Talk:Expert Error - Revision history

BertSchlossberg: /* Best of the public versus Expert */ new section

2010-04-22T08:24:47Z

Best of the public versus Expert: new section

Ed Poor: Scientists whose careers were ruined

2009-12-26T22:06:42Z

Scientists whose careers were ruined

FrankC: /* Thomas Watson */ new section

2009-12-26T20:54:10Z

Thomas Watson: new section

FrankC: /* William Thomson */ new section

2009-12-26T17:15:09Z

William Thomson: new section

FrankC: /* Irving Fisher */ thanks!

2009-12-25T16:03:08Z

Irving Fisher: thanks!

FrankC: /* United States Patent Office */

2009-12-25T16:02:21Z

United States Patent Office

FrankC: /* Irving Fisher */ new section

2009-12-25T15:13:33Z

Irving Fisher: new section

FrankC: /* United States Patent Office */ new section

2009-12-25T14:57:45Z

United States Patent Office: new section

JacobB at 22:31, December 24, 2009

2009-12-24T22:31:58Z

TrondE: climategate?

2009-12-24T22:19:42Z

climategate?

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:24, April 22, 2010
Line 66:		Line 66:

	Conservapedia should check this entry... [[User:FrankC\|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 15:54, 26 December 2009 (EST)		Conservapedia should check this entry... [[User:FrankC\|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 15:54, 26 December 2009 (EST)
		+
		+	== Best of the public versus Expert ==
		+
		+	I just don't see how "expert" can be avoided. For just one field - In order to translate the Bible, one must know Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. These are not gained by just living, even the finest of living. One must study these languages and the literatures of these languages, and one must be knowledgeable about the language into which these languages are to be translated. This takes time, effort, specialization, dedication. The result of all of these qualities and endeavors, is a person that is a specialist, an expert. A resource for others to go to, that others must go to. I don't see any other way. There is no guarantee, I know, and experts can be wrong, biased,etc., but they are essential.[[User:BertSchlossberg\|BertSchlossberg]] 04:24, 22 April 2010 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:06, December 26, 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Should we mention the rejection of [[Semmelweiss]] and his notion that an "invisible substance" carried on doctor's hands was causing [[childbed fever]]?		Should we mention the rejection of [[Semmelweiss]] and his notion that an "invisible substance" carried on doctor's hands was causing [[childbed fever]]?
		+
		+	* see [[Scientists whose careers were ruined]]

	Or the resistance of [[climate change]] theorists to acknowledge the flaws in the [[hockey stick graph]]? --[[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor\|Talk]]</sup> 15:36, 24 December 2009 (EST)		Or the resistance of [[climate change]] theorists to acknowledge the flaws in the [[hockey stick graph]]? --[[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor\|Talk]]</sup> 15:36, 24 December 2009 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:54, December 26, 2009
Line 54:		Line 54:
	Naturally, he didn't say anything about [[radioactivity]].		Naturally, he didn't say anything about [[radioactivity]].
	[[User:FrankC\|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:15, 26 December 2009 (EST)		[[User:FrankC\|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:15, 26 December 2009 (EST)
		+
		+	== Thomas Watson ==
		+
		+	From the 2005 article [http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/kevinmaney/2005-07-05-famous-quotes_x.htm Tech titans wish we wouldn't quote them on this baloney]:
		+
		+	''IBM's archives staff has been asked repeatedly to find this quote. They can't. It's not in any of Watson's documented speeches, and this is a company that documented nearly everything Watson ever uttered. In my research for the book, I never found a reference to such a comment in any of Watson's papers or any story in the press.''
		+
		+	''It's true that Watson at the time thought electronic computers would be sold only to research labs, but he was hoping to sell them to a lot of research labs — certainly more than five. Watson never doubted the power of electronics. But he, and just about everyone else at the time, failed to comprehend why any business would need to do thousands of calculations per second, particularly if it required an expensive, room-size, power-guzzling machine that would break down constantly — which was the state of computer art in 1943. (Note: Today's high-end PCs can process around 2.5 billion operations per second.)''
		+
		+	Conservapedia should check this entry... [[User:FrankC\|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 15:54, 26 December 2009 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:15, December 26, 2009
Line 45:		Line 45:

	Thanks for the improvement of the article! [[User:FrankC\|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:03, 25 December 2009 (EST)		Thanks for the improvement of the article! [[User:FrankC\|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:03, 25 December 2009 (EST)
		+
		+	== William Thomson ==
		+
		+	The entry for Lord Kelvin is imprecise - according to the source, he thought that
		+	* heavier than air flight is ''impossible''
		+	* radio has ''no future''
		+	* x-rays are a hoax
		+	Naturally, he didn't say anything about [[radioactivity]].
		+	[[User:FrankC\|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 12:15, 26 December 2009 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:03, December 25, 2009
Line 43:		Line 43:

	[[User:FrankC\|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:13, 25 December 2009 (EST)		[[User:FrankC\|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:13, 25 December 2009 (EST)
		+
		+	Thanks for the improvement of the article! [[User:FrankC\|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:03, 25 December 2009 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:02, December 25, 2009
Line 23:		Line 23:

	[[User:FrankC\|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:57, 25 December 2009 (EST)		[[User:FrankC\|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:57, 25 December 2009 (EST)
		+
		+	''Opposition by experts to the United States Patent Office, because supposedly everything useful has been invented''.
		+
		+	I think this statement is patently wrong - and it is not backed by the footnote, as no one ever subscribed to the content of this pseudo-quotation.
		+
		+	The late 19th century was a hot-bed of scientific inventions, as various nations struggled for the lead in the engineering sciences. Have a look at the books of [[Jules Verne]] to see what was thought to be possible in the near future...
		+
		+	[[User:FrankC\|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 11:02, 25 December 2009 (EST)

	== Irving Fisher ==		== Irving Fisher ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:13, December 25, 2009
Line 23:		Line 23:

	[[User:FrankC\|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:57, 25 December 2009 (EST)		[[User:FrankC\|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:57, 25 December 2009 (EST)
		+
		+	== Irving Fisher ==
		+
		+	The quotes I found were:
		+
		+	# "There may be a recession in stock prices, but not anything in the nature of a crash." New York Times, Sept. 5, 1929
		+
		+	# "Stock prices have reached what looks like a permanently high plateau. I do not feel there will be soon if ever a 50 or 60 point break from present levels, such as (bears) have predicted. I expect to see the stock market a good deal higher within a few months." Oct. 17, 1929
		+
		+	Though this was obviously wrong, he didn't say that ''stock prices would never decrease.''
		+
		+	[[User:FrankC\|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 10:13, 25 December 2009 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:57, December 25, 2009
Line 4:		Line 4:
	:I think the whole climategate scandal has exposed all the climate 'experts', but the question is whether this was down to error or deceit. [[User:TrondE\|TrondE]] 17:19, 24 December 2009 (EST)		:I think the whole climategate scandal has exposed all the climate 'experts', but the question is whether this was down to error or deceit. [[User:TrondE\|TrondE]] 17:19, 24 December 2009 (EST)
	::I agree with TrondE that ClimateGate definitely belongs under deceit, not this page. But I'm definitely voting to include Ed's suggestions, I think they're great examples! [[User:JacobB\|JacobB]] 17:31, 24 December 2009 (EST)		::I agree with TrondE that ClimateGate definitely belongs under deceit, not this page. But I'm definitely voting to include Ed's suggestions, I think they're great examples! [[User:JacobB\|JacobB]] 17:31, 24 December 2009 (EST)
		+
		+	== United States Patent Office ==
		+
		+	''Leading scientists recommending around 1900 that the United States Patent Office should be abolished because everything useful had been invented.''
		+
		+	I couldn't find any corroboration for this: the idea for this entry seems to be an alleged quote of Charles Duell, U.S. Patent Commissioner, 1899:
		+
		+	''"Everything that can be invented has been invented."''
		+
		+	But though this ''quotation'' is fairly widespread, it seems to be entirely made up:
		+
		+	*[http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/kevinmaney/2005-07-05-famous-quotes_x.htm Tech titans wish we wouldn't quote them on this baloney]
		+	*[http://www.myoutbox.net/posass.htm A Patently False Patent Myth]
		+
		+	So, I'll slap an <nowiki>{{source}}-tag</nowiki> on this entry, until someone is more successful in finding recommendations of leading scientists than I was.
		+
		+	''Everything you post must be true and verifiable''
		+
		+	[[User:FrankC\|FrankC aka ComedyFan]] 09:57, 25 December 2009 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:31, December 24, 2009
Line 3:		Line 3:
	Or the resistance of [[climate change]] theorists to acknowledge the flaws in the [[hockey stick graph]]? --[[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor\|Talk]]</sup> 15:36, 24 December 2009 (EST)		Or the resistance of [[climate change]] theorists to acknowledge the flaws in the [[hockey stick graph]]? --[[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor\|Talk]]</sup> 15:36, 24 December 2009 (EST)
	:I think the whole climategate scandal has exposed all the climate 'experts', but the question is whether this was down to error or deceit. [[User:TrondE\|TrondE]] 17:19, 24 December 2009 (EST)		:I think the whole climategate scandal has exposed all the climate 'experts', but the question is whether this was down to error or deceit. [[User:TrondE\|TrondE]] 17:19, 24 December 2009 (EST)
		+	::I agree with TrondE that ClimateGate definitely belongs under deceit, not this page. But I'm definitely voting to include Ed's suggestions, I think they're great examples! [[User:JacobB\|JacobB]] 17:31, 24 December 2009 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:19, December 24, 2009
Line 2:		Line 2:

	Or the resistance of [[climate change]] theorists to acknowledge the flaws in the [[hockey stick graph]]? --[[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor\|Talk]]</sup> 15:36, 24 December 2009 (EST)		Or the resistance of [[climate change]] theorists to acknowledge the flaws in the [[hockey stick graph]]? --[[User:Ed Poor\|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor\|Talk]]</sup> 15:36, 24 December 2009 (EST)
		+	:I think the whole climategate scandal has exposed all the climate 'experts', but the question is whether this was down to error or deceit. [[User:TrondE\|TrondE]] 17:19, 24 December 2009 (EST)