One of the perks of basing conclusions on evidence rather than whims or emotions is that you tend be right more often. Yes, that sounds like an arrogant thing to say, but face it... the reason we're skeptics is because we love the truth and we're constantly searching to refine it. That tends to make us more informed on any topic than the general public who often seem to go with the flow and not question what they're told. I'm generalizing, but you get the point.

Be that as it may, it's easy to take pride in this fact. "Hey, I've done the research, and I'm right a lot of the time! Look at me!!!" Saying it like that may seem ridiculous, but it's not far from what I've been observing lately. I believe that such an attitude is not only counterproductive, it also ignores the best thing about being a skeptic, and that is... being able to freely say "Oops, I was wrong about that."

In our search for the truth, we have to make many provisional conclusions. If some of them aren't wrong, we're not doing the thinking required to be an active skeptic. We should be wrong more often, and most important, when we are, we should CROW IT FROM THE RAFTERS.

What separates skeptics from non-skeptics isn't that we're right more often, it's that we're wrong more often. Maybe not in actuality, but if we're to lead a science-based life, we have to be "proud" of the fact that most of what we know is possibly wrong. "Here's my best guess" is all we can ever say, because that's all we'll ever know. Now, our "best guesses" are in fact, THE best guesses. Unless we've missed something or succumbed to bias, they best explain the available evidence. But being proud of that makes it more difficult to embrace the pure simple joy of being unapologetically wrong. And really, we need more of that. Arrogance is never going to get people to think, but saying "Huh, I was wrong about that" can.

So here's my challenge to you: in the comments below, post a story of how you were wrong. And to be fair, I'll start. My problem is that I'm wrong so often, I'm not sure which example to give. ;)

Ok, here's one:

I've been flying since I was very little, and of course, curiosity lead me to wonder why planes fly. I did some cursory research, and found out about the Bernoulli effect. Planes fly because wings are curved on the top, which causes air to travel farther on the top of the wing than the bottom, and this causes lift. Here's a concise explanation from the Connecticut government.

For years, I'd tell people about this, including my own kids. It's a nice simple lesson, it makes sense, and it's also incorrect.

Well, maybe not completely, but we now know that the Bernoulli effect does not adequately explain why planes fly.

William Beaty wrote this excellent explanation of the problem in 1996. He discusses not only the complexity of flight, but goes on to show how the desire to be "right" without be willing to admit that you're wrong gets in the way of science. Winning an argument does not equal being correct.

So, I state PROUDLY that I was wrong about the Bernoulli effect. I'm glad to have increased my knowledge of the subject, and to be able to share that knowledge with others. And if you care to argue with me about the Bernoulli effect, be prepared for something: I'm not going to argue back. I have no stake in whether I'm correct or not. All I can state is that based on the evidence I've seen, my layman's position is that Beaty's explanation best fits the data.

And being a skeptic, I'm happy to say that I was wrong. I hope that you can be too.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (47)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

relativity of wrong
written by joed, February 15, 2010

Isaac Asimov wrote a wonderful book titled, The Relativity Of Wrong. The title chapter is worth reading. In fact the entire book is classic asimov.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +2

...
written by I Ratant, February 15, 2010

Bernoulli v Newton is almost as popular a theme in the coffee klatches at the toy airplane as the mysterious "downwind turn".
Bernoulli explains how lift can be created, but Newton describes what it does.
I did a video using an r/c helicopter with a foam plate larger in size than the rotor diameter taped to the landing skids.
The rotor would blow down on the plate.
With the rotor turning full speed, the combination could not rise.
I had a joint in the plate, which permitted me to fold the plate in half, and suspend below the helicopter so that the area the rotor was blowing on was essentially zilch.
With only this change, the combination could rise from the restraint.
Bernoulli was working -at- the rotors, but Newton was doing the lifting.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +1

...
written by Bruno, February 15, 2010

I design DC/AC power converters for use as audio power amplifiers. On one occasion I'd proudly and naively written a conference paper "explaining" the workings of a particular subspecies known as the "phase-controlled self-oscillating" circuit that I'd become involved in. My explanation went unchallenged for years (this is audio after all...), and I found it repeated and quoted several times. It was also quite wrong. Since nobody else rose to the occasion I finally decided to publish a follow-up paper pretty much eviscerating my previous work, taking particular care to point out fallacies that could have been readily spotted without having to know the correct solution. Admittedly changing your opinion based on your own improved insights is a lot easier than being put right by someone else.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +17

...
written by MrIncredible, February 15, 2010

Great article, Jeff, and I could not agree more. People who refer to themselves as skeptics, Brights, deep thinkers, or whatever, also seem to have the burden of self-righteousness. After all, if we’ve gone through this long and elaborate thinking process, weighing all the evidence and arriving at a conclusion, it must be close to infallible, right? Well....obviously not. When a topic such as global warming is brought up in SWIFT, the commentary section lights up with people on both sides who are absolutely and passionately convinced of their correctness. But they can’t all be right, so even in the ranks of our intellectual giants, we make factual and logical errors. Admitting that you may have goofed is never easy.

That said, here’s my story: The dumbest thing I ever did was believing in religion for the first 35 years of my life. Deeply and passionately. I would have died for my religion, because that’s what I was taught. It took me years (and the JREF deserves credit for being a big part of my awakening) to drag myself out of the mire and admit that everything I’d been taught was a lie. It was the hardest thing I ever had to face, because religion is really quite convenient. It offers you eternal life and a slew of easy answers to difficult questions. Dispensing with religion was a massive life changer, even costing me contact with several uber-pious family members. But I can finally think clearly and devote my intellectual prowess to larger issues, like global warming. Or trying to figure out why American Idol is so popular.

There you have it. I admit it. I was WRONG.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +12

Placebo
written by Nigel_Aves, February 15, 2010

Up-till about 7 or 8 years ago I didn't truly understand the power of the placebo effect. I knew of it's existence but over the last decade there has been some astonishing research that really shows the power of the human brain in this context.

I'd also say that back in the 60's when there was no internet and research was a lot harder to do (no real skeptical movement back then) I probably gave to much credence to people like Erich von Däniken , his explanations where in fact a little too easy to believe.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +5

...
written by thatguywhojuggles, February 15, 2010

Since I was a child, I believed (probably from being told by someone) that what caused the phases of the moon was the shadow of the earth hitting it.

I'm embarrassed to admit that I only learned the truth about 10 years ago.

I often ask people what causes the phases of the moon, and am truly surprised at how many people believe the same. I use this as a way to point out that people will believe something to be true, and go (sometimes) their entire life without challenging it.

When I learned how the phases of the moon actually happen, I was blown away. It was such a refreshing feeling to realize that something you believed for so many years was wrong, and that a simple explanation that made perfect sense was the actual truth.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +10

Here's a good one
written by Teacherninja, February 15, 2010

Still thinking about my answer, but here's a good one I found in y reader same time I found this.

http://www.atlantaskeptics.com...-mouth-is/

Oh, I know mine! I used to think I needed caffeine to wake up in the morning but I've read some research that showed me I was suffering from withdrawal and the morning joe was just bringing me up to normal. It's a bit more complex than that, but you get the idea. I thought I needed it, but it wasn't really true. I quit coffee and all caffeine for a while and now just have the occasional hot tea instead.

It helps, of course, that my wife hates the smell of coffee.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +2

...
written by Kitty, February 15, 2010

Planes only fly because everyone on board BELIEVES it will fly. Any doubt and the plane crashes.

I thought that all bats used sonar to "see" in the dark. All bats. I also thought panda bears were really more like raccoons. Wrong.

Mind you doctors used to tell people to stick to a diet for their ulcer that makes the ulcer worse. No one believed that antibiotics could help. Until those Australian guys won a prize for showing us a better way to treat ulcers.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +6

Wrong again, Jeff
written by AZAtheist, February 15, 2010

Jeff, It's wrong to rely on the word of a single amateur scientist to invalidate previous knowledge and the work of other experts in the field. Flying on an airplane does not make you an expert on how an airplane flies.

Consider this observation: What makes the roof of a building blow off? I know I'll get a lot of thumbs down for challenging you on this. The roof has no "angle of attack" to speak of. Yet something pulls it from the structure.

I've been wrong about a lot of things but I've never abandoned carefully developed and researched positions on the say so of a single source, even if the explanation seemed compelling.

There is a book out there, "Logical Universe: A Layman's Reality." In the book the author, Michael F. Jones, develops his theory of how the universe works. He doesn't believe that gravity is possible the way it is taught so he came up with a better idea. Objects aren't drawn toward each other, they are pushed by this mysterious origo substance that flows in all directions in space. In his theory the planets "get in the way" of the flow and cause them to be pushed toward each other. He has other explanations for red-blue shifted spectra and his own interpretations of the Michelson-Morely experiments. This "layman" has explained his observations to his satisfaction but does that make his theories correct? Does it make the other theories wrong?

Skepticism has it's limits and sometimes we have to look to the experts to give us the answers. Did you look at William Beaty's qualifications before you declared your previous knowledge wrong?

In the grand scheme of things, what difference does it make how a plane flies as long as I can get from point A to point B? But consider this, why is there so much data on different air foils if the curvature of the wing isn't important to the process of flight? Why was the laminar flow wing shape of the P-51 superior to other shapes in WWII aircraft?

Bernoulli, Coanda, and Newtonian mechanics are all involved in flight. Oh and BTW, my master's degree is in Advanced Aircraft Flight Control Systems.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +1

@thatguywhojuggles
written by Sc00ter, February 15, 2010

For people like me and Kitty that still thought this, here's a link explaining it.

http://www.moonconnection.com/moon_phases.phtml

Now I look at it and think.. DUH, of course. So I guess that's mine too

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +4

@AZAtheist
written by JeffWagg, February 15, 2010

Why do you think I only consulted Mr. Beaty? I actually got the information from an aerospace engineer. I only linked to Beaty's article because it was an excellent illustration of the point. And I didn't say Bernoulli wasn't involved, it's just not the only effect at work. It is an incomplete explanation, and should not be given as the sole reason planes fly.

If there's something I've said that's wrong, please tell me. As for the roof.. wind gets under it and pushes against it, sort of like a sail. I've never considered that to be the same principle as flight, but I'm sure they're related somehow.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

For the record..
written by JeffWagg, February 15, 2010

I had a conversation with AZAtheist and we talked about things. It seems my roof explanation is insufficient, and it turns out there's a big war over the Bernoulli issue. Sooo... maybe not the best choice for this article, but the point is still illustrated. I'm now less convinced than I was before about what makes planes fly.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +4

...
written by Nigel_Aves, February 15, 2010

So after a little "research" I discovered this on the NASA site ....

So both "Bernoulli" and "Newton" are correct. Integrating the effects of either the pressure or the velocity determines the aerodynamic force on an object. We can use equations developed by each of them to determine the magnitude and direction of the aerodynamic force.

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/bernnew.html

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +1

Talk about bias...
written by kuberar, February 15, 2010

I was in Reno, NV for an Assessor's conference and left the resort hotel by bus to visit the downtown casino strip. Later, waiting for a bus back, I found myself in a seemingly deserted section of the city. Three African-American dudes approached and sat on a bench near me. To me, a white guy, they looked and sounded ghetto. I was frightened and half expecting a mugging. Then I overhead some of their conversation and realized -- they were assessors from the conference! I introduced myself and had a nice conversation with them on the return bus. One of them was on the executive board of the association.
I've found my first impression of people, based on appearances alone, to be very wrong on several occasions.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +6

Bernoulli?
written by Michael K Gray, February 15, 2010

If Bernoulli were correct, planes could not fly upside down.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: -3

...
written by Kitty, February 15, 2010

I read the new book simply entitled "Airplane" that takes each aspect of the plane (including the cabin) and what makes a plane fly is.. well... all the parts.

Plus it was cool to read that the Wright brothers bicycle knowledge (you can lean and not get "sick") was so important.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +1

...
written by Radwaste, February 15, 2010

Wow, MK Gray, that's not even wrong. All please recognize that air is a compressible gas mixture. This is actually what lets differently-shaped airfoils perform as they do. It's not a "one-factor" deal.

Jeff, I'm pleased to see you post this. My personal peeve is when people assume authority they do not have - i.e., they have a doctorate in something, therefore their opinion outside of their field is correct. Peter Drucker called this "the arrogance of the learned", though his principal thrust was to describe the behavior of people who thought that since they were experts in a complicated field of study, other people were just not as smart.

All of us have limits. I suggest a look at this summary to see how.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

Hmmmmm....
written by MrIncredible, February 15, 2010

When did this discussion become about the minutia of aerodynamics? Wasn't it about skeptics being able to admit when they are wrong?

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +2

Air pressure.
written by I Ratant, February 15, 2010

The roof blows off because the pressure inside the structure is greater than the pressure outside the structure.
No "lift" involved.
The roof can then fly away once it's free of the structure, or just peel off on one side and lay over due to the wind blast effect on the exposed area.
.
Airplanes fly upside down for the same reason(s) they fly upright.
The air going over the upper surface is deflected down, which "pushes" the plane up... or keeps it in level flight or allow it to climb inverted.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

...
written by Insert clever name here, February 15, 2010

Jeff, you are the wind beneath my wings.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

And Ummmmm....
written by Grim, February 15, 2010

Thank you for that, MrIncredible. For a while there I thought I was the only one who'd noticed that, but fortunately you've shown me that I was wrong. HEY, EVERYBODY, I WAS WRONG! (sorry, but I don't have any rafters to crow from).

joed, wasn't it that book of Asimov's where he makes the pronoucement that any new theory or explanation shouldn't unexplain more than it explains ? Perhaps then, it really is important whether Newton unexplains Bernoulli or not.

However. my limited understanding of the deontology of Skepticism is that there are, in fact, three acceptable stances:

* I have examined, and thought about, the evidence and it would be perverse to withhold acceptance (of some theory, explanation or 'fact' etc).
* I have examined, and thought about, the evidence and it would be perverse to grant acceptance (of theory, ete etc)
* I have examined, and thought about, the evidence and it would be perverse to come to any conclusion whatsoever (of theory etc etc) - aka the "I just don't know" position.

And if we were carefully honest, we might have to admit that the reason we are so often wrong, is that we go for one or the other of the first two positions, when the third ("I don't know") position is the one that is appropriate.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +4

Ring Around the Rosie
written by Muero, February 15, 2010

After hearing the story and accepting it because it sounded plausible, I repeated the story that "Ring Around the Rosie" is based on the Black Plague. Years later, I found out that it's not true. I did go back and give the "real" information to the last person I had told the false Black Plague story, but I'm sure there are others who still believe what I had told them, and they have probably passed it on further as well.

Because misinformation can spread from person to person like a disease, it's also important to get the word out on updated, better information, so that — one hopes — the better information will spread at least as fast.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +4

...
written by Mark P, February 15, 2010

What makes the roof of a building blow off?

Because they peel off from the eaves. The same way a bottle cap is easy to pry off, but near impossible to remove in a straight upward motion. A roof sealed tight to the edges of a building will be very hard to remove. Even more so if openings on the far side of the building allow the inner and outer pressure to equalise.

I knew the Bernoulli explanation was dodgy the first time I saw a plane fly any distance upside down. This would be literally impossible if only the "lift" held it up. Something else had to be at work.

I worst errors were about how economics works. (I won't get into them here because some people hold these particular untruths to be very true, even sacred, and I want to avoid a flame war.)

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +1

I can give you over qa thousand!
written by MakeChessNotWar, February 15, 2010

That's how many games I have lost in my chess career. Sure I have won thousands, but being proven wrong happens at most competitions, or in the subsequent computer analysis sessions. I can't say I enjoy it, though. It does remind me that I am a human being, and that is some small comfort.

I even based one of my books (to be reissued soon as 7 Steps to Chess Mastery or something like that on showing instructive errors I have made, followed by some of my best upsets. Every error should be a learning experience.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +1

Not only was I wrong, I'm too dumb to let it die...
written by Steve Cuno, February 15, 2010

The audience gasped in unison. In the split second it took me to reach the floor below, I realized that though my piano professor had done a good job of refining my technique, and had even taught me the right way to bow, he had neglected to teach me how to handle falling off of a stage in front of 1500 politely clapping people.

Despite the five-foot drop, I landed on my feet and, as the Nevada State Journal reported the next day, “with no lack of showmanship” continued my exit “unabashed.” Therein I was wrong. After landing — but before exiting — I should have taken one more bow.

I was 20. Four years later, I felt secure that the incident was forgotten until my brother-in-law heard about it. While traveling. In Sweden.

And now I have posted it on a highly-read site under my real name. How many times can I get this one wrong?

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +4

How have I been wrong? Let me count the ways...
written by Griz, February 15, 2010

I was a fundamentalist christian for a couple decades complete with prophecy, speaking in tongues, healing, and all the other theatrics.

I used to think drugs were bad. I used to think alcohol was good. Now I know the substances themselves are amoral, it's how they're used.

Most recently, I guess, up until five minutes ago I thought I knew how a plane flew.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +4

"Science" is brutal self-criticism, followed by open calls to (constructive) critics
written by wbeaty, February 15, 2010

Excellent article! (I just saw the traffic spike from randi.org)

As for me, I started out as an astrology-believer from an astrology-believing family. CSICOP takes the blame for convincing me otherwise, mostly through introducing me to the Barnum Effect and the dangers of strong, unquestioned human belief ...and disbelief. Those who rigidly believe in astrology, phrenology, flat earth, etc. are very much in trouble. But those who rigidly disbelieve in all these things are also in trouble (even though they're almost certainly in the right!) If instead we try to remain brutally self-honest, extremely self-critical, and forever avoid becoming either 'Believers' or 'Disbelievers' ...that's when we're on the path of the scientist.

Here's a great old article about this idea:

Always keep your bead on the wire
http://amasci.com/freenrg/bead.html

For more personal wrongness, see the "grade school science misconceptions" part of my website. All those topics are "facts" that I was taught in K-12 school and never questioned. The wing-lifting-force fallacy was just one of them. But then as an adult I revisited them, and I discovered how many huge errors were buried in my earliest physics knowledge. (And if one person fell for them, perhaps many others did as well. If so, then debunking my grade-school textbook may be of benefit to others besides myself.)

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +3

Bernoulli was correct!
written by wbeaty, February 15, 2010

Be careful, since the lifting-force fallacy only regards the "equal transit time" explanation, not the Bernoulli equation.

If they're telling you that parcels of air must rejoin at the trailing edge of the wing, and the upper path is longer, then they're misleading you. That's not how it works. Parcels split by the wing will never rejoin, and in fact the air flowing above the wing will vastly outrace the air moving below. The only time those parcels rejoin, is when the wing is adjusted to give a lifting force of exactly zero. But Bernoulli's equation still works fine, and the lifting force is caused by pressure differential.

So *why* does the air above the wing move so much faster? Once that question is firmly lodged in your brain, and you've become skeptical of widespread popular explanations, you'll eventually figure it out.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +1

How does the Frisbee fly?
written by Gaius Cornelius, February 15, 2010

How does the Frisbee fly? I have memory of being persistently wrong about this. It was so long ago that time has eased the pain, but the recent demise of Walter Frederick Morrison, the inventor of the Frisbee has brought it back to mind.

Trying to work out how a Frisbee flies, I managed to convince myself that a spinning disk of the right sort of shape will generate lift. Not a bad hypothesis, but I persisted with this notion even after experimenting with a spinning disk that was simply dropped rather than thrown – it falls pretty much like a disk that is not spinning. I made my own flying disks out of paper plates and even tiny models from the carefully removed and washed foil lids of reusable milk bottles that were supplied to us school children in those days. This all prompted a minor playground craze (this was well before the internet and we had to make our own entertainment). As I shared my theories in a competitive atmosphere, disks came to sport all manner of little vents to direct the air downwards make them work the way they should. Briefly, I was the cool playground guru of the flying disk – my plausible theories were popular but wrong.

It was only later that I came to a better approximation of how a Frisbee flies. The penny dropped after hearing an explanation of how stones can be made to skip on water. The error of my ways had been to ignore the evidence of my own experiments; worse, I had misled my peers. Oh the shame! I may have been only eleven years old at the time, but I remembered this painful lesson to this very day.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +2

...
written by MacheteSquadSteve, February 16, 2010

I am very glad to read this. In the past I was disappointed in myself because I felt 'wishy-washy' or felt like some sort of 'flip-flopper'. I have since realized that it is a good thing to be able to challenge your own beliefs and admit when you were wrong, and there is much more honor in forming new opinions in light of new evidence than to stick with a story that doesn't hold any water. But there is a misconception today that to change your opinion somehow makes you weaker, and cries of Hypocrisy abound when anyone defects to the opposition. It is refreshing to see someone laud this behavior, and I too have a story to share about when I was wrong;

Just a few days ago my girlfriends son was in distress because he lost his lego gun. I haughtily exclaimed that lego did not make firearms because of political viewpoints and began to revel in my pedantry. My short-lived celebration was stunted when he finally found the missing firearm, which bore a very clear and official lego logo. When I was a kid the only 'gun' I ever found was a little megaphone with an orange dot packaged with Han Solo or something. Things have changed, and there are even third party companies which apparently make super-realistic weapons. so, I WAS WRONG!

And I am proud to admit it.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +1

bears,giraffes,snopes
written by alofkeene, February 16, 2010

This is a great topic--Like MacheteSquadSteve, I used to find it confusing to learn that something I had believed might not be true, but lately I'm more likely to find it liberating.

Like many people, I once would have been terrified to meet a black bear in the woods. But in the past few years I have become familiar with the work of Dr. Lynn Rogers (and recently moved from New Hampshire to Ely, Minnesota, where my wife is working on bear research with Dr. Rogers), and have come to realize that bear danger is greatly over-rated. The fact that Dr. Rogers himself has changed his opinions over the years is also inspiring. He admits that the more he learns about bears, the more he realizes he doesn't know. The recent media event of a wild bear giving birth and raising a cub on a web cam has fueled a lot of public interest in bears, and it's gratifying to see so many people questioning their previous assumptions (see www.bear.org if you are interested in questioning your own assumptions about bears).
For a few years I taught a freshman level college botany class for non-biology majors. I was observed by one of the tenured professors in one class (at my request) during a lesson in which I gave the usual story about how Darwin disproved Lamarck, that Lamarck had believed that giraffes' necks became longer through the influence of "acquired characteristics". This professor pointed me towards Steven J Gould's debunking of this story, which is unfortunately repeated in many biology texts.

I have found Snopes.org a great place to go to question previously held assumptions.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +2

...
written by Jens Fiederer, February 16, 2010

I actually took this little item from snopes seriously, forgot how I got to it - http://www.snopes.com/lost/sixpence.asp

Lesson learned!

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +1

...
written by Jens Fiederer, February 16, 2010

Oh - and I did that "Ring around the Rosie" thing, too.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

well... well... welll... but....
written by CasaRojo, February 16, 2010

I thought that I understood the whole lift thing and I felt like I could visualize how it worked. It's actually interesting that you used this anecdote, Jeff, as I really thought I had a handle on it myself. After spending a good fifteen minutes reading through William Beaty's article I've decided that I don't care anymore and that airplanes can't really fly.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +1

So many, many things...
written by numenaster, February 16, 2010

I just was at the Pacific Science Center in Seattle this past weekend and picked up a book called "The Greatest Science Stories Never Told", so in a week or so I will be absolutely awash in newly discovered previous errors. Until then, this anecdote must suffice.

I recently came home by air and expected to find my significant other waiting to greet me at the security gate. I had called him from my point of departure to ask if he was going to do this, and I believed he had assented. Note that word "believed", it will be on the quiz.

When I arrived, no significant other. I called him to see why he wasn't there and he explained that he had not, in fact, ever intended to be. We agreed to meet at his house instead and I started driving, musing on his perfidy and getting madder and madder. About halfway there I stopped to call him and tell him I was just going to go home instead, and that I was angry because he had told me he was going to meet me and then hadn't done so.

About 15 minutes after I got my fuming self home, my front door opens and there's a worried significant other. After some rapid talking, I learn that I had MISHEARD him when I called from the noisy airplane terminal, and came to a wrong conclusion. Once I found out it was my mistake, I dropped the mad like a hot rock, took complete responsibility for the error and apologized. He said he had NEVER seen a woman react like that before, and this is a guy in his 50's. It was even a few days before he really believed I wasn't still mad.

Yes, it can indeed be a wonderful thing to be wrong.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +1

Flat-earth believers, myths
written by wbeaty, February 16, 2010

Another one I once believed: the ignorant ancients thought that the earth was flat, and Colombus set out to prove them wrong. This and other flat-earth myths are debunked on physicist Don Simanek's excellent site below. In fact, ancient peoples (Aristotle, Eratosthenes, Ptolemey, early Christians) thought the earth was spherical, and the Flat-Earth controversy involved early-1800's fundamentalist Christians and biblical literalism.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/flat/flateart.htm

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

I could make a very, very long list....
written by tonyak, February 16, 2010

Thanks, Jeff, for posting this. It is easy to forget the importance of being wrong. As skeptics, how can we help lead others toward good critical thinking if we are not willing to model the process ourselves? The all too common "I'm always right" attitude does not serve us well, in the end, if our goal is to promote the use of those skills in others.

In the early 1990s, I worked for an agency that provided supports for adults with developmental disabilities. I attended a training offered by a panel of experts, and one of the topics was facilitated communication. I bought into it without even really questioning it at the time based upon the "evidence" they presented (mostly personal anecdotes and some video footage, if I remember correctly). In working with individuals with poor methods of effective functional communication, I think I needed to believe that this was a possibility for them, and so I did. Over time, through reading, I changed my opinion based upon better information.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +1

...
written by rcpilot, February 16, 2010

This seemed a lot more viable to me when I heard about it after flying several aerobatic r/c planes with purely symmetrical airfoils. I figure when trimming the plane out we probably give it a slight amount of up elevator considering we still have to give it a bit of down elevator flying inverted.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

...
written by rcpilot, February 16, 2010

Also, pretty shocking what you see flying in the r/c world. A lot of people just basically strap a strong engine to some plywood with a rudder and fly it in the shape of various road signs.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

Vegas, gambling, older folks and assumptions
written by CasaRojo, February 17, 2010

I lived in Las Vegas NV from June 2001- Dec. 2002. My primary employment involved walking through the gaming areas of casinos on a frequent basis. Ultimately, I found it depressing that so many older folks, some of whom had an oxygen tank in one hand and a cigarette in the other, were seemingly mindlessly siting in front of 'one arm bandits' throwing away their money and twice, two were removed by ambulance. One had died while gaming. I began to avoid those areas whenever possible.

Then, a few years ago, I read a study out of Yale that claimed: "Unlike younger recreational gamblers who show high rates of alcohol use and abuse, depression, bankruptcy and incarceration, there appears to be an association between recreational gambling and good health among elderly persons, according to a Yale study published in the American Journal of Psychiatry."
http://www.yale.edu/opa/arc-ybc/v33.n4/story4.html

Perhaps there's some things that I need not concern myself with or that I should take a closer look at my reasoning and deductive techniques. Maybe there's been a general 'wrongness' in my processing that leads to specific incorrect assumptions. More thought is required methinks. :-) And, perhaps the study is not entirely accurate. ;-)

Interesting, from what appears to be a casino website: "Playing bingo gets you out and about and active. The benefit in gaming for older people is the increase in social and mental activity. This seems logical for anyone who has watched sprightly little old ladies playing slots in Las Vegas, but it surprised the researchers."

hmmmmm.... it certainly wasn't the logical conclusion for me.

And now comes (what makes more sense to me): "However, among older respondents, recreational gambling was associated not only with some negative measures (e.g., obesity) but also with some positive measures (e.g., better physical and mental functioning). Longitudinal studies are needed to clarify the relationship between gambling and health in older adults in the context of healthy aging. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved"
http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=2007-18113-001&CFID=6232592&CFTOKEN=56542563

Still searching for balance.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +4

...
written by jamie hale , February 17, 2010

“One of the perks of basing conclusions on evidence rather than whims or emotions is that you tend be right more often.” I think it should be pointed out that the ability to analyze the evidence is often overlooked by skeptics. For example it is important to realize evidence derived from Double Blind Randomized Controlled Trials and evidence derived from Epidemiological studies do not equate. At least a basic understanding of research methodology is required to evaluate evidence. Many skeptics have a tendency to base their conclusions on what other well-known skeptics say, not a good example of skilled skepticism. I belong to three skeptic groups and it seems to be the norm to say, “ Skeptic xxx said so” or “according to the evidence”. Then the question arises did you actually see the primary evidence, or are you relying on secondary or tertiary or even a source further down the line?

“Hey, I've done the research, and I'm right a lot of the time! Look at me!!!" I think the majority the time the skeptic has not really done the necessary research. Reading popular science mags and referring to their assertions, as evidence is a weak form of evidence. It’s not enough to rely on their often-irrelevant commentary on studies as evidence. Ask yourself have you seen the study? Of course, few of us have the time to look at ever study we read about, just beware. A good rule of thumb is to check the primary source referred to by the writer; the first few times you read their work. If their reporting seems to be accurate, pretty good chance they will be accurate most of the time.

I have found that many so-called skeptics are skeptical about some things but maybe not others. That’s everyone to a degree. But, many skeptics reach a point of cynicism once they refuse to look at contradictory evidence and support their assertions by cherry picking. I think some like to call themselves skeptics when really their just atheists trying to find a nicer sounding word (euphemism)

I know skeptics who have great skeptic skills- Real Skeptics- and others who are what I like to call Hip skeptics- cool to be skeptical, skeptics sometimes. Of course, we all have to be “selectively skeptical” or we would never get anything done and wouldn’t have many friends.

jamie hale

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +3

...
written by I Ratant, February 17, 2010

Inverted flight.
Most common airplanes have wings with more camber on the top... the top of the wing is curved more than the bottom.
The incoming air goes up and around this camber creating lift.
Except at very high speeds, there will be a pitch angle (deck angle) to the whole airplane which accommodates the need for the wing to meet the incoming air at the proper angle for trimmed lift. (Depending on how the wing is set on the airplane, relative to some arbitrary level line.)
Inverted, the camber on the bottom side of the wing is less than the top, and therefore for a level cruise, the wing and of course the airplane will have to have a greater pitch angle (relative to the horizon) for the wing to generate the same lift inverted for level flight than it had while upright.
For the symmetrical airfoiled planes, ideally there will be no difference in the pitch angle (there will be one, as a symmetrical airfoil has no lift at the zero angle of attack, and must have the nose of the wing tilted up to generate lift) upright and inverted. The nose of the plane may be at 3 degrees above the horizontal in both conditions.
The elevator will be at a different position, upright to inverted, for this reason.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

If you're not sure of anything it's hard to be wrong
written by Zoroaster, February 20, 2010

I like to repeat an anecdote about Socrates who may or may not have actually existed. At one point the philosopher announced that he was the smartest person in Athens because he realized that he knew nothing. Everyone else thought they knew things but were wrong. Of course this brings up a lot of paradoxes - If you know you don't know anything isn't that knowing something? If you know nothing how can you know that everyone else thinks they know something? Etc. But anyway I identify with the sentiment.

The trap that usually gets me is the reasonable sounding confident voice of authority. I fell for the urban legend that water in the Northern hemisphere swirls down the drain in one direction while in the Southern hemisphere it swirls in the opposite direction. After all I saw an episode of the Simpsons where Lisa proved this to Bart. Come on how often is Lisa Simpson wrong about stuff?

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

hmmmmm........
written by CasaRojo, February 21, 2010

One thing that I am sure of is that much is far more complex than I previously thought. Coriolis effect in bathtubs and toilets. ---> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...nd_toilets

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

...
written by Fredeliot, February 23, 2010

Thanks to this post the original Connecticut website has been revised.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

...
written by MightyDrake, March 14, 2010

I know this is way late, but I think apropos.

In everyday conversation I often say, "I appear to have reached the limit of my knowledge." Whether it's about some complex technical subject, or the dating travails of a mutual friend. I'll offer the best analysis that I have, but I try to be quick to avoid the appearance of knowing more than I do.

Along those lines, my mistaken belief was that I knew what the woman felt when I fell for her. I experienced an epiphany when I realized that much of what I was certain of was based on my own imagination.

Since then I've had many conversations with people who ask me, "Why would he/she say/do that?" and, "What did they mean by that?" I usually point out the multiple possibilities that I can come up with off that top of my head, and that we don't have enough information yet to choose the one that's most likely correct.

The beginnings of relationships can be a lot of fun. Very exciting. But few people seem to realize that much of what they "love" about another person is what they imagine the person to be. Those aspects must be treated as tenuous, and one should pay attention to both supporting as well as contradictory evidence.

Unfortunately, most people ignore the contraindications. They appear to treat their imagination as more real than reality.

Drake

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0

@Drake
written by CasaRojo, March 15, 2010

Well, ya know what they say- "love is blind". I'd add deaf, dumb and stupid to the that. I'm currently in the process of checking my level of stupidity and prolly need to get my eyes checked.

report abuse

vote down

vote up

Votes: +0