My friend John Weiss sent me this great graphic:
 |
I agree with it.. except to add that if it’s backed by indisputable scientific evidence, it’s not outrageous by definition.
About Bad Astronomy
If you went to BadAstronomy.com and found yourself here, never fear: the BA Blog has moved to its new home at Discover Blogs. The original BA site (with the Moon Hoax debunking and all that) is still online, too.
Phil Plait, the creator of Bad Astronomy, is an astronomer, lecturer, and author. After ten years working on Hubble Space Telescope and six more working on astronomy education, he struck out on his own as a writer. He has written two books, dozens of magazine articles, and 12 bazillion blog articles. He is a skeptic, and fights misuses of science as well as praising the wonder of real science.
Contact me: The Bad Astronomer "at" gmail "dot" com
Bad Astronomy is a Wikio Top Blog! Clearly, Wikio has excellent taste. 
Bad Astronomy was chosen as one of Time.com's Best Blogs of 2009. Subscribe to BA using an RSS Feed
Death from the Skies!
Order a copy of Death from the Skies! from Amazon, Barnes and Noble, or Borders.
"If things worked the way I wanted them to, any reporter about to do another 'sensational' story on deadly meteors would consult this volume, and bang! common sense would find its way into the news. How strange would that world be?"
-- Adam Savage, Mythbusters"Reading this book is like getting punched in the face by Carl Sagan. Frightening, but oddly exhilarating."
-- Daniel H. Wilson, author of How to Survive a Robot UprisingSocial/Networking/Cool Stuff
DISCOVERmagazine.com: Latest Articles on Space- How to Become a Backyard Galileo (Minus the Church Trouble)
- Discover Interview: Space Is Getting Bigger, and It's Getting Bigger Faster
- Visual Science: The New View From Space
- Top 100 Stories of 2009: #50: Magnetic Mysteries of Sunspots Decoded
- Top 100 Stories of 2009: #2: NASA Braces for Course Correction
- DISCOVER Blogs: The Loom
March 5th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
[...] from the bad astronomer [...]
March 5th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Brilliant graph.
Totally freakin’ sad. But brilliant.
March 5th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
A better title for it would have been “Chance of people believing a seemingly outrageous statement”.
March 5th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
No line for “When presented with a colorful graph”?
March 5th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
“…not outrageous by definition.”
Way to spoil the ironic humor of the graph!
Actually, science provides facts that are outrageous by way of being counterintuitive to everything we experience by our own senses. Quantum entanglement has been demonstrated by experiment, but it’s an outrageous concept that is most often described as “spooky action at a distance”.
I’m using the common definition of outrageous — a: exceeding the limits of what is usual b: not conventional or matter-of-fact
March 5th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
Heh, my life is now complete, one of my graphs is on Bad Astronomy!!!
March 5th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Should I believe this graph really represents reality, just because I saw it on the Internet?
You know, because everything you see on the internet is not always true. There are so many people on there with their own agenda…. Furthermore, this item has been reported to me by a friend of a friend, so….
March 5th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
outrageous
• adjective 1 shockingly bad or excessive. 2 very bold and unusual.
Thats from oxford! The gag still works, Phil!
March 5th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
philippec: I got an email once that assured me that this graph does accurately represent reality.
March 5th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
hey, i just saw this data on Oprah.
March 5th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Why on earth are do so many people regard as Oprah as an authority on anything?
March 5th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
March 5th, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Okay then here goes: I wrote all of The Beatles’ Songs.
March 5th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Well I believe everything I read on the internet. I’m still waiting for my winnings from the Spanish National Lottery but I know they’ll arrive soon!
March 5th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Larian:
On it’s way.
March 5th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Does that graphic only refer to religulous wingnuts?
Where’s the reasoning in this faith intoxicated world, anyway?
March 5th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
I would also add: “Saw it on a youtube video”
March 5th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Yeah, I’d agree with this graph.
It makes me sad that people, when told that scientists have discovered something interesting or wonderful, will suddenly announce that it must really be the exact opposite for absolutely no reason. It’s like there’s some pervasive belief out there that anything scientists say must always be abolustely wrong at all times.
March 5th, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Chance of Hating a Graph Due to Font Used:
Comic Sans: 100%
March 5th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
I like to tell people things that are true but which just don’t seem right. For example: the rising and setting of the sun is due to the spinning of the earth and not the motion of the sun. A more obscure one would be that everyone (at least the living) glows in the dark; it’s just that the glow is infrared so humans can’t see it but some animals (like many snakes) can sense it. Oh, one of my favorites: The Vatican Observatory is in Arizona, USA. There are a lot of jokes and puzzles based on misperceptions and biases – for example, exploting people’s bias that all physicians are male.
March 5th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
I forgot to ask: What % of people believe an outrageous statement when presented with a graph?
March 5th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
A friend of a friend told me this graph is inaccurate.
March 5th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Ironic, considering that your friend gave this to you.
March 5th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Billy Meier predicted this graph in 1987.
March 5th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Nonsense, Phil. Evolution is backed by overwhelming evidence, but it’s been outraging people for 150 years. Outrage is rarely the result of careful consideration of evidence.
March 5th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
So much win, yet so much fail..
March 5th, 2009 at 4:37 pm
I agree with other commenters like llewelly. Tons of true statements are outrageous, like time-dilation, length-contraction, entanglement, the Copenhagen interpretation…
If you want some that really break your head, look at math, and not just physical science. Banach-Tarski is a great one.
March 5th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
This reminds me of the X-Files paradox: the people who most embrace the “I Want To Believe / Trust No One” philosophy are most likely to accept as true any random piece of information sent to them in a multiply-forwarded e-mail, and are most likely to doubt anything they hear from an extablished and reputable source.
March 5th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
I believe Feynman recounted a story involving Banach-Tarski or some related theorem from his undergrad days, when some mathematics students explained to him that you could cut up an orange and reassemble it into something the size of the sun (or something like that.) He rejected the whole notion, arguing that if you are talking about cutting up real oranges with real knives, you run into constraints that don’t affect mathematical constructs.
March 5th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
I’m sure there are plenty of reasons to trust Oprah. For instance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4HQOVqyAxM
Well, maybe she can be easily, quite easily,…I mean, totally super-duper fooled. I guess she’s just another celebrity.
March 5th, 2009 at 6:44 pm
Don’t forget the chance of your spouse believing something non-outrageous you say.
March 6th, 2009 at 6:45 am
I want the t-shirt!
March 6th, 2009 at 7:28 am
kuhnigget, I thought the Mayans predicted this graph.
March 6th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Any sufficiently awesome scientific discovery is indistinguishable from outrageousness.
March 6th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
How about another type of statement? “The source is the bible.”
Mixter
March 7th, 2009 at 2:17 am
Mixter Says:
How about another type of statement? “The source is the bible.”
- Not specific enough. Try this:
“The source is the bible (verse/chapter) as reported by FOX News!”