and scroll down until the second column mention Fischer in boldface. Gardner contends that one may be absolutely brilliant in some fields of the mind and a moron in others. I think the article deals shabbily with Fischer and others. Isaac Newton’s activities, for example, were legitimate fields of inquiry for his day and age. Arthur Conan Doyle believed in a phenomenon which Gardner dismisses without discussion. But be your own judge.
I think you’re being too harsh on Martin Gardner. Leaving Newton aside (though even in his own day his alchemical and numerological studies were considered somewhat quaint), Doyle did not simply “(believe) in a phenomenon which Gardner dismisses without discussion.” In the case of the “Cottingley photographs.” he credulously allowed himself to be duped by obvious charlatans, and stuck to his guns even after some of the “fairy photographs” were found to have been made from magazine clippings. Belief first, evidence later! Gardner does tend to deal shortly with various quackeries, but that’s a natural result of his having met far too many credophiles over the decades. (The first edition of “Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science” came out more than 50 year ago, and many of his targets are still going strong.)
Gardner’s name is mentioned twice. I don’t think it is at all harsh on him to say he dismisses without discussion. Judging by his attitude, I think he would have us all be super-rational and not accepting of the mysterious. As for credophiles, they exist in the political arena, such as denials in the face of evidence that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, such as acting on behalf of our nation out of belief in the absence of information from elsewhere. I could not agree if he submitted that credophiles are necessarily morons.
There’s evidence that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, and there’s evidence that he wasn’t. Probably you could have picked a clearer, and less controversial, example.
After the five hundredth time hearing a True Believer expounding Lawsonomy, Ongone Energy, Hollow-Earthism and similar crank notions, it’s easy to lose patience with willful deniers of reality. Of course, credophiles aren’t necessarily morons …
Lawsonomy is a great example. According to Lawson’s wikipedia page en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Lawson
he accomplished a lot more valid technical work (he is said to have invented the airliner) than Gardner ever did.
It’s easy to say no to new ideas, since most of them will be wrong, but imho it’s a fairly low value activity, except as it provides examples of the application of existing theory. That is, exercises for students who are not yet confident in the existing theory.
Do you have any idea what Lawsonomy was? Yes, Lawson was a successful engineer and businessman (though “invented the airliner” is an exaggeration). He was a bright guy in his own field. He was also a complete crank, who thought he had found the real truth about the universe (“twist and swirl”), which had escaped those old fuddy-duddys Newton and Einstein. I agree that Lawsonomy is a fine example – for the opposite of your argument.
The problem with having an open mind is that people go around putting things into it.
His birth certificate is an official record in Hawaii. I saw it displayed on TV. There was also a birth announcement in the newspaper. Again, displayed on TV.
Those who doubt it say that we’ve seen the “certificate of live birth” which is not the “birth certificate”, and only the “birth certificate” would prove he was born at that hospital, and it would exist if he was born at that hospital.
There are people, as I recall, who say they know that he was not born in Hawaii.
Those who doubt it are deluded fools engaging in wishful thinking – the political equivalent of “hope chess,” only worse, because they’ve already been checkmated, and they’re still pushing pieces around, wishing for a way out.
