"13-year old schoolboy DOES NOT correct NASA" Topic

I realise this has already been discussed on the 13-year old schoolboy corrects NASA, but for anyone reading the archives, it'd be nice if the FACTS got the same level of attention as the news headlines, don't you think?

link

(apologies to the PFM for stealing his post)

NASA is open to these attacks because they repeatedly paint a rosey picture of the future.
They consistantly downplay the risks to the planet in favor of further exploration. While the annililation of the planet is miniscule for the moment, there are some serious threats down the road. If something hits us, it would make the terroist threat look like childs play.

Stupid facts….

I still want my asteroid-busting space nukes.

moonhippie, I have no idea what you're getting at, nor what it has to do with the topic. I also don't see any 'attack'; the media leapt up and down becuase a 13-year-old somehow found out something that plenty of professional scientists had missed, and then were strangely silent when proved wrong (again). It appears that the cult of mediocrity and the apparent mistrust of knowledge is firmly in charge, as always.

However, I fail to see how an emphasis on space exploration has any bearing on the likelihood of a catasdtrophic asteroid impact. If anything, continued exploration will allow us to detect the things further away, thus giving us time to do something about them; offhand, if this asteroid was going to hit the Earth, there's nothing we could do about it, other than sit here and suck it up. But just you go on beliveing that it's somehow NASA's fault (and apparently, not the concern of the ESA or the Russian, Indian or Chinese space agencies, who arguably should take a greater interest than NASA).

The general public was educated by Hollywood that every single great invention was made against and in spite of "science" (makes a spitting sound)

It was too good a story to ignore and the reality wasn't worth reporting …

Maybe it would be considered rude to point to a kid and laugh.

NASA is used to being pointed at and laughed at.

I don't trust anything a 13 year old schoolboy says. Never have. Never will. Get rid of them pimples, then we'll talk.

I still don't like Wesley Crusher.

Maybe that kid will next try and argue that the moon landings are real! What a maroon!

If Bruce Willis isn't worried about an asteroid, then neither am I.

The great turtle will protect us.

We have Chuck Norris. No astroid will dare show its face.

There are favorite myths/memes that circulate and frequently attach to current news items in the popular consciousness. This one is essentially David vs. Goliath. 'Lone underdog opposes and bests huge, entrenched fuddy-duddies who should know better.'

Unfortunately, in science, the David vs. Goliath story seldom results in the Biblical outcome. In real science, Goliath usually wins. Well-funded research programs are composed of serious scientists pretty much to the same extent as are independent garage projects. They both have an interest in uncovering objective facts and avoiding errors. Believe me, ALL are motivated to avoid errors detectable by 13-year old boys. With their greater funding, the big projects get more-accurate toys and employ multiple scientists who tend to reduce the likelihood of simple error (in general).

None of this is to say that mistakes aren't made, or selfish or dishonest scientists don't exist, or that science-by-committee always produces superior results. Just that immediately saying 'Aha! See, I always KNEW those NASA fat-cats were hiding something!' tells us more about you than about science in general.

according to the link:

It would appear that the intial article in the Potsdamer Neueste Nachrichten, which says that NASA and the ESA endorsed Nico Marquardt's calculations, was incorrect. The story was picked up by German tabloids and the AFP news wire, and is now all over the internet.

As TWhitley and Andrew Paul show, some of us like to point the finger at the scientists, but give the Press too wide a berth. To my mind the article was more than just "incorrect". Apparently the ESA confirmed Nasa's calculations all along. That means the "reporter" must of made a series of errors to produce the initial article.

Ralph

Yeah, about time Skagg's Law got a bit of a shakeup ( The rule that the hoax gets first page treatment, while the explanation turns up on page 34 ).

Mind you, two schoolgirls locally virtually destroyed the reputation of Ribena as a source of vitamin C recently, so it can work sometimes . . .