Comments on: Top ten scientific hoaxes.

Top ten scientific hoaxes.

Ufez Jones — Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:39:34 -0800

With the 50th anniversary of the exposure of Piltdown Man as a hoax coming next week, The Guardian brings you the top ten science hoaxes.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:48:18 -0800

"In the end, nature is the checker," said one of the laboratory's directors. "Experiments have to be reproducible." That kind of sums it all up.

By: skallas

skallas — Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:57:04 -0800

Crop circles, alien autopsy, signature of god? They're really stretching the word 'science' here as these things started, remained, and ended on the New Age BS territory of kooks and conspiracy nuts from day one. Something tells me Nature never published 'Aliens found! Fox has tape. Its real! We have confirmation from 25 labs from around the world that the DNA is non-terrestrial.' That's more Weekly World News territory.

By: jozxyqk

jozxyqk — Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:59:50 -0800

#2 reminds me of how lemmings got their reputation...

By: kaemaril

kaemaril — Thu, 13 Nov 2003 11:00:26 -0800

From the Guardian article: (when the Piltdown man hoax was exposed) the conspiracy theorists went ape. Very appropriate :)

By: orange swan

orange swan — Thu, 13 Nov 2003 11:17:17 -0800

These are fun. Wonder what the science hoaxes of our age will be.

By: substrate

substrate — Thu, 13 Nov 2003 11:17:36 -0800

They missed the greatest science hoax of all time. Whether it's to promote the conservative views on sex education, AIDS prevention, stem cell research or conservation their hoaxes are far more dangerous, and so more 'important' than any of the other 10.

By: Hackworth

Hackworth — Thu, 13 Nov 2003 11:18:40 -0800

what, no cold fusion?

By: mathowie

mathowie — Thu, 13 Nov 2003 11:21:16 -0800

What's up with that piltdown man site in the original link? Every page on the site leads to a new domain with lots of dashes in it. Is it some sort of giant link farm for google?

By: substrate

substrate — Thu, 13 Nov 2003 11:34:45 -0800

The Piltdown Man site is actually a front for the creationists. So while the Piltdown Man is a hoax, and I'll agree with that, the site itself is a smear campaign against evolution.

By: majcher

majcher — Thu, 13 Nov 2003 11:38:17 -0800

I'm disappointed to see this post from you, Ufez. I thought you'd backed off from your antagonistic, not-gaining-you-any-ground attacks on scientific people.

By: mr_roboto

mr_roboto — Thu, 13 Nov 2003 11:41:09 -0800

what, no cold fusion? I don't think cold fusion was a hoax per se; the data weren't falsified, and there was no intentional fraud on the part of the researchers. It was more just a case of poorly designed experiments.

By: Ufez Jones

Ufez Jones — Thu, 13 Nov 2003 11:42:31 -0800

If you look at the sites and the links that are on there, matt, you wind up with a lot of interlinking sites about god and philosophy and Jesus and evolution and DNA. The thing is, I'm not quite sure what their agenda is (which leads me to believe that they're incredibly ineffective in trying to reach out to people for whatever they're going for). I probably should've explored it more before I used it for this post, but it seemed like a nice quick and dirty summation of the Piltdown Man. I'm disappointed to see this post from you, Ufez. I thought you'd backed off from your antagonistic, not-gaining-you-any-ground attacks on scientific people. There is no anti-scientific-underground-terror-cabal.

By: substrate

substrate — Thu, 13 Nov 2003 11:58:55 -0800

I wasn't calling out on Ufez Jones, I was just pointing out that the Piltdown Man site was in fact a creationist (or intelligent design) site. Sorry if you saw it that way Ufez.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:05:37 -0800

ROTFL majcher

By: Ufez Jones

Ufez Jones — Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:09:55 -0800

Sorry if you saw it that way Ufez. Not at all, substrate. You simply stated what was what. I still think it's a valid link for quick summation of the Piltdown Man Scam for those that either weren't aware of it or needed a refresher.

By: fenriq

fenriq — Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:30:38 -0800

How about the recent news item about a religious group "winning" the right to include creationism in public school science textbooks? Or just the concept of a backwards ass state deciding what is right and what is wrong based on theology and not science and then dictating to its populance what they can learn? So soon we'll have a whole other crop of creationists attempting to subvert a pretty widely accepted and proven theory of where we came from.

By: gd779

gd779 — Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:41:03 -0800

Or just the concept of a backwards ass state deciding what is right and what is wrong based on theology and not science and then dictating to its populance what they can learn? Freedom. Parental choice in education. Should these values not be protected, even if the choices made are "backwards ass" in your opinion?

By: skallas

skallas — Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:49:30 -0800

>Freedom. Parental choice in education. Tyranny of the majority, better funded and connected groups, etc. I think its fairly obvious that if you want to teach creationism in school it should be part of a religious studies class that includes the myths of many religions, not just tossed in a biology class because out of fear of evolution. At one time Freedom also meant keeping the kids AWAY from school and working on the farm as universal education didn't pay the bills, in fact it cost money. Something to think about.

By: ptermit

ptermit — Thu, 13 Nov 2003 13:10:05 -0800

Freedom. Parental choice in education. You've got it. Home school your kids. If you want, teach them that the Earth is flat and that the moon is made of cheese. Lots of parents in other ass-backwards states are doing the equivalent. Or are you seriously suggesting that parents should have the right to force flat-Earthism and moon-cheesism into the textbooks if they so desired?

By: ptermit

ptermit — Thu, 13 Nov 2003 13:15:10 -0800

Heh. Google search yields no hits for "moon-cheesism." I guess that makes me the founding member of the moon-cheesist movement.

By: Daze

Daze — Thu, 13 Nov 2003 13:20:19 -0800

I'm fascinated by hoaxes but found this list dumb. As skallas says, pseudoscience claims about crop circles and Roswell are not the same as scientific hoaxes. I'd add the Sybil case, and multiple personality disorder generally, though there are still some fringe psychologists (and legions of lazy screenwriters) who believe MPD really exists.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Thu, 13 Nov 2003 13:23:26 -0800

Or just the concept of a backwards ass state deciding what is right and what is wrong based on theology and not science and then dictating to its populance what they can learn? One skirmish won today.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Thu, 13 Nov 2003 13:24:34 -0800

If we're nominating additions, I nominate the "lie detector test."

By: goethean

goethean — Thu, 13 Nov 2003 13:34:43 -0800

By: gd779

gd779 — Thu, 13 Nov 2003 13:42:46 -0800

You've got it. Home school your kids. Yeah, but if the majority want X, and only a few people want Y, what sense does it make to tell the X's to all homeschool? Or are you seriously suggesting that parents should have the right to force flat-Earthism and moon-cheesism into the textbooks if they so desired? Yes, I think that generally they do have that right. Education is a parents responsibility. Schools exist for the convenience of and as a support for the parents. On the other hand, I misunderstood the issue here. I had glanced over the news story earlier in the day, and I believed it simply allowed Intelligent Design theory to be taught alongside Evolution. That is apparently false, which puts me in a dilemma. On the one hand, it seems very, very wrong for schools to not teach existing science at all. On the other hand, my principles demand supporting the will of the parents. I'd need to give it some more thought before deciding which way I come out on this.

By: trondant

trondant — Thu, 13 Nov 2003 13:44:39 -0800

ptermit is not the only moon-cheesist.

By: lumpenprole

lumpenprole — Thu, 13 Nov 2003 14:06:23 -0800

For more info, visit http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/. I just finished reading the book by the author of the site (link on site) and it was really fun. Also, I'm not sure why the Piltdown man is more well known than the Cardiff giant, but I'd nominate the giant, too.

By: ptermit

ptermit — Thu, 13 Nov 2003 14:07:53 -0800

Yes, I think that generally they do have that right. Well, I've got to give you points for being intellectually consistent. But I find your position absurd. Even if parents vote that the heart has five chambers, that doesn't make it so; it is a falsehood. Therefore, it shouldn't be taught by the state or put in its textbooks, no matter what the parents want. ptermit is not the only moon-cheesist. Dang! I should've known that the administration would be way ahead of me on that one.

By: fenriq

fenriq — Thu, 13 Nov 2003 14:13:02 -0800

gd779, parents shouldn't be the deciding factor in what's taught in schools. If so then the future education would depend on the present educational level of the parents. And in a state like Arkansas, how many went to college, how many got through calculus, how many understand the laws of thermodynamics? Allowing ignorant people to decide curriculum is a very, very bad idea. And, to fend off the complaints about using the word "ignorant", I am using it as its intended, to denote a person or people that doesn't know what they're talking about. And yes, that does, sometimes, include me. But then I'm not trying to get a well established and accepted scientific theory removed from my school because it doesn't quite fit in with my religious views.

By: Katemonkey

Katemonkey — Thu, 13 Nov 2003 14:31:44 -0800

Off-topic: Not all home-schoolers are teaching their kids that the world is flat, the moon is cheese, and God created everything 'cause he's like that. You might as well start saying that everyone from public school turns out to be a drooling, vacant-eyed moron programmed for the 9-to-5 toothpaste-cap-screwer job. I was home taught for two years and it did wonders for me -- not only because I was in an environment where I could learn on my own schedule and in my own fashion, but because along with whatever we got in our textbooks (we had a set lesson plan that was ordered through a home-schooling company), we would also regularly visit the local museums and other educational places. I'm damn sure I learned a hell of a lot more about the world than the kids who were dragged to the museums once every few years. On-topic: The alien autopsy video shouldn't be really on the list, since I don't think anyone ever took that seriously. And I'm kinda sad that it doesn't include The Cardiff Giant or the Dinosaur/Human footprints. (sorry about that last link -- I tried to find a more reasonable source)

By: rushmc

rushmc — Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:04:05 -0800

Education is a parents responsibility. Schools exist for the convenience of and as a support for the parents. In what century? Modern schools are mostly about preparing children to assume roles in an employment-based society. The only convenience they realistically offer parents is as tax-paid daycare centers.

By: Veritron

Veritron — Thu, 13 Nov 2003 18:53:58 -0800

Katemonkey - speaking as a high school senior, I think your description of our current crop of graduates is spookily accurate.