4 ms·
Indeed, and since this is the NYTimes, it's worth remembering Gell-Mann Amnesia once again: “Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You op
by forgingahead 9y ago
Indeed, and since this is the NYTimes, it's worth remembering Gell-Mann Amnesia once again:
“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”
- rtpg 9y agoFor every story you read where you notice wrong facts, tens or hundreds of stories are getting things fine. Almost no one sits down and says "oh, indeed, this article is competent and a correct statement of fact"
- droidist2 9y agoIt just so happens that all the stories where we know about the topic are the ones with the wrong facts?
- tptacek 9y agoWithout any other comment or value judgement it's just worth pointing out that while the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect is named for Murray Gell-Mann, it doesn't come from him. It's a coinage of the fiction writer Michael Crichton. We should probably call it the Crichton Amnesia Effect, but that doesn't sound as cool.
- omegaham 9y agoFrom his talk: > I refer to it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have.
- umanwizard 9y agoThis might be humblebragging, since Crichton is certainly more famous than Gell-Mann.
- omegaham 9y agoBut Circhton was an author, while Gell-Mann was a physicist. We associate scientists with a lot more rigor than authors.
- shabbyrobe 9y agoThe full essay, for those as curious as I was: http://larvatus.com/michael-crichton-why-speculate/ http://larvatus.com/michael-crichton-why-speculate/