New York Times mocked Robert Goddard, inventor of the liquid-fueled rocket, in 1920

Looks like they had "fake news" in the 1920s too.

Robert H. Goddard was the inventor of the world's first liquid-fueled rocket, launched in 1926, and was eventually recognized as the father of modern rocketry. Here's Goddard in March of 1926, with his first liquid-fueled rocket.

https://diqn32j8nouaz.cloudfront.net...t_goddard1.jpg

Despite having three degrees in physics, and ultimately being recognized as the father of modern rocketry, in Goddard's time he was repeatedly ridiculed by the press as a "moon man", with ideas that the media claimed violated basic scientific principles. Most notably, on January 13, 1920, the New York Times published an editorial mocking Goddard for claiming that a rocket could function in a vacuum:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by New York Times editorial from January 13, 1920

That Professor Goddard, with his "chair" in Clark College and the countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution, does not know the relation of action and reaction, and of the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react—to say that would be absurd. Of course he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools.

---

Not to worry though, the New York Times published a correction. The Times corrected itself a mere 49 years later, the day after the Apollo 11 spaceflight during which Neil Armstrong became the first man to walk on the moon. Here it is: The Times regrets its error.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by New York Times correction from July 17, 1969

JULY 17, 1969: On Jan. 13, 1920, Topics of The Times, an editorial-page feature of The New York Times, dismissed the notion that a rocket could function in a vacuum and commented on the ideas of Robert H. Goddard, the rocket pioneer, as follows: ''That Professor Goddard, with his 'chair' in Clark College and the countenancing of the Smithsonian Institution, does not know the relation of action to reaction, and of the need to have something better than a vacuum against which to react -- to say that would be absurd. Of course he only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools.''

Further investigation and experimentation have confirmed the findings of Isaac Newton in the 17th century and it is now definitely established that a rocket can function in a vacuum as well as in an atmosphere. The Times regrets the error.

---

Original New York Times article from 1920 is below:

https://diqn32j8nouaz.cloudfront.net/nyt_goddard1.png


https://diqn32j8nouaz.cloudfront.net/nyt_goddard2.png


https://diqn32j8nouaz.cloudfront.net/nyt_goddard3.png


https://diqn32j8nouaz.cloudfront.net/nyt_goddard4.png

Now you understand why I no longer read newspapers - science "editors" with BA degrees in journalism, psychology or early English poetry.

Media...100yrs of...well...sensational incantations, diatribes & concoctions, and then some.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mklotz

Now you understand why I no longer read newspapers - science "editors" with BA degrees in journalism, psychology or early English poetry.

---

I'm the same way Marv. I give them 6-8 times a year whether I like it or not. :rolleyes:

When I attended my daughter's graduation from UC Irvine, I noticed that a large proportion of the class were getting BAs in "social ecology".

I asked my daughter what "social ecology" was. Her response was...

Nobody really knows. It's just what all the dummies take to get a degree.

Just recently, I learned that the school now offers a BS program in "computer game science".

These people vote, make public policy, and write for newspapers.

There's reason it's called a BS.

" These people vote, make public policy, and write for newspapers."
And sadly reproduce

"...the media claimed violated basic scientific principles". With insufficient degrees in related disciplines, what else is likely?
As I recall, those collective degrees in sociology/ political science/ communications/ liberal arts and certain predictions didn't pan out either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by C-Bag

There's reason it's called a BS.

---

And BA stand for...

Come on guys the earth is flat and the universe revolves around humans...who's zoomin' who here. I'm calling the NeoMaxi Zoomed out Webe squad! ~¿@

1:38 video on scripted similarities in network TV news:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWLjYJ4BzvI

And everyone's news source seems to be from both "reliable" or "anonymous" sources never being accompanied with verifiable or disputable documentation.

Characterizing a media outlet as a source of debunking is trendy now too. For example: Snopes or Politifact. From a perspective of critical analysis, including "fact" in your business name or presenting yourself as a "debunker" has zero bearing on the veracity of your claims. The companies and journalists behind those sites are the same old people behind mainstream news, just with their hats turned backwards.

Agreed on sources. Source identification is arguably the most important component of journalism, but in fact it's rife with weasel words.

Social media, right, write, or wrong ......"is extremely dangerous to our democracy"
Really? How many talking heads does it take to repeat a phrase to make it true?
The only danger is on corporate media, if others make contrary statements.

Not too different from a [my] sociology professor who degrades Wikipedia, banned it as bibliography reference, yet foisted a text he authored.
Adhering to questionable 'rules' fosters one agenda, while drowning others. Likely causation of students who are more clones than thinkers.

Guess who bucked that, making it reference 1?
MLA, APA, Chicago/Turabian, whatever. Bib's list all of the sources you have used (whether referenced or not) in process of researching your work.
Took a little defensive argument, but won.
With a 100% grade.
Without one certain reference in particular!
LoL

Good ones Jon, Frank and TM51!

I've been on my biannual stint of watching the news again and lest we forget the subtle inciting words during the broadcasts, it is once again an assault on my senses and sensibilities (if I have any left or right) as well as their submergence into "Social Media" with their own local APP's inviting all to share what they see and feel with vids and pics...which they in turn post on the broadcast. P.S. check (read) the Eula for their APP's and add that to the Facebook scandalarama...Oh, you're not a lawyer...Oh well...Trust me, I'm good Really.

A recent 3 day coverage (news cycle) of hostage/shooting at a local VA and it's PTSD program was inundated with enough Terror words to start a small war on Vets and it's program which had a very high recovery rate for some 400 participants. But it was all about 1 incident with no underlying/back story that went worldwide admonishing the ownership of guns.

Then yesterday the YouTube headquarters "Terror Attack" with 6hrs. of continuous "Breaking News" coverage and probably another 3 day news cycle. Pete & Repeat for 6hrs and the 11 O'clock version...never getting to the core of it but spreading Terror with inciting/speculating words and coverage. Basically the first cops arrive in ~4 minutes and guess what...it was already over. Then on to ambulances to 2 hospital with as many as 8 victims...ended up being 3, 1 critical, 1 serious and 1 fair and NO Surgeries, Plus the perp who shot herself, Dead, all before the cops arrived, in force with 3 swat teams, the FBI and ATF and probably a DHS agent. Likely ~100's of people, ~50 vehicles, equipment and of course live coverage of 25+ Swat with AR15's in full tactical gear. (Who's watching the rest of the city?)

The interesting thing was the press conference by the administrator and the head trauma surgeon of the, (get the irony of it) "The Zuckerberg Trauma Center". :p The interesting thing was the Doc started off on a high horse of Yet another incident of "Mass Gun Violence"...however he did say to the Media, who were interrupting and dancing around like cackle of hyena's, "You guys weren't here yesterday or the day before when those other gunshot victims arrived" (paraphrase but close). I appreciated that but did not appreciate dropping the the first bomb shell to incite gun control to the Massive Purveyor's of personal/corporate agenda...it's minimally coercion and white collar crime to me....Ooops.

It's once again apparent to me the Sieve needed to watch this stuff has now gotten down to 100 mesh to discern any relevance to truth or try to look at the root of it, and it is life/soul draining to do that and put up with the inundation of commercials and marketing, all to pay for the 10's of thousands of employees and their multiple $1M+ Mobile Radar trucks to tell us what the weather is, when we can just look outside or feel the ache in our knees...while waiting with baited breath for the next 3 day implosion cycle. Boy that was a run-on sentence...yeh that's the ticket, maybe that is what the News is. I need some more Kool-Aid or at least a kiss.

:hattip: PJ

:clapping::thumbsup::agree: I hardly ever use imacons but felt these would save a 1000 words

Much of it is a fallacy called a Hasty generalization - essentially presenting issues out of proportion. For example, most gun murders in America are committed by handgun (reasonably verified on FBI.gov: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s..._2010-2014.xls). But handguns are considered "defense" weapons, and they're not sexy enough to warrant juicy news. In a country with 350 million people, there is enough raw material for journalists to make stories about anything. Even if those stories are 100% true, they can create fake news simply by presenting them out of proportion.

Also see: Agenda-setting theory

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jon

Much of it is a fallacy called a Hasty generalization - essentially presenting issues out of proportion. For example, most gun murders in America are committed by handgun (reasonably verified on FBI.gov: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s..._2010-2014.xls). But handguns are considered "defense" weapons, and they're not sexy enough to warrant juicy news. In a country with 350 million people, there is enough raw material for journalists to make stories about anything. Even if those stories are 100% true, they can create fake news simply by presenting them out of proportion.

Also see: Agenda-setting theory

---

Thanks Jon, Good follow up to the nature of this stuff.

Yep on the FBI stats and as it turned out the woman perp used a hand gun (a huge powerful "gun" by the descriptions of bystanders and the media Pete and Repeats). In this case it is the incitable language And presenting things out of proportion. Good Golly, I hope these people are not intentionally doing this based on some Psycho/social "science", but alas I know they are and have given all the sorted details, a Habitation and a Name...

It is amazing to me how far we travel down rabbit holes and "Specialize" sometimes defining things and giving things "a local habitation and name", and yet wonder how and why these specializations get picked up and used.

I tend to watch TED quite a bit and there have been a rash of psycho/social/ethical stuff in the last year or so. One recently was called "The role of human emotions in Science and Research" and thought it pretty well balanced as a thought and possible adjustment to the paradigm, with a good example incident with a surprising, positive outcome.

Another earlier was called "Do you really know why you do what you do?" That sent me down the psycho/social rabbit hole mainly because I sensed/knew of the poor science and bad Statistics (Degrees of Freedom), confirmation bias and misattribution errors that this speaker was putting forth in a similar fashion to your "Hasty Generalization" Wiki Def. but needed to load my gun so to speak (Pun) before I Commented. Prior to that I read a page or so of the comments and a young man's (?) comment really struck the chord with me. A Not so simple one liner "Why is psychology a science? Hhhhh whhy?"

He only had a half dozen questionable responses...so I said; "A good question IMHO and worth exploring. Start with wiki (Science)->(Natural Science) + (Social Science) + (Formal Science)...then go back and study the history of science. To answer your question simply, it's because we defined it as such in modern times. It gives it "A local habitation and a name. Such tricks hath strong imagination,..."

:hattip: PJ

Agreed. But the tide does seem to be shifting. Away from granting credibility to disciplines like "[Insert Personal Identity Here] Studies", and toward accepting issues that may be hard to swallow, but are better evidenced. For example, look who's topping Amazon's list of nonfiction books. Peterson went from being largely-discredited and written off as a nut, to being a mainstream voice:

https://diqn32j8nouaz.cloudfront.net...tion_books.jpg

Another example: the attack on Dr. Allison Stanger at Middlebury College. Last year, she was pulled to the ground by her hair by a mob of students, and beaten until she was brain damaged. This was done in revenge for her hosting a speaker with a controversial political opinion. Stanger mentions that top-tier universities have responded to the incident by implementing policies in an attempt to avoid copycat events. Good interview with her on C-SPAN: https://www.c-span.org/video/?435406...llison-stanger.

None of these people are academic slouches. All three in the above examples are PhDs, and all three were either students or teachers at Harvard.

Science is the perfect example of something from which you can run, but you can't hide.

Thanks Jon. Oh boy, those are some rabbit holes, and I get your points in context. I remember the C-16 issue and controversy and thought back then as I most always do, about Polarity, and whether it's about PC or whatever the new term or science(?) is flying around, its about finding balance on a scale or a temp gauge and understanding it's a matter of degree. Didn't know about Peterson's new book but may pick it up.

It's an interesting comparison between the two with only a shallow dive on my part, on the one hand with Peterson condemning neo-marxist academia/Politica and Stanger wanting meaningful left/right discussions that incite riots. Wonder if we can find a Polarity with that and the current polarization's as a race, that might allow us to shift the paradigm toward the great mental or spiritual planes and still be able to live on the planet.

Quote:

---

Science is the perfect example of something from which you can run, but you can't hide.

---

Not sure if I agree with that statement anymore but at it's core it may be a principle to stand on. Definitions, language, dialects, etc. are always evolving into something else like Meme's, emojis, & Tweets and yet somehow the flavor gets lost to me or over my head maybe. Still, "A Midsummer Nights Dream" lets me explore different regions of the "Human" conditions every time I read it. I think it's because there are core truths to be discovered by which matter of degree I'm at during the time. Gandhi once said; Truth alone will endure, all the rest will be swept away before the tide of time.

:hattip: PJ