Timeline for Examples of when the professional scientists or mathematicians were wrong, but the nonprofessionals were right
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 24, 2019 at 10:49 | comment | added | Jishin Noben | @russelld Engineering is an application of science, and surely does use scientific methods. But using scientific methods is not a sufficient ground for being called a scientist. One also has to consider what is investigated; engines are not a subject of science. Even if we let that drop, you still interpret "finding one of many solution" as "being right", which sounds very unreasonable. | |
| Jan 23, 2019 at 20:46 | comment | added | Jeremy List | en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Pearse. Turns out there's a lot more uncertainty about his life and work than I had recalled, but this is still a very interesting read. | |
| Jan 23, 2019 at 10:08 | comment | added | russelld | @JishinNoben the Wrights demonstrated scientific skills set associated with scientific inquiry. As in 1) Literature review 2) contacting other flight researchers; 3) Thought up hypothesis' which were tested to develop a theory ( of flight eg wing warping); 4) Controlled variables (chord ratio of wings) 5) Built equipment to test the hypothesis (eg wind tunnel); Pulling together research to successful outcome (eg controlled manned flight in heavier air device). NASA does the same process | |
| Jan 23, 2019 at 9:39 | comment | added | russelld | @JeremyList can you please provide a reference to Richard Pearce | |
| Jan 22, 2019 at 21:58 | comment | added | Jeremy List | The Wright Brothers do get full credit since they did their work independently; but weren't the first to achieve heavier-than-air manned flight. Richard Pearce's earlier (very similar) aircraft didn't have the same historical significance due mostly to its inventor's deteriorating mental state. | |
| Jan 22, 2019 at 12:29 | comment | added | Jishin Noben | That is an example from engineering, not science. For that very fact, the people at the Smithsonian weren't wrong, since they weren't even trying to be right. Engineering problems can have multiple solutions. | |
| Jan 20, 2019 at 16:35 | review | First posts | |||
| Jan 21, 2019 at 8:14 | |||||
| Jan 20, 2019 at 16:31 | history | answered | russelld | CC BY-SA 4.0 |