Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
To be fair to Jerry, he has stated he was wrong, several times. Here is an example:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Jerry: I want the corrections for relativistic effects removed from the SDSS and the data base stuck out there so we can look for trends that might be hidden by bad pipeline correction factors.
Nereid: (my bold) What "relativistic effects" are currently in the SDSS DR5 Jerry?
Jerry: The raw data does not correct for redshift, it contains a redshift estimate and a redshift confidence assessment for each object. (if I said otherwise, I was wrong.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Perhaps you may be pointing to a different aspect, Lurker? An apparent lack of any 'back up the chain' corrections that one might expect would - logically - follow from "I was wrong"?
BTW, that same thread contains the confrontation between claim and experimental result wrt Pioneer 6. |
I had missed that post... If that is the extent of his admission of mistake, it is pretty thin compared to the times he has been proven incorrect...
But yes... I have never seen Jerry modify or correct a position he has taken based on the mistakes he has made. I agree with him that skepticism is a good thing, but it applies to his ideas as well as mainstream ideas.
He has also, in my opinion, on occasion engaged in the same baiting tactics that he accuses others of engaging in. When he ceases this activity I will have more sympathy when he finds it used against him.