Evolving Thoughts

Oops, a slight error never killed anyone

Or so you might think NASA is saying, after a 13 year old kid showed they’d miscalculated the odds of an asteroid hitting earth by a factor of 3.

General Science

Related Posts

Comments (22)

  1. 3? From one in 45.000 to one in 450 is factor of 100, isn’t it?

  2. 3? From one in 45.000 to one in 450 is factor of 100, isn’t it?

  3. 10^3 is a factor of three, I thought. Or is that an order of magnitude?

  4. 10^3 is a factor of three, I thought. Or is that an order of magnitude?

  5. It’s an order of magnitude, but don’t worry, it’s only a small error.
    NASA shouldn’t worry either, well until they start finding us measuring their errors in Dembskis.

  6. It’s an order of magnitude, but don’t worry, it’s only a small error.
    NASA shouldn’t worry either, well until they start finding us measuring their errors in Dembskis.

  7. It’s an order of magnitude, but don’t worry, it’s only a small error.
    NASA shouldn’t worry either, well until they start finding us measuring their errors in Dembskis.

  8. It’s an order of magnitude, but don’t worry, it’s only a small error.
    NASA shouldn’t worry either, well until they start finding us measuring their errors in Dembskis.

  9. It’s an order of magnitude, but don’t worry, it’s only a small error.
    NASA shouldn’t worry either, well until they start finding us measuring their errors in Dembskis.

  10. And 10^2 = 100. So 2 orders of magnitude or a factor fo 100. Or was this a SIWOTI trap?

  13. OK, so the lessons to be learned here are:
    1. Wilkins is functionally innumerate
    2. Wilkins can’t tell an order of magnitude from a hole in the ground
    3. Wilkins is a credulous fool
    I think we’ll leave this thread then.

  14. OK, so the lessons to be learned here are:
    1. Wilkins is functionally innumerate
    2. Wilkins can’t tell an order of magnitude from a hole in the ground
    3. Wilkins is a credulous fool
    I think we’ll leave this thread then.

  15. I’m not surprised to hear this was wrong. My BS detector was going crazy when I read that article yesterday, but I never bothered to check for any corrections because I just thought it was bunk anyway. Thanks for the link Daniele.

  17. In science, it seems much safer to be a skeptic. The problem though, is that sneering skeptics don’t contribute much in the way of significant new discoveries. That requires an unreasonable, creative person. But if you’re a truly creative person, you’re probably better off sticking with art or engineering anyway – more degrees of freedom there.

  18. In science, it seems much safer to be a skeptic. The problem though, is that sneering skeptics don’t contribute much in the way of significant new discoveries. That requires an unreasonable, creative person. But if you’re a truly creative person, you’re probably better off sticking with art or engineering anyway – more degrees of freedom there.

  19. Yup, the media got it wrong — AGAIN.
    The boy’s sums are wrong, and neither NASA nor ESA ever endorsed the boy’s math, or his conclusions.
    Bravo for the kid for trying, boo hiss for the German media and AFP newswire running with an inaccurate story.

  20. Yup, the media got it wrong — AGAIN.
    The boy’s sums are wrong, and neither NASA nor ESA ever endorsed the boy’s math, or his conclusions.
    Bravo for the kid for trying, boo hiss for the German media and AFP newswire running with an inaccurate story.

  21. “…well until they start finding us measuring their errors in Dembskis.”
    That actually has a nice ring to it. “Are those error bars for SDs, SEMs or Dembskis?”
    Anyway, it’s a testament to the fact that we boffins are about as popular as a fart in a spacesuit these days that Joe Public would sooner take the word of a child over that of an expert.
    Not a good state of affairs by any means.

Comments are closed.