I like it. There's a huge contingent here on HN that learns best via "wrongness demos" like these. In software they are often packaged as "anti-patterns". You c

I like it. There's a huge contingent here on HN that learns best via "wrongness demos" like these. In software they are often packaged as "anti-patterns". You could describe meteors all day, to the sound of their yawns. Now get into "what people _think_ is a meteor, but is actually something else..." and you get their attention. The only problem with this approach (it's really more like an information-orientation) is that it can prematurely lead to pitchforks. Where some scientists have the problem of being too open-minded, scientists who think this way, on the other hand, are going to try to replicate your study out behind the shed, just before you get to dinner. Then, the moment you start talking about your research or heaven forbid, your meteorite collection...wham! :-)