Wouldn't a "Bad Astronomy Hall fo Fame" be a great way for Phil to get the word out about really, really bad interpretations of astronomy? Induction into the Hall of Fame would signal to the public their crackpot status in one fail swoop.

Inaugural Class:

Nancy Leider (Planet X)
James McCanney (Comet/Planet Theories)
Bart Sibrel (Lunary Landing Conspiracy)

You could go back decades, as well, and induct all those folks who led up to these guys, too.

I had the idea last night listening to James McCanney ramble on during Coast to Coast AM about his ridiculous theories about comets, planets, and the "electrical field" that penetrates the Universe. What really got me was his statement that astronomers are changing their theories to match his. I wonder how many people listening really did believe his scientific credentials, and now think that material flows into a comet, instead of out, and that Venus is a captured comet.

So, who else could go in to the BAHOF?

Better call it "Bad Astronomy Hall of Shame"

Erich von Daniken and his ET´s. A case for psychiatry.

Let me know when you all decide to have an Induction Ceremony bash in New York. 4 tickets, please.

(:raig

More like "Bad Astronomy: Shot Down In Flame".

Howzat? =D>

__________________
"If a tree is cut down in the rainforest, and is used to make paper to print a book, and the book is really bad, and there's nobody that will read it, do you still hear a sucking sound?"
Charlie in Dayton, A.AsC.

Velikovsky.

Velikovsky! Absolutley.

Sounds like a good idea, but one rule must be the following: no posters to this board, past or present, in good standing or banned, are eligible. Otherwise this board would degenerate to certain well-known disputants nominating each other.

There probably should be time requirement, say of ten years or so, to see if their contributions to bad astronomy continue to fail the test of time. (This would leave Nancy L. out, but she would be eligible in 2005.)

I agree with Von Daniken and Velikovsky for charter members. They are difficult acts to, umm, follow!

:-?

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

Actually, I rather like this idea. It would make an interesting page to write! One problem would be the amount of email I would get from people incensed that a) I left X off the list, and b) from Y railing against me for having them on the list. I can handle (b), but (a) would get tiresome. :-)

And if I do this (giving Avian full credit for the idea), I reserve the right to take anyone who has posted to this board and put them on the list. Gerardus Bouw has posted here, and who knows who else lurks here?

Oh! I wonder if i will be on the list. My mom will be so proud.


He if you want maybe one of us can make up a cirtificate that you can mail to the paerson. :-)

Have a "submissions" button at the bottom of the list. Clicking on the button allows the user to send an e-mail saying "You forgot this guy" or whatever.

What they don't know is that it alsos puts a keyword in the subject that your spam filter recognizes and deletes.

__________________
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.

And maybe limit it to the last hundred years or so--I wouldn't want to see Ptolemy show up on that list. I'm kinda fond of the old guy.

I agree. Ptolemy may seem like bad astronomy now, but his work provided the basis for reasonably accurate ephemerides that were not superceded until the time of Kepler. Certainly not my idea of bad astronomy either! =D>

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

I had a thought -- Avian, and everybody else, tell me what you think:

Ptolemy was a scientist, and he was working with available data at the time. A "Bad Astronomy" recipient wuold have to be one who

1. ignored available information at the time -- so a 19th century person proposing life on Mars does not fall into the category, but one proposing the Moon is in a crystal sphere would be.

2. Did not engage in the best practice (I hate the term, but oh well) of scientific endeavor. Lorentz thought there was an aether for light waves, but he did a rigorous mathematical treatment to justify it in light of the Michelson-Morely experimental results. Velikovsky, for example did none of this.

Does this work? I think it might help weed out the difference between honest mistakes and nut jobs. (Though I would not describe Velikovsky as such, his original proposal was interesting. He just didn't know when to give it up).

-

I guess I would also have to nominate Zecharia Sitchin, of course. There's a lot of bad astronomy asociated with Planet X, in all its convoluted forms and derivations. Maybe too many Planet X inductees?

So, we have for our consideration:

Nancy Leider (Planet X)
James McCanney (Comet/Planet Theories)
Bart Sibrel (Lunary Landing Conspiracy)
Velikovsky (Worlds in Collision)
Zecharia Sitchin (Nibiru)

A lot of these folks would make a "Bad History Hall of Fame" list as well as a great softball team.

Avian

Avian: Also he was already nominated previously on this thread:

Erich Von Daniken. (Sees evidence for UFO's/aliens in everything and pretends it is archaeology.)

I think the Hall fo Fame should be reserved for those who go above and beyond the call of quackery. Not only do their wild theories have to violate several if not all well established laws of nature and common sense, but their zombie-like conviction, complete lack of scientific method and celebrity have to be taken into account as well. It's the whole package.

Aside from individuals, we could probably also induct institutions or organizations. Would we nominate Astrology as an institution?
It certainly deserves to be in there somehow. No one has abused astronomy like astrology.

Avian

Velikovsky's original proposal violated well-known and accepted tenets of orbital mechanics, physics, chemistry, and history. At least. If i had to pick, i'd be most comfortable with well-established bits of history being shown incorrect, but all of the above?

However, Aristotle was clearly off his rocker. Perfectly hard crystalline spheres carrying the planets around the Earth in uniform circular motion? The moon being blemish-free? What were you smoking when you wrote that, Aristotle?!

Agreed. Aristotle seems to have based his celestial mechanics (and other things) on religious principles rather than observation. Maybe he can be promoted to a woo-woo saint--he had a lot of the characteristics.