麻豆传媒

Feedback is our weekly column of bizarre stories, implausible advertising claims, confusing instructions and more

Artificial stupidity rules KO

RANKING internet search results according to how well they reflect 鈥渇acts the web unanimously agrees on鈥� (28 February, p 24)? What could possibly go wrong?

Adrian Ellis wrote to ask about something the web is unanimous on: that glass is really a very thick liquid (14 March, p 54). Well before the ink was dry on his letter, a colleague (famous web search engine) about this.

It shot back: 鈥淎ntique windowpanes are thicker at the bottom, because glass has flowed to the bottom over time鈥� Glass is a supercooled liquid. Glass is a liquid that flows very slowly.鈥�

At first glance, the web page it was quoting seems to exemplify a core Feedback hypothesis: that the internet holds many false beliefs, the more fruitloopy of which we catalogue.

However, closer inspection reveals a different flavour. The above text is from a page () entitled 鈥淕lass: Liquid or Solid 鈥� Science vs. an Urban Legend鈥�. It is in fact debunking the ideas quoted. This is a prime example of artificial stupidity. The search ranking system cannot tell the difference between myths and statements that mention them.

鈥淲ant to moor a boat on the River Thames at Sonning? Andrew Doble sends evidence that it鈥檚 free for 24 hours; 拢5 per day for the next 48; and 鈥溌�50 per day for all stays over 48 hours鈥� So on the third day 鈥� what?鈥�

We catalogue fruitloopery

PERHAPS we can help refine artificial stupidity. Krista Nelson wrote to ask whether Feedback could compile a list of our suggested fruitloopery indicators: 鈥淚 think it would be a valuable resource.鈥� As it happens, she did so while the ink was drying on our first draft, in which we consulted the UK鈥檚 Advertising Standards Authority about 鈥渧ibrations鈥�, 鈥渉omeopathic鈥�, 鈥渜uantum鈥� and 鈥渢achyon鈥� (14 March).

Happy to help. Watch out also for these words and phrases: 鈥渁s Albert Einstein said鈥�, when he didn鈥檛 (11 October 2014); 鈥渟calar waves鈥� and 鈥渟calar fields鈥� in contexts involving healing (27 February 2010); 鈥渇ar-infrared鈥� in connection with bracelets, clothing or horse blankets (17 November 2012); 鈥済eoresonance鈥� in any circumstances that we can currently think of (17 May 2014).

If you spot questions such as 鈥渃an you change your DNA?鈥� and you鈥檙e not reading about radiation protection, run (27 July 2013); contrariwise, shun offers of 鈥渞adiation shielding鈥� for electronic devices such as mobile phones whose functionality depends on emitting radiation (many references since 6 October 1990).

Equally, beware of purveyors of 鈥渘egative ions鈥� outside chemistry textbooks (24 September 2011), and of 鈥渉ydration鈥�, especially if it involves weird water (15 September 2001).

Have we missed anything? And will these references trick an artificial stupidity into citing the above as facts?

Flash out of the frying pan

MORE artificial puzzlement is provided by Adobe, whose Flash software seemed to have a bad time in early February, with a vulnerability reported every few days. So we went to the 鈥溾�� page on Adobe鈥檚 website to see whether our version was at risk. This page offers a routine that is supposed to tell us what version of Flash we are running. Our Firefox browser refused to run this tool, declaring it obsolete. How did Adobe think it would be a good plan to use Flash to check whether we risk hacking when we run Flash?

Enumerate deities: ignore

SUPERNATURAL puzzlement is supplied, meanwhile, by Mohan Bhagwat, supreme leader of the Hindu-chauvinist organisation Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). On 8 February he that their goals must be 鈥渢o ensure one language, one god and one religion鈥�. Feedback has no actual qualifications in theology, but had understood from talking with mathematicians with Hindu backgrounds that a defining characteristic of Hinduism is arguing over whether the number of gods is countably infinite or just very large.

Looking into the matter further, we discover a tangled discourse about Hindu monotheism. Some dismiss it as a 鈥溾�� acceptance of Judaeo- Christian-Islamic values and preconceptions. Then on 20 February, : 鈥渨e pray different gods鈥�. We鈥檙e not sure whether this was an about-face, or of which 鈥渨e鈥� he was speaking.

Feedback is sticking with alatrism, defined as 鈥渘ot bothering to worship any deities, regardless of how many there may be鈥� (22 July 2006).

An oddly well-named scientist

FINALLY, we have, naturally, had a slew of further examples of nominative determinism 鈥� in which a person鈥檚 name appears to have influenced their occupation (28 February). For now, we return to a case that Jim Harris describes as 鈥渢he ultimate in nominative determinism for a scientist鈥�.

A while ago, we were mildly sceptical about the European Southern Observatory鈥檚 list of science staff in Santiago, Chile (1 October 2011). We harboured a suspicion that 鈥淲illem-Jan de Wit may have been humorously involved鈥� in one entry, as may Jeff Wagg. Now, Mike Egan has succeeded where we failed and found an ESO page for the person we doubted. When we remarked on this, a colleague replied 鈥渁h, yes, I had a call from them last year鈥︹�� Step forward, please, .