Edison produced an eighty-three-page booklet entitled A Warning! From the Edison Electric Light Co. filled with alarming (and possibly fictitious) tales of innocent people who had been killed by coming in contact with Westinghouse's dangerously unreliable AC cables. To drive home this point, he paid neighbourhood children twenty-five cents each to bring him stray dogs, then staged elaborate demonstrations for the press at which the animals were dampened to improve their conductivity, strapped to tin sheets and slowly dispatched with increasing doses of alternating current.

But his boldest -- and certainly tackiest -- public relations exercise was to engineer the world's first electrical execution using his rival's alternating current in the hope of proving once and for all it's inherent dangers. The victim selected for the exercise was one William Kemmler, an inmate at Auburn State Prison in New York, who had got himself into this unfortunate fix by bludgeoning to death his girlfriend. The experiment was not a success. Strapped into the electric chair with his hands immersed in buckets of salt water, Kemmler was subjected to 1600 volts of alternating current for fifty seconds. He gasped a great deal, lost consciousness and even began to smoulder a little, but conspicuously he failed to die. Not until a second, more forceful charge was applied did he finally expire. It was a messy, ugly death and wholly undermined Edison's intentions. Alternating current was soon the norm."

Edison, What a guy!

[sadluxation]

Quote:

Originally posted by PygmyPlaidGiraffe


Another Hoax: the "Piltdown" chicken displayed by National Geographic. The Chinese farmer who did the hoax must have busted his sides laughing at the acceptance of his hoax by scientists.

This was made into a Horizon/Nova programme and was shown recently on BBC tv.

Horizon-Liaoning

[Darwin]

Any creation scientists favourite potshot,piltdown man.

[jj]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
If one were to consider psychiatry a science, or an apllied science, surely the half century Freudian domination of that area constituted a massive error with iatrogenic repercussions.

I thought "iatrogenic" meant accidentally caused. From what I've seen, I wonder, sometimes ...