Does anyone know of any specific errors from James Burke of Connections fame?
no.
It’s been ages since I’ve seen Connections, so it’s all rather a blur. What I do remember is that Burke liked to connect very different ideas with notion that there was a casual link involved, when in fact there was none: “A caused B caused C caused D.” But when you looked at the actual history, it was more like “A influenced B, which was vaguely similar to C, which was tangentally related to D.”
So if you’re looking to Burke for an iron-clad proof that, say, the invention of toenail clippers caused the creation of the Internet, well, you’re out of luck.
I seem to remember learning from Connections that nylon was named after New York and London, which I later unlearned from Snopes.
And somebody with the Masons is claiming that Burke misrepresented Archbishop Usher:
Their quote from Burke:
Their response: “Wrong date, wrong author of the time, and Ussher was an Archbishop.”
Link to Ussher’s original.
I haven’t been able to turn up anything else, but I should think there would have to be several other little errors in a romp of this size and complexity, even assuming that Burke used great care in his selections (and I don’t claim that he did, just because I don’t know).
I agree with Wumpus about the looseness of the links. Listen carefully to the connections Burke suggests, and sometimes there just isn’t one there at all. The presentation is still entertaining and thought-provoking, though. I remain a fan, unless you turn up something big.
Ummm, well, I’ve got the first Connections book here on my lap and I don’t see that mentioned. I don’t see that he even addresses the issue of where the name came from.
Nor is it mentioned in this study guide to Episode 7, which dealt with the invention of plastics, and nylon.
http://www.technology.niagarac.on.ca/courses/tech238g/ConnectionsEpisode7.html
Episode 7 started out with “jet aircraft”, and ended with “nylon”, so maybe that’s where you getting the subconscious “James Burke sez/New York to London/nylon” “connection”.
I never got the impression that Burke was trying to suggest actual causal links between the events he discussed, just that when you look at the history of technology and science, you can find some interesting coincidences. He also suggests that one discovery can often lead to unexpected results that are not necessarily directly connected to it.
By the way, the second series of Connections is being aired currently on the Science Channel, which is connected to the Discovery Channel, and is available on digital cable and sattelite systems.
The point of Connections was to show that history isn’t strict cause-and-effect with neat causal chains. It’s tangled, convoluted, and things have odd effects years, decades, and centuries after they happened. He shows that history is a complex net of interwoven events, ideas, people, and places, and that plucking a single strand can cause ripples to spread through the whole in nonobvious ways.
I have to say that I like most of the links or strands in the show; it’s just that I found some of them to be quite tenuous. Probably it doesn’t really matter, since the main thesis that discoveries and inventions are interconnected in complex and surprising ways is perfectly valid. Overall, it’s really quite an impressive tapestry, provided that the facts are solid, which is what the OP is questioning. And I’d say it’s looking good for Burke so far.
Duck Duck Goose: Well, that’s the trouble with seeming to remember. Now I’m going to have to find the video to see if I’m imagining things. I swear I remember learning from Burke that nylon was almost called Duparooh, and it would be the same episode (the same breath, even), that I’m thinking of (or making up). I expect some differences between the show and the books in any case, so I’m holding out some hope of vindication yet.
That particular factoid appears in a lot of geology textbooks (Ussher said the Earth created 9am 10/26/4004BC–Earth, Press and Siever, 2nd ed., p.40), and I’m not sure why. Ussher didn’t actually compute a time of day, I don’t think.
In Stephen Jay Gould’s defense of Ussher (essay Fall in the House of Ussher in Eight Little Piggies, 1993), he notes the copycat errors in several texts giving 9:00 a.m, October 26, 4004 B.C., then points out that Ussher’s actual date/time was Noon, Sunday, October 23, 4004 B.C., quoting Ussher “In ipse primi diei medio creata est lux.” (“In the middle of the first day, light was created.”) and provides Ussher’s reasons for choosing that date and time.
Seems to me that the orginal Connections program was more rigourous in its history. The other two series seemed a little more sloppy, in my opinon.
But still, a great show. What an entertaining way of presenting history! My sixth grade social studies class did a whole section on the show, using the book & viewing the program. I hope that schools are still using it in this way…
Funny you should ask. I’m giving a lecture today on rainbows, and something Burke showed in one of his shows – I think it was The Day the Universe Changed has always bothered me.
He was talking about Theodoric of Freiburg, a medieval monk who figured out how the rainbow worked. He got that right (although he didn’t mention the two Arab scientists who did the same thing twenty years earlier), but he screwed up when he showed the experiment Theodoric used to demonstrate the rainbow. I’ve done the experiment myself many times in the course of my lecture, and I know for a fact that it doesn’t look the way Burke showed it on his show. True, the real experiment doesn’t look as dramatic, but that’s not really a good excuse to fudge the experiment.
I would say that Burke is quite smart and witty and that what he was doing with Connections was not too difficult or too involved. Certainly there was no reason to allow error to rear its head. That is he had little reason to flub it. Although there may be errors since the show was filmed almost a quarter of a century ago. Some things we might know to be false might have at least seemed possible back then. I can’t provide any evidence though. I would happily dub him as only slightly less educated the Carl Sagan. He only has a masters degree.
I just finished watching volume 7 of Connections, and where Burke speaks of Duparooh and says that the stuff was eventually called nylon, there is no hint of the NY/London derivation. I retract my earlier statement and apologize for my carelessness.
Your subconscious is forgiven. 
Burke hosted a program (not one of the “Connections” or “Universe” programs) which attempted to explain the Bermuda Triangle “disappearances.”
Even though it used entirely scientifically plausible reasons (no UFOs or anything), I felt that the program did a disservice by implying–by way of trying to explain–that there actually is something special about that supposed area in the ocean.
Lightfoot is usually credited with the modification to 9am.
Gould, in his Questioning the Millennium book, (totally tongue in cheek) determined that 6 millennium after the creation, something horrible would occur and he points to this (totally tongue in cheek, since, as he points out 10/23/1996 would not be 6000 years). At least, he didn’t try to use this one.
I’m blowing the tanks on this one just because a repackaged version of the documentary I mentioned above was on last night on “Discovery” on a program called “Ocean Mysteries.”
Burke wasn’t hosting, though. Instead there was some unseen narrator. Don’t know what they did to fill in the scenes where Burke had appeared on camera.
I don’t know the statistics regarding shipwrecks in the Caribbean. Presumably, other posters do, and if they can provide stats showing that the so-called Bermuda Triangle is no more dangerous (or even less dangerous) than any average stretch of ocean, I’ll accept that.
But doesn’t it stand to reason that SOME patches of ocean are more hazardous for shipping than others, for perfectly natural reasons? I won’t argue that the Bermuda Triangle IS such a patch (I’ll let the numbers speak for themselves, whatever they say). I merely say that a documentary on the so-called Bermuda Triangle isn’t necessarily pseudo-scientific hokum. I didn’t see Burke’s show, but assuming he spoke only of NATURAL phenomena (storms, reefs, whatever) and not of sea monsters or UFOs, I don’t see any reason to condemn or dismiss the show automatically.
Sure. The point is that the so-called Bermuda Triangle isn’t one of them. I remember watching a program about this a few years ago where the producers had the bright idea to check insurance records. A quick google search turned this up:
Then there’s the methane hydrate theory of ship/aircraft disappearance, but enough of this hijack.