Examples of when the professional scientists or mathematicians were wrong, but the nonprofessionals were...
$begingroup$
What are the most glaring examples -- if any -- of when the professional scientists or mathematicians were wrong, but the nonprofessionals were right?
mathematicians scientific-method
asked Jan 18 at 5:37
Seth RichSeth Rich
304124
$endgroup$
|
show 7 more comments
$begingroup$
What are the most glaring examples -- if any -- of when the professional scientists or mathematicians were wrong, but the nonprofessionals were right?
mathematicians scientific-method
asked Jan 18 at 5:37
Seth RichSeth Rich
304124
$endgroup$
8
$begingroup$
Two things: math was far ahead of nearly all fields of science in its rigor and procedures until relatively recently; and in nearly all cases "nonprofessionals" were right in a tiny percentage of their beliefs. They were correct by accident, not by insight.
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
Jan 18 at 13:24
8
$begingroup$
I don't know the local standards but isn't this just a list question and hence should be closed?
$endgroup$
– Tim B
Jan 18 at 16:00
2
$begingroup$
@MasonWheeler: I don't know the history, but I would be really surprised if that was the case. Conservation of momentum is a very basic fact in Newtonian mechanis, so the idea of "I expel matter in one direction, I move in the other" should have been obvious to any physicist.
$endgroup$
– Martin Argerami
Jan 19 at 5:20
3
$begingroup$
@MasonWheeler You are undoubtedly thinking of this famous New York Times article, worth reading in its entirety: en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times/Robert_Goddard As you can see, it is actually an illustration of the opposite. Goddard, a professional scientist, was quite right about the dynamics of rocketry and how action and reaction actually work, while the amateur writer of the article was wrong.
$endgroup$
– Robert Furber
Jan 20 at 9:09
3
$begingroup$
It is particularly amusing when he says that only "Dr. Einstein" is "licensed" to change the laws of mechanics.
$endgroup$
– Robert Furber
Jan 20 at 9:10
|
show 7 more comments
$begingroup$
What are the most glaring examples -- if any -- of when the professional scientists or mathematicians were wrong, but the nonprofessionals were right?
mathematicians scientific-method
asked Jan 18 at 5:37
Seth RichSeth Rich
304124
$endgroup$
What are the most glaring examples -- if any -- of when the professional scientists or mathematicians were wrong, but the nonprofessionals were right?
mathematicians scientific-method
mathematicians scientific-method
asked Jan 18 at 5:37
Seth RichSeth Rich
304124
asked Jan 18 at 5:37
Seth RichSeth Rich
304124
asked Jan 18 at 5:37
Seth RichSeth Rich
304124
asked Jan 18 at 5:37
Seth RichSeth Rich
304124
asked Jan 18 at 5:37
Seth RichSeth Rich
304124
304124
8
$begingroup$
Two things: math was far ahead of nearly all fields of science in its rigor and procedures until relatively recently; and in nearly all cases "nonprofessionals" were right in a tiny percentage of their beliefs. They were correct by accident, not by insight.
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
Jan 18 at 13:24
8
$begingroup$
I don't know the local standards but isn't this just a list question and hence should be closed?
$endgroup$
– Tim B
Jan 18 at 16:00
2
$begingroup$
@MasonWheeler: I don't know the history, but I would be really surprised if that was the case. Conservation of momentum is a very basic fact in Newtonian mechanis, so the idea of "I expel matter in one direction, I move in the other" should have been obvious to any physicist.
$endgroup$
– Martin Argerami
Jan 19 at 5:20
3
$begingroup$
@MasonWheeler You are undoubtedly thinking of this famous New York Times article, worth reading in its entirety: en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times/Robert_Goddard As you can see, it is actually an illustration of the opposite. Goddard, a professional scientist, was quite right about the dynamics of rocketry and how action and reaction actually work, while the amateur writer of the article was wrong.
$endgroup$
– Robert Furber
Jan 20 at 9:09
3
$begingroup$
It is particularly amusing when he says that only "Dr. Einstein" is "licensed" to change the laws of mechanics.
$endgroup$
– Robert Furber
Jan 20 at 9:10
|
show 7 more comments
8
$begingroup$
Two things: math was far ahead of nearly all fields of science in its rigor and procedures until relatively recently; and in nearly all cases "nonprofessionals" were right in a tiny percentage of their beliefs. They were correct by accident, not by insight.
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
Jan 18 at 13:24
8
$begingroup$
I don't know the local standards but isn't this just a list question and hence should be closed?
$endgroup$
– Tim B
Jan 18 at 16:00
2
$begingroup$
@MasonWheeler: I don't know the history, but I would be really surprised if that was the case. Conservation of momentum is a very basic fact in Newtonian mechanis, so the idea of "I expel matter in one direction, I move in the other" should have been obvious to any physicist.
$endgroup$
– Martin Argerami
Jan 19 at 5:20
3
$begingroup$
@MasonWheeler You are undoubtedly thinking of this famous New York Times article, worth reading in its entirety: en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times/Robert_Goddard As you can see, it is actually an illustration of the opposite. Goddard, a professional scientist, was quite right about the dynamics of rocketry and how action and reaction actually work, while the amateur writer of the article was wrong.
$endgroup$
– Robert Furber
Jan 20 at 9:09
3
$begingroup$
It is particularly amusing when he says that only "Dr. Einstein" is "licensed" to change the laws of mechanics.
$endgroup$
– Robert Furber
Jan 20 at 9:10
8
8
$begingroup$
Two things: math was far ahead of nearly all fields of science in its rigor and procedures until relatively recently; and in nearly all cases "nonprofessionals" were right in a tiny percentage of their beliefs. They were correct by accident, not by insight.
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
Jan 18 at 13:24
$begingroup$
Two things: math was far ahead of nearly all fields of science in its rigor and procedures until relatively recently; and in nearly all cases "nonprofessionals" were right in a tiny percentage of their beliefs. They were correct by accident, not by insight.
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
Jan 18 at 13:24
8
8
$begingroup$
I don't know the local standards but isn't this just a list question and hence should be closed?
$endgroup$
– Tim B
Jan 18 at 16:00
$begingroup$
I don't know the local standards but isn't this just a list question and hence should be closed?
$endgroup$
– Tim B
Jan 18 at 16:00
2
2
$begingroup$
@MasonWheeler: I don't know the history, but I would be really surprised if that was the case. Conservation of momentum is a very basic fact in Newtonian mechanis, so the idea of "I expel matter in one direction, I move in the other" should have been obvious to any physicist.
$endgroup$
– Martin Argerami
Jan 19 at 5:20
$begingroup$
@MasonWheeler: I don't know the history, but I would be really surprised if that was the case. Conservation of momentum is a very basic fact in Newtonian mechanis, so the idea of "I expel matter in one direction, I move in the other" should have been obvious to any physicist.
$endgroup$
– Martin Argerami
Jan 19 at 5:20
3
3
$begingroup$
@MasonWheeler You are undoubtedly thinking of this famous New York Times article, worth reading in its entirety: en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times/Robert_Goddard As you can see, it is actually an illustration of the opposite. Goddard, a professional scientist, was quite right about the dynamics of rocketry and how action and reaction actually work, while the amateur writer of the article was wrong.
$endgroup$
– Robert Furber
Jan 20 at 9:09
$begingroup$
@MasonWheeler You are undoubtedly thinking of this famous New York Times article, worth reading in its entirety: en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times/Robert_Goddard As you can see, it is actually an illustration of the opposite. Goddard, a professional scientist, was quite right about the dynamics of rocketry and how action and reaction actually work, while the amateur writer of the article was wrong.
$endgroup$
– Robert Furber
Jan 20 at 9:09
3
3
$begingroup$
It is particularly amusing when he says that only "Dr. Einstein" is "licensed" to change the laws of mechanics.
$endgroup$
– Robert Furber
Jan 20 at 9:10
$begingroup$
It is particularly amusing when he says that only "Dr. Einstein" is "licensed" to change the laws of mechanics.
$endgroup$
– Robert Furber
Jan 20 at 9:10
|
show 7 more comments
13 Answers
13
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It seems ball lightning was disbelieved by scientists until around 1960. See Wikipedia .
I knew a geologist who told us how his eye-witness account of ball lightning had been ridiculed. He had learned not to mention it when he interviewed for jobs as a professor of geology.
answered Jan 18 at 13:33
Gerald EdgarGerald Edgar
4,1111718
$endgroup$
13
$begingroup$
Eyewitnesses are routinely disbelieved because witness reports are the second-least-reliable source of information.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 19 at 0:48
17
$begingroup$
@PedroA, an eyewitness report as relayed by a third party.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 19 at 2:30
10
$begingroup$
@Mark: I thought that dishonour is reserved for facebook/twitter posts?
$endgroup$
– user21820
Jan 19 at 15:25
3
$begingroup$
It doesn't help that ball lightning only lasts one turn.
$endgroup$
– Acccumulation
Jan 22 at 21:13
1
$begingroup$
What can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence... It's not that the scientists were exactly wrong, but it just took a long time to obtain the evidence.
$endgroup$
– UKMonkey
Jan 23 at 19:58
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
In 1726's Gulliver's Travels, Jonathan Swift mocked the learned scientists of Britain for not having solved the Longitude problem: Figure out a way to keep track of one's east-west location to within a mile after making a round-trip across the Atlantic. This was one of the most important scientific challenges of the 18th century. The British Parliament had an outstanding offer of £ 20,000 for a solution, and had trusted the astronomers at the Royal Observatory with awarding the prize. The prize was worth several times the modern-day Nobel Prize, and was famous at the time.
In 1731, a watchmaker named John Harrison solved the problem. The astronomers at the Observatory refused to believe him. Over the next 40 years, Harrison steadily refined his solution, but the astronomers never did award him the prize. It took an act of Parliament in 1773 before Harrison was finally given his prize, and east-west navigation could be made safe.
answered Jan 19 at 3:19
JasperJasper
51115
$endgroup$
19
$begingroup$
I don't think Harrison counts as a non-professional. His solution was to use an accurate clock, and he was a professional clockmaker.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
Jan 19 at 18:34
9
$begingroup$
The question implies that it considers as "nonprofessionals" all those who aren't "professional scientists or mathematicians". So Harrison would appear to qualify. I am not sure, however, whether professional scientists or mathematicians thought he was wrong, and think the answer would benefit from links to relevant sources that demonstrate that.
$endgroup$
– njuffa
Jan 20 at 0:14
3
$begingroup$
@njuffa -- I linked to a book-length source that discusses the ways in which the professional scientists thought he had insufficiently answered the question.
$endgroup$
– Jasper
Jan 20 at 3:46
11
$begingroup$
For the history of the chronometer, it was not that scientists didn't believe that the chronometer could work. Rather, scientists believed that there should be a more "elegant" solution that does not simply rely on measuring time difference to determine longitude similar to how sextants can be used to measure latitude.
$endgroup$
– slebetman
Jan 20 at 18:53
6
$begingroup$
Everyone should read the wonderful book “Longitude”, by Dava Sobel. See en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitude_(book)
$endgroup$
– ZeroTheHero
Jan 21 at 0:12
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
This isn't a topic I'm familiar with, just something I've read on Quanta, but according to this article, Richard Kershner of Johns Hopkins claimed to have a complete classification of convex pentagon tilings in 1968, though he notably said that "The proof that the list in Theorems 1 and 2 is complete is extremely laborious and will be given elsewhere" and that "a complete proof would require a rather large book".
However, after Martin Gardner talked about this claim in his column in Scientific American in 1975, it got to Marjorie Rice, a California housewife with a high school math education, who found four additional families, and Richard James, a computer programmer, who found another. Eventually, Michael Rao proved that there were exactly 15. You can read more about Rice in this article by the same author.
Admittedly, this is an instance of a single professional mathematician making a false claim without giving a proof, which mathematicians consider poor form, and a nonprofessional correcting him, rather than the general mathematics community being wrong.
answered Jan 19 at 23:22
Kevin LongKevin Long
3487
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Isn’t there a similar story about Latin squares?
$endgroup$
– ZeroTheHero
Jan 21 at 0:14
$begingroup$
Thanks for the link to the interesting story about Marjorie Rice. It makes me wonder how much humanity is held back by gender and social inequality. How much talent wasted, how much potential unrealized. A shame even from a purely utilitarian viewpoint. What isn't there is not missed, but it must be a lot.
$endgroup$
– Peter A. Schneider
Jan 23 at 10:36
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think a famous example is the Monty Hall problem` https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem about switching doors.
The problem was answered correctly by Marilyn vos Savant, but she got
baskets of letters from experts that she is wrong.
answered Jan 18 at 16:09
KarlKarl
3193
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
But the rate of correct answers was far higher among the educated (at least in math and physics) than among the great unwashed masses.
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
Jan 18 at 18:34
5
$begingroup$
@ Carl Witthoft, do you have hard data about this or is it just a guess?
$endgroup$
– Karl
Jan 18 at 18:37
9
$begingroup$
This is not an accurate description of what happened. Marilyn Vos Savant thought she was answering the Monty Hall problem but was actually answering the evil Monty problem, which has a different answer. Lots of people wrote to explain to her that she was wrong and she stubbornly insisted that they were wrong. (In her statement of the problem, Monty offers to let you switch doors after he knows which door you chose with no requirement to do so. For all you know, Monty only extends this offer to people who he knows chose the right door. So switching could guarantee a loss in this variant.)
$endgroup$
– David Schwartz
Jan 18 at 21:25
6
$begingroup$
Also, please note that (1) the problem permeated the mathematics community far ahead of vos Savant's rise to prominence; (2) the large majority of professional mathematicians were right about the problem. "baskets of letters" does not necessarily represent "the professional ... mathematicians" as a whole.
$endgroup$
– Prune
Jan 18 at 22:28
10
$begingroup$
Karl, re Carl Witthoft's comment MvS wrote "Of the letters from the general public, 92% are against my answer, and of the letters from universities, 65% are against my answer." @David Schwartz, it's true that the problem has no solution unless you state Monty's general strategy; neither the asker of the question nor vos Savant did that; and from her explanations it's not clear that she understands how critical Monty's motivation is. However, the authors of the letters she quoted don't seem to understand that either, and no one mentioned evil Monty (or any other well-defined Monty).
$endgroup$
– benrg
Jan 19 at 1:04
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
Just warning not to include pre-1920s medicine (and a lot of medical mantra thru the 20th century), as there was little to no science involved amongst physicians. Just look at how difficult it was for Lister et. al. to convince hospitals, midwives, etc. to wash their hands and sterilize operating theatres.
There are dozens of incorrect anecdotes purporting to show scientists were wrong. The "bumblebee can't fly" is one such. The truth behind the science/engineering theories is rather different.
answered Jan 18 at 13:29
Carl WitthoftCarl Witthoft
1,24747
$endgroup$
12
$begingroup$
Note that the actual statement in the bumblebee case is "the bumblebee can't fly using aerodynamic lift" -- and in fact, it doesn't. It flies using a different technique involving dynamic stall.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 19 at 1:01
$begingroup$
@Mark I did know that; it's one of those cliches that has ignored the true source. Just like the "Let them eat cake," where 'cake' had a completely different meaning (leftover scalings from bakeries, not fancy dessert items)
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
Jan 19 at 21:31
4
$begingroup$
@CarlWitthoft Although it's off topic, I don't know where you are getting that interpretation of "Let them eat cake". The origin of it that I know is that Jean-Jacques Rousseau attributed the phrase "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche." to a proverbial unspecified princess as part of a joke in his autobiography.
$endgroup$
– Robert Furber
Jan 20 at 5:29
3
$begingroup$
@Mark The bee thing always bothered me. The science wasn't wrong; no scientist ever claimed that bees can't fly or anything like that. The point was that using the science known at the time, they couldn't explain how bees were able to generate sufficient lift to fly, but, given that they clearly do fly, this hinted at principles of aerodynamics that were as yet not fully understood, thus pointing at new areas to research and new experiments to devise. It's not scientists being ignorant, it's scientists learning from observations. In other words, doing science.
$endgroup$
– anaximander
Jan 22 at 14:12
$begingroup$
Ironically, during the plague, the masks worn by doctors were stuffed with lavender (and other nice smelling flowers)... It had since been found this would have helped protect them from some diseases (though likely not the plague) because lavender is a natural anti biotic...
$endgroup$
– UKMonkey
Jan 23 at 20:09
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Take meteorites, for instance. By the end of the XVIIIth century, educated people “knew” that no rock found on Earth could possibly have fallen from the sky, in spite of the evidence (eyewitnesses included) for their existence. As science journalist Kat Eshner wrote, “eighteenth-century rationalists […] thought the stories of rains of iron rocks weren’t real”. This state of affairs lasted until 1803, when Jean-Baptiste Biot established the reality of meteorites.
answered Jan 18 at 7:25
José Carlos SantosJosé Carlos Santos
2,0151527
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
The WP link doesn't seem to support your interpretation. It sounds like the question was not even taken up by professional scientists until 1794, when Chladni, a professional scientist, published a book saying that they did fall from the sky. This was followed rapidly by the supporting evidence from Biot.
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
Jan 18 at 15:58
$begingroup$
I've edited my answer and changed the link.
$endgroup$
– José Carlos Santos
Jan 18 at 16:07
$begingroup$
Your link doesn't support that people before that time "knew" that no rock could fall from the sky... In addition it certainly doesn't say that a non professional scientist did the research on the rock
$endgroup$
– UKMonkey
Jan 23 at 20:06
$begingroup$
@UKMonkey What about the new link?
$endgroup$
– José Carlos Santos
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Michael Ventris, an amateur philologist, (he was an architect) managed to decipher the Mycenean script known as Linear B, a problem that professional specialists had been trying to solve for decades.
answered Jan 19 at 18:12
xxavierxxavier
29915
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
I guess "experts couldn't solve it" is not the same as "experts were wrong".
$endgroup$
– Gerald Edgar
Jan 20 at 14:17
3
$begingroup$
@GeraldEdgar Experts were wrong, since they didn't attempt to decipher those inscriptions assuming –as Ventris did– that they were written in a language related to Greek.
$endgroup$
– xxavier
Jan 20 at 15:30
$begingroup$
@xxavier Interesting. You should amend your answer with that detail, it makes it more relevant. It's also not untypical: Preconceived ideas sometimes prevent the professional from exploring new approaches.
$endgroup$
– Peter A. Schneider
Jan 23 at 10:38
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The Wright Brothers, both bicycle mechanics, solved both the control and power problems of heavier-than-air manned flight in 1902, beating the well funded aeronautical academic scientists of the Smithsonian Institute, notably Samuel Pierpont Langley.
answered Jan 20 at 16:31
russelldrusselld
1412
New contributor
russelld is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
That is an example from engineering, not science. For that very fact, the people at the Smithsonian weren't wrong, since they weren't even trying to be right. Engineering problems can have multiple solutions.
$endgroup$
– Jishin Noben
Jan 22 at 12:29
$begingroup$
The Wright Brothers do get full credit since they did their work independently; but weren't the first to achieve heavier-than-air manned flight. Richard Pearce's earlier (very similar) aircraft didn't have the same historical significance due mostly to its inventor's deteriorating mental state.
$endgroup$
– Jeremy List
Jan 22 at 21:58
1
$begingroup$
@JeremyList can you please provide a reference to Richard Pearce
$endgroup$
– russelld
Jan 23 at 9:39
1
$begingroup$
@JishinNoben the Wrights demonstrated scientific skills set associated with scientific inquiry. As in 1) Literature review 2) contacting other flight researchers; 3) Thought up hypothesis' which were tested to develop a theory ( of flight eg wing warping); 4) Controlled variables (chord ratio of wings) 5) Built equipment to test the hypothesis (eg wind tunnel); Pulling together research to successful outcome (eg controlled manned flight in heavier air device). NASA does the same process
$endgroup$
– russelld
Jan 23 at 10:08
$begingroup$
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Pearse. Turns out there's a lot more uncertainty about his life and work than I had recalled, but this is still a very interesting read.
$endgroup$
– Jeremy List
Jan 23 at 20:46
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
The Green Flash was
described for the first time (at least in the Western literature) by Jules Verne,
a science fiction writer.
Many scientists did not believe until photographs were taken and published.
Herbert Wells in 1914 described the use of nuclear energy for both bombs and peaceful applications. (His novel The world Set Free). At approximately the same time many scientists thought this was impossible.
(Rutherford is on record for saying this publicly, that nuclear energy will be never used).
answered Jan 18 at 14:41
Alexandre EremenkoAlexandre Eremenko
24.5k13591
$endgroup$
7
$begingroup$
HG Wells wrote many science fiction novels. That one happened to reflect something which later turned out to be correct is really just the dice falling right, with a whole bunch of other novels which turned out not to work out. Anyway, Wells was always about the concept, and the society, not the hard science.
$endgroup$
– Graham
Jan 18 at 20:48
1
$begingroup$
Can you provide a source that confirms the scientists did not believe the Green Flash was possible? The Wikipedia article mentions the photographs were published in 1960 and I clearly remember a 1920s children popular science book discussing green flash (after all, refraction has been studied for quite some time). Also, I find the idea that scientists changed their minds simply after looking at some photos dubious.
$endgroup$
– Denis
Jan 20 at 16:26
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'd be tempted to add Gregor Mendel (whose experiments on plants and his analysis demonstrated how genes work) to that list.
It wasn't so much that the 'professional' scientists of the time considered that he was wrong - rather that they didn't even know of his results. In particular Darwin puzzled over what the mechanism for transfer of traits was and was searching for a reason why traits wouldn't be continually diluted ... which was an answer that Mendel had already answered very neatly. (Darwin argued for pangenesis as he was sure from his observations that blending inheritennce would have diluted distinct traits)
I'd argue that Mendel would meet the criteria as being a 'non-professional' as while he did teach physics - he repeatedly failed the teaching exams so he wasn't qualified to teach high school or adults - only young children. A pedant may point out that as presented his experiments in a couple of meetings and published an ignored paper he should be regarded as a 'professional scientist' .. but since he own boss in the church banned him from studying mice as it was considered wrong to study animal reproduction - I'd safely argue that it was a very non-scientific profession he was in.
answered Jan 21 at 7:23
Mac HarwoodMac Harwood
911
New contributor
Mac Harwood is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Actually, Mendel did once present his results to botanists. Most got bored of the lecture and left and none cared about what mathematics had to do with breeding plants.
$endgroup$
– slebetman
Jan 22 at 5:00
2
$begingroup$
@slebetman That sounds like a great anecdote. I would like to learn more about it. Do you have a reference?
$endgroup$
– Jishin Noben
Jan 23 at 13:48
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Mathematicians have been looking for amicable numbers for millenia. The smallest pair $(220, 284)$ was known to the Pythagoreans, and several larger pairs and a formula for generating them were found by Hindu and Arab mathematicians during the Middle Ages. Fermat, Descartes, and Euler rediscovered some of these and found some more.
But in 1866, a 16-year old schoolboy, Nicolo I. Paganini (no relation to the composer) found the previously unknown pair $(1184, 1210)$, which is actually the second smallest.
answered Jan 22 at 20:37
SpencerSpencer
28016
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The Mpemba effect,
named after a Tanzanian student who discovered that a hot ice cream
mix freezes faster than a cold mix in cookery classes in the early
1960s
was initially ridiculed. Quoting the wiki page on this topic:
After [a lecture by Dr. Denis G. Osborne], Erasto Mpemba asked him the question, "If you take two similar containers with equal volumes of water, one at 35 °C (95 °F) and the other at 100 °C (212 °F), and put them into a freezer, the one that started at 100 °C (212 °F) freezes first. Why?", only to be ridiculed by his classmates and teacher. After initial consternation, Osborne experimented on the issue back at his workplace and confirmed Mpemba's finding. They published the results together in 1969.
edited yesterday
Community♦
1
answered Jan 21 at 0:09
ZeroTheHeroZeroTheHero
2337
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Do you have another source for this, because the article you link to does not agree with your statement you make. Apparently this was a well known but unexplained observation that a lot of very famous physicists had observed.
$endgroup$
– pipe
Jan 21 at 2:39
1
$begingroup$
@pipe I basically quote from the article but the wiki page is also good: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mpemba_effect
$endgroup$
– ZeroTheHero
Jan 21 at 2:43
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Rogue/Freak waves. It seems that reports of these were considered myths by science for a long time until they were finally recorded.
(However this is not an exact answer to the question - no non-professional had a theory about these waves, it was more of "ignoring observed facts which don't fit the accepted theory)
answered Jan 21 at 6:24
SaschaSascha
1591
New contributor
Sascha is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
13 Answers
13
active
oldest
votes
13 Answers
13
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It seems ball lightning was disbelieved by scientists until around 1960. See Wikipedia .
I knew a geologist who told us how his eye-witness account of ball lightning had been ridiculed. He had learned not to mention it when he interviewed for jobs as a professor of geology.
answered Jan 18 at 13:33
Gerald EdgarGerald Edgar
4,1111718
$endgroup$
13
$begingroup$
Eyewitnesses are routinely disbelieved because witness reports are the second-least-reliable source of information.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 19 at 0:48
17
$begingroup$
@PedroA, an eyewitness report as relayed by a third party.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 19 at 2:30
10
$begingroup$
@Mark: I thought that dishonour is reserved for facebook/twitter posts?
$endgroup$
– user21820
Jan 19 at 15:25
3
$begingroup$
It doesn't help that ball lightning only lasts one turn.
$endgroup$
– Acccumulation
Jan 22 at 21:13
1
$begingroup$
What can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence... It's not that the scientists were exactly wrong, but it just took a long time to obtain the evidence.
$endgroup$
– UKMonkey
Jan 23 at 19:58
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
It seems ball lightning was disbelieved by scientists until around 1960. See Wikipedia .
I knew a geologist who told us how his eye-witness account of ball lightning had been ridiculed. He had learned not to mention it when he interviewed for jobs as a professor of geology.
answered Jan 18 at 13:33
Gerald EdgarGerald Edgar
4,1111718
$endgroup$
13
$begingroup$
Eyewitnesses are routinely disbelieved because witness reports are the second-least-reliable source of information.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 19 at 0:48
17
$begingroup$
@PedroA, an eyewitness report as relayed by a third party.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 19 at 2:30
10
$begingroup$
@Mark: I thought that dishonour is reserved for facebook/twitter posts?
$endgroup$
– user21820
Jan 19 at 15:25
3
$begingroup$
It doesn't help that ball lightning only lasts one turn.
$endgroup$
– Acccumulation
Jan 22 at 21:13
1
$begingroup$
What can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence... It's not that the scientists were exactly wrong, but it just took a long time to obtain the evidence.
$endgroup$
– UKMonkey
Jan 23 at 19:58
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
It seems ball lightning was disbelieved by scientists until around 1960. See Wikipedia .
I knew a geologist who told us how his eye-witness account of ball lightning had been ridiculed. He had learned not to mention it when he interviewed for jobs as a professor of geology.
answered Jan 18 at 13:33
Gerald EdgarGerald Edgar
4,1111718
$endgroup$
It seems ball lightning was disbelieved by scientists until around 1960. See Wikipedia .
I knew a geologist who told us how his eye-witness account of ball lightning had been ridiculed. He had learned not to mention it when he interviewed for jobs as a professor of geology.
answered Jan 18 at 13:33
Gerald EdgarGerald Edgar
4,1111718
edited 2 days ago
answered Jan 18 at 13:33
Gerald EdgarGerald Edgar
4,1111718
answered Jan 18 at 13:33
Gerald EdgarGerald Edgar
4,1111718
answered Jan 18 at 13:33
Gerald EdgarGerald Edgar
4,1111718
4,1111718
13
$begingroup$
Eyewitnesses are routinely disbelieved because witness reports are the second-least-reliable source of information.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 19 at 0:48
17
$begingroup$
@PedroA, an eyewitness report as relayed by a third party.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 19 at 2:30
10
$begingroup$
@Mark: I thought that dishonour is reserved for facebook/twitter posts?
$endgroup$
– user21820
Jan 19 at 15:25
3
$begingroup$
It doesn't help that ball lightning only lasts one turn.
$endgroup$
– Acccumulation
Jan 22 at 21:13
1
$begingroup$
What can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence... It's not that the scientists were exactly wrong, but it just took a long time to obtain the evidence.
$endgroup$
– UKMonkey
Jan 23 at 19:58
|
show 4 more comments
13
$begingroup$
Eyewitnesses are routinely disbelieved because witness reports are the second-least-reliable source of information.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 19 at 0:48
17
$begingroup$
@PedroA, an eyewitness report as relayed by a third party.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 19 at 2:30
10
$begingroup$
@Mark: I thought that dishonour is reserved for facebook/twitter posts?
$endgroup$
– user21820
Jan 19 at 15:25
3
$begingroup$
It doesn't help that ball lightning only lasts one turn.
$endgroup$
– Acccumulation
Jan 22 at 21:13
1
$begingroup$
What can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence... It's not that the scientists were exactly wrong, but it just took a long time to obtain the evidence.
$endgroup$
– UKMonkey
Jan 23 at 19:58
13
13
$begingroup$
Eyewitnesses are routinely disbelieved because witness reports are the second-least-reliable source of information.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 19 at 0:48
$begingroup$
Eyewitnesses are routinely disbelieved because witness reports are the second-least-reliable source of information.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 19 at 0:48
17
17
$begingroup$
@PedroA, an eyewitness report as relayed by a third party.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 19 at 2:30
$begingroup$
@PedroA, an eyewitness report as relayed by a third party.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 19 at 2:30
10
10
$begingroup$
@Mark: I thought that dishonour is reserved for facebook/twitter posts?
$endgroup$
– user21820
Jan 19 at 15:25
$begingroup$
@Mark: I thought that dishonour is reserved for facebook/twitter posts?
$endgroup$
– user21820
Jan 19 at 15:25
3
3
$begingroup$
It doesn't help that ball lightning only lasts one turn.
$endgroup$
– Acccumulation
Jan 22 at 21:13
$begingroup$
It doesn't help that ball lightning only lasts one turn.
$endgroup$
– Acccumulation
Jan 22 at 21:13
1
1
$begingroup$
What can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence... It's not that the scientists were exactly wrong, but it just took a long time to obtain the evidence.
$endgroup$
– UKMonkey
Jan 23 at 19:58
$begingroup$
What can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence... It's not that the scientists were exactly wrong, but it just took a long time to obtain the evidence.
$endgroup$
– UKMonkey
Jan 23 at 19:58
|
show 4 more comments
$begingroup$
In 1726's Gulliver's Travels, Jonathan Swift mocked the learned scientists of Britain for not having solved the Longitude problem: Figure out a way to keep track of one's east-west location to within a mile after making a round-trip across the Atlantic. This was one of the most important scientific challenges of the 18th century. The British Parliament had an outstanding offer of £ 20,000 for a solution, and had trusted the astronomers at the Royal Observatory with awarding the prize. The prize was worth several times the modern-day Nobel Prize, and was famous at the time.
In 1731, a watchmaker named John Harrison solved the problem. The astronomers at the Observatory refused to believe him. Over the next 40 years, Harrison steadily refined his solution, but the astronomers never did award him the prize. It took an act of Parliament in 1773 before Harrison was finally given his prize, and east-west navigation could be made safe.
answered Jan 19 at 3:19
JasperJasper
51115
$endgroup$
19
$begingroup$
I don't think Harrison counts as a non-professional. His solution was to use an accurate clock, and he was a professional clockmaker.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
Jan 19 at 18:34
9
$begingroup$
The question implies that it considers as "nonprofessionals" all those who aren't "professional scientists or mathematicians". So Harrison would appear to qualify. I am not sure, however, whether professional scientists or mathematicians thought he was wrong, and think the answer would benefit from links to relevant sources that demonstrate that.
$endgroup$
– njuffa
Jan 20 at 0:14
3
$begingroup$
@njuffa -- I linked to a book-length source that discusses the ways in which the professional scientists thought he had insufficiently answered the question.
$endgroup$
– Jasper
Jan 20 at 3:46
11
$begingroup$
For the history of the chronometer, it was not that scientists didn't believe that the chronometer could work. Rather, scientists believed that there should be a more "elegant" solution that does not simply rely on measuring time difference to determine longitude similar to how sextants can be used to measure latitude.
$endgroup$
– slebetman
Jan 20 at 18:53
6
$begingroup$
Everyone should read the wonderful book “Longitude”, by Dava Sobel. See en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitude_(book)
$endgroup$
– ZeroTheHero
Jan 21 at 0:12
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
In 1726's Gulliver's Travels, Jonathan Swift mocked the learned scientists of Britain for not having solved the Longitude problem: Figure out a way to keep track of one's east-west location to within a mile after making a round-trip across the Atlantic. This was one of the most important scientific challenges of the 18th century. The British Parliament had an outstanding offer of £ 20,000 for a solution, and had trusted the astronomers at the Royal Observatory with awarding the prize. The prize was worth several times the modern-day Nobel Prize, and was famous at the time.
In 1731, a watchmaker named John Harrison solved the problem. The astronomers at the Observatory refused to believe him. Over the next 40 years, Harrison steadily refined his solution, but the astronomers never did award him the prize. It took an act of Parliament in 1773 before Harrison was finally given his prize, and east-west navigation could be made safe.
answered Jan 19 at 3:19
JasperJasper
51115
$endgroup$
19
$begingroup$
I don't think Harrison counts as a non-professional. His solution was to use an accurate clock, and he was a professional clockmaker.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
Jan 19 at 18:34
9
$begingroup$
The question implies that it considers as "nonprofessionals" all those who aren't "professional scientists or mathematicians". So Harrison would appear to qualify. I am not sure, however, whether professional scientists or mathematicians thought he was wrong, and think the answer would benefit from links to relevant sources that demonstrate that.
$endgroup$
– njuffa
Jan 20 at 0:14
3
$begingroup$
@njuffa -- I linked to a book-length source that discusses the ways in which the professional scientists thought he had insufficiently answered the question.
$endgroup$
– Jasper
Jan 20 at 3:46
11
$begingroup$
For the history of the chronometer, it was not that scientists didn't believe that the chronometer could work. Rather, scientists believed that there should be a more "elegant" solution that does not simply rely on measuring time difference to determine longitude similar to how sextants can be used to measure latitude.
$endgroup$
– slebetman
Jan 20 at 18:53
6
$begingroup$
Everyone should read the wonderful book “Longitude”, by Dava Sobel. See en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitude_(book)
$endgroup$
– ZeroTheHero
Jan 21 at 0:12
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
In 1726's Gulliver's Travels, Jonathan Swift mocked the learned scientists of Britain for not having solved the Longitude problem: Figure out a way to keep track of one's east-west location to within a mile after making a round-trip across the Atlantic. This was one of the most important scientific challenges of the 18th century. The British Parliament had an outstanding offer of £ 20,000 for a solution, and had trusted the astronomers at the Royal Observatory with awarding the prize. The prize was worth several times the modern-day Nobel Prize, and was famous at the time.
In 1731, a watchmaker named John Harrison solved the problem. The astronomers at the Observatory refused to believe him. Over the next 40 years, Harrison steadily refined his solution, but the astronomers never did award him the prize. It took an act of Parliament in 1773 before Harrison was finally given his prize, and east-west navigation could be made safe.
answered Jan 19 at 3:19
JasperJasper
51115
$endgroup$
In 1726's Gulliver's Travels, Jonathan Swift mocked the learned scientists of Britain for not having solved the Longitude problem: Figure out a way to keep track of one's east-west location to within a mile after making a round-trip across the Atlantic. This was one of the most important scientific challenges of the 18th century. The British Parliament had an outstanding offer of £ 20,000 for a solution, and had trusted the astronomers at the Royal Observatory with awarding the prize. The prize was worth several times the modern-day Nobel Prize, and was famous at the time.
In 1731, a watchmaker named John Harrison solved the problem. The astronomers at the Observatory refused to believe him. Over the next 40 years, Harrison steadily refined his solution, but the astronomers never did award him the prize. It took an act of Parliament in 1773 before Harrison was finally given his prize, and east-west navigation could be made safe.
answered Jan 19 at 3:19
JasperJasper
51115
edited 9 hours ago
answered Jan 19 at 3:19
JasperJasper
51115
answered Jan 19 at 3:19
JasperJasper
51115
answered Jan 19 at 3:19
JasperJasper
51115
51115
19
$begingroup$
I don't think Harrison counts as a non-professional. His solution was to use an accurate clock, and he was a professional clockmaker.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
Jan 19 at 18:34
9
$begingroup$
The question implies that it considers as "nonprofessionals" all those who aren't "professional scientists or mathematicians". So Harrison would appear to qualify. I am not sure, however, whether professional scientists or mathematicians thought he was wrong, and think the answer would benefit from links to relevant sources that demonstrate that.
$endgroup$
– njuffa
Jan 20 at 0:14
3
$begingroup$
@njuffa -- I linked to a book-length source that discusses the ways in which the professional scientists thought he had insufficiently answered the question.
$endgroup$
– Jasper
Jan 20 at 3:46
11
$begingroup$
For the history of the chronometer, it was not that scientists didn't believe that the chronometer could work. Rather, scientists believed that there should be a more "elegant" solution that does not simply rely on measuring time difference to determine longitude similar to how sextants can be used to measure latitude.
$endgroup$
– slebetman
Jan 20 at 18:53
6
$begingroup$
Everyone should read the wonderful book “Longitude”, by Dava Sobel. See en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitude_(book)
$endgroup$
– ZeroTheHero
Jan 21 at 0:12
|
show 6 more comments
19
$begingroup$
I don't think Harrison counts as a non-professional. His solution was to use an accurate clock, and he was a professional clockmaker.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
Jan 19 at 18:34
9
$begingroup$
The question implies that it considers as "nonprofessionals" all those who aren't "professional scientists or mathematicians". So Harrison would appear to qualify. I am not sure, however, whether professional scientists or mathematicians thought he was wrong, and think the answer would benefit from links to relevant sources that demonstrate that.
$endgroup$
– njuffa
Jan 20 at 0:14
3
$begingroup$
@njuffa -- I linked to a book-length source that discusses the ways in which the professional scientists thought he had insufficiently answered the question.
$endgroup$
– Jasper
Jan 20 at 3:46
11
$begingroup$
For the history of the chronometer, it was not that scientists didn't believe that the chronometer could work. Rather, scientists believed that there should be a more "elegant" solution that does not simply rely on measuring time difference to determine longitude similar to how sextants can be used to measure latitude.
$endgroup$
– slebetman
Jan 20 at 18:53
6
$begingroup$
Everyone should read the wonderful book “Longitude”, by Dava Sobel. See en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitude_(book)
$endgroup$
– ZeroTheHero
Jan 21 at 0:12
19
19
$begingroup$
I don't think Harrison counts as a non-professional. His solution was to use an accurate clock, and he was a professional clockmaker.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
Jan 19 at 18:34
$begingroup$
I don't think Harrison counts as a non-professional. His solution was to use an accurate clock, and he was a professional clockmaker.
$endgroup$
– David Richerby
Jan 19 at 18:34
9
9
$begingroup$
The question implies that it considers as "nonprofessionals" all those who aren't "professional scientists or mathematicians". So Harrison would appear to qualify. I am not sure, however, whether professional scientists or mathematicians thought he was wrong, and think the answer would benefit from links to relevant sources that demonstrate that.
$endgroup$
– njuffa
Jan 20 at 0:14
$begingroup$
The question implies that it considers as "nonprofessionals" all those who aren't "professional scientists or mathematicians". So Harrison would appear to qualify. I am not sure, however, whether professional scientists or mathematicians thought he was wrong, and think the answer would benefit from links to relevant sources that demonstrate that.
$endgroup$
– njuffa
Jan 20 at 0:14
3
3
$begingroup$
@njuffa -- I linked to a book-length source that discusses the ways in which the professional scientists thought he had insufficiently answered the question.
$endgroup$
– Jasper
Jan 20 at 3:46
$begingroup$
@njuffa -- I linked to a book-length source that discusses the ways in which the professional scientists thought he had insufficiently answered the question.
$endgroup$
– Jasper
Jan 20 at 3:46
11
11
$begingroup$
For the history of the chronometer, it was not that scientists didn't believe that the chronometer could work. Rather, scientists believed that there should be a more "elegant" solution that does not simply rely on measuring time difference to determine longitude similar to how sextants can be used to measure latitude.
$endgroup$
– slebetman
Jan 20 at 18:53
$begingroup$
For the history of the chronometer, it was not that scientists didn't believe that the chronometer could work. Rather, scientists believed that there should be a more "elegant" solution that does not simply rely on measuring time difference to determine longitude similar to how sextants can be used to measure latitude.
$endgroup$
– slebetman
Jan 20 at 18:53
6
6
$begingroup$
Everyone should read the wonderful book “Longitude”, by Dava Sobel. See en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitude_(book)
$endgroup$
– ZeroTheHero
Jan 21 at 0:12
$begingroup$
Everyone should read the wonderful book “Longitude”, by Dava Sobel. See en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitude_(book)
$endgroup$
– ZeroTheHero
Jan 21 at 0:12
|
show 6 more comments
$begingroup$
This isn't a topic I'm familiar with, just something I've read on Quanta, but according to this article, Richard Kershner of Johns Hopkins claimed to have a complete classification of convex pentagon tilings in 1968, though he notably said that "The proof that the list in Theorems 1 and 2 is complete is extremely laborious and will be given elsewhere" and that "a complete proof would require a rather large book".
However, after Martin Gardner talked about this claim in his column in Scientific American in 1975, it got to Marjorie Rice, a California housewife with a high school math education, who found four additional families, and Richard James, a computer programmer, who found another. Eventually, Michael Rao proved that there were exactly 15. You can read more about Rice in this article by the same author.
Admittedly, this is an instance of a single professional mathematician making a false claim without giving a proof, which mathematicians consider poor form, and a nonprofessional correcting him, rather than the general mathematics community being wrong.
answered Jan 19 at 23:22
Kevin LongKevin Long
3487
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Isn’t there a similar story about Latin squares?
$endgroup$
– ZeroTheHero
Jan 21 at 0:14
$begingroup$
Thanks for the link to the interesting story about Marjorie Rice. It makes me wonder how much humanity is held back by gender and social inequality. How much talent wasted, how much potential unrealized. A shame even from a purely utilitarian viewpoint. What isn't there is not missed, but it must be a lot.
$endgroup$
– Peter A. Schneider
Jan 23 at 10:36
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This isn't a topic I'm familiar with, just something I've read on Quanta, but according to this article, Richard Kershner of Johns Hopkins claimed to have a complete classification of convex pentagon tilings in 1968, though he notably said that "The proof that the list in Theorems 1 and 2 is complete is extremely laborious and will be given elsewhere" and that "a complete proof would require a rather large book".
However, after Martin Gardner talked about this claim in his column in Scientific American in 1975, it got to Marjorie Rice, a California housewife with a high school math education, who found four additional families, and Richard James, a computer programmer, who found another. Eventually, Michael Rao proved that there were exactly 15. You can read more about Rice in this article by the same author.
Admittedly, this is an instance of a single professional mathematician making a false claim without giving a proof, which mathematicians consider poor form, and a nonprofessional correcting him, rather than the general mathematics community being wrong.
answered Jan 19 at 23:22
Kevin LongKevin Long
3487
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Isn’t there a similar story about Latin squares?
$endgroup$
– ZeroTheHero
Jan 21 at 0:14
$begingroup$
Thanks for the link to the interesting story about Marjorie Rice. It makes me wonder how much humanity is held back by gender and social inequality. How much talent wasted, how much potential unrealized. A shame even from a purely utilitarian viewpoint. What isn't there is not missed, but it must be a lot.
$endgroup$
– Peter A. Schneider
Jan 23 at 10:36
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This isn't a topic I'm familiar with, just something I've read on Quanta, but according to this article, Richard Kershner of Johns Hopkins claimed to have a complete classification of convex pentagon tilings in 1968, though he notably said that "The proof that the list in Theorems 1 and 2 is complete is extremely laborious and will be given elsewhere" and that "a complete proof would require a rather large book".
However, after Martin Gardner talked about this claim in his column in Scientific American in 1975, it got to Marjorie Rice, a California housewife with a high school math education, who found four additional families, and Richard James, a computer programmer, who found another. Eventually, Michael Rao proved that there were exactly 15. You can read more about Rice in this article by the same author.
Admittedly, this is an instance of a single professional mathematician making a false claim without giving a proof, which mathematicians consider poor form, and a nonprofessional correcting him, rather than the general mathematics community being wrong.
answered Jan 19 at 23:22
Kevin LongKevin Long
3487
$endgroup$
This isn't a topic I'm familiar with, just something I've read on Quanta, but according to this article, Richard Kershner of Johns Hopkins claimed to have a complete classification of convex pentagon tilings in 1968, though he notably said that "The proof that the list in Theorems 1 and 2 is complete is extremely laborious and will be given elsewhere" and that "a complete proof would require a rather large book".
However, after Martin Gardner talked about this claim in his column in Scientific American in 1975, it got to Marjorie Rice, a California housewife with a high school math education, who found four additional families, and Richard James, a computer programmer, who found another. Eventually, Michael Rao proved that there were exactly 15. You can read more about Rice in this article by the same author.
Admittedly, this is an instance of a single professional mathematician making a false claim without giving a proof, which mathematicians consider poor form, and a nonprofessional correcting him, rather than the general mathematics community being wrong.
answered Jan 19 at 23:22
Kevin LongKevin Long
3487
edited Jan 22 at 15:50
answered Jan 19 at 23:22
Kevin LongKevin Long
3487
answered Jan 19 at 23:22
Kevin LongKevin Long
3487
answered Jan 19 at 23:22
Kevin LongKevin Long
3487
3487
$begingroup$
Isn’t there a similar story about Latin squares?
$endgroup$
– ZeroTheHero
Jan 21 at 0:14
$begingroup$
Thanks for the link to the interesting story about Marjorie Rice. It makes me wonder how much humanity is held back by gender and social inequality. How much talent wasted, how much potential unrealized. A shame even from a purely utilitarian viewpoint. What isn't there is not missed, but it must be a lot.
$endgroup$
– Peter A. Schneider
Jan 23 at 10:36
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Isn’t there a similar story about Latin squares?
$endgroup$
– ZeroTheHero
Jan 21 at 0:14
$begingroup$
Thanks for the link to the interesting story about Marjorie Rice. It makes me wonder how much humanity is held back by gender and social inequality. How much talent wasted, how much potential unrealized. A shame even from a purely utilitarian viewpoint. What isn't there is not missed, but it must be a lot.
$endgroup$
– Peter A. Schneider
Jan 23 at 10:36
$begingroup$
Isn’t there a similar story about Latin squares?
$endgroup$
– ZeroTheHero
Jan 21 at 0:14
$begingroup$
Isn’t there a similar story about Latin squares?
$endgroup$
– ZeroTheHero
Jan 21 at 0:14
$begingroup$
Thanks for the link to the interesting story about Marjorie Rice. It makes me wonder how much humanity is held back by gender and social inequality. How much talent wasted, how much potential unrealized. A shame even from a purely utilitarian viewpoint. What isn't there is not missed, but it must be a lot.
$endgroup$
– Peter A. Schneider
Jan 23 at 10:36
$begingroup$
Thanks for the link to the interesting story about Marjorie Rice. It makes me wonder how much humanity is held back by gender and social inequality. How much talent wasted, how much potential unrealized. A shame even from a purely utilitarian viewpoint. What isn't there is not missed, but it must be a lot.
$endgroup$
– Peter A. Schneider
Jan 23 at 10:36
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think a famous example is the Monty Hall problem` https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem about switching doors.
The problem was answered correctly by Marilyn vos Savant, but she got
baskets of letters from experts that she is wrong.
answered Jan 18 at 16:09
KarlKarl
3193
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
But the rate of correct answers was far higher among the educated (at least in math and physics) than among the great unwashed masses.
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
Jan 18 at 18:34
5
$begingroup$
@ Carl Witthoft, do you have hard data about this or is it just a guess?
$endgroup$
– Karl
Jan 18 at 18:37
9
$begingroup$
This is not an accurate description of what happened. Marilyn Vos Savant thought she was answering the Monty Hall problem but was actually answering the evil Monty problem, which has a different answer. Lots of people wrote to explain to her that she was wrong and she stubbornly insisted that they were wrong. (In her statement of the problem, Monty offers to let you switch doors after he knows which door you chose with no requirement to do so. For all you know, Monty only extends this offer to people who he knows chose the right door. So switching could guarantee a loss in this variant.)
$endgroup$
– David Schwartz
Jan 18 at 21:25
6
$begingroup$
Also, please note that (1) the problem permeated the mathematics community far ahead of vos Savant's rise to prominence; (2) the large majority of professional mathematicians were right about the problem. "baskets of letters" does not necessarily represent "the professional ... mathematicians" as a whole.
$endgroup$
– Prune
Jan 18 at 22:28
10
$begingroup$
Karl, re Carl Witthoft's comment MvS wrote "Of the letters from the general public, 92% are against my answer, and of the letters from universities, 65% are against my answer." @David Schwartz, it's true that the problem has no solution unless you state Monty's general strategy; neither the asker of the question nor vos Savant did that; and from her explanations it's not clear that she understands how critical Monty's motivation is. However, the authors of the letters she quoted don't seem to understand that either, and no one mentioned evil Monty (or any other well-defined Monty).
$endgroup$
– benrg
Jan 19 at 1:04
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
I think a famous example is the Monty Hall problem` https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem about switching doors.
The problem was answered correctly by Marilyn vos Savant, but she got
baskets of letters from experts that she is wrong.
answered Jan 18 at 16:09
KarlKarl
3193
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
But the rate of correct answers was far higher among the educated (at least in math and physics) than among the great unwashed masses.
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
Jan 18 at 18:34
5
$begingroup$
@ Carl Witthoft, do you have hard data about this or is it just a guess?
$endgroup$
– Karl
Jan 18 at 18:37
9
$begingroup$
This is not an accurate description of what happened. Marilyn Vos Savant thought she was answering the Monty Hall problem but was actually answering the evil Monty problem, which has a different answer. Lots of people wrote to explain to her that she was wrong and she stubbornly insisted that they were wrong. (In her statement of the problem, Monty offers to let you switch doors after he knows which door you chose with no requirement to do so. For all you know, Monty only extends this offer to people who he knows chose the right door. So switching could guarantee a loss in this variant.)
$endgroup$
– David Schwartz
Jan 18 at 21:25
6
$begingroup$
Also, please note that (1) the problem permeated the mathematics community far ahead of vos Savant's rise to prominence; (2) the large majority of professional mathematicians were right about the problem. "baskets of letters" does not necessarily represent "the professional ... mathematicians" as a whole.
$endgroup$
– Prune
Jan 18 at 22:28
10
$begingroup$
Karl, re Carl Witthoft's comment MvS wrote "Of the letters from the general public, 92% are against my answer, and of the letters from universities, 65% are against my answer." @David Schwartz, it's true that the problem has no solution unless you state Monty's general strategy; neither the asker of the question nor vos Savant did that; and from her explanations it's not clear that she understands how critical Monty's motivation is. However, the authors of the letters she quoted don't seem to understand that either, and no one mentioned evil Monty (or any other well-defined Monty).
$endgroup$
– benrg
Jan 19 at 1:04
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
I think a famous example is the Monty Hall problem` https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem about switching doors.
The problem was answered correctly by Marilyn vos Savant, but she got
baskets of letters from experts that she is wrong.
answered Jan 18 at 16:09
KarlKarl
3193
$endgroup$
I think a famous example is the Monty Hall problem` https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem about switching doors.
The problem was answered correctly by Marilyn vos Savant, but she got
baskets of letters from experts that she is wrong.
answered Jan 18 at 16:09
KarlKarl
3193
edited Jan 18 at 16:30
answered Jan 18 at 16:09
KarlKarl
3193
answered Jan 18 at 16:09
KarlKarl
3193
answered Jan 18 at 16:09
KarlKarl
3193
3193
3
$begingroup$
But the rate of correct answers was far higher among the educated (at least in math and physics) than among the great unwashed masses.
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
Jan 18 at 18:34
5
$begingroup$
@ Carl Witthoft, do you have hard data about this or is it just a guess?
$endgroup$
– Karl
Jan 18 at 18:37
9
$begingroup$
This is not an accurate description of what happened. Marilyn Vos Savant thought she was answering the Monty Hall problem but was actually answering the evil Monty problem, which has a different answer. Lots of people wrote to explain to her that she was wrong and she stubbornly insisted that they were wrong. (In her statement of the problem, Monty offers to let you switch doors after he knows which door you chose with no requirement to do so. For all you know, Monty only extends this offer to people who he knows chose the right door. So switching could guarantee a loss in this variant.)
$endgroup$
– David Schwartz
Jan 18 at 21:25
6
$begingroup$
Also, please note that (1) the problem permeated the mathematics community far ahead of vos Savant's rise to prominence; (2) the large majority of professional mathematicians were right about the problem. "baskets of letters" does not necessarily represent "the professional ... mathematicians" as a whole.
$endgroup$
– Prune
Jan 18 at 22:28
10
$begingroup$
Karl, re Carl Witthoft's comment MvS wrote "Of the letters from the general public, 92% are against my answer, and of the letters from universities, 65% are against my answer." @David Schwartz, it's true that the problem has no solution unless you state Monty's general strategy; neither the asker of the question nor vos Savant did that; and from her explanations it's not clear that she understands how critical Monty's motivation is. However, the authors of the letters she quoted don't seem to understand that either, and no one mentioned evil Monty (or any other well-defined Monty).
$endgroup$
– benrg
Jan 19 at 1:04
|
show 5 more comments
3
$begingroup$
But the rate of correct answers was far higher among the educated (at least in math and physics) than among the great unwashed masses.
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
Jan 18 at 18:34
5
$begingroup$
@ Carl Witthoft, do you have hard data about this or is it just a guess?
$endgroup$
– Karl
Jan 18 at 18:37
9
$begingroup$
This is not an accurate description of what happened. Marilyn Vos Savant thought she was answering the Monty Hall problem but was actually answering the evil Monty problem, which has a different answer. Lots of people wrote to explain to her that she was wrong and she stubbornly insisted that they were wrong. (In her statement of the problem, Monty offers to let you switch doors after he knows which door you chose with no requirement to do so. For all you know, Monty only extends this offer to people who he knows chose the right door. So switching could guarantee a loss in this variant.)
$endgroup$
– David Schwartz
Jan 18 at 21:25
6
$begingroup$
Also, please note that (1) the problem permeated the mathematics community far ahead of vos Savant's rise to prominence; (2) the large majority of professional mathematicians were right about the problem. "baskets of letters" does not necessarily represent "the professional ... mathematicians" as a whole.
$endgroup$
– Prune
Jan 18 at 22:28
10
$begingroup$
Karl, re Carl Witthoft's comment MvS wrote "Of the letters from the general public, 92% are against my answer, and of the letters from universities, 65% are against my answer." @David Schwartz, it's true that the problem has no solution unless you state Monty's general strategy; neither the asker of the question nor vos Savant did that; and from her explanations it's not clear that she understands how critical Monty's motivation is. However, the authors of the letters she quoted don't seem to understand that either, and no one mentioned evil Monty (or any other well-defined Monty).
$endgroup$
– benrg
Jan 19 at 1:04
3
3
$begingroup$
But the rate of correct answers was far higher among the educated (at least in math and physics) than among the great unwashed masses.
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
Jan 18 at 18:34
$begingroup$
But the rate of correct answers was far higher among the educated (at least in math and physics) than among the great unwashed masses.
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
Jan 18 at 18:34
5
5
$begingroup$
@ Carl Witthoft, do you have hard data about this or is it just a guess?
$endgroup$
– Karl
Jan 18 at 18:37
$begingroup$
@ Carl Witthoft, do you have hard data about this or is it just a guess?
$endgroup$
– Karl
Jan 18 at 18:37
9
9
$begingroup$
This is not an accurate description of what happened. Marilyn Vos Savant thought she was answering the Monty Hall problem but was actually answering the evil Monty problem, which has a different answer. Lots of people wrote to explain to her that she was wrong and she stubbornly insisted that they were wrong. (In her statement of the problem, Monty offers to let you switch doors after he knows which door you chose with no requirement to do so. For all you know, Monty only extends this offer to people who he knows chose the right door. So switching could guarantee a loss in this variant.)
$endgroup$
– David Schwartz
Jan 18 at 21:25
$begingroup$
This is not an accurate description of what happened. Marilyn Vos Savant thought she was answering the Monty Hall problem but was actually answering the evil Monty problem, which has a different answer. Lots of people wrote to explain to her that she was wrong and she stubbornly insisted that they were wrong. (In her statement of the problem, Monty offers to let you switch doors after he knows which door you chose with no requirement to do so. For all you know, Monty only extends this offer to people who he knows chose the right door. So switching could guarantee a loss in this variant.)
$endgroup$
– David Schwartz
Jan 18 at 21:25
6
6
$begingroup$
Also, please note that (1) the problem permeated the mathematics community far ahead of vos Savant's rise to prominence; (2) the large majority of professional mathematicians were right about the problem. "baskets of letters" does not necessarily represent "the professional ... mathematicians" as a whole.
$endgroup$
– Prune
Jan 18 at 22:28
$begingroup$
Also, please note that (1) the problem permeated the mathematics community far ahead of vos Savant's rise to prominence; (2) the large majority of professional mathematicians were right about the problem. "baskets of letters" does not necessarily represent "the professional ... mathematicians" as a whole.
$endgroup$
– Prune
Jan 18 at 22:28
10
10
$begingroup$
Karl, re Carl Witthoft's comment MvS wrote "Of the letters from the general public, 92% are against my answer, and of the letters from universities, 65% are against my answer." @David Schwartz, it's true that the problem has no solution unless you state Monty's general strategy; neither the asker of the question nor vos Savant did that; and from her explanations it's not clear that she understands how critical Monty's motivation is. However, the authors of the letters she quoted don't seem to understand that either, and no one mentioned evil Monty (or any other well-defined Monty).
$endgroup$
– benrg
Jan 19 at 1:04
$begingroup$
Karl, re Carl Witthoft's comment MvS wrote "Of the letters from the general public, 92% are against my answer, and of the letters from universities, 65% are against my answer." @David Schwartz, it's true that the problem has no solution unless you state Monty's general strategy; neither the asker of the question nor vos Savant did that; and from her explanations it's not clear that she understands how critical Monty's motivation is. However, the authors of the letters she quoted don't seem to understand that either, and no one mentioned evil Monty (or any other well-defined Monty).
$endgroup$
– benrg
Jan 19 at 1:04
|
show 5 more comments
$begingroup$
Just warning not to include pre-1920s medicine (and a lot of medical mantra thru the 20th century), as there was little to no science involved amongst physicians. Just look at how difficult it was for Lister et. al. to convince hospitals, midwives, etc. to wash their hands and sterilize operating theatres.
There are dozens of incorrect anecdotes purporting to show scientists were wrong. The "bumblebee can't fly" is one such. The truth behind the science/engineering theories is rather different.
answered Jan 18 at 13:29
Carl WitthoftCarl Witthoft
1,24747
$endgroup$
12
$begingroup$
Note that the actual statement in the bumblebee case is "the bumblebee can't fly using aerodynamic lift" -- and in fact, it doesn't. It flies using a different technique involving dynamic stall.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 19 at 1:01
$begingroup$
@Mark I did know that; it's one of those cliches that has ignored the true source. Just like the "Let them eat cake," where 'cake' had a completely different meaning (leftover scalings from bakeries, not fancy dessert items)
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
Jan 19 at 21:31
4
$begingroup$
@CarlWitthoft Although it's off topic, I don't know where you are getting that interpretation of "Let them eat cake". The origin of it that I know is that Jean-Jacques Rousseau attributed the phrase "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche." to a proverbial unspecified princess as part of a joke in his autobiography.
$endgroup$
– Robert Furber
Jan 20 at 5:29
3
$begingroup$
@Mark The bee thing always bothered me. The science wasn't wrong; no scientist ever claimed that bees can't fly or anything like that. The point was that using the science known at the time, they couldn't explain how bees were able to generate sufficient lift to fly, but, given that they clearly do fly, this hinted at principles of aerodynamics that were as yet not fully understood, thus pointing at new areas to research and new experiments to devise. It's not scientists being ignorant, it's scientists learning from observations. In other words, doing science.
$endgroup$
– anaximander
Jan 22 at 14:12
$begingroup$
Ironically, during the plague, the masks worn by doctors were stuffed with lavender (and other nice smelling flowers)... It had since been found this would have helped protect them from some diseases (though likely not the plague) because lavender is a natural anti biotic...
$endgroup$
– UKMonkey
Jan 23 at 20:09
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Just warning not to include pre-1920s medicine (and a lot of medical mantra thru the 20th century), as there was little to no science involved amongst physicians. Just look at how difficult it was for Lister et. al. to convince hospitals, midwives, etc. to wash their hands and sterilize operating theatres.
There are dozens of incorrect anecdotes purporting to show scientists were wrong. The "bumblebee can't fly" is one such. The truth behind the science/engineering theories is rather different.
answered Jan 18 at 13:29
Carl WitthoftCarl Witthoft
1,24747
$endgroup$
12
$begingroup$
Note that the actual statement in the bumblebee case is "the bumblebee can't fly using aerodynamic lift" -- and in fact, it doesn't. It flies using a different technique involving dynamic stall.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 19 at 1:01
$begingroup$
@Mark I did know that; it's one of those cliches that has ignored the true source. Just like the "Let them eat cake," where 'cake' had a completely different meaning (leftover scalings from bakeries, not fancy dessert items)
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
Jan 19 at 21:31
4
$begingroup$
@CarlWitthoft Although it's off topic, I don't know where you are getting that interpretation of "Let them eat cake". The origin of it that I know is that Jean-Jacques Rousseau attributed the phrase "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche." to a proverbial unspecified princess as part of a joke in his autobiography.
$endgroup$
– Robert Furber
Jan 20 at 5:29
3
$begingroup$
@Mark The bee thing always bothered me. The science wasn't wrong; no scientist ever claimed that bees can't fly or anything like that. The point was that using the science known at the time, they couldn't explain how bees were able to generate sufficient lift to fly, but, given that they clearly do fly, this hinted at principles of aerodynamics that were as yet not fully understood, thus pointing at new areas to research and new experiments to devise. It's not scientists being ignorant, it's scientists learning from observations. In other words, doing science.
$endgroup$
– anaximander
Jan 22 at 14:12
$begingroup$
Ironically, during the plague, the masks worn by doctors were stuffed with lavender (and other nice smelling flowers)... It had since been found this would have helped protect them from some diseases (though likely not the plague) because lavender is a natural anti biotic...
$endgroup$
– UKMonkey
Jan 23 at 20:09
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Just warning not to include pre-1920s medicine (and a lot of medical mantra thru the 20th century), as there was little to no science involved amongst physicians. Just look at how difficult it was for Lister et. al. to convince hospitals, midwives, etc. to wash their hands and sterilize operating theatres.
There are dozens of incorrect anecdotes purporting to show scientists were wrong. The "bumblebee can't fly" is one such. The truth behind the science/engineering theories is rather different.
answered Jan 18 at 13:29
Carl WitthoftCarl Witthoft
1,24747
$endgroup$
Just warning not to include pre-1920s medicine (and a lot of medical mantra thru the 20th century), as there was little to no science involved amongst physicians. Just look at how difficult it was for Lister et. al. to convince hospitals, midwives, etc. to wash their hands and sterilize operating theatres.
There are dozens of incorrect anecdotes purporting to show scientists were wrong. The "bumblebee can't fly" is one such. The truth behind the science/engineering theories is rather different.
answered Jan 18 at 13:29
Carl WitthoftCarl Witthoft
1,24747
answered Jan 18 at 13:29
Carl WitthoftCarl Witthoft
1,24747
answered Jan 18 at 13:29
Carl WitthoftCarl Witthoft
1,24747
answered Jan 18 at 13:29
Carl WitthoftCarl Witthoft
1,24747
1,24747
12
$begingroup$
Note that the actual statement in the bumblebee case is "the bumblebee can't fly using aerodynamic lift" -- and in fact, it doesn't. It flies using a different technique involving dynamic stall.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 19 at 1:01
$begingroup$
@Mark I did know that; it's one of those cliches that has ignored the true source. Just like the "Let them eat cake," where 'cake' had a completely different meaning (leftover scalings from bakeries, not fancy dessert items)
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
Jan 19 at 21:31
4
$begingroup$
@CarlWitthoft Although it's off topic, I don't know where you are getting that interpretation of "Let them eat cake". The origin of it that I know is that Jean-Jacques Rousseau attributed the phrase "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche." to a proverbial unspecified princess as part of a joke in his autobiography.
$endgroup$
– Robert Furber
Jan 20 at 5:29
3
$begingroup$
@Mark The bee thing always bothered me. The science wasn't wrong; no scientist ever claimed that bees can't fly or anything like that. The point was that using the science known at the time, they couldn't explain how bees were able to generate sufficient lift to fly, but, given that they clearly do fly, this hinted at principles of aerodynamics that were as yet not fully understood, thus pointing at new areas to research and new experiments to devise. It's not scientists being ignorant, it's scientists learning from observations. In other words, doing science.
$endgroup$
– anaximander
Jan 22 at 14:12
$begingroup$
Ironically, during the plague, the masks worn by doctors were stuffed with lavender (and other nice smelling flowers)... It had since been found this would have helped protect them from some diseases (though likely not the plague) because lavender is a natural anti biotic...
$endgroup$
– UKMonkey
Jan 23 at 20:09
add a comment |
12
$begingroup$
Note that the actual statement in the bumblebee case is "the bumblebee can't fly using aerodynamic lift" -- and in fact, it doesn't. It flies using a different technique involving dynamic stall.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 19 at 1:01
$begingroup$
@Mark I did know that; it's one of those cliches that has ignored the true source. Just like the "Let them eat cake," where 'cake' had a completely different meaning (leftover scalings from bakeries, not fancy dessert items)
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
Jan 19 at 21:31
4
$begingroup$
@CarlWitthoft Although it's off topic, I don't know where you are getting that interpretation of "Let them eat cake". The origin of it that I know is that Jean-Jacques Rousseau attributed the phrase "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche." to a proverbial unspecified princess as part of a joke in his autobiography.
$endgroup$
– Robert Furber
Jan 20 at 5:29
3
$begingroup$
@Mark The bee thing always bothered me. The science wasn't wrong; no scientist ever claimed that bees can't fly or anything like that. The point was that using the science known at the time, they couldn't explain how bees were able to generate sufficient lift to fly, but, given that they clearly do fly, this hinted at principles of aerodynamics that were as yet not fully understood, thus pointing at new areas to research and new experiments to devise. It's not scientists being ignorant, it's scientists learning from observations. In other words, doing science.
$endgroup$
– anaximander
Jan 22 at 14:12
$begingroup$
Ironically, during the plague, the masks worn by doctors were stuffed with lavender (and other nice smelling flowers)... It had since been found this would have helped protect them from some diseases (though likely not the plague) because lavender is a natural anti biotic...
$endgroup$
– UKMonkey
Jan 23 at 20:09
12
12
$begingroup$
Note that the actual statement in the bumblebee case is "the bumblebee can't fly using aerodynamic lift" -- and in fact, it doesn't. It flies using a different technique involving dynamic stall.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 19 at 1:01
$begingroup$
Note that the actual statement in the bumblebee case is "the bumblebee can't fly using aerodynamic lift" -- and in fact, it doesn't. It flies using a different technique involving dynamic stall.
$endgroup$
– Mark
Jan 19 at 1:01
$begingroup$
@Mark I did know that; it's one of those cliches that has ignored the true source. Just like the "Let them eat cake," where 'cake' had a completely different meaning (leftover scalings from bakeries, not fancy dessert items)
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
Jan 19 at 21:31
$begingroup$
@Mark I did know that; it's one of those cliches that has ignored the true source. Just like the "Let them eat cake," where 'cake' had a completely different meaning (leftover scalings from bakeries, not fancy dessert items)
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
Jan 19 at 21:31
4
4
$begingroup$
@CarlWitthoft Although it's off topic, I don't know where you are getting that interpretation of "Let them eat cake". The origin of it that I know is that Jean-Jacques Rousseau attributed the phrase "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche." to a proverbial unspecified princess as part of a joke in his autobiography.
$endgroup$
– Robert Furber
Jan 20 at 5:29
$begingroup$
@CarlWitthoft Although it's off topic, I don't know where you are getting that interpretation of "Let them eat cake". The origin of it that I know is that Jean-Jacques Rousseau attributed the phrase "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche." to a proverbial unspecified princess as part of a joke in his autobiography.
$endgroup$
– Robert Furber
Jan 20 at 5:29
3
3
$begingroup$
@Mark The bee thing always bothered me. The science wasn't wrong; no scientist ever claimed that bees can't fly or anything like that. The point was that using the science known at the time, they couldn't explain how bees were able to generate sufficient lift to fly, but, given that they clearly do fly, this hinted at principles of aerodynamics that were as yet not fully understood, thus pointing at new areas to research and new experiments to devise. It's not scientists being ignorant, it's scientists learning from observations. In other words, doing science.
$endgroup$
– anaximander
Jan 22 at 14:12
$begingroup$
@Mark The bee thing always bothered me. The science wasn't wrong; no scientist ever claimed that bees can't fly or anything like that. The point was that using the science known at the time, they couldn't explain how bees were able to generate sufficient lift to fly, but, given that they clearly do fly, this hinted at principles of aerodynamics that were as yet not fully understood, thus pointing at new areas to research and new experiments to devise. It's not scientists being ignorant, it's scientists learning from observations. In other words, doing science.
$endgroup$
– anaximander
Jan 22 at 14:12
$begingroup$
Ironically, during the plague, the masks worn by doctors were stuffed with lavender (and other nice smelling flowers)... It had since been found this would have helped protect them from some diseases (though likely not the plague) because lavender is a natural anti biotic...
$endgroup$
– UKMonkey
Jan 23 at 20:09
$begingroup$
Ironically, during the plague, the masks worn by doctors were stuffed with lavender (and other nice smelling flowers)... It had since been found this would have helped protect them from some diseases (though likely not the plague) because lavender is a natural anti biotic...
$endgroup$
– UKMonkey
Jan 23 at 20:09
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Take meteorites, for instance. By the end of the XVIIIth century, educated people “knew” that no rock found on Earth could possibly have fallen from the sky, in spite of the evidence (eyewitnesses included) for their existence. As science journalist Kat Eshner wrote, “eighteenth-century rationalists […] thought the stories of rains of iron rocks weren’t real”. This state of affairs lasted until 1803, when Jean-Baptiste Biot established the reality of meteorites.
answered Jan 18 at 7:25
José Carlos SantosJosé Carlos Santos
2,0151527
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
The WP link doesn't seem to support your interpretation. It sounds like the question was not even taken up by professional scientists until 1794, when Chladni, a professional scientist, published a book saying that they did fall from the sky. This was followed rapidly by the supporting evidence from Biot.
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
Jan 18 at 15:58
$begingroup$
I've edited my answer and changed the link.
$endgroup$
– José Carlos Santos
Jan 18 at 16:07
$begingroup$
Your link doesn't support that people before that time "knew" that no rock could fall from the sky... In addition it certainly doesn't say that a non professional scientist did the research on the rock
$endgroup$
– UKMonkey
Jan 23 at 20:06
$begingroup$
@UKMonkey What about the new link?
$endgroup$
– José Carlos Santos
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Take meteorites, for instance. By the end of the XVIIIth century, educated people “knew” that no rock found on Earth could possibly have fallen from the sky, in spite of the evidence (eyewitnesses included) for their existence. As science journalist Kat Eshner wrote, “eighteenth-century rationalists […] thought the stories of rains of iron rocks weren’t real”. This state of affairs lasted until 1803, when Jean-Baptiste Biot established the reality of meteorites.
answered Jan 18 at 7:25
José Carlos SantosJosé Carlos Santos
2,0151527
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
The WP link doesn't seem to support your interpretation. It sounds like the question was not even taken up by professional scientists until 1794, when Chladni, a professional scientist, published a book saying that they did fall from the sky. This was followed rapidly by the supporting evidence from Biot.
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
Jan 18 at 15:58
$begingroup$
I've edited my answer and changed the link.
$endgroup$
– José Carlos Santos
Jan 18 at 16:07
$begingroup$
Your link doesn't support that people before that time "knew" that no rock could fall from the sky... In addition it certainly doesn't say that a non professional scientist did the research on the rock
$endgroup$
– UKMonkey
Jan 23 at 20:06
$begingroup$
@UKMonkey What about the new link?
$endgroup$
– José Carlos Santos
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Take meteorites, for instance. By the end of the XVIIIth century, educated people “knew” that no rock found on Earth could possibly have fallen from the sky, in spite of the evidence (eyewitnesses included) for their existence. As science journalist Kat Eshner wrote, “eighteenth-century rationalists […] thought the stories of rains of iron rocks weren’t real”. This state of affairs lasted until 1803, when Jean-Baptiste Biot established the reality of meteorites.
answered Jan 18 at 7:25
José Carlos SantosJosé Carlos Santos
2,0151527
$endgroup$
Take meteorites, for instance. By the end of the XVIIIth century, educated people “knew” that no rock found on Earth could possibly have fallen from the sky, in spite of the evidence (eyewitnesses included) for their existence. As science journalist Kat Eshner wrote, “eighteenth-century rationalists […] thought the stories of rains of iron rocks weren’t real”. This state of affairs lasted until 1803, when Jean-Baptiste Biot established the reality of meteorites.
answered Jan 18 at 7:25
José Carlos SantosJosé Carlos Santos
2,0151527
edited 2 days ago
answered Jan 18 at 7:25
José Carlos SantosJosé Carlos Santos
2,0151527
answered Jan 18 at 7:25
José Carlos SantosJosé Carlos Santos
2,0151527
answered Jan 18 at 7:25
José Carlos SantosJosé Carlos Santos
2,0151527
2,0151527
1
$begingroup$
The WP link doesn't seem to support your interpretation. It sounds like the question was not even taken up by professional scientists until 1794, when Chladni, a professional scientist, published a book saying that they did fall from the sky. This was followed rapidly by the supporting evidence from Biot.
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
Jan 18 at 15:58
$begingroup$
I've edited my answer and changed the link.
$endgroup$
– José Carlos Santos
Jan 18 at 16:07
$begingroup$
Your link doesn't support that people before that time "knew" that no rock could fall from the sky... In addition it certainly doesn't say that a non professional scientist did the research on the rock
$endgroup$
– UKMonkey
Jan 23 at 20:06
$begingroup$
@UKMonkey What about the new link?
$endgroup$
– José Carlos Santos
2 days ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
The WP link doesn't seem to support your interpretation. It sounds like the question was not even taken up by professional scientists until 1794, when Chladni, a professional scientist, published a book saying that they did fall from the sky. This was followed rapidly by the supporting evidence from Biot.
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
Jan 18 at 15:58
$begingroup$
I've edited my answer and changed the link.
$endgroup$
– José Carlos Santos
Jan 18 at 16:07
$begingroup$
Your link doesn't support that people before that time "knew" that no rock could fall from the sky... In addition it certainly doesn't say that a non professional scientist did the research on the rock
$endgroup$
– UKMonkey
Jan 23 at 20:06
$begingroup$
@UKMonkey What about the new link?
$endgroup$
– José Carlos Santos
2 days ago
1
1
$begingroup$
The WP link doesn't seem to support your interpretation. It sounds like the question was not even taken up by professional scientists until 1794, when Chladni, a professional scientist, published a book saying that they did fall from the sky. This was followed rapidly by the supporting evidence from Biot.
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
Jan 18 at 15:58
$begingroup$
The WP link doesn't seem to support your interpretation. It sounds like the question was not even taken up by professional scientists until 1794, when Chladni, a professional scientist, published a book saying that they did fall from the sky. This was followed rapidly by the supporting evidence from Biot.
$endgroup$
– Ben Crowell
Jan 18 at 15:58
$begingroup$
I've edited my answer and changed the link.
$endgroup$
– José Carlos Santos
Jan 18 at 16:07
$begingroup$
I've edited my answer and changed the link.
$endgroup$
– José Carlos Santos
Jan 18 at 16:07
$begingroup$
Your link doesn't support that people before that time "knew" that no rock could fall from the sky... In addition it certainly doesn't say that a non professional scientist did the research on the rock
$endgroup$
– UKMonkey
Jan 23 at 20:06
$begingroup$
Your link doesn't support that people before that time "knew" that no rock could fall from the sky... In addition it certainly doesn't say that a non professional scientist did the research on the rock
$endgroup$
– UKMonkey
Jan 23 at 20:06
$begingroup$
@UKMonkey What about the new link?
$endgroup$
– José Carlos Santos
2 days ago
$begingroup$
@UKMonkey What about the new link?
$endgroup$
– José Carlos Santos
2 days ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Michael Ventris, an amateur philologist, (he was an architect) managed to decipher the Mycenean script known as Linear B, a problem that professional specialists had been trying to solve for decades.
answered Jan 19 at 18:12
xxavierxxavier
29915
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
I guess "experts couldn't solve it" is not the same as "experts were wrong".
$endgroup$
– Gerald Edgar
Jan 20 at 14:17
3
$begingroup$
@GeraldEdgar Experts were wrong, since they didn't attempt to decipher those inscriptions assuming –as Ventris did– that they were written in a language related to Greek.
$endgroup$
– xxavier
Jan 20 at 15:30
$begingroup$
@xxavier Interesting. You should amend your answer with that detail, it makes it more relevant. It's also not untypical: Preconceived ideas sometimes prevent the professional from exploring new approaches.
$endgroup$
– Peter A. Schneider
Jan 23 at 10:38
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Michael Ventris, an amateur philologist, (he was an architect) managed to decipher the Mycenean script known as Linear B, a problem that professional specialists had been trying to solve for decades.
answered Jan 19 at 18:12
xxavierxxavier
29915
$endgroup$
4
$begingroup$
I guess "experts couldn't solve it" is not the same as "experts were wrong".
$endgroup$
– Gerald Edgar
Jan 20 at 14:17
3
$begingroup$
@GeraldEdgar Experts were wrong, since they didn't attempt to decipher those inscriptions assuming –as Ventris did– that they were written in a language related to Greek.
$endgroup$
– xxavier
Jan 20 at 15:30
$begingroup$
@xxavier Interesting. You should amend your answer with that detail, it makes it more relevant. It's also not untypical: Preconceived ideas sometimes prevent the professional from exploring new approaches.
$endgroup$
– Peter A. Schneider
Jan 23 at 10:38
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Michael Ventris, an amateur philologist, (he was an architect) managed to decipher the Mycenean script known as Linear B, a problem that professional specialists had been trying to solve for decades.
answered Jan 19 at 18:12
xxavierxxavier
29915
$endgroup$
Michael Ventris, an amateur philologist, (he was an architect) managed to decipher the Mycenean script known as Linear B, a problem that professional specialists had been trying to solve for decades.
answered Jan 19 at 18:12
xxavierxxavier
29915
answered Jan 19 at 18:12
xxavierxxavier
29915
answered Jan 19 at 18:12
xxavierxxavier
29915
answered Jan 19 at 18:12
xxavierxxavier
29915
29915
4
$begingroup$
I guess "experts couldn't solve it" is not the same as "experts were wrong".
$endgroup$
– Gerald Edgar
Jan 20 at 14:17
3
$begingroup$
@GeraldEdgar Experts were wrong, since they didn't attempt to decipher those inscriptions assuming –as Ventris did– that they were written in a language related to Greek.
$endgroup$
– xxavier
Jan 20 at 15:30
$begingroup$
@xxavier Interesting. You should amend your answer with that detail, it makes it more relevant. It's also not untypical: Preconceived ideas sometimes prevent the professional from exploring new approaches.
$endgroup$
– Peter A. Schneider
Jan 23 at 10:38
add a comment |
4
$begingroup$
I guess "experts couldn't solve it" is not the same as "experts were wrong".
$endgroup$
– Gerald Edgar
Jan 20 at 14:17
3
$begingroup$
@GeraldEdgar Experts were wrong, since they didn't attempt to decipher those inscriptions assuming –as Ventris did– that they were written in a language related to Greek.
$endgroup$
– xxavier
Jan 20 at 15:30
$begingroup$
@xxavier Interesting. You should amend your answer with that detail, it makes it more relevant. It's also not untypical: Preconceived ideas sometimes prevent the professional from exploring new approaches.
$endgroup$
– Peter A. Schneider
Jan 23 at 10:38
4
4
$begingroup$
I guess "experts couldn't solve it" is not the same as "experts were wrong".
$endgroup$
– Gerald Edgar
Jan 20 at 14:17
$begingroup$
I guess "experts couldn't solve it" is not the same as "experts were wrong".
$endgroup$
– Gerald Edgar
Jan 20 at 14:17
3
3
$begingroup$
@GeraldEdgar Experts were wrong, since they didn't attempt to decipher those inscriptions assuming –as Ventris did– that they were written in a language related to Greek.
$endgroup$
– xxavier
Jan 20 at 15:30
$begingroup$
@GeraldEdgar Experts were wrong, since they didn't attempt to decipher those inscriptions assuming –as Ventris did– that they were written in a language related to Greek.
$endgroup$
– xxavier
Jan 20 at 15:30
$begingroup$
@xxavier Interesting. You should amend your answer with that detail, it makes it more relevant. It's also not untypical: Preconceived ideas sometimes prevent the professional from exploring new approaches.
$endgroup$
– Peter A. Schneider
Jan 23 at 10:38
$begingroup$
@xxavier Interesting. You should amend your answer with that detail, it makes it more relevant. It's also not untypical: Preconceived ideas sometimes prevent the professional from exploring new approaches.
$endgroup$
– Peter A. Schneider
Jan 23 at 10:38
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The Wright Brothers, both bicycle mechanics, solved both the control and power problems of heavier-than-air manned flight in 1902, beating the well funded aeronautical academic scientists of the Smithsonian Institute, notably Samuel Pierpont Langley.
answered Jan 20 at 16:31
russelldrusselld
1412
New contributor
russelld is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
That is an example from engineering, not science. For that very fact, the people at the Smithsonian weren't wrong, since they weren't even trying to be right. Engineering problems can have multiple solutions.
$endgroup$
– Jishin Noben
Jan 22 at 12:29
$begingroup$
The Wright Brothers do get full credit since they did their work independently; but weren't the first to achieve heavier-than-air manned flight. Richard Pearce's earlier (very similar) aircraft didn't have the same historical significance due mostly to its inventor's deteriorating mental state.
$endgroup$
– Jeremy List
Jan 22 at 21:58
1
$begingroup$
@JeremyList can you please provide a reference to Richard Pearce
$endgroup$
– russelld
Jan 23 at 9:39
1
$begingroup$
@JishinNoben the Wrights demonstrated scientific skills set associated with scientific inquiry. As in 1) Literature review 2) contacting other flight researchers; 3) Thought up hypothesis' which were tested to develop a theory ( of flight eg wing warping); 4) Controlled variables (chord ratio of wings) 5) Built equipment to test the hypothesis (eg wind tunnel); Pulling together research to successful outcome (eg controlled manned flight in heavier air device). NASA does the same process
$endgroup$
– russelld
Jan 23 at 10:08
$begingroup$
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Pearse. Turns out there's a lot more uncertainty about his life and work than I had recalled, but this is still a very interesting read.
$endgroup$
– Jeremy List
Jan 23 at 20:46
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
The Wright Brothers, both bicycle mechanics, solved both the control and power problems of heavier-than-air manned flight in 1902, beating the well funded aeronautical academic scientists of the Smithsonian Institute, notably Samuel Pierpont Langley.
answered Jan 20 at 16:31
russelldrusselld
1412
New contributor
russelld is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
That is an example from engineering, not science. For that very fact, the people at the Smithsonian weren't wrong, since they weren't even trying to be right. Engineering problems can have multiple solutions.
$endgroup$
– Jishin Noben
Jan 22 at 12:29
$begingroup$
The Wright Brothers do get full credit since they did their work independently; but weren't the first to achieve heavier-than-air manned flight. Richard Pearce's earlier (very similar) aircraft didn't have the same historical significance due mostly to its inventor's deteriorating mental state.
$endgroup$
– Jeremy List
Jan 22 at 21:58
1
$begingroup$
@JeremyList can you please provide a reference to Richard Pearce
$endgroup$
– russelld
Jan 23 at 9:39
1
$begingroup$
@JishinNoben the Wrights demonstrated scientific skills set associated with scientific inquiry. As in 1) Literature review 2) contacting other flight researchers; 3) Thought up hypothesis' which were tested to develop a theory ( of flight eg wing warping); 4) Controlled variables (chord ratio of wings) 5) Built equipment to test the hypothesis (eg wind tunnel); Pulling together research to successful outcome (eg controlled manned flight in heavier air device). NASA does the same process
$endgroup$
– russelld
Jan 23 at 10:08
$begingroup$
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Pearse. Turns out there's a lot more uncertainty about his life and work than I had recalled, but this is still a very interesting read.
$endgroup$
– Jeremy List
Jan 23 at 20:46
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
The Wright Brothers, both bicycle mechanics, solved both the control and power problems of heavier-than-air manned flight in 1902, beating the well funded aeronautical academic scientists of the Smithsonian Institute, notably Samuel Pierpont Langley.
answered Jan 20 at 16:31
russelldrusselld
1412
New contributor
russelld is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
The Wright Brothers, both bicycle mechanics, solved both the control and power problems of heavier-than-air manned flight in 1902, beating the well funded aeronautical academic scientists of the Smithsonian Institute, notably Samuel Pierpont Langley.
answered Jan 20 at 16:31
russelldrusselld
1412
New contributor
russelld is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered Jan 20 at 16:31
russelldrusselld
1412
New contributor
russelld is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered Jan 20 at 16:31
russelldrusselld
1412
answered Jan 20 at 16:31
russelldrusselld
1412
1412
New contributor
russelld is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
russelld is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
russelld is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
3
$begingroup$
That is an example from engineering, not science. For that very fact, the people at the Smithsonian weren't wrong, since they weren't even trying to be right. Engineering problems can have multiple solutions.
$endgroup$
– Jishin Noben
Jan 22 at 12:29
$begingroup$
The Wright Brothers do get full credit since they did their work independently; but weren't the first to achieve heavier-than-air manned flight. Richard Pearce's earlier (very similar) aircraft didn't have the same historical significance due mostly to its inventor's deteriorating mental state.
$endgroup$
– Jeremy List
Jan 22 at 21:58
1
$begingroup$
@JeremyList can you please provide a reference to Richard Pearce
$endgroup$
– russelld
Jan 23 at 9:39
1
$begingroup$
@JishinNoben the Wrights demonstrated scientific skills set associated with scientific inquiry. As in 1) Literature review 2) contacting other flight researchers; 3) Thought up hypothesis' which were tested to develop a theory ( of flight eg wing warping); 4) Controlled variables (chord ratio of wings) 5) Built equipment to test the hypothesis (eg wind tunnel); Pulling together research to successful outcome (eg controlled manned flight in heavier air device). NASA does the same process
$endgroup$
– russelld
Jan 23 at 10:08
$begingroup$
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Pearse. Turns out there's a lot more uncertainty about his life and work than I had recalled, but this is still a very interesting read.
$endgroup$
– Jeremy List
Jan 23 at 20:46
|
show 1 more comment
3
$begingroup$
That is an example from engineering, not science. For that very fact, the people at the Smithsonian weren't wrong, since they weren't even trying to be right. Engineering problems can have multiple solutions.
$endgroup$
– Jishin Noben
Jan 22 at 12:29
$begingroup$
The Wright Brothers do get full credit since they did their work independently; but weren't the first to achieve heavier-than-air manned flight. Richard Pearce's earlier (very similar) aircraft didn't have the same historical significance due mostly to its inventor's deteriorating mental state.
$endgroup$
– Jeremy List
Jan 22 at 21:58
1
$begingroup$
@JeremyList can you please provide a reference to Richard Pearce
$endgroup$
– russelld
Jan 23 at 9:39
1
$begingroup$
@JishinNoben the Wrights demonstrated scientific skills set associated with scientific inquiry. As in 1) Literature review 2) contacting other flight researchers; 3) Thought up hypothesis' which were tested to develop a theory ( of flight eg wing warping); 4) Controlled variables (chord ratio of wings) 5) Built equipment to test the hypothesis (eg wind tunnel); Pulling together research to successful outcome (eg controlled manned flight in heavier air device). NASA does the same process
$endgroup$
– russelld
Jan 23 at 10:08
$begingroup$
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Pearse. Turns out there's a lot more uncertainty about his life and work than I had recalled, but this is still a very interesting read.
$endgroup$
– Jeremy List
Jan 23 at 20:46
3
3
$begingroup$
That is an example from engineering, not science. For that very fact, the people at the Smithsonian weren't wrong, since they weren't even trying to be right. Engineering problems can have multiple solutions.
$endgroup$
– Jishin Noben
Jan 22 at 12:29
$begingroup$
That is an example from engineering, not science. For that very fact, the people at the Smithsonian weren't wrong, since they weren't even trying to be right. Engineering problems can have multiple solutions.
$endgroup$
– Jishin Noben
Jan 22 at 12:29
$begingroup$
The Wright Brothers do get full credit since they did their work independently; but weren't the first to achieve heavier-than-air manned flight. Richard Pearce's earlier (very similar) aircraft didn't have the same historical significance due mostly to its inventor's deteriorating mental state.
$endgroup$
– Jeremy List
Jan 22 at 21:58
$begingroup$
The Wright Brothers do get full credit since they did their work independently; but weren't the first to achieve heavier-than-air manned flight. Richard Pearce's earlier (very similar) aircraft didn't have the same historical significance due mostly to its inventor's deteriorating mental state.
$endgroup$
– Jeremy List
Jan 22 at 21:58
1
1
$begingroup$
@JeremyList can you please provide a reference to Richard Pearce
$endgroup$
– russelld
Jan 23 at 9:39
$begingroup$
@JeremyList can you please provide a reference to Richard Pearce
$endgroup$
– russelld
Jan 23 at 9:39
1
1
$begingroup$
@JishinNoben the Wrights demonstrated scientific skills set associated with scientific inquiry. As in 1) Literature review 2) contacting other flight researchers; 3) Thought up hypothesis' which were tested to develop a theory ( of flight eg wing warping); 4) Controlled variables (chord ratio of wings) 5) Built equipment to test the hypothesis (eg wind tunnel); Pulling together research to successful outcome (eg controlled manned flight in heavier air device). NASA does the same process
$endgroup$
– russelld
Jan 23 at 10:08
$begingroup$
@JishinNoben the Wrights demonstrated scientific skills set associated with scientific inquiry. As in 1) Literature review 2) contacting other flight researchers; 3) Thought up hypothesis' which were tested to develop a theory ( of flight eg wing warping); 4) Controlled variables (chord ratio of wings) 5) Built equipment to test the hypothesis (eg wind tunnel); Pulling together research to successful outcome (eg controlled manned flight in heavier air device). NASA does the same process
$endgroup$
– russelld
Jan 23 at 10:08
$begingroup$
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Pearse. Turns out there's a lot more uncertainty about his life and work than I had recalled, but this is still a very interesting read.
$endgroup$
– Jeremy List
Jan 23 at 20:46
$begingroup$
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Pearse. Turns out there's a lot more uncertainty about his life and work than I had recalled, but this is still a very interesting read.
$endgroup$
– Jeremy List
Jan 23 at 20:46
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
The Green Flash was
described for the first time (at least in the Western literature) by Jules Verne,
a science fiction writer.
Many scientists did not believe until photographs were taken and published.
Herbert Wells in 1914 described the use of nuclear energy for both bombs and peaceful applications. (His novel The world Set Free). At approximately the same time many scientists thought this was impossible.
(Rutherford is on record for saying this publicly, that nuclear energy will be never used).
answered Jan 18 at 14:41
Alexandre EremenkoAlexandre Eremenko
24.5k13591
$endgroup$
7
$begingroup$
HG Wells wrote many science fiction novels. That one happened to reflect something which later turned out to be correct is really just the dice falling right, with a whole bunch of other novels which turned out not to work out. Anyway, Wells was always about the concept, and the society, not the hard science.
$endgroup$
– Graham
Jan 18 at 20:48
1
$begingroup$
Can you provide a source that confirms the scientists did not believe the Green Flash was possible? The Wikipedia article mentions the photographs were published in 1960 and I clearly remember a 1920s children popular science book discussing green flash (after all, refraction has been studied for quite some time). Also, I find the idea that scientists changed their minds simply after looking at some photos dubious.
$endgroup$
– Denis
Jan 20 at 16:26
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The Green Flash was
described for the first time (at least in the Western literature) by Jules Verne,
a science fiction writer.
Many scientists did not believe until photographs were taken and published.
Herbert Wells in 1914 described the use of nuclear energy for both bombs and peaceful applications. (His novel The world Set Free). At approximately the same time many scientists thought this was impossible.
(Rutherford is on record for saying this publicly, that nuclear energy will be never used).
answered Jan 18 at 14:41
Alexandre EremenkoAlexandre Eremenko
24.5k13591
$endgroup$
7
$begingroup$
HG Wells wrote many science fiction novels. That one happened to reflect something which later turned out to be correct is really just the dice falling right, with a whole bunch of other novels which turned out not to work out. Anyway, Wells was always about the concept, and the society, not the hard science.
$endgroup$
– Graham
Jan 18 at 20:48
1
$begingroup$
Can you provide a source that confirms the scientists did not believe the Green Flash was possible? The Wikipedia article mentions the photographs were published in 1960 and I clearly remember a 1920s children popular science book discussing green flash (after all, refraction has been studied for quite some time). Also, I find the idea that scientists changed their minds simply after looking at some photos dubious.
$endgroup$
– Denis
Jan 20 at 16:26
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The Green Flash was
described for the first time (at least in the Western literature) by Jules Verne,
a science fiction writer.
Many scientists did not believe until photographs were taken and published.
Herbert Wells in 1914 described the use of nuclear energy for both bombs and peaceful applications. (His novel The world Set Free). At approximately the same time many scientists thought this was impossible.
(Rutherford is on record for saying this publicly, that nuclear energy will be never used).
answered Jan 18 at 14:41
Alexandre EremenkoAlexandre Eremenko
24.5k13591
$endgroup$
The Green Flash was
described for the first time (at least in the Western literature) by Jules Verne,
a science fiction writer.
Many scientists did not believe until photographs were taken and published.
Herbert Wells in 1914 described the use of nuclear energy for both bombs and peaceful applications. (His novel The world Set Free). At approximately the same time many scientists thought this was impossible.
(Rutherford is on record for saying this publicly, that nuclear energy will be never used).
answered Jan 18 at 14:41
Alexandre EremenkoAlexandre Eremenko
24.5k13591
answered Jan 18 at 14:41
Alexandre EremenkoAlexandre Eremenko
24.5k13591
answered Jan 18 at 14:41
Alexandre EremenkoAlexandre Eremenko
24.5k13591
answered Jan 18 at 14:41
Alexandre EremenkoAlexandre Eremenko
24.5k13591
24.5k13591
7
$begingroup$
HG Wells wrote many science fiction novels. That one happened to reflect something which later turned out to be correct is really just the dice falling right, with a whole bunch of other novels which turned out not to work out. Anyway, Wells was always about the concept, and the society, not the hard science.
$endgroup$
– Graham
Jan 18 at 20:48
1
$begingroup$
Can you provide a source that confirms the scientists did not believe the Green Flash was possible? The Wikipedia article mentions the photographs were published in 1960 and I clearly remember a 1920s children popular science book discussing green flash (after all, refraction has been studied for quite some time). Also, I find the idea that scientists changed their minds simply after looking at some photos dubious.
$endgroup$
– Denis
Jan 20 at 16:26
add a comment |
7
$begingroup$
HG Wells wrote many science fiction novels. That one happened to reflect something which later turned out to be correct is really just the dice falling right, with a whole bunch of other novels which turned out not to work out. Anyway, Wells was always about the concept, and the society, not the hard science.
$endgroup$
– Graham
Jan 18 at 20:48
1
$begingroup$
Can you provide a source that confirms the scientists did not believe the Green Flash was possible? The Wikipedia article mentions the photographs were published in 1960 and I clearly remember a 1920s children popular science book discussing green flash (after all, refraction has been studied for quite some time). Also, I find the idea that scientists changed their minds simply after looking at some photos dubious.
$endgroup$
– Denis
Jan 20 at 16:26
7
7
$begingroup$
HG Wells wrote many science fiction novels. That one happened to reflect something which later turned out to be correct is really just the dice falling right, with a whole bunch of other novels which turned out not to work out. Anyway, Wells was always about the concept, and the society, not the hard science.
$endgroup$
– Graham
Jan 18 at 20:48
$begingroup$
HG Wells wrote many science fiction novels. That one happened to reflect something which later turned out to be correct is really just the dice falling right, with a whole bunch of other novels which turned out not to work out. Anyway, Wells was always about the concept, and the society, not the hard science.
$endgroup$
– Graham
Jan 18 at 20:48
1
1
$begingroup$
Can you provide a source that confirms the scientists did not believe the Green Flash was possible? The Wikipedia article mentions the photographs were published in 1960 and I clearly remember a 1920s children popular science book discussing green flash (after all, refraction has been studied for quite some time). Also, I find the idea that scientists changed their minds simply after looking at some photos dubious.
$endgroup$
– Denis
Jan 20 at 16:26
$begingroup$
Can you provide a source that confirms the scientists did not believe the Green Flash was possible? The Wikipedia article mentions the photographs were published in 1960 and I clearly remember a 1920s children popular science book discussing green flash (after all, refraction has been studied for quite some time). Also, I find the idea that scientists changed their minds simply after looking at some photos dubious.
$endgroup$
– Denis
Jan 20 at 16:26
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'd be tempted to add Gregor Mendel (whose experiments on plants and his analysis demonstrated how genes work) to that list.
It wasn't so much that the 'professional' scientists of the time considered that he was wrong - rather that they didn't even know of his results. In particular Darwin puzzled over what the mechanism for transfer of traits was and was searching for a reason why traits wouldn't be continually diluted ... which was an answer that Mendel had already answered very neatly. (Darwin argued for pangenesis as he was sure from his observations that blending inheritennce would have diluted distinct traits)
I'd argue that Mendel would meet the criteria as being a 'non-professional' as while he did teach physics - he repeatedly failed the teaching exams so he wasn't qualified to teach high school or adults - only young children. A pedant may point out that as presented his experiments in a couple of meetings and published an ignored paper he should be regarded as a 'professional scientist' .. but since he own boss in the church banned him from studying mice as it was considered wrong to study animal reproduction - I'd safely argue that it was a very non-scientific profession he was in.
answered Jan 21 at 7:23
Mac HarwoodMac Harwood
911
New contributor
Mac Harwood is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Actually, Mendel did once present his results to botanists. Most got bored of the lecture and left and none cared about what mathematics had to do with breeding plants.
$endgroup$
– slebetman
Jan 22 at 5:00
2
$begingroup$
@slebetman That sounds like a great anecdote. I would like to learn more about it. Do you have a reference?
$endgroup$
– Jishin Noben
Jan 23 at 13:48
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'd be tempted to add Gregor Mendel (whose experiments on plants and his analysis demonstrated how genes work) to that list.
It wasn't so much that the 'professional' scientists of the time considered that he was wrong - rather that they didn't even know of his results. In particular Darwin puzzled over what the mechanism for transfer of traits was and was searching for a reason why traits wouldn't be continually diluted ... which was an answer that Mendel had already answered very neatly. (Darwin argued for pangenesis as he was sure from his observations that blending inheritennce would have diluted distinct traits)
I'd argue that Mendel would meet the criteria as being a 'non-professional' as while he did teach physics - he repeatedly failed the teaching exams so he wasn't qualified to teach high school or adults - only young children. A pedant may point out that as presented his experiments in a couple of meetings and published an ignored paper he should be regarded as a 'professional scientist' .. but since he own boss in the church banned him from studying mice as it was considered wrong to study animal reproduction - I'd safely argue that it was a very non-scientific profession he was in.
answered Jan 21 at 7:23
Mac HarwoodMac Harwood
911
New contributor
Mac Harwood is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Actually, Mendel did once present his results to botanists. Most got bored of the lecture and left and none cared about what mathematics had to do with breeding plants.
$endgroup$
– slebetman
Jan 22 at 5:00
2
$begingroup$
@slebetman That sounds like a great anecdote. I would like to learn more about it. Do you have a reference?
$endgroup$
– Jishin Noben
Jan 23 at 13:48
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I'd be tempted to add Gregor Mendel (whose experiments on plants and his analysis demonstrated how genes work) to that list.
It wasn't so much that the 'professional' scientists of the time considered that he was wrong - rather that they didn't even know of his results. In particular Darwin puzzled over what the mechanism for transfer of traits was and was searching for a reason why traits wouldn't be continually diluted ... which was an answer that Mendel had already answered very neatly. (Darwin argued for pangenesis as he was sure from his observations that blending inheritennce would have diluted distinct traits)
I'd argue that Mendel would meet the criteria as being a 'non-professional' as while he did teach physics - he repeatedly failed the teaching exams so he wasn't qualified to teach high school or adults - only young children. A pedant may point out that as presented his experiments in a couple of meetings and published an ignored paper he should be regarded as a 'professional scientist' .. but since he own boss in the church banned him from studying mice as it was considered wrong to study animal reproduction - I'd safely argue that it was a very non-scientific profession he was in.
answered Jan 21 at 7:23
Mac HarwoodMac Harwood
911
New contributor
Mac Harwood is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
I'd be tempted to add Gregor Mendel (whose experiments on plants and his analysis demonstrated how genes work) to that list.
It wasn't so much that the 'professional' scientists of the time considered that he was wrong - rather that they didn't even know of his results. In particular Darwin puzzled over what the mechanism for transfer of traits was and was searching for a reason why traits wouldn't be continually diluted ... which was an answer that Mendel had already answered very neatly. (Darwin argued for pangenesis as he was sure from his observations that blending inheritennce would have diluted distinct traits)
I'd argue that Mendel would meet the criteria as being a 'non-professional' as while he did teach physics - he repeatedly failed the teaching exams so he wasn't qualified to teach high school or adults - only young children. A pedant may point out that as presented his experiments in a couple of meetings and published an ignored paper he should be regarded as a 'professional scientist' .. but since he own boss in the church banned him from studying mice as it was considered wrong to study animal reproduction - I'd safely argue that it was a very non-scientific profession he was in.
answered Jan 21 at 7:23
Mac HarwoodMac Harwood
911
New contributor
Mac Harwood is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered Jan 21 at 7:23
Mac HarwoodMac Harwood
911
New contributor
Mac Harwood is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered Jan 21 at 7:23
Mac HarwoodMac Harwood
911
answered Jan 21 at 7:23
Mac HarwoodMac Harwood
911
911
New contributor
Mac Harwood is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Mac Harwood is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Mac Harwood is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
1
$begingroup$
Actually, Mendel did once present his results to botanists. Most got bored of the lecture and left and none cared about what mathematics had to do with breeding plants.
$endgroup$
– slebetman
Jan 22 at 5:00
2
$begingroup$
@slebetman That sounds like a great anecdote. I would like to learn more about it. Do you have a reference?
$endgroup$
– Jishin Noben
Jan 23 at 13:48
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Actually, Mendel did once present his results to botanists. Most got bored of the lecture and left and none cared about what mathematics had to do with breeding plants.
$endgroup$
– slebetman
Jan 22 at 5:00
2
$begingroup$
@slebetman That sounds like a great anecdote. I would like to learn more about it. Do you have a reference?
$endgroup$
– Jishin Noben
Jan 23 at 13:48
1
1
$begingroup$
Actually, Mendel did once present his results to botanists. Most got bored of the lecture and left and none cared about what mathematics had to do with breeding plants.
$endgroup$
– slebetman
Jan 22 at 5:00
$begingroup$
Actually, Mendel did once present his results to botanists. Most got bored of the lecture and left and none cared about what mathematics had to do with breeding plants.
$endgroup$
– slebetman
Jan 22 at 5:00
2
2
$begingroup$
@slebetman That sounds like a great anecdote. I would like to learn more about it. Do you have a reference?
$endgroup$
– Jishin Noben
Jan 23 at 13:48
$begingroup$
@slebetman That sounds like a great anecdote. I would like to learn more about it. Do you have a reference?
$endgroup$
– Jishin Noben
Jan 23 at 13:48
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Mathematicians have been looking for amicable numbers for millenia. The smallest pair $(220, 284)$ was known to the Pythagoreans, and several larger pairs and a formula for generating them were found by Hindu and Arab mathematicians during the Middle Ages. Fermat, Descartes, and Euler rediscovered some of these and found some more.
But in 1866, a 16-year old schoolboy, Nicolo I. Paganini (no relation to the composer) found the previously unknown pair $(1184, 1210)$, which is actually the second smallest.
answered Jan 22 at 20:37
SpencerSpencer
28016
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Mathematicians have been looking for amicable numbers for millenia. The smallest pair $(220, 284)$ was known to the Pythagoreans, and several larger pairs and a formula for generating them were found by Hindu and Arab mathematicians during the Middle Ages. Fermat, Descartes, and Euler rediscovered some of these and found some more.
But in 1866, a 16-year old schoolboy, Nicolo I. Paganini (no relation to the composer) found the previously unknown pair $(1184, 1210)$, which is actually the second smallest.
answered Jan 22 at 20:37
SpencerSpencer
28016
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Mathematicians have been looking for amicable numbers for millenia. The smallest pair $(220, 284)$ was known to the Pythagoreans, and several larger pairs and a formula for generating them were found by Hindu and Arab mathematicians during the Middle Ages. Fermat, Descartes, and Euler rediscovered some of these and found some more.
But in 1866, a 16-year old schoolboy, Nicolo I. Paganini (no relation to the composer) found the previously unknown pair $(1184, 1210)$, which is actually the second smallest.
answered Jan 22 at 20:37
SpencerSpencer
28016
$endgroup$
Mathematicians have been looking for amicable numbers for millenia. The smallest pair $(220, 284)$ was known to the Pythagoreans, and several larger pairs and a formula for generating them were found by Hindu and Arab mathematicians during the Middle Ages. Fermat, Descartes, and Euler rediscovered some of these and found some more.
But in 1866, a 16-year old schoolboy, Nicolo I. Paganini (no relation to the composer) found the previously unknown pair $(1184, 1210)$, which is actually the second smallest.
answered Jan 22 at 20:37
SpencerSpencer
28016
edited Jan 22 at 20:46
answered Jan 22 at 20:37
SpencerSpencer
28016
answered Jan 22 at 20:37
SpencerSpencer
28016
answered Jan 22 at 20:37
SpencerSpencer
28016
28016
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The Mpemba effect,
named after a Tanzanian student who discovered that a hot ice cream
mix freezes faster than a cold mix in cookery classes in the early
1960s
was initially ridiculed. Quoting the wiki page on this topic:
After [a lecture by Dr. Denis G. Osborne], Erasto Mpemba asked him the question, "If you take two similar containers with equal volumes of water, one at 35 °C (95 °F) and the other at 100 °C (212 °F), and put them into a freezer, the one that started at 100 °C (212 °F) freezes first. Why?", only to be ridiculed by his classmates and teacher. After initial consternation, Osborne experimented on the issue back at his workplace and confirmed Mpemba's finding. They published the results together in 1969.
edited yesterday
Community♦
1
answered Jan 21 at 0:09
ZeroTheHeroZeroTheHero
2337
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Do you have another source for this, because the article you link to does not agree with your statement you make. Apparently this was a well known but unexplained observation that a lot of very famous physicists had observed.
$endgroup$
– pipe
Jan 21 at 2:39
1
$begingroup$
@pipe I basically quote from the article but the wiki page is also good: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mpemba_effect
$endgroup$
– ZeroTheHero
Jan 21 at 2:43
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The Mpemba effect,
named after a Tanzanian student who discovered that a hot ice cream
mix freezes faster than a cold mix in cookery classes in the early
1960s
was initially ridiculed. Quoting the wiki page on this topic:
After [a lecture by Dr. Denis G. Osborne], Erasto Mpemba asked him the question, "If you take two similar containers with equal volumes of water, one at 35 °C (95 °F) and the other at 100 °C (212 °F), and put them into a freezer, the one that started at 100 °C (212 °F) freezes first. Why?", only to be ridiculed by his classmates and teacher. After initial consternation, Osborne experimented on the issue back at his workplace and confirmed Mpemba's finding. They published the results together in 1969.
edited yesterday
Community♦
1
answered Jan 21 at 0:09
ZeroTheHeroZeroTheHero
2337
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Do you have another source for this, because the article you link to does not agree with your statement you make. Apparently this was a well known but unexplained observation that a lot of very famous physicists had observed.
$endgroup$
– pipe
Jan 21 at 2:39
1
$begingroup$
@pipe I basically quote from the article but the wiki page is also good: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mpemba_effect
$endgroup$
– ZeroTheHero
Jan 21 at 2:43
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The Mpemba effect,
named after a Tanzanian student who discovered that a hot ice cream
mix freezes faster than a cold mix in cookery classes in the early
1960s
was initially ridiculed. Quoting the wiki page on this topic:
After [a lecture by Dr. Denis G. Osborne], Erasto Mpemba asked him the question, "If you take two similar containers with equal volumes of water, one at 35 °C (95 °F) and the other at 100 °C (212 °F), and put them into a freezer, the one that started at 100 °C (212 °F) freezes first. Why?", only to be ridiculed by his classmates and teacher. After initial consternation, Osborne experimented on the issue back at his workplace and confirmed Mpemba's finding. They published the results together in 1969.
edited yesterday
Community♦
1
answered Jan 21 at 0:09
ZeroTheHeroZeroTheHero
2337
$endgroup$
The Mpemba effect,
named after a Tanzanian student who discovered that a hot ice cream
mix freezes faster than a cold mix in cookery classes in the early
1960s
was initially ridiculed. Quoting the wiki page on this topic:
After [a lecture by Dr. Denis G. Osborne], Erasto Mpemba asked him the question, "If you take two similar containers with equal volumes of water, one at 35 °C (95 °F) and the other at 100 °C (212 °F), and put them into a freezer, the one that started at 100 °C (212 °F) freezes first. Why?", only to be ridiculed by his classmates and teacher. After initial consternation, Osborne experimented on the issue back at his workplace and confirmed Mpemba's finding. They published the results together in 1969.
edited yesterday
Community♦
1
answered Jan 21 at 0:09
ZeroTheHeroZeroTheHero
2337
edited yesterday
Community♦
1
edited yesterday
Community♦
1
edited yesterday
Community♦
1
1
answered Jan 21 at 0:09
ZeroTheHeroZeroTheHero
2337
answered Jan 21 at 0:09
ZeroTheHeroZeroTheHero
2337
answered Jan 21 at 0:09
ZeroTheHeroZeroTheHero
2337
2337
1
$begingroup$
Do you have another source for this, because the article you link to does not agree with your statement you make. Apparently this was a well known but unexplained observation that a lot of very famous physicists had observed.
$endgroup$
– pipe
Jan 21 at 2:39
1
$begingroup$
@pipe I basically quote from the article but the wiki page is also good: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mpemba_effect
$endgroup$
– ZeroTheHero
Jan 21 at 2:43
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Do you have another source for this, because the article you link to does not agree with your statement you make. Apparently this was a well known but unexplained observation that a lot of very famous physicists had observed.
$endgroup$
– pipe
Jan 21 at 2:39
1
$begingroup$
@pipe I basically quote from the article but the wiki page is also good: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mpemba_effect
$endgroup$
– ZeroTheHero
Jan 21 at 2:43
1
1
$begingroup$
Do you have another source for this, because the article you link to does not agree with your statement you make. Apparently this was a well known but unexplained observation that a lot of very famous physicists had observed.
$endgroup$
– pipe
Jan 21 at 2:39
$begingroup$
Do you have another source for this, because the article you link to does not agree with your statement you make. Apparently this was a well known but unexplained observation that a lot of very famous physicists had observed.
$endgroup$
– pipe
Jan 21 at 2:39
1
1
$begingroup$
@pipe I basically quote from the article but the wiki page is also good: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mpemba_effect
$endgroup$
– ZeroTheHero
Jan 21 at 2:43
$begingroup$
@pipe I basically quote from the article but the wiki page is also good: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mpemba_effect
$endgroup$
– ZeroTheHero
Jan 21 at 2:43
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Rogue/Freak waves. It seems that reports of these were considered myths by science for a long time until they were finally recorded.
(However this is not an exact answer to the question - no non-professional had a theory about these waves, it was more of "ignoring observed facts which don't fit the accepted theory)
answered Jan 21 at 6:24
SaschaSascha
1591
New contributor
Sascha is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Rogue/Freak waves. It seems that reports of these were considered myths by science for a long time until they were finally recorded.
(However this is not an exact answer to the question - no non-professional had a theory about these waves, it was more of "ignoring observed facts which don't fit the accepted theory)
answered Jan 21 at 6:24
SaschaSascha
1591
New contributor
Sascha is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Rogue/Freak waves. It seems that reports of these were considered myths by science for a long time until they were finally recorded.
(However this is not an exact answer to the question - no non-professional had a theory about these waves, it was more of "ignoring observed facts which don't fit the accepted theory)
answered Jan 21 at 6:24
SaschaSascha
1591
New contributor
Sascha is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
Rogue/Freak waves. It seems that reports of these were considered myths by science for a long time until they were finally recorded.
(However this is not an exact answer to the question - no non-professional had a theory about these waves, it was more of "ignoring observed facts which don't fit the accepted theory)
answered Jan 21 at 6:24
SaschaSascha
1591
New contributor
Sascha is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered Jan 21 at 6:24
SaschaSascha
1591
New contributor
Sascha is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered Jan 21 at 6:24
SaschaSascha
1591
answered Jan 21 at 6:24
SaschaSascha
1591
1591
New contributor
Sascha is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Sascha is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Sascha is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
8
$begingroup$
Two things: math was far ahead of nearly all fields of science in its rigor and procedures until relatively recently; and in nearly all cases "nonprofessionals" were right in a tiny percentage of their beliefs. They were correct by accident, not by insight.
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
Jan 18 at 13:24
8
$begingroup$
I don't know the local standards but isn't this just a list question and hence should be closed?
$endgroup$
– Tim B
Jan 18 at 16:00
2
$begingroup$
@MasonWheeler: I don't know the history, but I would be really surprised if that was the case. Conservation of momentum is a very basic fact in Newtonian mechanis, so the idea of "I expel matter in one direction, I move in the other" should have been obvious to any physicist.
$endgroup$
– Martin Argerami
Jan 19 at 5:20
3
$begingroup$
@MasonWheeler You are undoubtedly thinking of this famous New York Times article, worth reading in its entirety: en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times/Robert_Goddard As you can see, it is actually an illustration of the opposite. Goddard, a professional scientist, was quite right about the dynamics of rocketry and how action and reaction actually work, while the amateur writer of the article was wrong.
$endgroup$
– Robert Furber
Jan 20 at 9:09
3
$begingroup$
It is particularly amusing when he says that only "Dr. Einstein" is "licensed" to change the laws of mechanics.
$endgroup$
– Robert Furber
Jan 20 at 9:10