Follow up: Asteroid to miss this time around
In the early 1990’s, there was a documentary mini-series on the subject of fame. (I think I saw it on some public TV station). It consisted of mini-biographies dating back about a hundred years.
At the beginning of the series, the host (some British guy) asserted that in 1900, fame was considered to be a doomed concept – with the advent of universal education, people would come to realize that a famous person is no different than anyone else.
In short, by the end of the 20th century, the very concept of fame would be seen as archaic, sort of like superstition, or belief in a flat earth.
I cannot for the life of me think of a prediction that has turned out to be further off the mark.
FU Shakespeare
Wow, sailor, you’re really bent out of shape here. No one here is jumping on the “scientists are idiots” bandwagon, and novody wants to.
My opinion, for what it’s worth, is that it might be good for some people to have it pointed out that sometimes scientists are wrong. This is anecdotal as all heck, but I know tons of people who refer to the latest prediction of some scientist or other as gospel (it doesn’t help that I live near a college town, full of students who just took Intro to Blah Blah and suddenly think their professor is omniscient). How much mass chaos was caused because some computer scientists said that Y2K was going to bring society to a halt? Yes, this was largely the fault of a sensationalistic media, but they’re not going anywhere soon. People have pointed out the global cooling and over-population predictions, each of which caused a great deal of ruckus in their days, certainly much more than the validity of their claims required. Certainly we don’t want the general public ignorning everything scientists say, but we also don’t want the other extreme of people spending their life savings on bottled water and spam because they think the power stations are going to go down because of a computer bug. To the OP, I say best of luck, and I hope you run an entertaining show. If you were in my area, I’d sure listen to it.
Jeff
Bravo ElJeffe. I agree
Back in 1989 a guy named Iben Browning (some kinda earthquake expert) predicted that the New Madrid fault would move on December 3rd of that year and destroy western Kentucky.
It was taken so seriously that school was cancelled and everything.
The guy predicted another quake, in China, which didn’t happen.
Then he died.
Very little chaos was caused (aside from IT budgets and some really stupid decisions to invest heavily in inappropriate client-server applications). The people who warned of the (very legitimate) Y2K issue were not “computer scientists” but business analysts. Without (some of) the hype, many companies would not have tested or rewritten their systems to handle the issue. There was wild hype in some locations, but the hype helped to avert the actual chaos and the hype did not originate with scientists.
So, while I do not challenge all of your points, this particular example is not suitable to your argument.
Y’know, this idea could be spun to the advantage of the pro-scientific POV – by showing examples of how newer, better science (or technology) makes a prior scientific (or technological) prediction moot, even if it was a good and not entirely kooky scientific prediction.
Hi everyone. Thanks for all the posts to help me out with my radio bit. I really appreciate those of you who got the spirit of my original post, and were able to give me some sort of light hearted information. You rock.
And to everyone else who got mad, have no no sense of humor, and declared omnipotence of scientists, you’ve given me a new idea…“Who’s the Egghead?”
Thanks again…