The Greatest Scientific Hoaxes?

Ponca City, We love you writes "The New Scientist has an amusing story about the seven greatest scientific hoaxes of all time. Of course, there have been serious cases of scientific fraud, such as the stem cell researchers recently found guilty of falsifying data, and the South Korean cloning fraud, but the hoaxes selected point more to human gullibility than malevolence and include the Piltdown Man (constructed from a medieval human cranium); a ten-foot "petrified man" dug up on a small farm in Cardiff; fossils 'found' in Wurzburg, Germany depicting comets, moons and suns, Alan Sokal's paper loaded with nonsensical jargon that was accepted by the journal Social Text; the claim of the Upas tree on the island of Java so poisonous that it killed everything within a 15-mile radius; and Johann Heinrich Cohausen's claim of an elixir produced by collecting the breath of young women in bottles that produced immortality. Our favorite: BBC's broadcast in 1957 about the spaghetti tree in Switzerland that showed a family harvesting pasta that hung from the branches of the tree. After watching the program, hundreds of people phoned in asking how they could grow their own tree but, alas, the program turned out to be an April Fools' Day joke." What massive scientific hoaxes/jokes have other people witnessed?

Comments

Intelligent Design?

[Shadow Wrought]

But, then again, I guess its not actually science...

Re:Intelligent Design?

[c6gunner]

How the hell did that get modded "troll"?

"Intelligent design" is the biggest "scientific hoax" ever devised. These people have literally taken creationist ideas and literature, and re-packaged them to look like a scientific theory.

Now, if we were talking about creationism, then ok, it's not a scientific hoax because it doesn't pretend to be scientific. But ID? It should be at the TOP of this list!

Re:Intelligent Design?

[Sancho]

A few points.

1) Darwinism doesn't purport to explain the start of the universe.

2) Few things are considered proven in science. The general test to determine if a theory is scientific is whether or not a test can be devised which would disprove the theory. Evolution could be disproven. Intelligent design can never be disproven. Ergo, its status as a scientific theory is highly questionable.

3) Intelligent design goes way farther than the beginning of life on Earth or of the universe. One of the classic examples of an ID argument is that the eye is too complex to have evolved "randomly". That's pretty far removed from the issue of the beginning of life.

Re:Intelligent Design?

[c6gunner]

so "intelligent design" is to the right what "global climate change" is to the left. one can be openly challenged in the light of day and the other is sacred, because the "scientific consensus" is in. i'm more concerned about the cause that crushes honest questioning and decent.

Science is neither right nor left. Intelligent design is, by it's very design (pardon the pun) aimed at people who are very religious; people who also happen to lean right on the political spectrum.

The science behind global warming is pretty simple - increased CO2 levels cause increased heat absorption. That's a fact. Where you stand on the political spectrum won't change it, any more than your political position will change the force of gravity. Whether human CO2 emissions are drastically affecting the earths climate is a different question, and one which has not been settled with any degree of certainty.

There is no question that we are having SOME effect. The real question is how much, and whether it's a good thing or a bad thing.

So to correct your earlier statement, it would be safe to say that the Cult of Al Gore is to the left what ID is to the right; global warming as a scientific field of study, though, has nothing in common with either. The fact that some political groups have hijacked the name, doesn't invalidate the science.

Re:Intelligent Design?

[tverbeek]

A hoax requires the intent to present something one knows to be false. The folks promoting Intelligent Design believe it to be true. They're not lying... they're merely mistaken.

Anthropogenic Global Warming

[Derling Whirvish]

Could be the biggest one of all. That or alchemy (dead) and astrology (still alive).

you mis-spelled "polygraph"

[SuperBanana]

E-meter [wikipedia.org] comes to mind.

You mis-spelled Polygraph. Slightly more important, given that, unlike E-meters, polygraphs are used in criminal investigations and employment decisions (namely, government security services) and police and prosecutors often try to get the results admitted in court as evidence.

Remember Ashley Todd, who claimed she was mugged and had a "B" cut into her face by an imaginary black dude? Cops gave her a polygraph test, but refused to release the results. Hmm, like maybe a "she's telling the truth" result, that would very publicly demonstrate what a piece of useless crap polygraphs are?

Global warming is a fact, not a theory or hoax.

[EWAdams]

Its cause is not fully understood, but that hardly matters; we have to live with it no matter what causes it.

Ever notice how it's the same deluded people (political conservatives, for some reason) who claim that evolution doesn't happen (hello? antibiotic-resistant bugs?) as claim that global warming doesn't happen?

Read the subject line again

[Derling Whirvish]

The theory of ANTHROPOGENIC global warming is different from the fact of global warming. It's as if there was a theory that the Bubonic Plague was caused by demonic possession and I claim that demonic possession as a cause of the plague is a hoax and then you jump in and say that the plague is REAL and cannot be argued about. Do you not understand the meaning of "anthropogenic"?

Re:Nonsense!

[Weaselmancer]

Wow, you really have no clue what you're talking about, do you? You think you're so clever for nitpicking Goedel's ontological argument.

To be more precise, I did not nitpick Godel's argument. I paralleled it, substituting God with sex. You'll find I posted no counterargument to Godel in my original post. And I also used it to reach a true conclusion: Women Exist.

So yeah, I actually do have a clue what I'm talking about.

Let me ask you this: is there any role in your life for spirituality, whatsoever? I'm not talking about any one conception of God, just your spirituality. If you don't, I really feel sorry for you.

I might ask if you have any clue what a straw man argument is. There is nothing you can deduce about my spirituality from my original post. I can however deduce that you seem to be a fan of Godel, and that I've stepped on your toes by using his argument as the basis of a joke.

Which somewhat ironically, under my definition of spirituality is a blessing of sorts. Nothing tastes quite so delicious as hamburgers made from sacred cows.

If people took spirituality more seriously, we wouldn't have all these problems. People would be more moral and generally pleasant to one another. And maybe you wouldn't talk about sex so much.

Hah! *snort*

It's called a joke. Don't be such an automaton. I don't think about sex any more or less than any average human being.

And for what it's worth, I think taking spirituality seriously to be a HUGE error. It's what gets people burnt at the stake. People need to take it less seriously. Less planes will wind up embedded into skyscrapers that way. I think the world would be a more moral and happy place if they took things less seriously, and approached things with the happiness and wisdom that children have.

The Creator created all - that means humor as well. I don't think this was all made so we could sit around and make sour faces at each other, and the most dour person gets to go to the highest cloud in Heaven.

Something for you to think about. Hopefully.

Fnord.