Of course, this assumes that the chance of each asteroid hitting the planet is independent of what happened with the other asteroids, but it’s not reasonable to try and do the math without that assumption.
I think you guys need to lighten up a bit. Everyone makes mistakes, even scientists. Hell, I’m a meteorologist and we screw up all the time!
Reminds me of a quote by some hockey goalie: “How would you like it if, in your job, whenever you made a mistake thousands of people would stand up and boo and a red light would come on over your head?”
I’d like to answer the OP with a prediction that was off in a surprising way.
In the early 70’s when the first scientific papers were being published on the depletion of the Ozone layers and CFCs, predictions were given based on the amount of Freon, etc. being produced, refrigerators being scrapped, CFC in spray cans.
Turns out they were wrong. The Ozone layer was depleted much faster than they predicted.
So keep this in mind with “dire consequence” predictions. Yes, the scientists could be wrong. Things might actually turn out worse.
(Another example is the rapid melting of the ice shelves of Antartica. Much faster than predicted. Note that this is caused by warming which has nothing to do with the Ozone layer.)
I read it when Slashdot posted a BBC story on it Tuesday (if you really want to see media sensationalism check out the accompanying pic). I think the most significant point of the article was not that there was a chance that an asteroid could hit Earth, it was that our prediction skills when it comes to the orbital paths of interstellar objects are still quite bad. If nothing else articles like this can serve to raise awareness of these and other scientific endeavors the general population would otherwise ignore.
My thoughts exactly. Like I said before it’s the religious types who are typically defensive and closed to criticism of any kind. Astorian and sailor, I don’t think anyone here is going to argue with you that misinforming an already mostly clueless populace is a bad idea. But to argue that it should not be permitted to even discuss the shortcomings of science is absolutely ridiculous, especially when as I mentioned this particular criticism, science’s method of constantly updating itself and throwing away unproven notions and readily admitting when it is wrong can be seen as its major advantage over religion which cannot.
lets try that link again.
>> to argue that it should not be permitted to even discuss the shortcomings of science is absolutely ridiculous
Nobody has said that here but that is not what the OP is about. The OP is much more about misinforming the already clueless public and I hate it when I see that kind of ignorance in the news. The OP already kicks off the fun with a first piece of misinformation: “I just read a prediction that an asteriod will hit the earth in 2019”
It is ironic that we are gathered here today to make fun of the mistakes of scientists by making some mistakes up.
A big shortcoming of science though is that the general public has little understanding but, much worse, reporters and people who work in the media often haven’t a clue of what they are talking about. That is a real problem.
I thought that economics was a “soft” science like psychology or sociology. :shrug:
In physics I was told that Newton discovered that the Moon was falling towards the Earth. In astronomy I was told that the Moon is being repelled by Earth’s gravity. One of these must be false.
Do I think a DJ doing a “bit” on scientific theories proved wrong is harmful? I think it might do more good than harm if it has any effect at all. Who knows, maybe someone will crack a book because of it.
>> In astronomy I was told that the Moon is being repelled by Earth’s gravity
This is not proof of science being mistaken, this is proof of someone uttering some idiocy. “Science” has never said that “the Moon is being repelled by Earth’s gravity”.
The OP did not ask about stupidities uttered in the SDMB or elsewhere but I about “well known scientific predictions that have never come true”.
How many do we have so far?
So I take it that you believe Newton’s view of the destiny of the Moon is right, sailor. Call me naive, but I don’t believe that a person that would care enough to get a Ph.D in the subject would simply pass along “idiocies” to his students. Maybe I phrased what I learned in astronomy class wrong, but the point was the Moon and the Earth are getting further apart. That would contradict the Newtonian view. Both are predictions. One must be wrong. Which one is wrong? I’m curious.
>> Maybe I phrased what I learned in astronomy class wrong
Obviously. So let’s make fun of “science” on account that people cannot understand what they hear in class and it makes no sense when they try to repeat it. The OP is an exact case of this. The sceintific establishment has not said that asteroid will crash into our planet.
Religious leaders have been spouting this kind of crap for ages and I would not pay any attention. If the majority of the scientists start saying there is a high probability the asteroid will hit our planet, then I will begin to worry. But they have not said that. Criticising them for what they have never said is not acceptable.
There are people out there saying they have the secret to free energy, perpetual motion, cars that run on water, etc. but they do not represent “science” or the aggregate of the scientific establishment.
There are areas where scientists don’t agree. Obviously if two groups are holding contradictory theories, they cannot be both right. Individual scientist can be worng in their suppositions but that is part of science: trying to prove and disprove theories.
I am not saying it may not exist but I doubt there are many examples in modern science where the scientific establishment, as a whole, supported a certain view which later proved to be flat out wrong. For the most part science is a process of improving and refining and retouching. Some leads turn out to be dead ends but testing them is the only way to know.
There is too much ignarance about science as it is. Let us not encourage it.
You did indeed misphrase it. The moon isn’t being “repelled” by gravity, as gravity is an attractive force. The moon is moving away from the Earth primarily because of its momentum, I would think. The reason why it’s moving away so SLOWLY (and the reason it’s in a circular orbit) is because of gravity.
Newton made his prediction based on a lack of information. He had a theory that large objects would have a higher attraction on other objects… and he was right. He simply erred in underplaying the Moon’s momentum on the equation. Certainly, it is possible to have a planet with a moon that is continuously getting closer… so Newton wasn’t “wrong”, he just didn’t know all the variables in his equation.
Essentially, you’ve pointed out exactly what Sailor’s been talking about… science continually grows and develops itself.
Boy, you asked for! Some of these guys are worse than killer bees.
He didn’t say he believed the bullshit and I think everybody gets the point about “let’s not berate science”, more BS by the way.
SNOW- where did you hear this prediction? Because I too have read a similar theory. It was made by a statistician (science?) based on the fact that earth has been struck before, many times in fact. Why he had to put a date on it fails me. You know statistics, they can come up with a figure for anything.
Anyway, science as we know it is a relatively new method. In the past century, science has disproven most beliefs man had about the world for millenia. So, if you are looking for disproven scientific (theories) it’s wide open. Problem is not too many scientists are making “predictions” in the sense that you refer too.
What astounds me is they are right sometimes (just not improved upon yet) Science is suicidal by nature, “lets prove the new guy wrong” Many scientists and “Dopers” although seem to have a fraternity (pardon the sexism) kind of like, we’ve been here longer than you. So, we’re gonna F@#$ w/ this guy and see if he’s worth his salt.
So, don’t worry about these guys they’re just a bunch of assholes anyway - :eek: Me too!!
Speaking of salt, seems like “science” can’t make up their mind on that one either. Too much or too little? (Good or Bad)
I find it difficult to believe nobody has yet posted a link to this:
The moon and the earth aren’t getting farther apart. The orbit of the moon around the earth is an ellipse, not a circle, which means that the distance from the earth to the moon is non-constant. This is predicted by Kepler’s laws, which I think are a consequence of the law of gravitation.
The moon and the earth aren’t getting farther apart. The orbit of the moon around the earth is an ellipse, not a circle, which means that the distance from the earth to the moon is non-constant. This is predicted by Kepler’s laws, which I think are a consequence of the law of gravitation.
The moon and the earth aren’t getting farther apart. The orbit of the moon around the earth is an ellipse, not a circle, which means that the distance from the earth to the moon is non-constant. This is predicted by Kepler’s laws, which I think are a consequence of the law of gravitation.
The moon and the earth aren’t getting farther apart. The orbit of the moon around the earth is an ellipse, not a circle, which means that the distance from the earth to the moon is non-constant. This is predicted by Kepler’s laws, which I think are a consequence of the law of gravitation.
Sailor, I think you have been overreacting, and I believe you have made an incorrect assumption:
The OP made a point of saying he’s not trying to scoff at science or misinform his audience. He was preparing a lighthearted radio bit on the false predictions of science, and he came to the SDMB to get his info; we’re not exactly known for misinformation here. A DJ telling his audience factual anecdotes from the annals of scientific investigation is not something that anyone who supports science, as you clearly do, should disapprove of. Not only is it raising awareness of problems like asteroid orbital path prediction it is clearing up scientific fallacies for his listeners. Not everyone knows that we once believed in Ether, or that the speed of light was variable, or that gravity wasn’t exclusively attractive, why not let Snowdog tell them? And if he throws in a few less serious, possibly even embarrassing moments so be it, people aren’t going to run and burn down the observatories or cut funding for science class. Lastly, if you truly desire to censor anything but the successes of science you are the one fostering misinformation, and misrepresenting the very nature of the scientific method.
P.S. regnad kcin, it wouldn’t be so hard to believe if you had read the earlier posts.
I’m sorry, I couldn’t let that pass…
From History of Animals by Aristotles himself:
Book I, Part VI
Book III, Part XX
To get back to the question originally posed, here is a prediction I forgot to offer before: when Einstein urged the development of the atomic bomb, he expressed the opinion that such a device would be too large and heavy to be carried by a bomber. Instead, he predicted its use would be limited to kamikaze-style attacks in which a large freighter equipped with a bomb would be sent into an enemy harbor.
And here is a prognostication which may or may not count as scientific prediction: twenty years and one month before the Apollo 11 landing, Arthur C. Clarke made a bet that a man would land on the moon within twenty years.
On a different issue, economics is generally considered to be the oldest of the social sciences. This raises the issue of just what constitutes science, and what should and should not be included under that label. While these are, doubtlessly, interesting questions, it seems to me they should properly belong to a different thread.